Confirmed with Link: Bishop traded to Stars for 4th round pick

[Holden Caulfield]

Aren't no trade clauses voided once a player is traded?

Are you talking about a list of places where he could be traded so that he might sign?

Nope. They remain in effect.

Not 100% of the time. Someone can probably correct me here, but I believe it's up to the club and the player to decide at the time of the trade whether to further honor it since circumstances have changed. We often don't know after the trade whether they did or not.

Nope. NTC/NMC remain in full effect following the trade. A waive of a NTC only occurs for that one transaction and goes back into full effect from the contract.

What you are referring to is when a player is traded prior to a NTC taking effect. Much like how Visnovsky was traded days before his NTC was to take effect, then the team can choose whether to honor the NTC clause or not. Note that the Visnovsky example no longer happens since NTC can be started immediately upon signing a new SPC with your team, even though the new contract won't come in to effect until July 1. The only remaining example of this would be a player who has NTC coming into effect later in the contract (players not in UFA years are ineligible for NTC, so a NTC might be inserted to start midway through a contract when the player becomes eligible for one).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Thanks Holden! I knew there was something surrounding a Kings trade where the NTC was an 'option' post-trade

 

[deeshamrock]

Bishop had a no trade list so that explains why he got a 4th while Darling got a 3rd. The teams that would probably offer up more like the Flames were on his no trade list

It's also because he wasn't the Stars first choice, they wanted Darling but wouldn't give up the 3rd round pick. Canes were smart enough to do that so the Stars had to settle for Bishop

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/

•According to the venerable Renaud Lavoie for Le Journal de Montreal, the Stars actually pursued Scott Darling before acquiring Ben Bishop last week. Darling was the team’s first choice, but they wouldn’t part with the third-round pick it took for Carolina to finally lock down his negotiating rights. Darling signed a $16.6MM deal with the Hurricanes, while Bishop inked a six-year, $29.5MM contract with Dallas. It’s interesting to note that Darling is two years younger than Bishop, but received two fewer years on his contract. With an even lower cap-hit, Darling’s seems to be the much more attractive of the two deals, making the difference between a fourth—what the Stars eventually gave up for Bishop—and a third round pick seem more than acceptable.

 

[KINGS17]

So, it sounds like Darling was the domino which had to fall before anything happened in terms of moving Bishop.

 

[BigKing]

Nobody knows either way.



And at the same time, nobody would be giving the Kings a thumbs up if they drafted another McNabb. As usual, it depends on the argument people want to make at any given time. McNabb is an NHL player = just draft an NHL player. McNabb is what he is = well, you have to draft better.



That's too black and white for the draft. It doesn't have to be either/or. Your odds are less than 50/50 that any single 2nd round pick plays more than 1 NHL season.

Until Cernak becomes a top 4 guy, there's no need to worry about the deal. McKeown didn't light the world on fire this year. Fasching hasn't lit the world on fire yet. Zykov hasn't lit the world on fire yet. Miller still hasn't been a top 4 guy in Boston yet. At least not on any consistent basis. Maybe for a game here or there. Weal had some nice production, but he doesn't have a contract yet.

Is it better to have these guys playing in the AHL over having to fill out a roster with Hensick, Sutter, and Backman? Sure, but who are we really worried about so far? At the same time, you can point to all these guys not setting the world on fire as evidence that the Kings can't draft, so there's even less to be excited about.

It's the draft. Sometimes you end up with the right player, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you hang onto them too long, other times you trade them at the right time. Sometimes it's worth investing the time to develop them into a useful player, other times they become Hensick no matter what you do. It is far from an exact science.

This is an issue I have when scouting/drafting is criticized:

When I rag on the fact they haven't done anything with a 2nd round pick since Toffoli (too early on Clague/Cernak/maybe Lintuniemi), I'm told what the odds are of getting an NHL player in that round. That's great and all, but the Kings are at 0% so far since Gibson in 2011, although Zykov played an NHL game so maybe it is higher. Regardless, they are far below the number that is "less than 50/50". So, by any metric, they are struggling.

So we move on from the failure of 2nd round picks and say "But look at Dowd in the 7th Round, Nolan in 7th round, LaDue, Gravel" as I'm told that all that matters is getting x amount of NHL players out of any given draft and finding multiple NHL players = success. We ignore that none of these guys appear to be "impact" players but get all excited that they can make a nice 5th round pick but continually flub 2nd round picks which are usually their highest OA pick due to trading the 1st rounder. Like "Andreoff is homegrown". Sweet. NHL player so great pick in Round 3, right?

