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

Al Murray Interview

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2004, 03:25 PM
  #1
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 35,372
vCash: 500
Al Murray Interview

From the Kings site, conducted last June right before the Entry Draft.

Part 1
http://www.lakings.com/content/news_...nt=news&id=727

Part 2
http://www.lakings.com/content/news_...nt=news&id=728

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
05-01-2004, 03:42 PM
  #2
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
This is dead interesting.

"When you take a hockey player at 18 years old, we give them two more years of junior and maybe two years in the American League. At 22 years old, if he hasn't made it to the NHL, he is considered a bust".


We have the following "busts" coming up.

21 year olds.

Grebeshkov

Rome

Zaba

22 year olds

Karlson

Hogeboom

James

Steckel

Cammelleri

Petiot

I reckon that these lads will be busts if they don't make it this year?


I were shocked by that because we have several players who have made it in the NHL and to the Kings after the age of 22.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
05-01-2004, 03:48 PM
  #3
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 35,372
vCash: 500
That comment on "22 year olds being busts" is being taken out of context there Punchy, didn't you read the rest after that?
He goes on to say some players take longer to develop (and mentions O'Donnell and Boucher as examples.. I guess another recent example could be Derek Armstrong). Eric Belanger took some time as well, and patience paid off as I think he is the ideal 3rd line C for the team.

I think the general feeling is that if a prospect hasn't made it to the NHL at 22 yet they start to feel the pressure to step up and take charge.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
05-01-2004, 04:12 PM
  #4
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Really? I saw it at the end of the paragraph and it seemed like the qualifying statement on how he felt about taking 18year olds and how long he gives them to develope.

I do bow to your interpretation of it though because it seemed an amazing thing for him to say.

One place I won't likely bother the Kings on is our scouting and drafting. I fancy us as having more NHL type players in their system than allot of teams do and it is due to them in part.

Now, as to how they are used on the Kings, that is another story...

punchy1 is offline  
Old
05-01-2004, 06:41 PM
  #5
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 punchy1
This is dead interesting.

"When you take a hockey player at 18 years old, we give them two more years of junior and maybe two years in the American League. At 22 years old, if he hasn't made it to the NHL, he is considered a bust".


We have the following "busts" coming up.

21 year olds.

Grebeshkov

Rome

Zaba

22 year olds

Karlson

Hogeboom

James

Steckel

Cammelleri

Petiot

I reckon that these lads will be busts if they don't make it this year?


I were shocked by that because we have several players who have made it in the NHL and to the Kings after the age of 22.
Not only what ZS said, but the only player of that list that is coming out of juniors in Rome and he hasn't hit 22 yet. The others (except for Grebs and Karlsson) are coming out of college and usually don't graduate until they're 22 or 23. Add to that a couple of years in the AHL and they get pushed back until the age of 24 or 25. This is one of the reasons why DT likes college (and european) players - they get additional years of development while in college (or europe) that the organization does not need to pay for nor is obligated to risk signing them to a contract. It's kind of the "Moneyball" approach to drafting for hockey.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
05-01-2004, 07:58 PM
  #6
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
True, but what I were saying is that Al Murrays statement were based on his opinion of what should happen when they draft an 18 year old in general. By the time they are 22 if they aren't starting to show themselves at the NHL in some way, he used to term bust.

All of those players are either going to be 21 or older before or during next season, that is why is used them.

I also brought this up to point out how ridiculous it is for those of us who say that a player is a bust if they aren't in the NHL by the time they are 25 as was said by a couple of our less informed members recently.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
05-02-2004, 12:33 AM
  #7
johnjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
punchy1, I'm puzzled. Are you deliberately misrepresenting Al Murray's point? Someone already pointed out that Murray was contrasting his longer term view with that of the NBA's prospect view and that of others. Someone already pointed out that Murray immediately discussed O'Donnell and Boucher, who too until they were 25 or 26. Why are you still choosing to push the opinion that Murray thinks guys are a bust at 22 if they're not full time NHL'ers?

johnjohn is offline  
Old
05-02-2004, 12:49 AM
  #8
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
First, welcome to the boards. I don't know you so as I said, nice to meet you.

I too am puzzled. I think you are misinterpreting what I have said about this situation. I mean, I have already explained that I found what Al said to be as part of his opinion on when the team drafts 18 year olds and that the players he talks about later aren't part of the next group he is talking about.

