You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by Wolvie
I think some people are underestimating the '09 draft. The '08 draft is supposedly comparable in talent to '03. The '09 draft may exceed that. It'
I think some people are underestimating the '09 draft. The '08 draft is supposedly comparable in talent to '03. The '09 draft may exceed that. It's not just about "getting a shot at Tavares" and, truly, it would be stupid to plan around the poor odds of getting him (or Hedman, si vous plait). But it's the idea that if you bump yourself into the 1st round of '09, you will get something good and you might get something truly special by virtue of its generational talent up top and its tremendous depth.
Of course, most of the GM's are probably well aware of this. Much like 1st rounders this year were a bit harder to come by, GM's will probably hoard '09 1st rounders as well.
But, do you value a top 5 pick in 08 more than say the 10th in 09?
The top end, Tavares, may be a generaional talent but even in the deepest drafts, I don't think many would project the 8-12 guys as better than the 2-4 guys in this draft.
Obviously you can't say for sure where the Kings will draft in 09, but if you plan on improvement they'll be out of the top 3 picks and thus out of what would considered generational talent. Maybe they draft 4 or 5 but even then, is 09 going to be that much better in that slot? Probably not. This is a very good and deep draft this summer (especially at defense, which the kings need) and while 09 might be better overall, you can't know you'll get more in 09, so its about maximizing value for the team. Getting another top 5 pick this year may very well fill a big hole in the Kings system. Sure they can fill that hole next year, but thats an entire season away and you don't know that a guy you really like will be there for you with your pick in 09. If there is a guy you really like sitting there and your first next year is the primary cost to get him, I think you have to do it. Maybe you can package your later pick for an 09 pick or make a deal during the season. But if you DL and a dman you seriously considered taking with the first overall pick is right there and you can get him for your first in 09 and something not from the core, I'm not sure you can pass on that.
I'm not opposed to trading out of the '09 draft if there's someone THAT desirable within reach. I just don't see too many teams at the top of this draft that can afford the delayed gratification of giving up their 1st this year.
Also, philosophically, I don't think you deal any 1st round picks until you've got a sustainable playoff team. That's not us. We might not be a high-lottery team again next year, but the farm system is not that deep in certain areas and needs to be replenished not necessarily all at once, but continually over time.
And I don't think it makes sense to use every pick we have this year, either. That's a lot of guys to sign down the road, and it complicates the contact-limit situation. Granted, there may be a lot of spots with the addition of another ECHL club. But you're not going to populate it immediately with guys from this draft, anyway. There are other ways to fill an ECHL team.
I'm not opposed to trading out of the '09 draft if there's someone THAT desirable within reach. I just don't see too many teams at the top of this draft that can afford the delayed gratification of giving up their 1st this year.
Also, philosophically, I don't think you deal any 1st round picks until you've got a sustainable playoff team. That's not us. We might not be a high-lottery team again next year, but the farm system is not that deep in certain areas and needs to be replenished not necessarily all at once, but continually over time.
And I don't think it makes sense to use every pick we have this year, either. That's a lot of guys to sign down the road, and it complicates the contact-limit situation. Granted, there may be a lot of spots with the addition of another ECHL club. But you're not going to populate it immediately with guys from this draft, anyway. There are other ways to fill an ECHL team.
As a general rule, I don't like trading first round picks either but in the setup outlined in this thread, going for a Doughty, Shenn or whichever dman it is that DL likes the best would make sense to me. Plus, I don't consider it the same as trading a first round pick for a player since it is a first round pick they are getting in this setup, so the number of first round picks taken by the kings doesn't change.
I'm not against the Kings taking all their picks this year because the contracts wouldn't all be offered/signed in the same year based on when the players leave college/juniors/euorpe and thus the players are still going to be somewhat spread out. That said, I would hope they could package some of those picks to move up and get a guy they really like. Or if the above happens, package some to move to 09 to give the team more depth of picks next year since the first would have been moved to this year.
I think some people are underestimating the '09 draft. The '08 draft is supposedly comparable in talent to '03. The '09 draft may exceed that. It's not just about "getting a shot at Tavares" and, truly, it would be stupid to plan around the poor odds of getting him (or Hedman, s'il vous plait). But it's the idea that if you bump yourself into the 1st round of '09, you will get something good and you might get something truly special by virtue of its generational talent up top and its tremendous depth.