So with Cernak, I'm rolling over and going with the "if he is an NHL player like McNabb, it will be a bad trade" method since drafting NHL players is supposedly what defines success but now I'm told the trade is fine as long as he isn't a "Top 4" guy?

I can't win on this one. I get that the draft is not an exact science but the way that some--not saying you are--shield the scouting/drafting department with an excuse for everything is fascinating. No impact players? Well, no 1st round picks so not their fault. Then how about missing on their higher picks? Well, the odds still aren't great in Round 2 and nothing is for certain at the draft but damn aren't they good in Round 3 and after!

It just dawned on me that it's like Corsi but for the draft. Keep pulling NHL players but just like the possession and shot totals, it doesn't lead to goals or wins but, hey, we've got a rookie #6/7 defenseman playing 49 games six years after being drafted in the 5th round so everything is fine.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

This is an issue I have when scouting/drafting is criticized:

When I rag on the fact they haven't done anything with a 2nd round pick since Toffoli (too early on Clague/Cernak/maybe Lintuniemi), I'm told what the odds are of getting an NHL player in that round. That's great and all, but the Kings are at 0% so far since Gibson in 2011, although Zykov played an NHL game so maybe it is higher. Regardless, they are far below the number that is "less than 50/50". So, by any metric, they are struggling.

So we move on from the failure of 2nd round picks and say "But look at Dowd in the 7th Round, Nolan in 7th round, LaDue, Gravel" as I'm told that all that matters is getting x amount of NHL players out of any given draft and finding multiple NHL players = success. We ignore that none of these guys appear to be "impact" players but get all excited that they can make a nice 5th round pick but continually flub 2nd round picks which are usually their highest OA pick due to trading the 1st rounder. Like "Andreoff is homegrown". Sweet. NHL player so great pick in Round 3, right?

So with Cernak, I'm rolling over and going with the "if he is an NHL player like McNabb, it will be a bad trade" method since drafting NHL players is supposedly what defines success but now I'm told the trade is fine as long as he isn't a "Top 4" guy?

I can't win on this one. I get that the draft is not an exact science but the way that some--not saying you are--shield the scouting/drafting department with an excuse for everything is fascinating. No impact players? Well, no 1st round picks so not their fault. Then how about missing on their higher picks? Well, the odds still aren't great in Round 2 and nothing is for certain at the draft but damn aren't they good in Round 3 and after!

It just dawned on me that it's like Corsi but for the draft. Keep pulling NHL players but just like the possession and shot totals, it doesn't lead to goals or wins but, hey, we've got a rookie #6/7 defenseman playing 49 games six years after being drafted in the 5th round so everything is fine.

It's much, much more than that though. Why does this keep getting repeated until it becomes a meme?

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports...-teams-find-gems-in-later-rounds-of-nhl-draft

2nd in NHL games played, 2nd in NHL points.

IN recent years we've struggled with finding (immediate, because Clague looks like a gem, Watson has some potential, etc.) impact players, but this idea that we're only pulling plugs has no factual basis.

I know the popular response will be 'stop living in the past' but there havent been many bullets for the gun either. I'm less willing to say the scouting department suddenly sucks and more willing to admit circumstances have been less than favorable for them and will obviously be much better moving forward.

 

[KingsFan7824]

This is an issue I have when scouting/drafting is criticized:

When I rag on the fact they haven't done anything with a 2nd round pick since Toffoli (too early on Clague/Cernak/maybe Lintuniemi), I'm told what the odds are of getting an NHL player in that round. That's great and all, but the Kings are at 0% so far since Gibson in 2011, although Zykov played an NHL game so maybe it is higher. Regardless, they are far below the number that is "less than 50/50". So, by any metric, they are struggling.

So we move on from the failure of 2nd round picks and say "But look at Dowd in the 7th Round, Nolan in 7th round, LaDue, Gravel" as I'm told that all that matters is getting x amount of NHL players out of any given draft and finding multiple NHL players = success. We ignore that none of these guys appear to be "impact" players but get all excited that they can make a nice 5th round pick but continually flub 2nd round picks which are usually their highest OA pick due to trading the 1st rounder. Like "Andreoff is homegrown". Sweet. NHL player so great pick in Round 3, right?

