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

Revisiting Hickey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2009, 01:07 PM
  #26
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughty Number 8 View Post
You can't really base much on the WJC, just watching it, it's as different from NHL hockey as beer pong is from table tennis

Of course, it's not even playing style - it's only a 6-8 game sample.

Hickey was, to some scouts, not even in the top-30 prospects. I can't remember clearly how much suprise there was at the pick, I only remember that everyone wanted us to pick Alzner. However, Alzner is not the defenseman we needed.

There are a dozen Alzner's spread throughout the league - Hickey's type is much more unique.

Voracek is the only guy I'm think we should have gotten (although at the draft, I kind of wanted the Kings to pick of Cherepanov [RIP]). I'm not dissapointed that we didn't get Hamill, who is doing poorly in the AHL, or Ellerby/McDonagh, who have proven no more than Hickey has. Gagner would have been nice, but he certainly isn't the center we will need for the franchise. Sutter was a low risk-low reward draft pick - something that is bad strategy in a poor draft.

My judgement would be this - Hickey was a smart pick in the first place, considering the draft and our inability to trade down, but even if he doesn't pan out, he has a lot to offer the team in terms of leadership, and the Moller/Simmonds picks in the 2nd round make up for anything that Hickey doesn't do.

However, I do think that Hickey will become something good - he just has too much skating ability, too much hockey smarts, and too much leadership not to.

With that said, there is no way that he in anyway approaches Drew Doughty for the #1 defenseman of the future.
I still remember the crowd letting out a collective gasp. Alot of "experts" instantly ripped the Kings for the pick saying how much of a reach it was. Fast forward a few months the the draft access special with the Blues and when that pick is made John Davidson made the remark " thats a hell of a pick". Obviously a few GM's saw something similar to what the Kings did while the majority of the so called "experts" didnt.

As far as him being the #1 D of the future , the best part is the Kings dont need him to be. They just need him to step in and play his game without having those lofty expectations placed on his shoulders which could become a very good thing.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 01:09 PM
  #27
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
I still remember the crowd letting out a collective gasp. Alot of "experts" instantly ripped the Kings for the pick saying how much of a reach it was. Fast forward a few months the the draft access special with the Blues and when that pick is made John Davidson made the remark " thats a hell of a pick". Obviously a few GM's saw something similar to what the Kings did while the majority of the so called "experts" didnt.

As far as him being the #1 D of the future , the best part is the Kings dont need him to be. They just need him to step in and play his game without having those lofty expectations placed on his shoulders which could become a very good thing.
That was Larry Pleau. Their head scout Jarmo Kekkelainen liked the pick as well....

SFKingshomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 01:12 PM
  #28
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFKingshomer View Post
That was Larry Pleau. Their head scout Jarmo Kekkelainen liked the pick as well....
Thanks I thought it was Davidson for some reason.

kingpest19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 01:27 PM
  #29
Thrice
Coyote Killer
 
Thrice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundqvist View Post
Your forgetting Filatov too, but Im ok with Hickey I think he'ss be a good 2nd pair defensemen
Filatov was selected #6 overall in 2008.

Thomas Hickey was selected #4 overall in 2007.

Thrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 03:05 PM
  #30
Kingjordan
Registered User
 
Kingjordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,561
vCash: 500
Thomas Hickey will be an All Star... Have seen the kid play and he can make plays a lot of players cant look easy.

Kingjordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 04:14 PM
  #31
Flour Child
Unleavened User
 
Flour Child's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Drury Lane
Posts: 21,706
vCash: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrice View Post
Filatov was selected #6 overall in 2008.

Thomas Hickey was selected #4 overall in 2007.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant!

Flour Child is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 07:23 PM
  #32
Fangio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughty Number 8 View Post
You can't really base much on the WJC, just watching it, it's as different from NHL hockey as beer pong is from table tennis

Of course, it's not even playing style - it's only a 6-8 game sample.
Scouts, GMs etc, disagree with you. Believe me the WJC is the highlight of every scout. There's a lot to be learned from..Can they elevate their game? Will weaknesses be exposed? How will they handle pressure? On-ice performances, and so on. Typical scouting stuff.
Just based entirely on the WJC, some could suggest Hickey would struggle being a #1 Dman in the NHL. He would be better off playing second fiddle or on the 2nd pairing(for a top 5 pick he should be on the 1st with Doughty in the future).