Of course, most of the GM's are probably well aware of this. Much like 1st rounders this year were a bit harder to come by, GM's will probably hoard '09 1st rounders as well.
To be honest, I don't know much about the depth of next year's draft. However, and maybe I am OVERestimating the draw of 09 draft and the chance to draft Tavares, with the Kings finishing near the bottom in recent years, our 09 1st round pick would carry a lot of significance and clout.
I guess I started this thread based on that premise. That OUR 09 1st round pick is to be desired. We have not secured a #1 goalie at this point, we finish near the bottom quite frequently in recent years, etc...
That being said, I was thinking that it might be possible to quicken the rebuild process by trading that 09 1st (by itself or even packaged with Cammy, prospects, "enter your player(s) or additional lower picks here") for the needed D men or top 5 pick now. How many of you would complain about trading our 09 1st + fill in the blank to Nashville for say Suter and their 1st in 08...If you have to give up our 09 1st, a prospect, and/or some other lower picks, I think you do that. Think about it. Best case scenario, we get Stamkos, Suter and a top D-man from this draft (Douthy, Schenn, etc) and give up the 09 1st, Cammy or whomever (outside of our core).
I stink at making trade proposals, but I gues my thought process is that OUR 1st round pick in 09 seems like it could be VERY profitable for us because it is such a great player at the #1 spot and given our propensity lately to finish near the bottom.
we could potentially have a chance to shore up some our major holes on D in one draft with a little outside the box thinking. So you give up a potentially good chance at Tavares. I think you do that if the price coming back to us is right. Let's face it. We won't being winning any lotteries anytime soon, and definitely not to get into 1st! The Kings never seem to catch a break anyways.
Just my thoughts. Open to discuss for sure! Thanks for all your insights!
But, do you value a top 5 pick in 08 more than say the 10th in 09?
The top end, Tavares, may be a generaional talent but even in the deepest drafts, I don't think many would project the 8-12 guys as better than the 2-4 guys in this draft.
Obviously you can't say for sure where the Kings will draft in 09, but if you plan on improvement they'll be out of the top 3 picks and thus out of what would considered generational talent. Maybe they draft 4 or 5 but even then, is 09 going to be that much better in that slot? Probably not. This is a very good and deep draft this summer (especially at defense, which the kings need) and while 09 might be better overall, you can't know you'll get more in 09, so its about maximizing value for the team. Getting another top 5 pick this year may very well fill a big hole in the Kings system. Sure they can fill that hole next year, but thats an entire season away and you don't know that a guy you really like will be there for you with your pick in 09. If there is a guy you really like sitting there and your first next year is the primary cost to get him, I think you have to do it. Maybe you can package your later pick for an 09 pick or make a deal during the season. But if you DL and a dman you seriously considered taking with the first overall pick is right there and you can get him for your first in 09 and something not from the core, I'm not sure you can pass on that.
Trying to make it succinct, you're not really speeding up the rebuild by taking two guys at the top this year instead of one guy at the top this year and one guy at the top next year.
Firstly, those guys aren't likely to make an immediate impact. They'll need time to make a real contribution. Now, I'll grant you that there are exceptions - rare exceptions. That's why Lombardi has been sniffing around for a trade to get a developed young player, something more than a raw prospect. You can't count on a draft pick to save you now.
Let's say those guys you get make an immediate impact after all. You start the clock on that guy. You're now bunching up the talent in yoru talent pool. Everyone's on a clock nowadays, with free agency looming. There's a lot of young talent at a similar stage right now, and they're all going to need contracts and cap space. If you maintain talent at different stages of development (something Lombardi has clearly alluded to), you always keep a bullet in the chamber.
To put it another way, trading a future pick for a present pick is akin to mortgaging the future. It's not nearly as problematic as trading a future pick for a present rental, but that's what it does. It's longitudinal thinking instead of the quicker fix.
Trying to make it succinct, you're not really speeding up the rebuild by taking two guys at the top this year instead of one guy at the top this year and one guy at the top next year.
