HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

developing late rounders

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2005, 10:00 AM
  #1
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
developing late rounders

is it me or are the kings not that great at developing late rounders. if u look at all our impact prospects, they all are first rounders. not sure if i can make this assumption, but i think this does reassure us that, yes, our scouts are actually pretty good in assessing the high range talent BUT we still are not that great in developing players. plus, i still hold a lot of concern in how we develop our goalies. we have still yet to draft and develop a young goalie like the sharks and ducks all have.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 10:03 AM
  #2
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Petiot is about to become an impact prospect and he was a fourth rounder

Visnvosky was a fourth rounder

Cammy was a second

Huet was a 7th

Marty Guerin is looking very good and he is a 9th rounder

Noah Clarke was a 9th rounder

Parse is looking great as a 6th rounder

 
Old
09-14-2005, 10:13 AM
  #3
PRMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,597
vCash: 500
Brady Murray is looking great for what a 7th?

PRMan is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 10:15 AM
  #4
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
petiot is the only one i thought of as a late rounder who is developing well.

huet and lubo were overagers (already done developing), cammy is a 2nd (hardly "late"), and i dont' really see guerin, clarke, murray or parse making much of an impact on the NHL except as possible reserve forwards. seems like we rely a lot on our first rounders, which is fine, im just wondering if there is a reason why everyone else seems to have at least a handful of top prospects from the late rounds

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 10:25 AM
  #5
Albi
Registered User
 
Albi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lavena - Italy
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,627
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Albi
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
i dont' really see guerin, clarke, murray or parse making much of an impact on the NHL except as possible reserve forwards
That's what you think and you could be wrong buddy...

Albi is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 10:32 AM
  #6
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
, cammy is a 2nd (hardly "late")
But you did say
Quote:
if u look at all our impact prospects, they all are first rounders

 
Old
09-14-2005, 10:53 AM
  #7
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,289
vCash: 500
You may be knit-picking a little kpd. Not sure we develope any college or junior players until they go to Reading or Manchester. You have to look at who has gotten better\worse in the echl or ahl, that's where our coaching staff begins. Hard to say right now what impact Guerin, Parse and Murry will have, but not many organizations have multiple high draft picks starring in their lineups.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 11:37 AM
  #8
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
But you did say
yes, but the thread title is obviously "developing late rounders". the impact 1st rounders served as a point on how lopsided our successful draft picks have been. i think anything 4th rounder and later is a late draft pick. 3rd is down the middle and 2nd and up is fairly high.

anyways, im not saying that we should be having a great late rounder every year or something, just interesting how very few of our late rounders seem to be on the road to a solid NHL career.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 12:09 PM
  #9
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,070
vCash: 500
Name a team whose late rounders often have a solid NHL career.

And since you're setting a criteria:
- Prospect can't be an overager (18 or 19)
- Prospect has to be picked in the 4th round or later.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 01:18 PM
  #10
Primakov!
Registered User
 
Primakov!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Yesteryear
Posts: 1,419
vCash: 500
I don't think the Kings are as bad at drafting NHL players from the 4th round on as most would think. I didn't push it past 1980, but historically, they look a little like:

Bernie Nicholls (4th round, 1980)
Gary Galley (5th round, 1983)
Kevin Stevens (6th round, 1983)
Luc Robitaille (9th round, 1984)
Rob Blake (4th round, 1988)
Robert Lang (7th round, 1990)
Alexei Zhitnik (4th round, 1991)
Rem Murray (6th round, 1992)
Kimmo Timonen (10th round, 1993)
Eric Belanger (4th round, 1996)

It's not a bad list. Not great, but what few we have plucked has pumped out decent NHL careers. I was rather proud of the Kings signing undrafted rookie players like Jason Blake and Steve Reinprecht who have made comfortable careers for themselves, as well.

