Marner Watch

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)


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.
Appreciate you citing the thinking here. I’ll add that there are now a couple more players who’ve played 200+ games if the article updated today, and Spence and Laf are virtually assured to hit 200 games this year barring injuries. If extending to 2007, that adds 9 players who hit that mark. Voynov hit 190, but contributed to two Cups before he was rightfully 86’ed.

Kings definitely hit their drafting lulls in the later days of Dean. They’ve have four drafts since 2014 without a first round pick at all.

7 high impact players since 2014 being just average sounds surprising. Means roughly a third of the league has drafted more than that. Source? Not doubting your reporting, I’d just love to see the teams and the players.

I’m already too long winded on this but the word i keep coming back to is relative. For what picks have been available to the Kings, I see success. For what picks have been available to the Ducks and Blue Jackets and Sabres, why have they struggled so long? I know development and drafting are different, but are we sure they’re drafting the “right” players?
 
Appreciate you citing the thinking here. I’ll add that there are now a couple more players who’ve played 200+ games if the article updated today, and Spence and Laf are virtually assured to hit 200 games this year barring injuries. If extending to 2007, that adds 9 players who hit that mark. Voynov hit 190, but contributed to two Cups before he was rightfully 86’ed.

Kings definitely hit their drafting lulls in the later days of Dean. They’ve have four drafts since 2014 without a first round pick at all.

7 high impact players since 2014 being just average sounds surprising. Means roughly a third of the league has drafted more than that. Source? Not doubting your reporting, I’d just love to see the teams and the players.

I’m already too long winded on this but the word i keep coming back to is relative. For what picks have been available to the Kings, I see success. For what picks have been available to the Ducks and Blue Jackets and Sabres, why have they struggled so long? I know development and drafting are different, but are we sure they’re drafting the “right” players?
I couldn't find a source regarding 7 high impact players being in the average range. What I did was a take random 90.10.10 sample of the teams (15 teams since it was a manual expedition and not super serious) in the league and manually counted/reviewed the draft players for each. They were all relatively in the same vicinity of one another so then it came down to number of total draft picks during that period. A team like Pittsburgh really stood out in regards to how many draft picks they had traded away, success of team during that period, and ability to draft impact players though they were on a the slightly lower scale when it came to total high impact players. I'm sure if you looked at the total league it would be slightly different as I only used a 90% confidence calculation, but the only standout noted for the Kings was ability to draft quality players in the later rounds (6th round +).

I agree with your callout using Voynov as an example, which is a bit of where I was going with my comment on the 200 game mark being used as a success metric. You could have a high impact player who left the league to go to the KHL, retired early due to injury, left the league due to legal problems, etc, which this metric does not account for. It's a good indicator, but really shouldn't be considered a success metric in itself (it also does not include tiering of how impactful the given player was during those 200+ games).
 
I'm curious how the Las Vegas community can support the Golden Knights, Raiders and possibly the Athletics with tourism numbers declining not only in their city but across the nation. I also hear there's pushback against the notion that Vegas is a ghost town with some saying that non-strip casinos are still doing well and possibly capitalizing on the situation with their respective promotional deals, but if the main part of Vegas is "dead", wouldn't that have a severe impact on its economy? Keep in mind that there is no state income tax, so presumably these municipally-funded stadiums rely on sales tax and fees from gambling and resort revenue, right?





 
Last edited:
I'm curious how the Las Vegas community can support the Golden Knights, Raiders and possibly the Athletics with tourism numbers declining not only in their city but across the nation. I also hear there's pushback against the notion that Vegas is a ghost town with some saying that non-strip casinos are still doing well and possibly capitalizing on the situation with their respective promotional deals, but if the main part of Vegas is "dead", wouldn't that have a severe impact on its economy? Keep in mind that there is no state income tax, so presumably these municipally-funded stadiums really on sales tax and fees from gambling and resort revenue, right?






I actually wondered about this also. Will Vegas attendance dry up a bit because people in city are making less money?

Tourism dollar losses in the US are projected at 12.5B this year and Vegas is one of the cities that has to be hardest hit. I don’t see it getting better next year either. Very sad.
 
Raiders fans fly in 8X a season, they won’t have an issue.
Correct. I know quite a few Raider fans in LA that are season ticket holders.

I think the A's will be hard pressed, though, should they relocate to Vegas but it's not as if they get much attendance in Oakland currently (they rank 30th out of 30 teams in terms of attendance in 2025). Realistically unless the A's are willing to spend money (total payroll is 29th out of 30 teams in 2025) their attendance will be dismal anywhere.

Knights are likely fine.
 
Correct. I know quite a few Raider fans in LA that are season ticket holders.

I think the A's will be hard pressed, though, should they relocate to Vegas but it's not as if they get much attendance in Oakland currently (they rank 30th out of 30 teams in terms of attendance in 2025). Realistically unless the A's are willing to spend money (total payroll is 29th out of 30 teams in 2025) their attendance will be dismal anywhere.

Knights are likely fine.

