April 8th, 2009, 10:43 PM #31
I think that anyone who has been a fan of this team for an appreciable amount of time is on board with the concept of stocking the cupboard and I believe that we're going to see some interesting moves by DL this summer in that regard.
What is truly exciting to me is the way his drafts are turning out. It is unbelievable to me that from what was in essence Dean Lombardi's first draft as GM of the Kings (we all know that he was relying on Al Murray in 2006), he gets 2 guys in the second round (Simmonds and Moller) who have already made the team and appear as though they will have productive NHL careers.
In the last 30 years, the Kings have been absolutely pathetic in terms of success with second round picks. During that time they have drafted 8 players out of 28 (22%) who went on to have a career in the NHL (some better than others).
The 8 players consisted of Hardy, Hopkins, Terrion, Kennedy, Fitzpatrick, Johnson, Lilja, and Cammalleri.
Here are the guys that didn't pan out (or don't appear to have).
80: Dave Morrison
82: Mike Heidt
84: Brian Wilks
85: Par Edlund (my personal favorite)
88: Paul Holden
89: Brent Thompson
90: Brandy semchuk
91: Guy Leveque
92: Justin Hocking
93: Shayne Toporowski
95: Donald MacLean
96: Marian Cisar
97: Scott Barney
98: Justin Papineau
99: Andrei Shefer
02: Sergei Anshakov
03: Konstantin Pushkarev
05: Danny Roussin
05: T.J. Fast
06: Joe Ryan
So when you see that DL has seemingly gone 2 for 2 in the second round of that 2007 draft (and now possibly 3 for 3 considering Voinov in 2008), it's exciting to think about the prospects for the future.
It's one thing to acquire all these draft picks in the first place, but by actually making the right calls at the draft table, this organization will be taken to a whole new level.
Yes, I am an optomist.
April 9th, 2009, 12:00 AM #32
To be fair, that's what I believe to be on par. Based on what I've read from different places, about 25% of guys drafted in the second round between 1990 and 99 made it to the NHL. That number is probably slightly higher before 1990, and could even be lower for the current decade.
Originally Posted by CUP4LA
I'm not disagreeing with you, just providing some perspective.
Oh, and 8 out of 28 is actually closer to 29%.
April 9th, 2009, 07:10 AM #33
My point wasn't about how well or poorly the Kings have drafted in the second round. so much as how much better things are looking under Lombardi.
Originally Posted by Defgarden
But if you want to look at 1990-1999 the Kings went 2 out of 11 (18%) which is well below par.
April 9th, 2009, 07:18 AM #34
Nice post Ges.
It seems as though you're advocating the stance of trading/signing free agents to fill the gaps, so I guess the antithesis of your theory would be Detroit(?). The majority of Detroit players were drafted and developed in Detroit's system and they have only a handful of trade/free agent signings.
April 9th, 2009, 08:32 AM #35
April 9th, 2009, 08:43 AM #36
That was brilliant Ges. I think you just need to mantra from what about Bob?
I want, I want, I need, I need.
Oh wait, I mean, Baby Steps.
April 9th, 2009, 09:03 AM #37
that reminds me, i should really get back to finishing the songs i've been working on...
Originally Posted by CBGB
tough to say. i think there can be a few "what if?" arguments that could be made for keeping Sundin and Nolan as well... a number of teams HAVE been able to win the Stanley Cup without Patrick Roy. they may not have won that first title in 1996, but i mean how would that team have fared in the following couple of seasons with good goaltending and having as nearly an indomitable forward unit as Detroit's?
a post is a post is a post.
given the economics of the game today, i'm less concerned with number of free agents. you really aren't going to build any team to look exactly like a previous champion... cover bands suck. you can resemble aspects of those that came before you and emulate their approach. the rub is, that approach is the same whether you are Colorado, Detroit, Nashville or whomever else isn't the New York Rangers.
Originally Posted by Greg33
make NO mistake homeslice, that team is a goaltender and perhaps a mid-level/age-second phase defenseman away from being a threat again... maybe, definitely not a champion, but a team that can hurt you.
Originally Posted by Greg33
they still have a very VERY strong veteran group and a pretty good, young nucleus that has guys like Stastny, Hensick and Stoa up the middle, Wolski and Stewart on the wing and Cumisky, Shattenkirk and Williams on defense... now they may not all pan out, but there's definitely talent there to go with the gruff of guys like Guite, the McCheckers and Ian Laperriere.
not too bad for a team who has never really had a hard time manufacturing goal scorers. i took a ton of s*** on HF a couple of years ago when i suggested that it'd be in their best interest to move Milan Hejduk.
their biggest problem right now was that some moron must have thought Patrick Roy was going to play forever, and as a result, they have the worst goaltending depth in the league.
don't discount their defensive play, which was really the beginning of re-introducing the neutral zone trap that those old Montreal players learned a long time ago.
Originally Posted by santiclaws
three words: Frolov Dynamo Moscow
Originally Posted by Wolvie
curious to know why you're intrigued?
i'm fairly positive you won't find too much deviation between teams when you begin to break it down.
Originally Posted by Dr. No
April 10th, 2009, 07:41 PM #38
you mean Thibault, right...?
Originally Posted by CBGB