I have said that it is only interesting and that I too am certain that he isn't saying that ALL 22 year olds who aren't in the NHL are going to be busts.

I also have said that it is more the notion that he said anything like that at all about any players that I found interesting. I mean, it is alright for me to have the opinion that a great scout like AL can make some interesting statements. The notion that ANY player would be "a bust" at the age of 22 after four years of developement under any circumstances is an odd thing to say. That is my point.

Does that help or are you just having a piss?

Either way mate, welcome aboard. Your opinion is only as valid as mine or anyone elses, I just think you aren't understanding what I am saying about the situation.


Last edited by punchy1: 05-02-2004 at 01:03 AM.
punchy1 is offline  
Old
05-02-2004, 05:00 PM
  #9
johnjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punchy1
I mean, I have already explained that I found what Al said to be as part of his opinion on when the team drafts 18 year olds and that the players he talks about later aren't part of the next group he is talking about.
Why? It's the very next sentence out of his mouth. He states that he thinks NHL development is closer to MLB development, where a 24 to 25 year old guy is considered a good prospect. Then he states that at 22, prospects are considered busts. Then right away points out guys the Kings developed who shouldn't have been considered busts just because they weren't in the NHL at 22.

Quote:
I have said that it is only interesting and that I too am certain that he isn't saying that ALL 22 year olds who aren't in the NHL are going to be busts.
It strikes me as absolutely obvious that Al Murray is -incredulous- that NHL prospects are considered busts at 22. You can see that reflected in the Kings aquisitions: Brad Smyth, Steve Kelly, etc.

johnjohn is offline  
Old
05-02-2004, 06:58 PM
  #10
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjohn
Why? It's the very next sentence out of his mouth. He states that he thinks NHL development is closer to MLB development, where a 24 to 25 year old guy is considered a good prospect. Then he states that at 22, prospects are considered busts. Then right away points out guys the Kings developed who shouldn't have been considered busts just because they weren't in the NHL at 22.



It strikes me as absolutely obvious that Al Murray is -incredulous- that NHL prospects are considered busts at 22. You can see that reflected in the Kings aquisitions: Brad Smyth, Steve Kelly, etc.

You are still missin my point mate.

I am not saying, no you know what, forget it mate. It isn't worth explaining again. Sorry we have different understandings this time. Maybe we can get further on the next one.

Cheers.

punchy1 is offline  
Old
05-02-2004, 10:05 PM
  #11
maximil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 281
vCash: 500
ziggy stardust: thanks for the post it was an interesting read.

punchy1: you are misrepresenting al murray's point.

johnjohn: i like this site, there are a lot of really die hard hockey people who post here, but sometimes you have to put up with some of the noise that comes along with it.

maximil is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 12:29 AM
  #12
johnjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 35
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by punchy1
You are still missin my point mate.
No, I think I got it. You think the quote is "interesting."

johnjohn is offline  
Old
05-03-2004, 09:30 AM
  #13
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximil
ziggy stardust: thanks for the post it was an interesting read.

punchy1: you are misrepresenting al murray's point.

johnjohn: i like this site, there are a lot of really die hard hockey people who post here, but sometimes you have to put up with some of the noise that comes along with it.

No, I am not. I am saying that Al Murray actually did say that there are scenarios that some drafted players *can* be considered busts before they reach the age of 25 in the NHL and in other sports. Not that he feels that ALL 22 year olds are busts but that in some scenarios, people in this and other sports feel that it is a four year average for players who are drafted at the age of 18 to start producing something at an NHL level.

I have never said that Al Murray feels all players over the age of 22 are busts. So, I didn't misrepresent what he said. I simply said it is an interesting thing to hear from ANY NHL front office type that under any circumstances that any player could be considered a bust for any reason by the age of 22.

Now this is rubbish as I am **NOT** saying anything bad about Murray, I have said how great a job he does, I ** AM** saying that I think it is worth noting that there are somtimes age limits set on SOME players in EVERY SPORT including hockey and that it is interesting to me.

Thats all mates. Simply an observation that I found noteworthy. I respect and appreciate the fact that some don't see it the same way but I am not misrepresenting anyone or bashing anyone either. Easy Peasy right?

Cheers then.

punchy1 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 06:30 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.