Prospect Info: LAK Draft (2nd, 2020) C Quinton Byfield - Sudbury Wolves, OHL

[Schmooley]

Why you guys talking about Zegras? If youre going to go off recent nhl performance with Stutzle that at least makes sense. Zegras has been invisible 5 on 5 for the Ducks. Hed be bringing nothing to the Kings right now.
I think hell be great but like Turcotte and Byfield he needs to settle in. Theres nothing wrong with these young players that need time to adjust and its too early to make judgements.

 

[Eagle Fang]

Is this assuming that they could have watched TS play in the NHL? Yes, they 100% would change the pick and anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves (and this coming from a big QB guy before the draft). And for the 100000th time this is not a knock on QB. They said they heavily debated the pick internally leading up to the draft but ultimately chose Byfield. Since then Stutzle has shown at 18/19 that he can make a significant impact in the NHL and has answered basically all the doubts that the Kings and other teams had about him.

Ofcourse the Kings don't have hindsight to know this, and there were valid concerns about Stutzle so this isn't a criticism of the player or pick itself. The same is true with Zegras vs. Turcotte the year before.

They ultimately chose Byfield based on how he can affect the game more than just points. As I mentioned before, you'd have to assume their logic was similar to a Kopitar type player vs a Kane type player. Now granted, Byfields two-way game is very much a work in progress, but they opted, I'm assuming, for a big center who can impact the play in all areas with his skill and size.

If I recall correctly, Yanneti said in a post-draft interview that basically the pick was made based on how Blake wanted to build the team. I don't think it's fair to compare their impact when Byfield isn't even in the NHL yet. Now I understand that in itself can be used as a strong argument, but players develop at different rates. If Byfield fails to make any impact in the NHL in 3-4 years, then sure I'd agree it was the wrong call.

I get it, I really do. Stutzle is doing well in the NHL now. But I just think it's way to early to make any real conclusions yet.

 

[Herby]

They ultimately chose Byfield based on how he can affect the game more than just points. As I mentioned before, you'd have to assume their logic was similar to a Kopitar type player vs a Kane type player. Now granted, Byfields two-way game is very much a work in progress, but they opted, I'm assuming, for a big center who can impact the play in all areas with his skill and size.

I'm not criticizing the pick or the reasons for it! I supported the pick and with the information and evaluations at the time it was the right pick.

But you are out to lunch if you think a pick that was "Hotly debated" as the director of scouting said it was wouldn't be changed based on the knowledge of how well Stutzle has played in the NHL. There were doubts about what kind of NHL player he may be before the draft, and the Kings had to consider that while making the pick, there aren't those concerns anymore, he looks like a young Patrick Kane carrying and distributing the puck, that is a big deal. You know what you have, in this hypothetical situation almost all the risk to Stutzle has been removed and none of the risk to Byfield has (yet)

 

[King'sPawn]

Apples to oranges. For starters, Byfield is no where near the NHL. Second, Bjornfot and Zegras were not rated that close to each other (based on potential). Bjornfot has done more? 8 more games. 1 whole point more.

So in other words, Bjornfot was better last season, because he held his own at the NHL level and Zegras was nowhere near NHL ready last year. So Anaheim SHOULD have done a redraft and taken Bjornfot.

But, as more time went on, the player they took turned out to be pretty good? And now at the NHL level he should be given more time to be the player they expect him to be?

The Kings know the quality of player they passed on. They passed on it with a plan to develop the player they feel has the higher offensive potential.

If the Kings would undo the draft and pick the better player NOW, then they deserve to be fired. It's not a remark about Stutzle. He's talented. He'd help the Kings right now. But it would be a reactionary, instant gratification move that is akin to fans who don't dedicate the resources investigating it.

You can think bland's remarks are inane and I'm too stupid to get your point. We know Stutzle's better now. And I would have been okay with the Kings taking Stutzle. But I would not be okay with the Kings changing from Byfield to Stutzle just because he's doing better in the NHL now. That's just not how a competent team executes a plan or understands the importance of developing players.

