HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   New Article Discussion: Kings Top 20 prospects (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=120658)

Old Hickory 12-27-2004 11:37 AM

New Article Discussion: Kings Top 20 prospects
 
Good job putting this together Dave :bow: :bow:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...readed&order=0

KingPurpleDinosaur 12-27-2004 11:53 AM

wow, some interesting movement. looks like zaba is behind munce again. well done!

Nethunder 12-27-2004 01:02 PM

houser is the real deal
 
Ive been watching this kid all year long and he is just outstanding. A few years to mature and he will be one of the best

Fat Elvis 12-27-2004 01:23 PM

Good list and well done, wouldn't change or disagree with any of it. :handclap:

KingPurpleDinosaur 12-27-2004 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nethunder
Ive been watching this kid all year long and he is just outstanding. A few years to mature and he will be one of the best

u think he'll make the NHL? i wonder wat people who see him think his potential is.

Albi 12-27-2004 05:31 PM

Lehoux 11th is a bit too low...

King'sPawn 12-27-2004 07:14 PM

Great job, Dave! Keep up the good work! :)

Capn Brown 12-27-2004 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albi
Lehoux 11th is a bit too low...

I don't think so. Remember, so far he hasn't proved anything that Pavel Rosa or Steve Kelly hadn't already proved. Lehoux's proven to be a consistent scorer at the AHL level and a contender for the AHL's scoring title. Unfortunately, recent members of that lofty elite have included Ted Donato, Kip Miller, and Eric Healey.

Old Hickory 12-28-2004 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albi
Lehoux 11th is a bit too low...

Dave and I both had him in the same place. He still has to prove he can do it consistantly and for more than 1 season. 1 good year does not replace multiple bad ones.

dafranchz 12-28-2004 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Dave and I both had him in the same place. He still has to prove he can do it consistantly and for more than 1 season. 1 good year does not replace multiple bad ones.

Nicely put.

Fat Elvis 12-28-2004 11:27 AM

It would not shock me to see Parse on the list pretty soon if he keeps it up. I think Baier is mostly on the list because of potential :dunno: , could be wrong.

Old Hickory 12-28-2004 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KING ELVI
It would not shock me to see Parse on the list pretty soon if he keeps it up. I think Baier is mostly on the list because of potential :dunno: , could be wrong.

Parse was very close to making the top 20. Baier is the real deal, he was actually competing with Crosby, Brown, Jack Johnson and a few others as the best player at King's prospect camp. They really found a diamond in the rough with him.

It is really a tribute to the amount of quality prospects the Kings have collected, that a guy like Parse is outside looking in.

KingPurpleDinosaur 12-28-2004 12:22 PM

wait, i havne't heard much about parse. wats he like?

also, why is munce so much more highly regarded then daniel taylor? i thought he was pretty good as well, in fact impressed me mroe then munce. is the sv% the only reason why he has a "higher potential"?

Old Hickory 12-28-2004 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
wait, i havne't heard much about parse. wats he like?

also, why is munce so much more highly regarded then daniel taylor? i thought he was pretty good as well, in fact impressed me mroe then munce. is the sv% the only reason why he has a "higher potential"?

I'll leave the goalie question to DFA, he's better with Goalies than I am.

Parse is a prototypical NHL forward. A poor-poor man's Dustin Brown. He's an above average player on a really bad team. He gets a lot more ice time than he would if he played for one of the elite programs. He's not dazzling in any way, he just does a lot of little things right.

King Blazer 12-28-2004 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Dave and I both had him in the same place. He still has to prove he can do it consistantly and for more than 1 season. 1 good year does not replace multiple bad ones.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the statement that Lehoux had multiple bad seasons. As a 20-yr old rookie in the 02-03 season he put up 37-pts in 78-games. He followed that up with 42-pts in 66-games during the 03-04 regular season and 5-pts in 5-games during the playoffs. Not great numbers, but given the revolving door of personnel that was going on in Manchester for his first two years and the changes they caused to both his role and linemates, I'll cut him a little slack. Everyone knew Yannick was a defensive liability coming in. Basically every scouting report I read on the kid said he was pure offense with little to no defese and shied away from the physical game. When he comes in exactly as reported people start questioning his lack of physical play and defensive liabilities?

I agree that the guy can still be frustrating to watch at times. Lehoux reminds me a little of watching a striker in soccer. Full out down the pitch on the attack and jog back. Cammalleri does this as well at times. Maybe it's a conservation of energy thing???

Sorry kj, I just don't think Lehoux has had multiple BAD years. I think he's come a long way in the 2 1/3 seasons he's played and if management is disappointed in how long he's taking, they should go back and read the pre-draft reports on him. He came in about as close to exactly as advertised as it gets.