So with Cernak, I'm rolling over and going with the "if he is an NHL player like McNabb, it will be a bad trade" method since drafting NHL players is supposedly what defines success but now I'm told the trade is fine as long as he isn't a "Top 4" guy?

But they also had a run from 2007 to 2010 where they got productive players in the 2nd round. Teams don't normally hit on 4 consecutive 2nd round picks like that. If that was more spread out over the last 10 years, recent history maybe doesn't look as bad. That success was concentrated though, and it paid off in a concentrated way.

I can't win on this one. I get that the draft is not an exact science but the way that some--not saying you are--shield the scouting/drafting department with an excuse for everything is fascinating. No impact players? Well, no 1st round picks so not their fault. Then how about missing on their higher picks? Well, the odds still aren't great in Round 2 and nothing is for certain at the draft but damn aren't they good in Round 3 and after!

It just dawned on me that it's like Corsi but for the draft. Keep pulling NHL players but just like the possession and shot totals, it doesn't lead to goals or wins but, hey, we've got a rookie #6/7 defenseman playing 49 games six years after being drafted in the 5th round so everything is fine.

Both sides of the debate can't win. There's either the shielding of the scouting, or the unending wave of criticism of the scouting. One side moves the goalposts, the other demands perfection. One side says at least player X has played a lot of games. The other side says yes, but I want games and points. One side says but every team misses on picks. The other says but this team didn't in this or that year.

That's why the draft is so subjective. You take a risk either way. Do you go for the high upside guy that might never play a game? Do you go for the safer pick that has a higher chance to contribute something, even just on the penalty kill, and play for 6 years, but never lead your team? What is better in later rounds? Both cases can be made, and ultimately, like anything, if you win, you picked the right guy, and if you lose, then you didn't.

 

[BigKing]

They get--and deserve--all the credit in the world for the run of Simmonds/Voynov/Clifford/Toffoli but they shouldn't get a free pass for putting up a zero ever since. The string of zeroes at this point is longer than the four years of hits that, quite frankly, seems like a decade ago. Oh wait...it is!

I think we agree though that the goal posts get moved on this constantly. I don't have ill-will towards the scouting department but, just like Kopitar this season, criticism when deserved is not something to shy away from.

Youth and productive ELC players are basically required these days to be competitive. Not having 1st round picks hurts, but the Kings haven't seemed to draft anyone since Pearson that can have a positive impact quickly. The rookies that made the team out of camp last season were drafted in 2009 and 2010. This team needs some solid production from the 2013 and '14 drafts in Brodz and Kempe next season or it will be another long season. That '13 draft is a disaster if Brodz doesn't pan out.

Who knows though, right? New system, management, philosophy and maybe some of these meh guys become better fits. That's kind of the issue I have with the scout apologists: we can write-off a draft as garbage but then it will be "So 2013 was bad but let's wait and see what Clague can do" so they are always just around the corner from redemption. For me, how many bad drafts need to be strung together before the benefit of the doubt is taken away? It's gone for me at this point: I need to see some results as I can no longer give everyone a pass because they drafted well 7-10 years ago.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

They get--and deserve--all the credit in the world for the run of Simmonds/Voynov/Clifford/Toffoli but they shouldn't get a free pass for putting up a zero ever since. The string of zeroes at this point is longer than the four years of hits that, quite frankly, seems like a decade ago. Oh wait...it is!

I think we agree though that the goal posts get moved on this constantly. I don't have ill-will towards the scouting department but, just like Kopitar this season, criticism when deserved is not something to shy away from.

Youth and productive ELC players are basically required these days to be competitive. Not having 1st round picks hurts, but the Kings haven't seemed to draft anyone since Pearson that can have a positive impact quickly. The rookies that made the team out of camp last season were drafted in 2009 and 2010. This team needs some solid production from the 2013 and '14 drafts in Brodz and Kempe next season or it will be another long season. That '13 draft is a disaster if Brodz doesn't pan out.