 

[Eagle Fang]

I'm not criticizing the pick or the reasons for it! I supported the pick and with the information and evaluations at the time it was the right pick.

But you are out to lunch if you think a pick that was "Hotly debated" as the director of scouting said it was wouldn't be changed based on the knowledge of how well Stutzle has played in the NHL. There were doubts about what kind of NHL player he may be before the draft, and the Kings had to consider that while making the pick, there aren't those concerns anymore, he looks like a young Patrick Kane csrrying the puck, that is a big deal. You know what you have, in this hypothetical situation almost all the risk to Stutzle has been removed and none of the risk to Byfield has (yet)

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that one. I understand your point, honestly I do. I just don't agree they are second guessing themselves quite yet. Not after just 20 some odd games.

 

[HookKing]

I'm not criticizing the pick or the reasons for it! I supported the pick and with the information and evaluations at the time it was the right pick.

But you are out to lunch if you think a pick that was "Hotly debated" as the director of scouting said it was wouldn't be changed based on the knowledge of how well Stutzle has played in the NHL. There were doubts about what kind of NHL player he may be before the draft, and the Kings had to consider that while making the pick, there aren't those concerns anymore, he looks like a young Patrick Kane carrying and distributing the puck, that is a big deal. You know what you have, in this hypothetical situation almost all the risk to Stutzle has been removed and none of the risk to Byfield has (yet)

Yep, many of these posters don't get it. It's like hold'em -- heads up. One player has AK and the other a pair of nines (a race). Flop comes 6 3 K. If you have the pair of nines and could switch hands with your opponent do you do it?

 

[Eagle Fang]

Yep, many of these posters don't get it. It's like hold'em -- heads up. One player has AK and the other a pair of nines (a race). Flop comes 6 3 K. If you have the pair of nines and could switch hands with your opponent do you do it?

That's a horrible example. You're essentially saying the future of both players are set after a handful of games.

 

[King'sPawn]

I give up. You're all clearly smarter. I'll just hope you all apply to be the next GM after Blake once he deservedly gets fired for having a plan.

 

[HookKing]

That's a horrible example. You're essentially saying the future of both players are set after a handful of games.

Nope. You still have the turn and the river cards which can change the odds yet again.

 

[Sparky206]

Yep, many of these posters don't get it. It's like hold'em -- heads up. One player has AK and the other a pair of nines (a race). Flop comes 6 3 K. If you have the pair of nines and could switch hands with your opponent do you do it?

But if you change your hand after this one flop, then you have to stick with that change for every flop after with the same set of cards. You've taken the higher probability hand but are now changing it based on one flop. This hand hasn't even played out and you want to change your cards but your ignoring the next 20 years of hands based on one flop. They made their choice on the higher probability that Byfield would turn into the player they want in the next 20 years. If you had to choose between holding 9's or AK for every hand for the next 20 years you'd choose 9's every time. Just because the first flop turns over a K doesnt mean youve made the wrong choice.

 

[Herby]

But if you change your hand after this one flop, then you have to stick with that change for every flop after with the same set of cards. You've taken the higher probability hand but are now changing it based on one flop. This hand hasn't even played out and you want to change your cards but your ignoring the next 20 years of hands based on one flop. They made their choice on the higher probability that Byfield would turn into the player they want in the next 20 years. If you had to choose between holding 9's or AK for every hand for the next 20 years you'd choose 9's every time. Just because the first flop turns over a K doesnt mean youve made the wrong choice.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that the pick or reasoning for the pick was wrong (atleast I'm not)

People are saying that if we know what we know now on March 7th, 2021, specifically that Stutzle's game is going to translate spectacularly to the NHL would they choose differently?

 

[HookKing]

You are missing the point. No one is saying that the pick or reasoning for the pick was wrong (atleast I'm not)

People are saying that if we know what we know now on March 7th, 2021, specifically that Stutzle's game is going to translate spectacularly to the NHL would they choose differently?

