Unless I'm misunderstanding the HF rating system, it doesn't look all that different from the Kings. They have 1 - 8 and a bunch of 7s with Cs and Ds. If anything, their ratings look comparable to the Kings
I believe the team prospects are graded by a team's selected personnel. But compiled lists are debated and ranked together by all teams personnel. So that should give a more reliable and accurate look than just assigned grades by a person.
I can't say I have seen most of the Kings prospects play, but like others have said, it seems like it's more quantity than quality at this point.
I hope Toffoli makes it, I really do, because we desperately need a pure finisher on this team, but I just have to difficult a time getting excited about yet another goal-scorer with questionable skating or other issues putting up video game numbers in the CHL. We have been there before with guys like Lehoux, Aulin, Papineau, Wren, Kevin Brown, Shevalier, Rosa, Barney...the list goes on and on and on. And it's not only the Kings. Every team is littered with skilled players who lit up the CHL and fizzled. It was also a red flag when he didn't make the WJC team last year despite leading the OHL in goals and points. Like I said, I really hope he makes it because he is exactly what we need, but it has to be concerning that he fell a bit on draft day and was cut from the WJC, obviously some hockey people have serious doubts.
On Forbort, who I have seen play live and on TV a few times. I liked the pick because he was the BAP at the time, and I am a believer in BAP rather than needs. Plus he had everything you wanted in a d-man and had taken a major step forward by playing excellent for the NTDP during his last and only year there. But since he has been drafted he has been in major league neutral as far as development goes. I just never seem to see that "It" factor that you see in other high end college d-man. I have said this a few times but you could totally see at the Frozen Four that Faulk and Merrill were high end NHL prospects, Forbort not so much. I am not writing off the pick because Forbort has lots of tools, but it can't be denied that he is developing at a much much slower rate than expected for the Sioux or whatever the hell they are called now.
And who cares if you don't expect them to say anything different, is that an issue? Every team in every sport that has a draft talks up the guys they just drafted.
It just doesnt mean anything if somebody brings up that argument that the Kings thought he was the BPA because they say so. So yes thats an issue.
I would say, who cares every team has a draft talk about the player they have just drafted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan
There is a lot of great late round picks for goalies. you are 100% correct. There are also great late round picks for forwards and defensemen.
That's why I ALREADY said that a team has 16 forwards and just 1 goalie (and a back-up). What's more rare and suprising ? That so many late round forward picks are playing in the NHL or that so many late round goalie picks are playing in the NHL ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan
As for Fluery, he might not be the greatest firt over pick ever, but he has a cup ring and two finals appearances and is hardly a terrible player. With what he has achieved in his career, I'd be glad to have him here. I'm still happy with Quick, but great numbers or not, only one of those two has been past the first round in the post-season.
I also never said he was a terrible player. But yeah I would love to have both Crosby and Malkin here too.
I dont think you have read this topic very carefully.
You can’t be a great drafting team and only rely upon your first round picks. It’s all a matter of weighted risk. 1st rounder’s are the most likely but most doesn’t mean will. It’s when you hit with a 2-7th rounder that you’ve done well and to my mind if a team is able to get 2 NHL players per year they’ve done better then average and if they hit with more then that they’ve done amazing.
Using a very simple metric. Let’s look at 2007-2009.
How many regular guys (guys on the team and likely to play a whole season) and then how many guys have played in the NHL. It’s important to remember that you really do need at least 5-7 years to evaluate a draft. Some of these are far to early.
So using that simple metric:
2009
Kyle Clifford, Schenn: Likely Regular NHL player.
2008
Drew Doughty: Regular NHL player.
Colten Teubert, Vyacheslav Voynov, Andrei Loktionov: Limited NHL players.
2007
Simmonds , Alec Martinez: Regular NHL player.
Moller, King: Limited NHL players.
2006
Jonathan Bernier, Trevor Lewis: Regular NHL player.
