Marner Watch

DryKing said:
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Yanetti has not drafted above average over his time with the Kings, so at what point does he get held accountable?

Is the answer to continue to strive for mediocrity by allowing the same group of leaders run the ship that has taken them nowhere in the past 10 seasons? If so the Kings Organization is doing a bang up job.
Click to expand...
I understood your point, and wasn't singling you out. Multiple people in the draft thread referred to Holland picking badly.

Also wasn't sure Yanetti was one of the "Misfits" mentioned. It's been rumored that Blake had a final say in who was drafted previous seasons too. Not defending Yanetti, as there hasn't been a real homerun in quite a while at the draft (Byfield being a work in progress).

I also agree that Luc, Marc, Dan & Uncle Phil need to go.
 
Clif said:
This comes up a lot here. Michael Amadio, Nick Dowd, and Mikey Eyssimont are all still playing. There is a long list of players drafted by the Kings under Yanetti who have 200+ game careers. The current roster has many young draftees playing impact roles.

I don’t believe the issue is drafting. I think Blake squandered assets. I’d like to know who has drafted significantly better than Yanetti and team given what’s available to them.

I’m not saying there aren’t any. Dallas and Tampa Bay are good answers. But given how readily the Kings drafting is described as average or worse by some posters here, let me know who else is clearly better. And also by what metric.
Click to expand...

I share this sentiment. IMO Blake era drafting was slightly better than Dean era drafting. Neither era was elite in terms of drafting but it was probably a fair bit above average.

I'd love to see statistics of average number of NHL games (and maybe points and sv.% if applicable, too) for each round, for all the NHL teams, for adjustable periods of years. Is this something that exists? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if one has the time and motivation...
 
Bollocks said:
I share this sentiment. IMO Blake era drafting was slightly better than Dean era drafting. Neither era was elite in terms of drafting but it was probably a fair bit above average.

I'd love to see statistics of average number of NHL games (and maybe points and sv.% if applicable, too) for each round, for all the NHL teams, for adjustable periods of years. Is this something that exists? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if one has the time and motivation...
Click to expand...
Yanetti’s measure for success, fwiw, is averaging 1.5 players per draft that play 200+ games in the NHL. Kings draftees are all over the league. Now, I understand the argument that none of the Kings picks have really “hit,” but I think that’s a pretty nuanced topic.

You can’t do too much better with a player drafted at 30 than Kempe, or a player in the fourth round than Mikey Anderson. Laf in the third round is a big success if not a steal. Roy has to be among of the best players taken in the seventh round in the last 15 years. I’d put Wolf ahead as of now but i’m not sure who else goes on that list.

Point being is that draft success is also tied to quality of player relative to the picks available. CHI had first overall and got Bedard, San Jose got Celebrini. Who was the consensus pick for NYR at 1 overall? Alex Lafreniere. Tough luck.

Kings’ biggest failure under Blake was Turcotte. Could you imagine a center under six foot being taken in the top 5 this year? Clearly Kings blew it with the likes of Kaliyev, Bjornfot, and Kupari, although at least the latter was used in a trade. A failed trade, but it’s more than we can say for the other two.

You won’t find too many Vegas draftees on their roster. Imagine if Blake packaged guys like Kaliyev and Bjornfot early on. Then they become pretty good picks if they lead to a serviceable roster player.

It’s hard ranking teams’ draft success because the range of what’s available for each varies dramatically. It’s been noted Kings have succeeded better with later picks than earlier picks. If they took Anderson or Laf late in the first round would we say they were taken too early relative to their contributions so far? I don’t think we would. So those aren’t just success for later picks, they’re home runs.

It’s a tough subject, so I’m genuinely curious what metrics people are using to make broad statements about average or even among worst in the league. It feels that’s based on feels. To the metrics you described, I don’t know if that’s available. I’d love to see what is out there to qualify this beyond Yanetti’s simplistic rule of thumb.
 
Bollocks said:
I'd love to see statistics of average number of NHL games (and maybe points and sv.% if applicable, too) for each round, for all the NHL teams, for adjustable periods of years. Is this something that exists? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if one has the time and motivation...
Click to expand...

thehockeywriters.com

Success Rates of NHL Draft Picks - The Hockey Writers NHL Entry Draft Latest News, Analysis & More

Scouting and luck combine to make for a successful draft in the NHL. Here are the success rates of the top 32 picks & each individual round.
thehockeywriters.com thehockeywriters.com
 
Statue4Deano said:
thehockeywriters.com

Success Rates of NHL Draft Picks - The Hockey Writers NHL Entry Draft Latest News, Analysis & More

Scouting and luck combine to make for a successful draft in the NHL. Here are the success rates of the top 32 picks & each individual round.
thehockeywriters.com thehockeywriters.com
Click to expand...