Fangio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 07:34 PM
  #33
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munnn View Post
Scouts, GMs etc, disagree with you. Believe me the WJC is the highlight of every scout. There's a lot to be learned from..Can they elevate their game? Will weaknesses be exposed? How will they handle pressure? On-ice performances, and so on. Typical scouting stuff.
Just based entirely on the WJC, some could suggest Hickey would struggle being a #1 Dman in the NHL. He would be better off playing second fiddle or on the 2nd pairing(for a top 5 pick he should be on the 1st with Doughty in the future).
Why?

If he is a very good #3/4 I will be happy. Are you suggesting that every top 5 pick needs to be #1 at their respective position on their team?

I think all the top 5 should guarantee you is that they will be a solid and consistantly effective NHLer with a long career (barring injury). After the top picks, you can't really guarantee that, even in the first round.

It's like Staal in Pittsburgh. He's a top 5 pick who wouldn't even be the top center on this team, and might still go behind Stoll. Picked too high? No, he's still a quality player, and very valuable to his team without being the best.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 09:54 PM
  #34
Chruceg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
The main reason why I think Hickey is going to be a real force in the NHL is because of his performance in last years training camp. He was the last player cut and Doughty beat him out by just a hair. Does that make Doughty's ceiling higher? I would say absolutely. But right now Doughty's ceiling is Ray Bourque. (No biggie ... just one of the five best defenseman EVER) Losing out to Doughty is not a slight. It's remarkable that Hickey was even competing with him.

And before anyone starts arguing that Hickey SHOULD have been competing with Doughty because he was drafted a year earlier needs to wake up. Hickey is only 10 months older than Doughty. Hickey beat out Drewiske who people on this board have been lauding for his great play as a rookie and Drewiske is 24. Defenseman usually take three to four years to come up. One season after Hickey was drafted he was competing for a spot on an NHL team.

Last but not least everyone needs to take at Hickey's stats. Look at his +/- this past season. Hickey finished at a +37 on a team that gave up 12 more goals than it allowed. The next closest guy on the team was only a +16. And remember that Hickey wasn't an overager last year. Then there was his stint in the AHL. He scored seven points in seven games as the second youngest player on the ice. (Voynov is 11 months younger)

I'm not saying Hickey is guaranteed to get there ... but for anyone to suggest that Hickey doesn't have top pairing defense talent is flat out ignoring facts.

Chruceg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:05 PM
  #35
Fangio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Why?

If he is a very good #3/4 I will be happy. Are you suggesting that every top 5 pick needs to be #1 at their respective position on their team?

I think all the top 5 should guarantee you is that they will be a solid and consistantly effective NHLer with a long career (barring injury). After the top picks, you can't really guarantee that, even in the first round.

It's like Staal in Pittsburgh. He's a top 5 pick who wouldn't even be the top center on this team, and might still go behind Stoll. Picked too high? No, he's still a quality player, and very valuable to his team without being the best.
We're talking about a top 5 here. The expectation is higher than that. When it comes to Hickey, I'd be mildly disappointed if he can't handle major minutes alongside Doughty on the path to a Cup. If he ends up just being a good #3-4, fine. That's where he was projected anyway, except for the Kings staff which saw something in him that suggested otherwise. Hope they're right. They passed on selecting a couple of sure fire players, specifically Sam Gagner and Jacob Voracek.

Fangio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:07 PM
  #36
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chruceg View Post
The main reason why I think Hickey is going to be a real force in the NHL is because of his performance in last years training camp. He was the last player cut and Doughty beat him out by just a hair. Does that make Doughty's ceiling higher? I would say absolutely. But right now Doughty's ceiling is Ray Bourque. (No biggie ... just one of the five best defenseman EVER) Losing out to Doughty is not a slight. It's remarkable that Hickey was even competing with him.
The only game of the preseason I saw was Frozen Fury. Based on that one game, where Hickey was paired with Doughty, while they both looked solid, I thought Hickey was better. He moved the puck with more confidence, and had a much better shot and managed the point on the PP with more authority than Doughty. Also played smarter defense. The only thing that jumped out at me about Doughty that game was that his head was constantly on a swivel.

