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. The rule of thumb in a draft is to take the best player available. Stamkos is that player. After drafting him I would evaluate his ability and potential at the
The rule of thumb in a draft is to take the best player available. Stamkos is that player. After drafting him I would evaluate his ability and potential at the rookie training camp. If he is the blue chipper people say he is DL can ship off one of the other Kings assets like Cammy or Forlov and a pick for a young d-man. Or if Stamkos isn't as skilled as they thought they can ship him off to some team looking for a new face for their organization. But the Kings need to still take a shot at a player that is capable of being a superstar. A team can never have too many quality superstars! Although players like Cammy and Frolov good, they are expendable to make room for a potential superstar like Stamkos. Drafting a young D-man (although capable and may fill a need) when there is a clear cut standout like Stamkos it doesn't seem to be the smart move to pass on him.
Pick up the best player available and match his potential against the players in your organization. if he doesn't fit into your long term plans you can always ship him later. Superstars come along so rarely it is worth the chance!
CBGB
If you do get the 1st pick in the draft…? Stamkos? Or Trade it?
DEAN LOMBARDI
I leave tomorrow, I start in Boston and I go through Ontario. This is still a work in progress on how good these kids are. Here’s what happens. Lets just say you’ve got Stamkos who is clearly the best player available, lets just say that’s the case. The line is parted, there’s no question. You probably take the best asset even though we’ve got those holes, right?
But if that line starts getting a little blurry, lets say, hypothetically, that Doughty’s pretty good and the line gets blurred now. That’s how you mark that position. Then I go back to the other things. Part of the value of the player is how much he contributes to winning. It’s not only how good he is but which player has the biggest impact on winning and losing if they’re in the same group.
This is the analysis you have to go through. If that gets blurred, now I gotta say “you see what Niedermeyer and Pronger do”. That’s a classic example of defenseman. Then, you look at our holes and you go “Ooh, that’s not pretty” and you have to make a decision. That’s the thought process and that’ll have to play out. It’s not easy.
In answer to your other question, I’m not sure how far you would want to go down. The one thing that is probably fairly apparent is the potential of those top guys is not one where you would say “give me two guys HERE” are worth one guy here. You could do that a lot at drafts, particularly if you get here and now you’re picking here you might. But on this one???
That happened once, I forget which draft, I think it was Hershel Walker, they went to the team that had the 1st or 2nd pick and said “I’ll give you every one of my draft picks”
(Ricky Williams)
Yeah, but it did happen in hockey once, and this year, somebody might do that but I think most people probably won’t take it. Other years when it was Phillips, Zyuzin, those guys….
Well there was some nonsense about trading Frolov. Cammi's far more replaceable than he is but I don't want to lose either. If we do, I agree with your point that they should be for players already in the NHL (I think that was one of your points)