Old Hickory 12-28-2004 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Blazer
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the statement that Lehoux had multiple bad seasons. As a 20-yr old rookie in the 02-03 season he put up 37-pts in 78-games. He followed that up with 42-pts in 66-games during the 03-04 regular season and 5-pts in 5-games during the playoffs. Not great numbers, but given the revolving door of personnel that was going on in Manchester for his first two years and the changes they caused to both his role and linemates, I'll cut him a little slack. Everyone knew Yannick was a defensive liability coming in. Basically every scouting report I read on the kid said he was pure offense with little to no defese and shied away from the physical game. When he comes in exactly as reported people start questioning his lack of physical play and defensive liabilities?

I agree that the guy can still be frustrating to watch at times. Lehoux reminds me a little of watching a striker in soccer. Full out down the pitch on the attack and jog back. Cammalleri does this as well at times. Maybe it's a conservation of energy thing???

Sorry kj, I just don't think Lehoux has had multiple BAD years. I think he's come a long way in the 2 1/3 seasons he's played and if management is disappointed in how long he's taking, they should go back and read the pre-draft reports on him. He came in about as close to exactly as advertised as it gets.

Bad was way too strong of a word. How about underachieving?

Fat Elvis 12-28-2004 01:59 PM

Ned should also be considered as well, I guess when Cammy, Brown and Gleason graduate spots will be avaliable for Ned, Parse and the next crop of 1st\2nd rounders.

King Blazer 12-28-2004 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Bad was way too strong of a word. How about underachieving?

Underachieving? Maybe. I guess it really comes down to what's expected of a 20-yr old, mid 3rd-round pick coming out of the Q. Honestly, I think there are several factors in play with respect to Lehoux. Some within his control and some beyond his control.

Anyway, I don't think the Kings have a lot of money tied up in Yannick. I don't know if there was a substantial signing bonus if there even was one and I don't imagine his NHL salary is much more than say $400k at this point.

David A. Rainer 12-28-2004 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
wait, i havne't heard much about parse. wats he like?

also, why is munce so much more highly regarded then daniel taylor? i thought he was pretty good as well, in fact impressed me mroe then munce. is the sv% the only reason why he has a "higher potential"?

I wouldn't say that he is much more highly regarded than Taylor. In fact, I think spots 15-25 are very close (Taylor was bubblicious on this list, about 24th, if memory serves me correctly).

So maybe I can rephrase your question. Why is Munce ahead of Taylor?

The OHL argument works against them equally, so that does not come into play. With Munce, beyond the numbers and shots and goals against and everything, he has the athleticism and skills that you love in a goaltender. He has a high level of projection, but he is kind of a hit or miss prospect. Taylor is solid fundamentally while not overly athletic. I think it comes down to projection. Munce is projected to a higher level than Taylor while Taylor is more of a sure bet than Munce. For my money, as of right now, I would take Taylor over Munce. However, you are really only looking at a back-up in Taylor and if we are only talking about prospects playing in Juniors, I would rather have Munce as a prospect because of his possible future.

KingPurpleDinosaur 12-28-2004 02:46 PM

i only saw the two goalies once, but i was not impressed at all with munce. i was lookin forward to seeing him, but it seems like his angles were all off and he just wasn't comfortable being in net. his fundamentals just don't seem to be solid. he also never did anything during that one game to make me think "wow, this guy does have potential".

taylor, as you said, seems much more solid. just seemed to be calm, had a good sense of position, and absorbed pucks pretty well. his position was good enough wehre he never having to do any big saves because of it, which is a good thing. he also outclassed all the other goalies at the scrimmage. ya, it's all one scrimmage, so i don't put too much weight into it and hell, i might even be remembering wrong for all i konw, but from wat a iremember, i really don't see munce's athleticism or his potential. i think he might be a bit overrated.

King'sPawn 12-28-2004 03:31 PM

Hey Dave, if you don't mind, would you tell me where you have Lukacevic on the list? Not saying he's a great prospect, but he does seem a little underrated.

Also with Karlsson, is there really any good news from our European friends with good things to say about his play this season? I'm beginning to worry about if he'll ever come to North America.

Legionnaire 12-28-2004 08:39 PM

Nice work Dave!

Legionnaire 12-28-2004 08:46 PM

Woot! Boyle just scored on a monster slapper from the circle, to give BC a 3-2 lead in the Florida College Classic.

He's actually looked pretty good this game. I still have high hope for him. It seems like he's been playing RW this wing a bit, and he looks more comfortable there.

David A. Rainer 12-29-2004 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Hey Dave, if you don't mind, would you tell me where you have Lukacevic on the list? Not saying he's a great prospect, but he does seem a little underrated.

The next few were
21. Connor James
22. Dave Steckel
23. Matt Ryan
24. Scott Parse
25t. Ned Lukacevic
25t. Andrei Shefer
27. Daniel Taylor

I guess Taylor was a little lower than I remembered him at.

King'sPawn 12-29-2004 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
The next few were
21. Connor James
22. Dave Steckel
23. Matt Ryan
24. Scott Parse
25t. Ned Lukacevic
25t. Andrei Shefer
27. Daniel Taylor

I guess Taylor was a little lower than I remembered him at.

Thanks a lot :) Surprised to see you rate Steckel above Parse and Lukacevic, but since I can only go by what I read, you definitely know more about them all than me.

Thanks again!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.