Another great Yannetti interview

[Statue4Deano]

Good stuff starts about 14:30
Mark goes deeper into past team draft philosophy than ever before. Some topics he hits on including having a mandate from above to come out of the 2019 draft with 2 Fs and 1 D in their first 3 picks. The room being split on Hickey in 2007. Missing out on drafting/developing Nazem Kadri. Tyler Myers being the pick in 2008 until Dean overruled everyone and took Teubert.

Very entertaining interview as always.

 

[Clif]

Good stuff starts about 14:30
Mark goes deeper into past team draft philosophy than ever before. Some topics he hits on including having a mandate from above to come out of the 2019 draft with 2 Fs and 1 D in their first 3 picks. The room being split on Hickey in 2007. Missing out on drafting/developing Nazem Kadri. Tyler Myers being the pick in 2008 until Dean overruled everyone and took Teubert.

Very entertaining interview as always.

Very interesting. Appreciated him explaining that drafting on need vs. best player available was a big mistake with both Hickey and Bjornfot. He’s talked about both players in previous interviews but I hadn’t heard him admit both players were taken over better options because the team was light on D at the time.

 

[LAKingSteve]

He's always a good interview.

 

[Bollocks]

Very interesting. Appreciated him explaining that drafting on need vs. best player available was a big mistake with both Hickey and Bjornfot. He’s talked about both players in previous interviews but I hadn’t heard him admit both players were taken over better options because the team was light on D at the time.

You can't go 100% BPA. If a goalie happens to be a BPA twice in a draft and you already have 2 good prospects in the pipeline, you don't draft a goalie. If your pipeline is loaded with skilled wingers that were BPAs, where will they play to develop and eventually showcase their skill?

BPA is only applicable in a limited scope. And it's hardly an objective subject as to who is the BPA, is it? QB at that point was a higher upside player in a position of need. Stutzle was a surefire, more NHL ready player in a position that isn't as hard to fill. Of course you take QB.

Teubert vs. Myers is hindsight. Teubert was highly touted. Some viewed his ceiling as a Pronger-lite type of player.

The problem DL had was drafting too much character and not enough top end talent, not "not taking the BPA". Who was the BPA at Hickey's draft pick? Alzner? Gagner?

 

[santiclaws]

Good interview. And we now know Holland is on a three-year deal, as suspected.

 

[Clif]

You can't go 100% BPA. If a goalie happens to be a BPA twice in a draft and you already have 2 good prospects in the pipeline, you don't draft a goalie. If your pipeline is loaded with skilled wingers that were BPAs, where will they play to develop and eventually showcase their skill?

BPA is only applicable in a limited scope. And it's hardly an objective subject as to who is the BPA, is it? QB at that point was a higher upside player in a position of need. Stutzle was a surefire, more NHL ready player in a position that isn't as hard to fill. Of course you take QB.

Teubert vs. Myers is hindsight. Teubert was highly touted. Some viewed his ceiling as a Pronger-lite type of player.

The problem DL had was drafting too much character and not enough top end talent, not "not taking the BPA". Who was the BPA at Hickey's draft pick? Alzner? Gagner?

He never talked about picking BPA 100% of the time, I am just noting two times where he said not doing so really bit them. Re: the Hickey pick, Yanetti said his choice would have been Shattenkirk. He also mentioned Voracek. He said they expected Hickey to be picked 14-18. Voracek alone was a clear better player.

This was a pick made because they were light on D, but Hickey never even played one game for the Kings because by the time he was NHL ready there wasn’t even a roster spot for him.

Almost every draft pick takes years to develop, with D taking longer than forwards. Picking by need is still necessary to a degree regarding filling a pipeline, but the draft is not the place to address areas of weakness in the present.

 

[Bollocks]

He never talked about picking BPA 100% of the time, I am just noting two times where he said not doing so really bit them. Re: the Hickey pick, Yanetti said his choice would have been Shattenkirk. He also mentioned Voracek. He said they expected Hickey to be picked 14-18. Voracek alone was a clear better player.

This was a pick made because they were light on D, but Hickey never even played one game for the Kings because by the time he was NHL ready there wasn’t even a roster spot for him.

Almost every draft pick takes years to develop, with D taking longer than forwards. Picking by need is still necessary to a degree regarding filling a pipeline, but the draft is not the place to address areas of weakness in the present.