From 2006-2009 we’ve produced 7 regular NHL players and have had 5 other guys having played limited amounts (could add Muzzin although not a drafty he is our prospect). 2006 was an average year but picking up a current backup goalie (with potential) and a 4th liner forward isn’t something to brag about. 2008 could turn out to be a great year if Voynov continues to impress. We haven’t yet produced a high scoring wing but have had decent success producing 3rd line forwards and puck moving d-men. Part of that is a combination of BPA and strategy. I think it’s clear we looked for overage wingers as a means of quickly up-grading our prospect pool with people closer to maturity/NHL. That and a focus on d-men mean that we’ve not picked up a scoring winger partly because we didn’t look for them. That seems to have changed in 2010/11. We’re also picking up players that aren’t close to the NHL. The long-term game seems to be more common as a draft strategy.
Our current pipeline is over-weighted towards D-men. I think we could make the argument that the Kings have the best depth and top-end d-men prospects in the NHL. To my mind we have no major center prospect and a few possible wingers that are work in progress. Like Herby I’ve always tempered my expectations when looking at CHL stats but it could be a useful sign that the scoring leader for both the OHL and WHL last year was a King.
You can’t be a great drafting team and only rely upon your first round picks. It’s all a matter of weighted risk. 1st rounder’s are the most likely but most doesn’t mean will. It’s when you hit with a 2-7th rounder that you’ve done well and to my mind if a team is able to get 2 NHL players per year they’ve done better then average and if they hit with more then that they’ve done amazing.
Using a very simple metric. Let’s look at 2007-2009.
How many regular guys (guys on the team and likely to play a whole season) and then how many guys have played in the NHL. It’s important to remember that you really do need at least 5-7 years to evaluate a draft. Some of these are far to early.
So using that simple metric:
2009
Kyle Clifford, Schenn: Likely Regular NHL player.
2008
Drew Doughty: Regular NHL player.
Colten Teubert, Vyacheslav Voynov, Andrei Loktionov: Limited NHL players.
2007
Simmonds , Alec Martinez: Regular NHL player.
Moller, King: Limited NHL players.
2006
Jonathan Bernier, Trevor Lewis: Regular NHL player.
From 2006-2009 we’ve produced 7 regular NHL players and have had 5 other guys having played limited amounts (could add Muzzin although not a drafty he is our prospect). 2006 was an average year but picking up a current backup goalie (with potential) and a 4th liner forward isn’t something to brag about. 2008 could turn out to be a great year if Voynov continues to impress. We haven’t yet produced a high scoring wing but have had decent success producing 3rd line forwards and puck moving d-men. Part of that is a combination of BPA and strategy. I think it’s clear we looked for overage wingers as a means of quickly up-grading our prospect pool with people closer to maturity/NHL. That and a focus on d-men mean that we’ve not picked up a scoring winger partly because we didn’t look for them. That seems to have changed in 2010/11. We’re also picking up players that aren’t close to the NHL. The long-term game seems to be more common as a draft strategy.
Our current pipeline is over-weighted towards D-men. I think we could make the argument that the Kings have the best depth and top-end d-men prospects in the NHL. To my mind we have no major center prospect and a few possible wingers that are work in progress. Like Herby I’ve always tempered my expectations when looking at CHL stats but it could be a useful sign that the scoring leader for both the OHL and WHL last year was a King.
?? I'm confused on how you can type so much text and so many player names, and not include Thomas Hickey in the discussion.
And regarding: "You can’t be a great drafting team and only rely upon your first round picks.." Really? Why shouldn't I rely on a #4 to be an asset - after 5 years?
Hickey seem to be off-limits by so many here when discussiing DL's drafting / Kings prospects. Why is that? When does Hickey move from being a prospect to a failure?
I reallty don't think that Dave Taylor would be given this long a leash on a failed #4.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the HF rating system, it doesn't look all that different from the Kings. They have 1 - 8 and a bunch of 7s with Cs and Ds. If anything, their ratings look comparable to the Kings
We have 14 7.0 or higher rated players, they have 12.
That sounds comaprible. What isn't is the fact we have seven who are rated a 7.5 or higher, they have 4. As well, of their players rated 7.0 or higher, five (nearly half) have a D rating, meaning: "D - Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ratings - a player who has a chance to reach his potential but is unlikely to do so."
