HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

New Article Discussion: Kings 2000 Draft Evaluation

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-18-2005, 08:18 PM
  #26
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
DO people know that Mantyla is like 5-7? That's ok if you're Martin St. Louis, but this guy is a defenseman.
There's nearly no interest in signing him. If all he is going to do is fill space in the AHL, what is the point of signing him. There are plenty of other guys the Kings and Monarchs can find to fill that space. Might as well leave him in Europe where the Kings can retain his rights and not have to pay him a dime.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
05-18-2005, 09:47 PM
  #27
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
DO people know that Mantyla is like 5-7? That's ok if you're Martin St. Louis, but this guy is a defenseman.
Believe it or not the guy is very good. He shows up to prospects camp each year and people are usually shocked when they find out it's him.
Maybe he can develop into a power play specialist like Housley was late in his career or maybe we just need to send him to Balco

 
Old
05-18-2005, 10:12 PM
  #28
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,846
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Believe it or not the guy is very good. He shows up to prospects camp each year and people are usually shocked when they find out it's him.
Maybe he can develop into a power play specialist like Housley was late in his career or maybe we just need to send him to Balco
John knows that I'm the same height as Mantyla, so maybe it's my bias to side with the shorter players of the world, but sometimes size is overrated.

Reaper45 is offline  
Old
05-19-2005, 02:52 AM
  #29
Tadite
Registered User
 
Tadite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rhode Island
Country: United States
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
By and large I don't have any complants about this year. You really can't go wrong with a 1st line Player and a top-2/3 D-man. Thats purdy good.

Tadite is offline  
Old
05-20-2005, 10:46 AM
  #30
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Excellent writeup John.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
I'd like to think that the Kings "turned the corner", but did they really? Let's look at the 4 "keepers" you discuss:

1. Frolov - very solid
2/3. Lilja/Visnovsky - picking Euro over-agers isn't quite the same as finding an 18 year old and predicting how well he will develop. With overage players, it's pretty much a "what you see is what you get" situation. Visnovsky has worked out well, but he is going to be 29 before the beginning of the next season (whenever that is).
Yes, they turned the corner. You are trying to find things to criticize about the draft and that's fine. But what KJ was saying (I think) is that this draft was "turning the corner" on previous drafts and I don't see how anyone who knows the Kings draft history can say that statement isn't true. He wasn't saying "the Kings drafted the best PROSPECTS in history" or "the 2000 draft was their best ever". He said they "turned the corner" and when you compare the 2000 drafts to their previous drafts, I just don't see how someone can argue that.

Quote:
The Kings essentially gave away Lilja (as well as Bednar) in the Yushkevich deal.
That's a whole different argument. Lilja was a good, solid pick who has played 180 NHL games (and played well). You know how many players outside the top 6 overall have played more games than he has? Six. You know who's played the THIRD most NHL games of all players drafted in 2000? Visnovsky at 268...after Gaborik and Hartnell.

As for "giving away" Lilja and Bednar (which isn't relevant to the actual draft itself and the quality of the picks made), they got a 5th rounder in that deal that they DID NOT give away and picked a pretty good kid with: Brady Murray. So they didn't exactly get "nothing" for Lilja and Bednar. Then they got 4th and 7th rounders when they traded Yushkevich to Philly...the 4th was used to pick up Stumpel and the 7th was used on Guelph goalie Danny Taylor. Picking up Yushkevich was a good idea that didn't work out, which every GM does (including Lamouriello and Lacroix.......and Bobby Clarke). The redeeming factor is that DT recognized pretty quickly that Yushkevich had lost too many steps and traded him for picks that he turned into something.

Anyway, my basic point with your quibble here is that DT did NOT "give away" Lilja and Bednar. He gave away Bednar (who turned out to be a waste) but got a good ultimate return for Lilja in Murray, Taylor and year of Stumpel (who I have always liked more than most).

Quote:
4. Lehoux - IMO, he should have seen at least a few games with the big club considering all of the injuries. Right now, he has "Pavel Rosa Syndrome" -
I will just never understand where this perception comes from. What is your opinion (that "he should have seen at least a few games with the big club") based on? Have you completely forgotten how he was playing in 03-04? He was NOT playing well and you think he should have been REWARDED by giving him time on the Kings??? And I think it's a little early to tag him with Pavel Rosa Syndrome. Rosa was given many chances to show he had what it took to play in the NHL and he failed. Lehoux has yet to play a game in the NHL...apples and oranges.

Quote:
and Andy Murray doesn't give this type of player much of a chance.
That's just pure, unadulterated crap. Andy Murray gives players of ALL types a chance. Ok, that's not true, AM only gives players a chance who DESERVE a chance. Lehoux hadn't EARNED a promotion to the Kings so he didn't get that chance...and it's the same with other players. But I defy you to name 5 players who EARNED (through good play and not solely attrition) promotions or more ice time but didn't get it. Or maybe you and I just have different philosophies on how kids should be developed. IMO, they should EARN their ice time BEFORE they get it. It seems to me that you think they have already earned it by virtue of being young and alive and they should be granted ice time until they suck so badly they don't belong there anymore.

