Jason Lewis: The Kings Model of Drafting to an Identity

I can almost write the thread that will be appearing, below, myself...

I can almost write the thread that will be appearing, below, myself...
- Only_A_Ladd

See you on the other side

given the hits with the "identity" type players, you wonder what the thought processes were for guys like moller, loktionov, etc that clearly don't fit those molds yet they're also not as potentially high end enough to compensate as a lottery pick would be.

then there's the spotty reaches with hickey, forbort, teubert, etc...

definitely more hits than misses under DL. now we just need to keep more high picks!

Toffoli fits perfectly with both skill/identity and that's what kings are trying to hit on. Like kopi/carts/drew/muzz ect. Hoping amadio and kempe can fit that mold .. Think mersch/auger have more upside then King?

Toffoli fits perfectly with both skill/identity and that's what kings are trying to hit on. Like kopi/carts/drew/muzz ect. Hoping amadio and kempe can fit that mold .. Think mersch/auger have more upside then King?
- Jmoogs

Similar, not much more

Very good read. I agree that most people won't see the Kings depth as top of the line talent but for the organization the prospects fit into the system very well. It's how two championships were accomplished. They may not have that highly skilled forward or that Dman that can score 80pts a year but they have the guys that play very sound two way games and play an all around team game which is how Kings hockey is played.

Hockeysfuture.com places LA's prospect pool at #26:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/

That was also done before Zykov (whom they rated as the organization's #3 prospect) was traded and before most teams (but not LA) improved their pools by adding 2016 1st-round draft picks.

Bleacher Report, which did its analysis after the draft (i.e. only a month and a half ago), places LA's prospect pool at #30:

http://bleacherreport.com...every-teams-prospect-pool

Now, you can argue that they don't understand the team's prospects as well as a fan does and that they under-appreciate the value of "identity" and "fit," but they're also unbiased, which a fan cannot say. I bet that just about every fanbase would grade its prospect pool as better than is represented in either of the reports above, believing that their knowledge as fans makes them right. They can't all be right, though, and most are likely wrong, since they're naturally inclined to be optimistic. You can't fault fans for being optimistic, but there's also a fine line between being optimistic and fooling oneself.

That said, having a good prospect pool is not necessarily the end-all if you already have a good team. I agree there. You might get by and extend your window simply by adding utility players. It doesn't make it a good prospect pool, though, and adding nothing but utility players isn't going to work for long. LA may not feel the pain of having a poor prospect pool right now, as they tread water with 3rd-liners who fit right in at the NHL level, but the pain will be felt eventually, when the window starts to close and those 3rd-liners aren't enough to keep it open. That's when they'll really need the quality prospects that they just don't currently have.

Hockeysfuture.com places LA's prospect pool at #26:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/

That was also done before Zykov (whom they rated as the organization's #3 prospect) was traded and before most teams (but not LA) improved their pools by adding 2016 1st-round draft picks.

Bleacher Report, which did its analysis after the draft (i.e. only a month and a half ago), places LA's prospect pool at #30:

http://bleacherreport.com...every-teams-prospect-pool

Now, you can argue that they don't understand the team's prospects as well as a fan does and that they under-appreciate the value of "identity" and "fit," but they're also unbiased, which a fan cannot say. I bet that just about every fanbase would grade its prospect pool as better than is represented in either of the reports above, believing that their knowledge as fans makes them right. They can't all be right, though, and most are likely wrong, since they're naturally inclined to be optimistic. You can't fault fans for being optimistic, but there's also a fine line between being optimistic and fooling oneself.

That said, having a good prospect pool is not necessarily the end-all if you already have a good team. I agree there. You might get by and extend your window simply by adding utility players. It doesn't make it a good prospect pool, though, and adding nothing but utility players isn't going to work for long. LA may not feel the pain of having a poor prospect pool right now, as they tread water with 3rd-liners who fit right in at the NHL level, but the pain will be felt eventually, when the window starts to close and those 3rd-liners aren't enough to keep it open. That's when they'll really need the quality prospects that they just don't currently have.
- Osprey

I worked on the panel of writers on Hockey's Future that slotted the Kings at 26. Was involved in practically all of the team rankings for the past 3-4 years.

If you have any questions on the process or how they came up in that position feel free to ask.

By the way there are never unanimous slottings on those. If I recall we had a few people putting them in at around 18-20 (Which I think is fair) but a few put them in at 28-30. So, it does happen, and I think an understanding of how the team postions themselves to fill gaps with prospects is important. Hard to know that unless you REALLY follow the team drafting and organizational set up closely. It can happen with basically any team. Kings are not alone. I've probably rated too many teams lower than need be on the HF panels.

And as a matter of opinion, I don't agree with Willis. He mentions Kempe, yes, but fails entirely to mention Mersch, Dowd, Amadio, Watson, and Auger. All of whom should have NHL futures to some degree.