Firstly, those guys aren't likely to make an immediate impact. They'll need time to make a real contribution. Now, I'll grant you that there are exceptions - rare exceptions. That's why Lombardi has been sniffing around for a trade to get a developed young player, something more than a raw prospect. You can't count on a draft pick to save you now.
Let's say those guys you get make an immediate impact after all. You start the clock on that guy. You're now bunching up the talent in yoru talent pool. Everyone's on a clock nowadays, with free agency looming. There's a lot of young talent at a similar stage right now, and they're all going to need contracts and cap space. If you maintain talent at different stages of development (something Lombardi has clearly alluded to), you always keep a bullet in the chamber.
To put it another way, trading a future pick for a present pick is akin to mortgaging the future. It's not nearly as problematic as trading a future pick for a present rental, but that's what it does. It's longitudinal thinking instead of the quicker fix.
I know that not everyone shares my POV on this...
Where I see the flaw in your logic is that a pick next year somehow is a better fit long term than a pick this year. Both are young kids with potential and it is possible that who we draft this year could actually still be younger than who we would take next year.
As far as an immediate fix, thats not what I was getting at. I am talking about an immediate filling of a hole in the roster/depth a year quicker and still with a young player. Getting a 30+ year old would make no sense at all but getting a good young prospect or even better a young NHLer makes sense to me, even if it is at the cost of a first rounder because you aren't really sacrificing in age but rather adding a great young player a little faster than if you waited. Thats not to say it is always the right move, but if there is someone out that DL really thinks is a fit, wanting a pick next year should stop you from getting that guy now. Worry about getting a pick for next year later and get the guy you really want right now.
Where I see the flaw in your logic is that a pick next year somehow is a better fit long term than a pick this year. Both are young kids with potential and it is possible that who we draft this year could actually still be younger than who we would take next year.
As far as an immediate fix, thats not what I was getting at. I am talking about an immediate filling of a hole in the roster/depth a year quicker and still with a young player. Getting a 30+ year old would make no sense at all but getting a good young prospect or even better a young NHLer makes sense to me, even if it is at the cost of a first rounder because you aren't really sacrificing in age but rather adding a great young player a little faster than if you waited. Thats not to say it is always the right move, but if there is someone out that DL really thinks is a fit, wanting a pick next year should stop you from getting that guy now. Worry about getting a pick for next year later and get the guy you really want right now.
I agree with Wolvie. Contract years are critical and to the extent that they can be seperated out- you need to do that. Otherwise you get into a position where you may have to let a guy go because of the cap.
I agree with Wolvie. Contract years are critical and to the extent that they can be seperated out- you need to do that. Otherwise you get into a position where you may have to let a guy go because of the cap.
Agreed except that draft year does not directly determine contract year (it does have influence based on time, but we are only talking about a year here). If the Kings draft a college kid and don't give him a contract for 4 years till after he graduates or if they draft a Jr. kid and sign him the next day is more directly related to the player when comparin two draft years back to back ... if we were talking about a 3 year span difference here, I could understand that arguement.
Last edited by colorfinger; April 4th, 2008 at 02:08 PM.
It's not just the years to free agency, it's the years on the ELC. There's an enormous cap savings when you draft a kid that can play in the NHL under his ELC, and a pretty good one if you can extend him thereafter. This has an effect on everything else you do with the roster. Getting Kopitar and O'Sullivan-type production for less than $2 million under the cap is beautiful, and when we get to the point that we can contend, that cap savings will mean better depth, yearly, if we can keep the pipeline open.
But I'm not trying to overemphasize the value of spacing out these picks. There's an advantage, but like I said repeatedly it's not overwhelming. You can always trade your developed talent for talent at other levels, though here's where I'm going to try to get into Lombardi's head. How easy is it to trade for what you need? Seems like everyone agrees that we should try to get a young defenseman into the fold. But he's been trying for awhile now. We may be more reliant on a steady stream from our own system than we thought. Moreover, Lombardi values developing his own talent from the start.
So trade a future #1 for a present #1, it's not completely unreasonable. But remind me why it's an advantage worth the loss of value?
colorfinger
Thanks for all your insights!