We have none of our 7.0 or higher prospects with a D rating, meaning, by HF's statndards, they are more likely to succeed whereas the Flames prospects in general are more likely to fail.
As well, I believe on average our prospects are younger too.
It just doesnt mean anything if somebody brings up that argument that the Kings thought he was the BPA because they say so. So yes thats an issue.
I would say, who cares every team has a draft talk about the player they have just drafted.
That's why I ALREADY said that a team has 16 forwards and just 1 goalie (and a back-up). What's more rare and suprising ? That so many late round forward picks are playing in the NHL or that so many late round goalie picks are playing in the NHL ?
I also never said he was a terrible player. But yeah I would love to have both Crosby and Malkin here too.
I dont think you have read this topic very carefully.
On the first, it's just semantics. If you want to call it an issue that they praise their prospects, go ahead. It's par for the course, so i don't see how it's an issue that the Kings do it when everyone else does.
There's nothing more suprising about goalies making it in late rounds. Yes there are more forwards (not sure what team plays 16 forwards and only 1 goalie though in the NHL). Percentage wise I'd argue it's the same. More forwards are drafted than goalies too. The percentage goalies making it is likely very comparible to the percentage of forwards.
I didn't say you said Fluery was a terrible player. I said that, whether or not you view him as a not so good 1st overall pick, I can make a sound case for taking Fluery over a guy like Quick, and right now Quick is one of the top 15 goalies in the league, easy. Hard to say that wasn't a good 1st overall pick when Fluery is a very viable top 10 netminder who has shown great success in the playoffs including a cup ring.
Btw, thanks for your concern on my reading comprehension, but I'm doing just fine.
You can’t be a great drafting team and only rely upon your first round picks. It’s all a matter of weighted risk. 1st rounder’s are the most likely but most doesn’t mean will. It’s when you hit with a 2-7th rounder that you’ve done well and to my mind if a team is able to get 2 NHL players per year they’ve done better then average and if they hit with more then that they’ve done amazing.
Agreed. I think a good drafting team adds two players per draft year (at least of which is a core guy). You do that, you can have an entire roster drafted every ten years and have little need to go outside the organization for major assets most of the time, assuming you can keep them retained. Detroit is great for this and New Jersey was, until about five years ago. They are starting to get back there now.
Quote:
(could add Muzzin although not a drafty he is our prospect).
I count him. I count anyone who is in our organization who is a prospect and came through either drafting or free agency signing. Thus I count Jones too. The Kings scouting department has looked great in regards to Europe and the CHL. Not so much with college/university hockey, especially with UFA prospects (Piskula, etc.) in the last five years. We used to be better, remember Jason Blake and Steve Reinprecht?
Quote:
To my mind we have no major center prospect and a few possible wingers that.
I assume by this you are listing Loktionov as a winger, not a centre?
Because the point was to look beyond the 1st round. Hickey being a bust doesn't take away that you still drafted two NHL players. I'd take a bust in the 1st round for two NHL players one of which fits the mold that Hickey was suppose to fit. That combined with 2007 being one of the worst drafts on record means that 2 is way better then most teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
Really? Why shouldn't I rely on a #4 to be an asset - after 5 years?
Because it's one player. One player can get injured, one player can get into a car accident, one player can become a member of AA, one player can bust. Good drafting teams create players in the lower rounds.
Besides Hickey isn't important. If we'd picked Alzner (who I wanted) we'd still be in the same situation of having a chance at over half our d-men next year being King developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
Hickey seem to be off-limits by so many here when discussiing DL's drafting / Kings prospects.
That's not true. I'd suggest that the vast majority of posts with Hickey in them are negative. Hickey is and will be a bad pick in a terrible year. He's been outplayed by 3 other prospects and he's constantly used as an example of a failure in Kings drafting. Which he is but he's still one mistake and we should still look at the overall successes as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
I reallty don't think that Dave Taylor would be given this long a leash on a failed #4.
We lead the league in players drafted by the team playing for the team. Both DL and DT should get a little credit for that.