That's general success rate. Ehat I would like to see is how Kings scouting fares compared to the rest of the league in the last 15 or so years...so, since the scouting revamp under Lombardi.

And I'd also like to compare the era when Futa was co-director and then when he wasn't anymore. That would be an easier task but maybe someone has done it already.
 
Bollocks said:
I share this sentiment. IMO Blake era drafting was slightly better than Dean era drafting. Neither era was elite in terms of drafting but it was probably a fair bit above average.

I'd love to see statistics of average number of NHL games (and maybe points and sv.% if applicable, too) for each round, for all the NHL teams, for adjustable periods of years. Is this something that exists? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out if one has the time and motivation...
Click to expand...
I can't remember now where I have seen them, but you're correct - these stats exist, and the Kings' drafting has been well above average.
 
Bollocks said:
That's general success rate. Ehat I would like to see is how Kings scouting fares compared to the rest of the league in the last 15 or so years...so, since the scouting revamp under Lombardi.

And I'd also like to compare the era when Futa was co-director and then when he wasn't anymore. That would be an easier task but maybe someone has done it already.
Click to expand...
I’ve yet to find a detailed comparison like that.

Here’s an examination from last season looking at the draft years 2010-2019.
www.sportsnet.ca

Which NHL teams have been most successful at the draft?

This series will take a look at how teams have performed in the draft and how those picks are shaping the NHL today. This isn’t meant to be a deep evaluation of how teams develop and build their rosters. Instead, it is a look at which teams have shown to be the best at identifying players in the...
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca

I don’t have the data at hand but when you add in drafts 2007-2009 the Kings are in the top 3.
 
DryKing said:
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Yanetti has not drafted above average over his time with the Kings, so at what point does he get held accountable?

Is the answer to continue to strive for mediocrity by allowing the same group of leaders run the ship that has taken them nowhere in the past 10 seasons? If so the Kings Organization is doing a bang up job.
Click to expand...
Yanetti and the Kings are considered up there with best in class when it comes to draft stats. One key measure is guys that have played 200 games and the Kings are cream of the crop (depending on timeframe). To me, the issue is that the Kings are rarely in a place where they can draft a home run player as they usually draft towards the end of the last round. The exceptions being Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke. 2 of those 3 should be standout NHL players and the 3rd is still TBD, if he can meet expectations following concussion issues. Here's an unbiased opinion from an "expert" in the draft field.

 
Clif said:
This comes up a lot here. Michael Amadio, Nick Dowd, and Mikey Eyssimont are all still playing. There is a long list of players drafted by the Kings under Yanetti who have 200+ game careers. The current roster has many young draftees playing impact roles.

I don’t believe the issue is drafting. I think Blake squandered assets. I’d like to know who has drafted significantly better than Yanetti and team given what’s available to them.

I’m not saying there aren’t any. Dallas and Tampa Bay are good answers. But given how readily the Kings drafting is described as average or worse by some posters here, let me know who else is clearly better. And also by what metric.
Click to expand...
Yanetti is in the average range which I can't fully hold him accountable for as he has been overruled by GMs in the past, but being overruled has both helped and hurt him. This draft, however, was extremely vanilla, as though he was going for lower ceiling safe picks, and he had full control over it. Our 1st round pick was not bad, but it was a reach and there were better options available (still I like the pick). I like our 3rd and 5th round picks, and I'll give him credit for taking a gamble with our 120th overall but for a team that needs size I do not see it addressed in even the slightest.

Still time will tell.

Los Angeles Kings​

ROUNDOVERALLNAMEPOSCOUNTRYHTWTTEAM
131Henry BrzustewiczDUSA6-2203London (OHL)
259Vojtech CiharLWCZE6-1180Karlovy Vary (Czechia)
388Kristian EppersonLWUSA6-0180Saginaw (OHL)
4120Caeden HerringtonDUSA6-2204Lincoln (USHL)
4125Jimmy LombardiCCAN6-0175Flint (OHL)
5152Petteri RimpinenGFIN6-0176K-Espoo (Finland)
6184Jan ChovanCSVK6-3190Tappara Jr. (Finland Jr.)
7196Brendan McMorrowCUSA6-0173Waterloo (USHL)
7216William SharpeDCAN6-0195Kelowna (WHL)


If you use 200 games as the metric, then Kuprai was a successful 1st round pick and Kaliyev was a good 2nd round pick... that bar is simply too low. The true test of a GM (or in this case Yanetti) is how many high impact players he drafted, or steals in the late rounds.

Since 2014 the Kings have drafted 7 high impact players (average), 2 of which have been late round steals (above average). But then when you look at the level of impact, versus other organizations, I'd rate the Kings slightly below average. End result, the Kings have been pretty average when it comes to drafting.