Sorry, I didn't listen to the interview, just wanted to chime in regarding the BPA philosophy.

Shattenkirk is also a defenseman. IMO it was simply a (in hindsight irrational) preference of high-character players on Lombardi's side. I'm sure that from Dean's perspective Hickey WAS a "BPA", it's just that his criteria for valuing players was somewhat flawed.

I'm sure they had quite a lot of knowledge of Hickey since Bud Holloway was his teammate in the season before Hickey was drafted. Hickey's trajectory in juniors was actually very very good, then he even captained the Canada U20 team after being drafted. He later quickly became an ass. captain in Monarchs. IMO they thought he was the perfect "safe pick" for a top 4 D (which isn't bad at all even for #4 overall) and it was smooth sailing until he plateaued in the AHL and then went on to have a somewhat underwhelming NHL career with another team. Similarly to Bjornfot I guess. IMO it was just tough luck with both of these picks. They didn't show up on time to make an impact so they had to go and make it elsewhere.

 

[Clif]

Sorry, I didn't listen to the interview, just wanted to chime in regarding the BPA philosophy.

Shattenkirk is also a defenseman. IMO it was simply a (in hindsight irrational) preference of high-character players on Lombardi's side. I'm sure that from Dean's perspective Hickey WAS a "BPA", it's just that his criteria for valuing players was somewhat flawed.

I'm sure they had quite a lot of knowledge of Hickey since Bud Holloway was his teammate in the season before Hickey was drafted. Hickey's trajectory in juniors was actually very very good, then he even captained the Canada U20 team after being drafted. He later quickly became an ass. captain in Monarchs. IMO they thought he was the perfect "safe pick" for a top 4 D (which isn't bad at all even for #4 overall) and it was smooth sailing until he plateaued in the AHL and then went on to have a somewhat underwhelming NHL career with another team. Similarly to Bjornfot I guess. IMO it was just tough luck with both of these picks. They didn't show up on time to make an impact so they had to go and make it elsewhere.

I’d suggest listening to the interview. It’s really good.

What you’re saying is interesting but it’s just not what Yanetti said which is what I posted about in the first place. He explicitly said there were better players available in both cases.

Bjornfot was interesting too. Hoven said Blake wanted to picked 2 forwards and 1 D in 2019 because again, they were thin on D. Yanetti responded by saying they should have picked 3 forwards.

Dean overruled the scouts on Hickey, as he did on Teubert. Blake did so with Bjornfot. GMs lead with ideology. But I trust the Director of scouting, backed by his team, when he says a pick wasn’t BPA. Again, doesn’t mean you only pick BPA 100% of the time, but if you’re looking back and assessing failures as Yanetti was doing in discussing the aforementioned picks, it’s fair to say when not doing so played a part.

 

[Pickle_Pucks]

I wish our playoff performances were as good as Yannetti's interviews.

 

[santiclaws]

I wish our playoff performances were as good as Yannetti's interviews.

At a minimum they'd last longer

 

[Statue4Deano]

You can't go 100% BPA. If a goalie happens to be a BPA twice in a draft and you already have 2 good prospects in the pipeline, you don't draft a goalie. If your pipeline is loaded with skilled wingers that were BPAs, where will they play to develop and eventually showcase their skill?

BPA is only applicable in a limited scope. And it's hardly an objective subject as to who is the BPA, is it? QB at that point was a higher upside player in a position of need. Stutzle was a surefire, more NHL ready player in a position that isn't as hard to fill. Of course you take QB.

Teubert vs. Myers is hindsight. Teubert was highly touted. Some viewed his ceiling as a Pronger-lite type of player.

Listen to Yannetti’s own words. Only 1 man in the Kings draft room projected Teubert as Pronger-lite. And it just so happened that man had final say. Lombardi had to go against all of his scouts. Tyler Myers was the right choice. It’s not like anyone is saying the Kings should’ve drafted Roman Josi at 12.

I mean they definitely should have drafted Josi but THAT’S hindsight. Drafting the guy most scouting services projected right outside the top 10 at #12 isn’t exactly a teach.

Teubert was projected as low ceiling middle of the 1st round pick. There were questions about his hockey sense and his offensive skills. Historically defenseman with his profile fall in the draft. The questions about him were answered as soon as he turned pro. He never developed NHL hockey sense and he never developed any offensive skills.