Primakov! is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 01:44 PM
  #11
wabwat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: pasadena, ca.
Posts: 6,674
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wabwat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primakov!
I don't think the Kings are as bad at drafting NHL players from the 4th round on as most would think. I didn't push it past 1980, but historically, they look a little like:

Bernie Nicholls (4th round, 1980)
Gary Galley (5th round, 1983)
Kevin Stevens (6th round, 1983)
Luc Robitaille (9th round, 1984)
Rob Blake (4th round, 1988)
Robert Lang (7th round, 1990)
Alexei Zhitnik (4th round, 1991)
Rem Murray (6th round, 1992)
Kimmo Timonen (10th round, 1993)
Eric Belanger (4th round, 1996)

It's not a bad list. Not great, but what few we have plucked has pumped out decent NHL careers. I was rather proud of the Kings signing undrafted rookie players like Jason Blake and Steve Reinprecht who have made comfortable careers for themselves, as well.
and didn't Tom Glavine (4th round, 1984 [ahead of Robitaille]) win a Cy Young or two?

wabwat is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 01:46 PM
  #12
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wabwat
and didn't Tom Glavine (4th round, 1984 [ahead of Robitaille]) win a Cy Young or two?
I wonder how well he would have played for the Kings..............What could have been.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 02:07 PM
  #13
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Name a team whose late rounders often have a solid NHL career.

And since you're setting a criteria:
- Prospect can't be an overager (18 or 19)
- Prospect has to be picked in the 4th round or later.
again, im not saying we should be picking up late rounders every year, but it does seem like we may be getting a little less NHL-worthy late rounders the the normal franchise. take our top 10 prospects, for example, 7 are 1st rounders and 2 are 2nd rounders which leaves one 4th rounder (petiot).

if u just randomly scatter through all the other teams, i think u'd see a more even distribution of their top 10 then that of the kings. whether it be more 2nd rounders or late rounders or watever, i just don't think there are as many teams who are as dependent on their first round pick as us. there are many possible explanations to all this, but i still think our developmental process plays a part and is a bit lacking.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 02:11 PM
  #14
CurtisJD13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 224
vCash: 500
I think Lukacevic is making a name for himself as a prospect - he was a 4th rounder, no? But all he did was play with Kopitar and Pushkarev in one of the rookie games. And score a goal.

CurtisJD13 is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 02:36 PM
  #15
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
again, im not saying we should be picking up late rounders every year, but it does seem like we may be getting a little less NHL-worthy late rounders the the normal franchise. take our top 10 prospects, for example, 7 are 1st rounders and 2 are 2nd rounders which leaves one 4th rounder (petiot).

if u just randomly scatter through all the other teams, i think u'd see a more even distribution of their top 10 then that of the kings. whether it be more 2nd rounders or late rounders or watever, i just don't think there are as many teams who are as dependent on their first round pick as us. there are many possible explanations to all this, but i still think our developmental process plays a part and is a bit lacking.
You have to take into consideration that we've had more 1st round picks the last few yrs than most other teams (Brown, Tambs, Boyle all in 1 yr). I think we also give more credit to a 1st rounder compared to a guy like Guerin or Parse even though their #'s are similar. Plus, the top 20 are opinion polls and not a realistic view of the future. Look at Karlsson, some still think he should be in our top 10 just because he was a 1st rounder. I think you're really reaching here to find something to complain about.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 02:38 PM
  #16
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Fukufugi (8th round pick 2004) might not see a game in the NHL but he sure has the potential to.

Marty Guerin (8th round pick 2003) has been pretty impressive in past camps and is rated as the Kings 17th best prospect.

Conner James (9th round pick 2002) had an impressive rookie camp and was just signed to a Monarchs contract.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 03:36 PM
  #17
Sybil227
Registered User
 
Sybil227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Santa Clarita
Country: United States
Posts: 2,501
vCash: 500
Spongebob beat me to it, but I was going to mention that both Fukufuji and Connor James, while not locks to ever make the team, have made significant moves up the depth charts.
And wasn't Kanko a 3rd rounder?

Sybil227 is offline  
Old
09-14-2005, 03:41 PM
  #18
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,289
vCash: 500
Here are a few comparisons;

Push(10th) 69gm 22g 30a playing with Ladd and Getz
Ned(19th)71gm 18g 28a playing with a couple ok players on a bad team

Kanko(12th) 18points
Parros(not rated) 22points
Ryan(not rated) 24 points

Just goes to show you that some players that are fairly high(2nd-3rd round)draft picks are given a higher rating even though their performance is near equal and sometimes less than low draft picks(4th--undrafted).