Quote:
In addition, where are the Kings 2 1st round picks from 2001 on the HF Top Prospect List?
The one who may never make it to North America is rated #16, the one who is actually in the system is out of the top 20.....

OK, maybe it's a VERY wide corner
That's a fair criticism but I think it's off, based on how Steckel played in Manchester this year. Also, Karlsson remains a decent prospect who is ONLY 22 YEARS OLD and we won't know whether he's a bust until he either comes over and plays or decides he's just not going to. I would say the next two years will determine that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
The NHL games/pick stat becomes more a measure of how many overagers the team picked. Overagers are usually chosen to produce NOW instead of waiting to develop. Minnesota has the highest game/pick, but they also had 5 overagers out of 9 picks, with one being 31 years old.

If you calculate it on actual prospects, the Kings drafted Frolov and 8 other prospects. Frolov is the only one to play in the NHL with 156 games. This would give the Kings a "games/prospect pick" of 17. Since Atlanta didn't take an overager, their rating is still 24.

IMO, a more accurate way to rate and compare draft classes.
No. It's a more accurate way to rate and compare PROSPECT classes. KJ wasn't comparing PROSPECT classess...he was comparing DRAFT classes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KING ELVI
I tend to agree with PSP on this one. Lehoux was considered a bust up until this season, Lilja and Vis were comparatively safe picks to help step into a bad D. The rest have become "too small" to be NHL material. Not sure that drafting a handfull of midgets, 2 Euro veterans and one 1st round stud is anything to be proud of. Sure the past was awefull, but this draft was not a windfall either. It seems to mark a turn around in their approach to the draft. Maybe it should have read...a couple of positives for the Kings in a draft, finally....
So what if Lehoux was considered a bust until this season? He isn't anymore and that's that...he has re-joined the realm of solid prospects. If Lilja and Visnovsky were so safe, why didn't anyone else pick them? Was everyone else's defense so terrific that they didn't need either of them? I just disagree...I think a draft that produced Frolov and Visnovsky is a draft to be VERY proud of. And Lehoux and Lilja just add to that. But you're right in your comment "It seems to mark a turn around in their approach to the draft.", which IMO is exactly what I think KJ was getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP
It's always "a chance", but picking players 5 years or more older than the typical draftee is much easier. The overagers in general are role players where there really is no expectation of tremendous development past the stage where they are when drafted.
"Much easier"? Huh??? If it's so easy why was DT the only one to get 2 of them...and only 5 such overagers have played significant roles in the NHL from that year? Lilja, Wallin, Visnovsky, Cechmanek & Sekeras (and it's arguable whether Wallin and Sekeras did that).

Quote:
IMO, draft picks should be used to build your team for the future, not fill existing holes - free agency works (or worked) just fine for those type of players.
It just amazes me that people can find ways to make picking Visnovsky (and Lilja) into a bad thing. EVERY GM IN THE NHL would kill to have picked Visnovsky in the 4th round. EVERY ONE OF THEM.


Last edited by jt: 05-20-2005 at 10:52 AM.
jt is offline  
Old
05-20-2005, 09:10 PM
  #31
McSorley 33
Registered User
 
McSorley 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Yorba Linda, Ca
Posts: 1,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Believe it or not the guy is very good. He shows up to prospects camp each year and people are usually shocked when they find out it's him.
Maybe he can develop into a power play specialist like Housley was late in his career or maybe we just need to send him to Balco
I like that balco reference!

McSorley 33 is offline  
Old
05-21-2005, 03:03 PM
  #32
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,452
vCash: 500
people really look at the height and weight way too much when regarding prospects, I admit i am guilty of that, but if the kid can play the game i dont care if he's 5'7" or 6'7".

GoneFullHextall is online now  
Old
05-23-2005, 03:08 PM
  #33
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
With respect to Lehoux's 03-04 numbers, I think folks need to consider the talent level of the wings in Manchester that season.

After Tripp (22-games) and Barney (44-games) were recalled to L.A. during the 03-04 season, the Monarchs were left with the following available wings:

Jeff Giuliano (80-games)
Pavel Rosa (77-games, skated almost exclusively with Kelly)
Noah Clarke (71-games, skated almost exclusively with Rosa and Kelly)
Ryan Flinn (59-games)
George Parros (57-games)
Chris Schmidt (54-games)
Sam Ftorek (52-games)
Leon Hayward (42-games)
Dan Welch (31-games)
Brad Church (11-games)
Greg Koehler (10-games)
Travis Lisabeth (8-games)
Jud Medak (3-games)
Kip Brennan (2-games)

Clarke–Kelly–Rosa made up the top unit for most of the season and Church skated pretty much all of his 11-games with Kelly and Rosa. Basically, there wasn’t a lot of “offensive” talent left to skate with Lehoux. The wings were in and out of the lineup all season long. I'm really not disappointed in Lehoux's numbers for the 03-04 season especially when considering what he was working with.