[QUOTE=kingsfan;39745311]On the first, it's just semantics. If you want to call it an issue that they praise their prospects, go ahead. It's par for the course, so i don't see how it's an issue that the Kings do it when everyone else does.[QUOTE]That's why you shouldnt take that seriously either. What's so hard to understand ? The only one who makes an issue out of nothing, are you.
Quote:
There's nothing more suprising about goalies making it in late rounds. Yes there are more forwards (not sure what team plays 16 forwards and only 1 goalie though in the NHL). Percentage wise I'd argue it's the same. More forwards are drafted than goalies too. The percentage goalies making it is likely very comparible to the percentage of forwards.
I think we can better stop this discusssion if you think so. This is wasted time.
I dont understand you. You quite often come up with stuff that hasnt been said or just wanna be that guy who likes to start a discussion about nothing. If I say I like oranges, than you like strawberry's and wants to tell everyone why I cant like my oranges.
Quote:
Btw, thanks for your concern on my reading comprehension, but I'm doing just fine.
I'm not entirely sure of HF's prospect criteria, but it is ridiculous to consider Bernier still a prospect.
The guy was drafted almost 6 years ago, he made his NHL debut over four years ago and is an NHL regular for the second straight season.
I believe he is still considered a rookie by NHL standards. It's the same odd qualification that got Storr selected on the NHL's All-Rookie team for two consecutive years.
Because the point was to look beyond the 1st round. Hickey being a bust doesn't take away that you still drafted two NHL players. I'd take a bust in the 1st round for two NHL players one of which fits the mold that Hickey was suppose to fit. That combined with 2007 being one of the worst drafts on record means that 2 is way better then most teams.
sorry - didn't realize you were only looking at 1st rd.
But sorry again, calling 2007 a "bad draft" is an attempt to get DL off the hook. Couture? Eller, Pax, Alzner, Voracek, Subban?? And these are just the players that I'm aware of - I imagine there are other 07 picks that are contributing to their teams (that were drafted well past #4)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadite
Because it's one player. One player can get injured, one player can get into a car accident, one player can become a member of AA, one player can bust. Good drafting teams create players in the lower rounds.
...the lower rounds? Sure you'd like a low pick to help out, but when your team sucks and get a high pick (top 5), it NEEDS to pay off. If Martinez crashes at the #95 pick - that's really not that big a deal because you don't expect as much from a 95 compared to a #4.
Or is it just me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadite
Besides Hickey isn't important. If we'd picked Alzner (who I wanted) we'd still be in the same situation of having a chance at over half our d-men next year being King developed.
Sorry - Hickey is VERY important. If he was a useable asset right now, or within another year or so. He could either be playing in L.A. or be packaged in a trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadite
That's not true. I'd suggest that the vast majority of posts with Hickey in them are negative. Hickey is and will be a bad pick in a terrible year. He's been outplayed by 3 other prospects and he's constantly used as an example of a failure in Kings drafting. Which he is but he's still one mistake and we should still look at the overall successes as well.
... which just shows he was a terrible pick - a worthless asset (so far) brought in by DL.
Yeah, that one mistake stings even more when Couture scores 30 goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadite
We lead the league in players drafted by the team playing for the team. Both DL and DT should get a little credit for that.
I don't know... in year 6, it's just wins & losses to me.
I'd say if we were going within the past 5 years, Hickey would be by far the most baffling. And I say that as a proud Hickey supporter.
Well like I mentioned before. I think Hickey wasn't AS baffling..just because we DID need a puck moving, two-way dman at the time. Because let's imagine for a second that Hickey steps right into the NHL or into the NHL after a year. He slots right in at the 3 spot for puck movers.
I don't think the Kings expected him to be a slow developer like he is. Thank god for Martinez and Voynov developing the way they have.
So while I will say the SELECTION of Hickey being a puck moving dman was not baffling in the slightest. Hickey himself was a bit strange considering puck moves Alzner, Ellerby, and McDonagh were ranked higher and also puck moving Dmen.
But again, the selection of a puck mover was not baffling. I am a supporter of Hickey as well, but I still don't get why we didn't take one of the 3 aforemetioned guys if we needed (which we did) a puck mover. THAT one escapes me.