In the below article, the Kings are rated 17th out of all teams when it comes to drafting (article is form 2024)

www.sportsnet.ca

Which NHL teams have been most successful at the draft?

This series will take a look at how teams have performed in the draft and how those picks are shaping the NHL today. This isn’t meant to be a deep evaluation of how teams develop and build their rosters. Instead, it is a look at which teams have shown to be the best at identifying players in the...
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca

17. Los Angeles Kings
Skaters drafted: 60 | Percentage who played 200 games: 21.67% (13 players)
Notable hits: Tyler Toffoli, Tanner Pearson, Adrian Kempe, Erik Cernak, Mikey Anderson
Toffoli and Pearson contributed to the 2014 Stanley Cup win and Kempe and Anderson are key pieces on the current roster, but the Kings have been forced to turn to free agency and trades to plug a lot of holes when draft picks didn’t pan out.
 
LAKingSteve said:
Yanetti and the Kings are considered up there with best in class when it comes to draft stats. One key measure is guys that have played 200 games and the Kings are cream of the crop (depending on timeframe). To me, the issue is that the Kings are rarely in a place where they can draft a home run player as they usually draft towards the end of the last round. The exceptions being Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke. 2 of those 3 should be standout NHL players and the 3rd is still TBD, if he can meet expectations following concussion issues. Here's an unbiased opinion from an "expert" in the draft field.

Click to expand...

Good info but if you look at the article I posted above, it breaks out the percentage of drafted players who have played over 200 games. Kings are 17th...

I believe Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke were all good picks - but by all accounts those were Blake's picks, not Yanetti's. I just don't see a meaningful backing to any argument in which the Kings have been above average come draft day. I do think the Kings have been above average when it comes to finding late round gems, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.
 
DryKing said:
Good info but if you look at the article I posted above, it breaks out the percentage of drafted players who have played over 200 games. Kings are 17th...

I believe Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke were all good picks - but by all accounts those were Blake's picks, not Yanetti's. I just don't see a meaningful backing to any argument in which the Kings have been above average come draft day. I do think the Kings have been above average when it comes to finding late round gems, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...
I think the Hoven podcast looked at a different window of time compared to the article.
 

About | Hockey

In its 18th season on SiriusXM NHL Network Radio. Before they make the NHL, hockey prospects are showcasing their talents in junior and pro leagues across North America and Europe. Take a peek into the future with Hockey Prospect Radio - tomorrow's stars, today
www.hockeyprospectradio.com www.hockeyprospectradio.com

The Malloy Analysis Model for NHL Draft success was developed in 2007; the basis of the model was to provide criteria to determine a successful NHL draft pick. The criteria are based on (200+) NHL games played and evaluating the player after five seasons from their entry draft (NHL Draft +5 Years).


The (200+ NHL Games) were based on behavioral economic models and expected utility theory. The (5+ Years) are based on cognitive science research of male frontal lobe brain development.
Click to expand...
 
DryKing said:
Yanetti is in the average range which I can't fully hold him accountable for as he has been overruled by GMs in the past, but being overruled has both helped and hurt him. This draft, however, was extremely vanilla, as though he was going for lower ceiling safe picks, and he had full control over it. Our 1st round pick was not bad, but it was a reach and there were better options available (still I like the pick). I like our 3rd and 5th round picks, and I'll give him credit for taking a gamble with our 120th overall but for a team that needs size I do not see it addressed in even the slightest.

Still time will tell.

Los Angeles Kings​

ROUNDOVERALLNAMEPOSCOUNTRYHTWTTEAM
131Henry BrzustewiczDUSA6-2203London (OHL)
259Vojtech CiharLWCZE6-1180Karlovy Vary (Czechia)
388Kristian EppersonLWUSA6-0180Saginaw (OHL)
4120Caeden HerringtonDUSA6-2204Lincoln (USHL)
4125Jimmy LombardiCCAN6-0175Flint (OHL)
5152Petteri RimpinenGFIN6-0176K-Espoo (Finland)
6184Jan ChovanCSVK6-3190Tappara Jr. (Finland Jr.)
7196Brendan McMorrowCUSA6-0173Waterloo (USHL)
7216William SharpeDCAN6-0195Kelowna (WHL)


If you use 200 games as the metric, then Kuprai was a successful 1st round pick and Kaliyev was a good 2nd round pick... that bar is simply too low. The true test of a GM (or in this case Yanetti) is how many high impact players he drafted, or steals in the late rounds.

Since 2014 the Kings have drafted 7 high impact players (average), 2 of which have been late round steals (above average). But then when you look at the level of impact, versus other organizations, I'd rate the Kings slightly below average. End result, the Kings have been pretty average when it comes to drafting.

In the below article, the Kings are rated 17th out of all teams when it comes to drafting (article is form 2024)

www.sportsnet.ca

Which NHL teams have been most successful at the draft?