King Blazer is offline  
Old
05-23-2005, 05:44 PM
  #34
Sam
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
My thoughts

I'd definitely say the 2000 draft marked the turning the of the corner for the Kings system, although it's debatable whether the improvement is due more to better scouting or having more top draft choices (the Kings only had six first rounders in the 1990s; they have had eight first rounders in the five drafts since then). The 2000 draft was a banner year for the Kings, especially when you consider that it was a mediocre draft overall. Take a look at Vancouver's draft, Buffalo's draft, or Florida's draft. Not a great draft. Being generous, only seven teams have comparable or arguably better draft selections: Atlanta (Heatley, Hordichuk, Gamache), Minnesota (Gaborik, Schultz, Sekeras), NY Islanders (Dipietro, Torres), Philadelphia (Williams, Cechmanek, Drozdetsky), Ottawa (Volchenkov, Vermette), Pittsburgh (Orpik, Ouellet, Endicott), and New Jersey (Hale, Martin, Rupp, Danton, Suglobov). Without being generous, I'd say only Atlanta, Minnnesota, and New Jersey had arguably better draft selections. Then factor draft position into the equation, and. . .

Also, the overagers argument doesn't hold IMO. Sure, it will distort the games played/draft selections ratio. But in the end, results are the only thing that matters. If this draft is not viewed as a really good one for the Kings, I'd say someone's standards are too high. Of course, when Frolov (the BPA as seen five years later, with no one picked later seen as better) is only viewed as a "very solid" choice, I'd say someone's standards are almost impossibly high to begin with.



A couple other things:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsjohn
Looking back at the drafts in the 90's they were lucky to have 1 player make the NHL.
In every draft in the 90s, at least one player made the NHL every draft so I wouldn't say the Kings were lucky to have one player make the NHL. Although a lot of them ended up producing for other teams instead of the Kings.

Players who have played or look like (*) they will play at least 100 NHL games include
1990: Daryl Sydor, Robert Lang
1991: Alexei Zhitnik
1992: Rem Murray
1993: Kimmo Timonen, Jere Karalahti, Martin Strbak*
1994: Jamie Storr, Matt Johnson, Vitali Yachmenev
1995: Aki Berg, Vladimir Tsyplakov
1996: Eric Belanger, Josh Green
1997: Olli Jokinen, Joe Corvo, Scott Barney* (if health allows)
1998: Mathieu Biron, Kip Brennan*, Justin Papineau*
1999: Frantisek Kaberle
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
As for "giving away" Lilja and Bednar (which isn't relevant to the actual draft itself and the quality of the picks made), they got a 5th rounder in that deal that they DID NOT give away and picked a pretty good kid with: Brady Murray. So they didn't exactly get "nothing" for Lilja and Bednar. Then they got 4th and 7th rounders when they traded Yushkevich to Philly...the 4th was used to pick up Stumpel and the 7th was used on Guelph goalie Danny Taylor. Picking up Yushkevich was a good idea that didn't work out, which every GM does (including Lamouriello and Lacroix.......and Bobby Clarke). The redeeming factor is that DT recognized pretty quickly that Yushkevich had lost too many steps and traded him for picks that he turned into something.

Anyway, my basic point with your quibble here is that DT did NOT "give away" Lilja and Bednar. He gave away Bednar (who turned out to be a waste) but got a good ultimate return for Lilja in Murray, Taylor and year of Stumpel (who I have always liked more than most).
Just one small note here. The Kings also gave up a second rounder in 2004 in the Stumpel trade.




Good article, kingsjohn. Just one small correction. Frolov spent the 2000-01 in the Upper League, not the Super League (you probably got this from Russianprospects, which has the wrong league listed in the stats but the right league in the player descprition). Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings 2000 draft evaluation
He spent 2005-06 in the Russian Super League due to the NHL lockout.
I hope this wasn't a forecast for next season.


Last edited by Sam: 05-23-2005 at 06:25 PM.
Sam is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 02:19 PM
  #35
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
I'd definitely say the 2000 draft marked the turning the of the corner for the Kings system, although it's debatable whether the improvement is due more to better scouting or having more top draft choices (the Kings only had six first rounders in the 1990s; they have had eight first rounders in the five drafts since then). The 2000 draft was a banner year for the Kings, especially when you consider that it was a mediocre draft overall.
I think some people forget how bad our pool used to be and how far we have come

Check this out. The HF rankings from 2000. The Kings were #27.

Quote:
Los Angeles Kings -- (Alexey Volkov, Joe Rullier, Scott Barney, Pavel Rosa, Jason Crain)
Only Volkov could be considered an outstanding prospect and with Papineau re-entering, the cupboard is bare. Finnish-oriented drafts haven't panned out. When they have, management's traded them away [Timonen]. The Kings have a little bit of offense and Volkov in their farm system but they don’t have much else.
http://web.archive.org/web/200111070....com/Rankings/

 
Old
06-06-2005, 06:19 PM
  #36
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Yeah I knew it even then...when Volkov is your best prospect you have SERIOUS problems.

jt is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 10:03 PM
  #37
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,846
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Yeah I knew it even then...when Volkov is your best prospect you have SERIOUS problems.
Do we still own the rights to him?

Reaper45 is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 10:13 PM
  #38
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Someone else probably knows the definitive answer...but I can say with confidence that he is no longer Kings property.

jt 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 01:57 AM.

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.