I'm not at all saying Hickey is or will be better, but I for a side by side comparison, I was truly impressed with Hickeys skating, decision making and composure - all the things that make Doughty as good as he is.

While I still would like to bring Hickey along a little more slowly (one year in Manch with a few call-ups sound right), I am confident he will be a very good NHLer, with the slight potential to be great.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:08 PM
  #37
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munnn View Post
We're talking about a top 5 here. The expectation is higher than that. When it comes to Hickey, I'd be mildly disappointed if he can't handle major minutes alongside Doughty on the path to a Cup. If he ends up just being a good #3-4, fine. That's where he was projected anyway, except for the Kings staff which saw something in him that suggested otherwise. Hope they're right. They passed on selecting a couple of sure fire players, specifically Sam Gagner and Jacob Voracek.
Bruins had Hickey pegged at #8. I'd still take the Kings 07 draft over any teams.

SFKingshomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:09 PM
  #38
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munnn View Post
We're talking about a top 5 here. The expectation is higher than that. When it comes to Hickey, I'd be mildly disappointed if he can't handle major minutes alongside Doughty on the path to a Cup. If he ends up just being a good #3-4, fine. That's where he was projected anyway, except for the Kings staff which saw something in him that suggested otherwise. Hope they're right. They passed on selecting a couple of sure fire players, specifically Sam Gagner and Jacob Voracek.
I don't really care about Gagner. Voracek would have been nice.

The fact that DL tried to trade down makes me think that while the Kings saw a very good player in Hickey that would be a key part of the team, not that they think he was going to be a superstar.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:19 PM
  #39
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I don't really care about Gagner. Voracek would have been nice.

The fact that DL tried to trade down makes me think that while the Kings saw a very good player in Hickey that would be a key part of the team, not that they think he was going to be a superstar.
That was part of the problem I had with the selection. Even Dean was not convinced that Hickey was a top 5 player......But when he started with LA he talked about the Kings not finishing low enough to get premium talent in the draft....so why would Dean go out and get a guy who was projected to be drafted in the "black hole" that he was so adamant about not being in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFKingshomer
I'd still take the Kings 07 draft over any teams.
I hope you mean any team after the top 3....because I would still take Kane and Turris over Hickey every time.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:26 PM
  #40
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
That was part of the problem I had with the selection. Even Dean was not convinced that Hickey was a top 5 player......But when he started with LA he talked about the Kings not finishing low enough to get premium talent in the draft....so why would he go out and get a guy who was projected to be drafted in the "black hole" that he was so adament about not being in?

I hope you mean any team after the top 3....because I would still take Kane and Turris over Hickey every time.
I think you answered your own question right there. After Kane (Turris is still questionable to me), I think it was a very weak draft. I didn't see the kind of elite top 5 talent in that draft that there is this year or last.

I don't see Gagner or Voracek as huge producers. Good, close to great, maybe, but not great. I think they both cap out at around an average of 60 points a year.

I think the fall off in that draft was dramatic after the top 3 picks and that the difference between 4 and say 12 isn't as dramatic as it is this year.

I think Hickey will be just as good Gagner or Voracek in the end.

It's not like there are always 5 far and away elite talents in a draft. Could be 2, could be 5, could be 10. Just so happens that this year there are about 5 before the perceived big drop off.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:28 PM
  #41
Fangio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I don't really care about Gagner. Voracek would have been nice.

The fact that DL tried to trade down makes me think that while the Kings saw a very good player in Hickey that would be a key part of the team, not that they think he was going to be a superstar.
Gagner, good player. Only 19yo, does all the right things and oozes offensive talent. Better than O'Sullivan. Voracek was ranked #1 prospect in the world at one point. He's everything Lauri Tukonen shouldve been. If Hickey can thrive on playing a major role of top pair with Doughty, I could sleep easy. That's what I expect. Otherwise, Like ive said, I'd be a little disappointed we passed on said players..