To me the selection of a goalie with that pick we had was just straight strange.
sorry - didn't realize you were only looking at 1st rd.
But sorry again, calling 2007 a "bad draft" is an attempt to get DL off the hook. Couture? Eller, Pax, Alzner, Voracek, Subban?? And these are just the players that I'm aware of - I imagine there are other 07 picks that are contributing to their teams (that were drafted well past #4)
LOLOL the fact that you include career high 17 pts Lars Eller as proof of a good draft kinda proves the point. Outside of Herbs boy patches and Couture, that list of first rounders is an embarrassment.
Look at that draft, and how it absolutely screwed the teams "rebuilding" at the time. Outside of Kane, JVR has done very little (especially for a #2), Turris..., Alzner like Schenn/CT are players I would never pick in the first round....waste. Voracek has been a average player his whole career. Gagner has been a bust and the Oilers are trying to ship him out, Zach Hammil.....who? is gonna be your reaction.
Bottom line besides Kane the only redeeming quality from the draft is the nice amount of 2nd pairing defensemen it produced. IE Shats/Blum/McDough/Subban (who has #1 potential....but was also a 2nd rd pick).
I mean how sad is it, the Kings had the last pick in the 2nd round and got likely a 15 player in that draft. And outside of Subban/Simmonds that 2nd round has produced NOTHING.
He was ranked 19th by Central scouting for North Americans. So after you factor in European skaters you are probably looking at Couture to go a projected 22-30.
It just goes to show you what an inexact science drafting can be. Sharks staff did a good job and their off the board pick turned out very well. Ours is still developing.
So to act like Couture was some sure fire prospect that we passed on to pick Hickey...c'mon that one was up there.
Yea not quite Hickey going 26 to 4 for NA skaters...but still 19 to 9 in NA is still a pretty big jump.
And seriously Eller? have you watched the guy play?
And Subban was a 2nd round pick and ranked number 102 by central scouting.
You should really research your stuff before getting all crazy about it.
Sometimes these picks pan out, sometimes they don't. I mean cmon...Subban in the 2nd when he was projected to go in roughly the 4th or 5th round...you're practically cherry picking the whole draft for the good players regardless of what scouts were saying about them at the time just so you can bash on the pick.
We can do that with EVERY draft...and find players who are better then the ones we picked.
LOLOL the fact that you include career high 17 pts Lars Eller as proof of a good draft kinda proves the point. Outside of Herbs boy patches and Couture, that list of first rounders is an embarrassment.
Look at that draft, and how it absolutely screwed the teams "rebuilding" at the time. Outside of Kane, JVR has done very little (especially for a #2), Turris..., Alzner like Schenn/CT are players I would never pick in the first round....waste. Voracek has been a average player his whole career. Gagner has been a bust and the Oilers are trying to ship him out, Zach Hammil.....who? is gonna be your reaction.
Bottom line besides Kane the only redeeming quality from the draft is the nice amount of 2nd pairing defensemen it produced. IE Shats/Blum/McDough/Subban (who has #1 potential....but was also a 2nd rd pick).
I mean how sad is it, the Kings had the last pick in the 2nd round and got likely a 15 player in that draft. And outside of Subban/Simmonds that 2nd round has produced NOTHING.
Aren't the players I listed at least PLAYING in the NHL?? Something more than Hickey I'd say.
Couture counts as NOTHING to you?? Even when the Kings play SJ?
When/if Hickey makes the NHL, how long will we be hearing "well, he has to adjust to the league." Other players drafted behind Hickey have already adjusted.
Aren't the players I listed at least PLAYING in the NHL?? Something more than Hickey I'd say.
Couture counts as NOTHING to you?? Even when the Kings play SJ?
When/if Hickey makes the NHL, how long will we be hearing "well, he has to adjust to the league." Other players drafted behind Hickey have already adjusted.
I'd say purely from a perspective of disappointment league wide...
the selections of Zach Hamill and Angelo Esposito are more disappointing then anything Hickey could ever be, or not be. Also Kyle Turris is turning out to be a huge bust because of his attitude. #1 overall my ass.