It doesn't help that there are a lot of Dodgers fans living in the Vegas area so if the A's move to Vegas they will have a very hard time trying to grow their fanbase in a city that has already entrenched itself with support of an out-of-state team. Yes, I understand that transplant fans are a thing in every city and Vegas is no exception. At least I keep my representation of LA sports teams like a true blooder (Kings, Dodgers, Lakers, and Rams; especially the latter part since a lot of SoCal/LA-area people are transplants/bandwagoners of other NFL teams, if not, other league teams, which really makes me cringe. And of course, the Chargers, Clippers, Angels, and Ducks don't count even if the former two are also in the LA area).
 
Last edited:
It doesn't help that there are a lot of Dodgers fans living in the Vegas area so if the A's move to Vegas they will have a very hard time trying to grow their fanbase in a city that has already entrenched itself with support of an out-of-state team. Yes, I understand that transplant fans are a thing in every city and Vegas is no exception. At least I keep my representation of LA sports teams like a true blooder (Kings, Dodgers, Lakers, and Rams; especially the latter part since a lot of SoCal/LA-area people are transplants/bandwagoners of other NFL teams, if not, other league teams, which really makes me cringe. And of course, the Chargers, Clippers, Angels, and Ducks don't count even if the former two are also in the LA area).
Agreed. For the A's to have a chance they really need to be in a market without other teams within traveling distance (including other sports) or change their model and actually focus on becoming competitive long term (including spending money to retain their talent).

Even if tourism didn't drop in Vegas, I really don't see them being successful there.
 
f*** the raiders and rams, they left, they can eat dicks

The Raiders can rot for all I care, the Rams are back in LA at least and I support them despite their spotty ownership history (F Frontiere), and as for the Chargers, well, they should have stayed in SD or might as well move to Portland or San Antonio, as even Angelenos don't want them.

At least I don't bandwagon to other NFL teams like the vast majority of transplanters do in SoCal. If you want to truly represent your city, especially your local city with all 4 pro sports teams in all 4 of the major pro leagues and if you live near it, do it the way Philly and Boston fans do (they all support their local teams in a "No True Scotsman" manner and as annoying as they are, at least I commend them for their loyalty). That's an unwritten rule for sports fandom unless you live in a state where a city doesn't have a pro sports team in a certain league (which is perfectly acceptable). Sure, it may put off people who like to do otherwise, but I subscribe to this mantra because to me, I find it rather jarring that people support LA teams like the Kings and Lakers yet come out displaying Yankees, Steelers/Packers/49ers/Cowboys paraphernalia otherwise in their attire and/or vehicles. That's the mark of a transplant/bandwagoner and I won't be convinced otherwise that that's acceptable sports fandom behavior. Sorry if I come off as being elitist but that's how it is and I stand by my opinion unapologetically.
 
Last edited:
Hadn't thought about the Dodgers fans in Vegas, are they on cable like the Kings used to be? If so it will be a hard sell for the A's however being in the American League I can see the A's becoming Vegas Dodger fans' 2nd team.

As for the Raiders I too thought they had a solid fan base at the games but I've been told it's easily 50/50 for most games (just like the Chargers and Rams. Sad if true cuz I thought The Raiders in Vegas was the perfect place for both it's Nor and So Cal fans. But hey Al Davis finally got his stadium may he rest in peace.
 
The Raiders can rot for all I care, the Rams are back in LA at least and I support them despite their spotty ownership history (F Frontiere), and as for the Chargers, well, they should have stayed in SD or might as well move to Portland or San Antonio, as even Angelenos don't want them.

At least I don't bandwagon to other NFL teams like the vast majority of transplanters do in SoCal. If you want to truly represent your city, especially your local city with all 4 pro sports teams in all 4 of the major pro leagues and if you live near it, do it the way Philly and Boston fans do (they all support their local teams in a "No True Scotsman" manner and as annoying as they are, at least I commend them for their loyalty). That's an unwritten rule for sports fandom unless you live in a state where a city doesn't have a pro sports team in a certain league (which is perfectly acceptable). Sure, it may put off people who like to do otherwise, but I subscribe to this mantra because to me, I find it rather jarring that people support LA teams like the Kings and Lakers yet come out displaying Yankees, Steelers/Packers/49ers/Cowboys paraphernalia otherwise in their attire and/or vehicles. That's the mark of a transplant/bandwagoner and I won't be convinced otherwise that that's acceptable sports fandom behavior. Sorry if I come off as being elitist but that's how it is and I stand by my opinion unapologetically.

Los Angeles didn't have an NFL team for 20 plus years. Our Pro Team was The Trojans.
 
Los Angeles didn't have an NFL team for 20 plus years. Our Pro Team was The Trojans.

And there's the Bruins (ahem, not the Boston team, mind you) too. But both are college teams so frankly that doesn't count. Yes, there were circumstances that were beyond LA's control at the time to bring back an NFL team from 1995-2015 until Kroenke brought the Rams back from STL but for me, I was an NFL widow that time who didn't want to latch on to another team until the Rams came back so there's that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top