Goes to show you that these lists are mostly potential rather than performance imo.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
09-15-2005, 10:33 AM
  #19
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KING ELVI
You have to take into consideration that we've had more 1st round picks the last few yrs than most other teams (Brown, Tambs, Boyle all in 1 yr). I think we also give more credit to a 1st rounder compared to a guy like Guerin or Parse even though their #'s are similar. Plus, the top 20 are opinion polls and not a realistic view of the future. Look at Karlsson, some still think he should be in our top 10 just because he was a 1st rounder. I think you're really reaching here to find something to complain about.
i did take that all into consideration, it's the reason why i said that there are other explanations to this as well. also, i took the top 10 from the list compiled by the hockey future site (whoever did that, i dont remember. was it david rainer?), not from the opinion poll.

anyways, its funny how in one thread i'm called a DT apologist and in this thread im a complainer, i guess that means i'm doing well at viewing the kings objectively. but had you just did what i said and scanned through the top 10 lists of random teams, i do not think you will find any top 10 list as top heavy as ours. one could argue that we accumulated a lot of first round draft picks, which is true, but not even rebuilding teams like pittsburgh are as 1st round dependent as we seemingly are.

i don't even qualify this as "complaining", i am merely putting out an idea of where a possible weakness in our farm lay. if you can't even put a simple hypothesis into consideration then i guess there's nothign i can do to help you.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
09-15-2005, 11:18 AM
  #20
Matt13
Registered User
 
Matt13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm on a boat MF!
Country: United States
Posts: 4,112
vCash: 500
How many teams are actually developing impact players from the late rounds?

I know the Detroit has been lucky with Dats and Zetterburg, but I think they have always had an upper hand in getting talent from Russia.

For the most part, Manchester has been around for 4 seasons that the Kings have played. I dont really think thats enough time to develope a late rounder.

Matt13 is offline  
Old
09-15-2005, 11:28 AM
  #21
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,289
vCash: 500
Kpd, you may be right. I may not be able to put Your simple hypothesis into consideration. Our top 10 is filled with #1 and #2 round picks, so we just don't draft well in later rounds because we don't have any in our top 10 . So our developement of drafted players is bad. Are you just making a statement or are you making a statement with a reason. What do you see as the cause of this problem? What players haven't developed (besides goaltenders)? Did you think that maybe our drafting in the 1st and 2nd rounds is so good that players drafted later may be good nhlers someday but just didn't make this top 10 list? So if they are # 16, does that mean that their nhl career will stink? I'm really stupid because I can not understand where you're coming from.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
09-15-2005, 11:39 AM
  #22
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Race City USA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KING ELVI
Kpd, you may be right. I may not be able to put Your simple hypothesis into consideration. Our top 10 is filled with #1 and #2 round picks, so we just don't draft well in later rounds because we don't have any in our top 10 . So our developement of drafted players is bad. Are you just making a statement or are you making a statement with a reason. What do you see as the cause of this problem? What players haven't developed (besides goaltenders)? Did you think that maybe our drafting in the 1st and 2nd rounds is so good that players drafted later may be good nhlers someday but just didn't make this top 10 list? So if they are # 16, does that mean that their nhl career will stink? I'm really stupid because I can not understand where you're coming from.

I agree with you KING ELVI. If the Kings top 10 prospects were loaded with late round picks it might be an indication that the Kings 1st and 2nd round picks were not properly developed. It is a 2-way street. What KPD might not be taking into account is that maybe a guy rated #13 in the Kings organization might be rated #7 on another team. Let's not try to criticize the Kings for having good prospect depth.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
09-15-2005, 06:38 PM
  #23
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,300
vCash: 500
I know that this thread is more discussion than criticism, but I think that it's much better to have so many 1st and 2nd-round successes and few if any in later rounds than the other way around. Most late-rounders aren't impact players -- most are role players or well-rounded depth players -- and those players are quite easily-obtained through free agent signings and trades; the kinds of players you get from the first two rounds are not. Of course, it'd be nice to have success in both early and late rounds, but that's probably a bit unrealistic. Also, keep in mind that really good teams like the Red Wings and Devils need to have success with late-rounders because they rarely get to choose top-25 picks. I'm sure that their scouting teams are extra-optimized for identifying good late-rounders, whereas the Kings, for example, don't really need to be because they always have a pick in the top 10-15.

Osprey is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.