This series will take a look at how teams have performed in the draft and how those picks are shaping the NHL today. This isn’t meant to be a deep evaluation of how teams develop and build their rosters. Instead, it is a look at which teams have shown to be the best at identifying players in the...
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca

17. Los Angeles Kings
Skaters drafted: 60 | Percentage who played 200 games: 21.67% (13 players)
Notable hits: Tyler Toffoli, Tanner Pearson, Adrian Kempe, Erik Cernak, Mikey Anderson
Toffoli and Pearson contributed to the 2014 Stanley Cup win and Kempe and Anderson are key pieces on the current roster, but the Kings have been forced to turn to free agency and trades to plug a lot of holes when draft picks didn’t pan out.
Click to expand...
Worth a read:

 
DryKing said:
Good info but if you look at the article I posted above, it breaks out the percentage of drafted players who have played over 200 games. Kings are 17th...

I believe Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke were all good picks - but by all accounts those were Blake's picks, not Yanetti's. I just don't see a meaningful backing to any argument in which the Kings have been above average come draft day. I do think the Kings have been above average when it comes to finding late round gems, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...

But as far as I was able to comprehend that method of measuring success is quite simplistic as it looks at the total players drafted by a team and then measures success by how many of those players have reached their 200+ measure.

I can't be bothered to look too far into this matter but of the top 3 teams only Anaheim was what you'd consider a good playoff team. Both Edmonton and Columbus had stretches of significant suckage (not to mention Edmonton lottery luck). Kings, however, were only very bad 1 year in that timeframe.

I'd rate teams like Blues, Penguins, Bruins way above Oilers and BJs for example.
 
Statue4Deano said:
Worth a read:

Click to expand...
That was a good read, thank you. The prospect rating system is what I have seen in the past, but there were a few good takeaways within:

1) No matter how well a team drafts, the prospects are heavily dependent on farm/system development
2) the 200+ game threshold equates to 100+ for goalies
3) Only 18 players in the 2025 draft ranked, within this article at time of the draft, as 2nd line forward / 3rd defenseman / 1 A goalie or higher.

Item 3 underlines how much of a crap shoot it really seems to be, when all is said and done.
 
Bollocks said:
But as far as I was able to comprehend that method of measuring success is quite simplistic as it looks at the total players drafted by a team and then measures success by how many of those players have reached their 200+ measure.

I can't be bothered to look too far into this matter but of the top 3 teams only Anaheim was what you'd consider a good playoff team. Both Edmonton and Columbus had stretches of significant suckage (not to mention Edmonton lottery luck). Kings, however, were only very bad 1 year in that timeframe.

I'd rate teams like Blues, Penguins, Bruins way above Oilers and BJs for example.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. The Penguins were the first team I thought of as having had good playoff runs while still being successful in the draft. When I looked back over the last 10 years, I was surprised how many draft picks they had traded away.
 
Bollocks said:
But as far as I was able to comprehend that method of measuring success is quite simplistic as it looks at the total players drafted by a team and then measures success by how many of those players have reached their 200+ measure.

I can't be bothered to look too far into this matter but of the top 3 teams only Anaheim was what you'd consider a good playoff team. Both Edmonton and Columbus had stretches of significant suckage (not to mention Edmonton lottery luck). Kings, however, were only very bad 1 year in that timeframe.

I'd rate teams like Blues, Penguins, Bruins way above Oilers and BJs for example.
Click to expand...
That was my takeaway as well. This analysis doesn't differentiate between a top-5 overall pick and a 7th rounder, it essentially assumes that over time everyone's picks have the same value on aggregate, which is just not true.
 
DryKing said:
Below are the only results that matter. Do you really consider this success?

2024-2025NHL824325-592502061051.284Conference QF loss
2023-2024NHL823727-711256215991.217Conference QF loss
2022-2023NHL823725-10102802571041.275Conference QF loss
2021-2022NHL823527-911239236991.216Conference QF loss
2020-2021NHL562128--7143170490.8825Did not make playoffs
2019-2020NHL702935--6178212640.9128Did not make playoffs
info
2018-2019NHL823142--9202263710.8730Did not make playoffs
2017-2018NHL824529--8239203981.212Conference QF loss
2016-2017NHL823935--8201205861.0522Did not make playoffs
2015-2016NHL824828--62251951021.248Conference QF loss
2014-2015NHL824027--15220205951.1618Did not make playoffs
Click to expand...

"The only results that matter." For you perhaps. I get enjoyment watching hockey from October into April. And I consider 82 regular season games to be a measure of a team's play as well.

Of course, I wish they were more successful in the playoffs. I waited 40 years for them to win their first Cup. But I still love watching/hearing regular season game play.

We're just different types of fans, I guess . . . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top