Who knows though, right? New system, management, philosophy and maybe some of these meh guys become better fits. That's kind of the issue I have with the scout apologists: we can write-off a draft as garbage but then it will be "So 2013 was bad but let's wait and see what Clague can do" so they are always just around the corner from redemption. For me, how many bad drafts need to be strung together before the benefit of the doubt is taken away? It's gone for me at this point: I need to see some results as I can no longer give everyone a pass because they drafted well 7-10 years ago.

But that's the thing--even though it was 4 years ago, many of the post-1st-round-picks are just now trying to find their way in the pro game if they make it at all. Hell, just look at the names drafted all around Zykov--Bigras, Erne, De la Rose, Fucale, Hagg, Petan, Sorensen...etc--how many of them have had an impact? Precious few are sniffing the NHL. Like I said, I get what everyone's saying, because especially in your words, how many 'bad drafts' can one have, but expecting a 'positive impact quickly' is an impossible expectation beyond high in the first round.

Like I've said to other posters, it really really REALLY puts things in perspective if you go to http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006664.html and look at teams that ARENT the Kings as well. Just about any other team--INCLUDING lottery teams, in many cases--has the same issues if not more.

Do we need more? Absolutely. Should we have high expecations? Certainly. But I think there's a distinct lack of perspective in general on this board on what comes out of the draft from team to team.

Edit: and hell, just using that 2013 draft--Kings had no first rounder, no third rounder. So to turn a 2nd, 2 4th, 2 5ths, 6, 7, into decent assets is alright in my book. Zykov was trade bait, but he's a likely NHLer (not necessarily high impact but still). Auger, probably not an NHLer but he was a size project pick. Fasching, I remember the worries around here when he was traded, looks like he'll be a good one. Bartosak was looking marvelous until he went stupid. Brodzinski is a great value 5th rounder. Leslie probably going nowhere, and Kubalik is whatever though he looks like he's developed a bit more back home. So granted many of those assets aren't with us anymore for a variety of reasons (including supplementing the current roster with Sekera, Mcnabb), but most of those look like at least decent picks where they're at, no? I guess to me it's less a 'drafting problem' and more an 'asset managment' problem.

 

[KingsFan7824]

They get--and deserve--all the credit in the world for the run of Simmonds/Voynov/Clifford/Toffoli but they shouldn't get a free pass for putting up a zero ever since. The string of zeroes at this point is longer than the four years of hits that, quite frankly, seems like a decade ago. Oh wait...it is!

I don't even know if they deserve credit. The more picks you have, the better the odds that you find a player. If you go by the 2 players per draft is a good draft theory, and there are 30 teams, in:

2006 the 60th player with the most games played sits at 48 games.
2007 is 79.
2008 is 99.
2009 is 113.
2010 is 67.
2011 is 67.
2012 is 30.
2013 is 11.

From 2014 to 2016, a full 60 players from each draft have yet to play a game. So you look at that list, and any given team is sort of lucky if they get 2 players that hang around for more than a couple years. 79 games from 10 years ago is not a lot of games.

From the top 60 players in terms of games played from each draft, the Kings have drafted:

2006 - 3
2007 - 5
2008 - 3
2009 - 5
2010 - 2
2011 - 2
2012 - 2
2013 - 1

Odds are you'll get somewhere between 1-2 players per draft. Less than that, and you've somehow managed to bomb out completely. More than 2, and especially a run of more than 2 players in 2 or 3 consecutive drafts, that's when you have all sorts of depth and compete for championships.

Who knows though, right? New system, management, philosophy and maybe some of these meh guys become better fits. That's kind of the issue I have with the scout apologists: we can write-off a draft as garbage but then it will be "So 2013 was bad but let's wait and see what Clague can do" so they are always just around the corner from redemption. For me, how many bad drafts need to be strung together before the benefit of the doubt is taken away? It's gone for me at this point: I need to see some results as I can no longer give everyone a pass because they drafted well 7-10 years ago.

That's sort of the whole point of the draft, right? Hope for the future?

I think the guys in the Kings draft room would be the first to say they haven't done well enough recently. So it's either fire them, or give them another chance, and we can do nothing but wait regardless of where or who they pick, or even who is doing the picking.

 

[kingsholygrail]

I don't even know if they deserve credit. The more picks you have, the better the odds that you find a player. If you go by the 2 players per draft is a good draft theory, and there are 30 teams, in:

2006 the 60th player with the most games played sits at 48 games.
2007 is 79.
2008 is 99.
2009 is 113.
2010 is 67.
2011 is 67.
2012 is 30.
2013 is 11.