Fangio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:30 PM
  #42
Chruceg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
That was part of the problem I had with the selection. Even Dean was not convinced that Hickey was a top 5 player......But when he started with LA he talked about the Kings not finishing low enough to get premium talent in the draft....so why would Dean go out and get a guy who was projected to be drafted in the "black hole" that he was so adamant about not being in?
Because Dean has repeatedly said that it was more important to him to build the back end before he built up front and he thought Hickey had the higher upside over Alzner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRon
I hope you mean any team after the top 3....because I would still take Kane and Turris over Hickey every time.
I think what SFKingshomer was trying to say was the overall draft for LA was better than either Phoenix's or Chicago's. As of right now, in this WAY to early to tell scenario, it looks like the Kings have three legitimate NHLers playing next year while the other two only have the one.

Chruceg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:31 PM
  #43
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
That was part of the problem I had with the selection. Even Dean was not convinced that Hickey was a top 5 player......But when he started with LA he talked about the Kings not finishing low enough to get premium talent in the draft....so why would Dean go out and get a guy who was projected to be drafted in the "black hole" that he was so adamant about not being in?



I hope you mean any team after the top 3....because I would still take Kane and Turris over Hickey every time.
Hickey, Moller, Simmonds is what I meant.

SFKingshomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:31 PM
  #44
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post

I think Hickey will be just as good Gagner or Voracek in the end.
I guess that is where we disagree.

I believe that Gagner and Voracek are both better than Hickey now and will more than likely be better for the majority of their careers.

Shortly after Hickey was drafted I stated on these very boards that I believed that Moller would have a better career than Hickey....I still stand by that statement.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:32 PM
  #45
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFKingshomer View Post
Hickey, Moller, Simmonds is what I meant.
OK.....I understand.

Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:46 PM
  #46
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
I guess that is where we disagree.

I believe that Gagner and Voracek are both better than Hickey now and will more than likely be better for the majority of their careers.

Shortly after Hickey was drafted I stated on these very boards that I believed that Moller would have a better career than Hickey....I still stand by that statement.
I can see why. Chalk it up to faith in Hickey and an admiration of his sense and smoothness.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised by Hickey.

Either way, its tough to compare forwards to D.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:50 PM
  #47
Balls Mahoney
wants more Sesito
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Country: United States
Posts: 12,729
vCash: 500
If you don't want him, you could always send him to Vancouver

Balls Mahoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 10:58 PM
  #48
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
By the time Hickey becomes relevant to the Kings lineup (2011-2012), the team will be:

1. A solid playoff team or
2. With a new GM, new coach and a mess

He will likely not have any impact whatsoever on either course

Zad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2009, 11:53 PM
  #49
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
By the time Hickey becomes relevant to the Kings lineup (2011-2012), the team will be:

1. A solid playoff team or
2. With a new GM, new coach and a mess

He will likely not have any impact whatsoever on either course
Really?

I think this coming season Hickey has a decent shot at being on the roster opening night, but I kind of consider him a lock for the start of the 2010 season.

Though I agree with your overall point that Hickey is not going to make or break this team's chances one way or another.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2009, 12:54 AM
  #50
ru4reals
Registered User
 
ru4reals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcard View Post
The kings had the #12 pick and traded down to #13 because they wanted Teubert instead of Myers. Apparently the team at 14 (might have been 15 I don't remember which one) wanted Myers and offered #14 and a 3rd rounder in exchange for #12. But DL wanted Teubert and thought that Buffalo might want Teubert as well.

So DL went to the Buffalo GM and they both wrote down the players they wanted on a piece of paper. If they wrote different players, DL would trade #12 for #13 and Buffalo's 3rd. If Buffalo wanted Teubert, DL would have kept the #12 and drafted Teubert at 12. Buffalo wanted Myers so he made the trade.

This was all from an interview between DL and Rich after the draft, but I don't have the link.
Thanks for explaining it to the other dude, I just didn't want to write the whole thing. But that's what happened.

ru4reals is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:48 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.