From 2014 to 2016, a full 60 players from each draft have yet to play a game. So you look at that list, and any given team is sort of lucky if they get 2 players that hang around for more than a couple years. 79 games from 10 years ago is not a lot of games.

From the top 60 players in terms of games played from each draft, the Kings have drafted:

2006 - 3
2007 - 5
2008 - 3
2009 - 5
2010 - 2
2011 - 2
2012 - 2
2013 - 1

Odds are you'll get somewhere between 1-2 players per draft. Less than that, and you've somehow managed to bomb out completely. More than 2, and especially a run of more than 2 players in 2 or 3 consecutive drafts, that's when you have all sorts of depth and compete for championships.



That's sort of the whole point of the draft, right? Hope for the future?

I think the guys in the Kings draft room would be the first to say they haven't done well enough recently. So it's either fire them, or give them another chance, and we can do nothing but wait regardless of where or who they pick, or even who is doing the picking.

Amount of picks should be noted as well given more picks gives you more chances at finding an NHL player.

 

[BigKing]

Yeah guys...I'm not saying they should all be rounded up and shot: I just don't think they are necessarily anything special but some still want to crown them due to the Simmonds pick from ten years ago.

It is hard and it isn't a case of every other team crushing it while the Kings continue to fail: I understand that. Like you said though, RJ, I have expectations since these guys got a reputation for drafting well.

Just like the Kings elevating the expectations for the on-ice product with the 2012-14 stretch, the drafting department did the same. The on-ice product has been unacceptable the past three seasons and the team's drafting record has been poor during this time as well. Missing on all of the 2nd rounders is a big deal when asset management makes that your best bet at getting a good player. To trade the 57th/88th/96th OA in the 2013 draft to take a guy you wind up trading for a handful of Kris Versteeg games is pretty wonderful as well.

It's a combination of bad asset management and drafting. That's why DL and Sutter aren't here anymore. So everyone is on board--for the most part--for the management/coaching change but everyone is still in love with Futa and the scouting department. It's a bit odd to me.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Amount of picks should be noted as well given more picks gives you more chances at finding an NHL player.

2006 - 9 picks
2007 - 10
2008 - 9
2009 - 10
2010 - 5
2011 - 6
2012 - 6
2013 - 7
2014 - 10
2015 - 6
2016 - 4

 

[funky]

I am not giving our scouting department a pass either but we also have to remember that our scouts did have a certain philosophy, mandate that they used to choose the players that were drafted that was supplied to them by or general manager. Our mandate seem to be size over skill, and the mindset seemed that they did like a player that may take a while to develop such as Forbert etc.

Now take the same scouting department and tell them to pick the best player available skill wise and see if that makes any difference in our success from the last few years. I imagine pics like auger and some of the bigger bodied defenseman probably wouldn't of happened

No I am very excited about the upcoming draft even if it is weak to average. We have managed to stockpile some extra pics and actually have all of our picks for once. We still have a strong core team and we can now start restocking the cupboards.

 

[BigKing]

I am not giving our scouting department a pass either but we also have to remember that our scouts did have a certain philosophy, mandate that they used to choose the players that were drafted that was supplied to them by or general manager. Our mandate seem to be size over skill, and the mindset seemed that they did like a player that may take a while to develop such as Forbert etc.

Now take the same scouting department and tell them to pick the best player available skill wise and see if that makes any difference in our success from the last few years. I imagine pics like auger and some of the bigger bodied defenseman probably wouldn't of happened

No I am very excited about the upcoming draft even if it is weak to average. We have managed to stockpile some extra pics and actually have all of our picks for once. We still have a strong core team and we can now start restocking the cupboards.

Yeah...hard to say that's what's happening (RE: most of the blame falls on Lombardi) without knowing for sure but it is hope for future drafts. Thing is, the best player is the best player and part of the scouts job is to go to bat for the guy he likes. So is it that they scout with an eye for what Dean covets or do they scout they way they scout regardless?

Dean very well could have put together a scouting staff that values the same things he does.

 

[Crunchrulz]

Weeks late but the only highlight of Filatov's stay in Syracuse was the fact his mom was absolutely smoking hot and an incredibly nice person. The comments that were made while she was walking around the War Memorial were classic.