You are a lot more patient than I am.

 

[King'sPawn]

You are missing the point. No one is saying that the pick or reasoning for the pick was wrong (atleast I'm not)

People are saying that if we know what we know now on March 7th, 2021, specifically that Stutzle's game is going to translate spectacularly to the NHL would they choose differently?

If your plan was to go for the higher upside player long term, why would the performance of one prospect 5 months post draft change your mind of the long term plans?

 

[Eagle Fang]

You are missing the point. No one is saying that the pick or reasoning for the pick was wrong (atleast I'm not)

People are saying that if we know what we know now on March 7th, 2021, specifically that Stutzle's game is going to translate spectacularly to the NHL would they choose differently?

And the point the other side is trying to make is that, no the choice wouldn't be made differently on March 7th, 2021 because no one knows what Byfield could potentially do at the NHL level. If this conversation were taking place on March 7th 2025, then sure it'd have more merit.

 

[Herby]

If your plan was to go for the higher upside player long term, why would the performance of one prospect 5 months post draft change your mind of the long term plans?

Because no one knew that Stutzle was going to be this good in the NHL? There is no risk to picking him, he has already shown himself to be able to make plays in the NHL and play at a very high level against the best players in the world at 18/19. He is doing things that for the most part only the elite of the elite have done at the NHL level. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Again, I am not saying the pick was wrong or the reasons the Kings made it were wrong, but I just don't know how anyone can have watched TS play in the NHL this year and say that he wouldn't be the pick.

It's as if we act like TS is 25 and a finished product too, he's not. He's going to get better too.

 

[King'sPawn]

Because no one knew that Stutzle was going to be this good in the NHL? There is no risk to picking him, he has already shown himself to be able to make plays in the NHL and play at a very high level against the best players in the world at 18/19. He is doing things that for the most part only the elite of the elite have done at the NHL level. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Again, I am not saying the pick was wrong or the reasons the Kings made it were wrong, but I just don't know how anyone can have watched TS play in the NHL this year and say that he wouldn't be the pick.

It's as if we act like TS is 25 and a finished product too, he's not. He's going to get better too.

The question was if Stutzle would be this good this early. Turns out he is. That still doesn't change the long-term plan with Byfield or the upside they see in him.

Again, development isn't linear. Stutzle may exponentialky grow or plateau. But if you pass up Stutzle for Byfield in October because of the projected upside, you don't pass up the upside of your staff's projected upside of Byfield for Stutzle in March.

It's not a criticism of Stutzle. It's a statement of the organization's clear long-term plan. They passed up on the more ready NHL player 5 months ago. He's good. He's doing well. But you don't change your draft if the plan was long tetm and your idea for best player long term is Byfield.

 

[Fishhead]

Because no one knew that Stutzle was going to be this good in the NHL? There is no risk to picking him, he has already shown himself to be able to make plays in the NHL and play at a very high level against the best players in the world at 18/19. He is doing things that for the most part only the elite of the elite have done at the NHL level. One bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Again, I am not saying the pick was wrong or the reasons the Kings made it were wrong, but I just don't know how anyone can have watched TS play in the NHL this year and say that he wouldn't be the pick.

It's as if we act like TS is 25 and a finished product too, he's not. He's going to get better too.

I think for some of us it's because we've seen so many players come through we instinctually know that until these players have a couple seasons under their belts it's hard to draw conclusions.

I remember 2014 with the big 3 C's and Ekblad. Draisaitl was the more big lumbering guy compared to the more dynamic Bennett and Reinhart. Both Bennett and Reinhart had solid first seasons, while Drai was sent back to juniors after 2g and 9 points in 37 games. To me, there's no question he's the best out of the top 4 taken that year and he had the worst start of all of them by a good margin.

I'll take Seguin over Hall any day of the week, even though it took him a few seasons to get going. I also remember Montreal fans raving about Kotkaniemi after a decent first season, and now he's struggling while Tkachuk and Svechnikov haven't looked back.

There's a chance TS is the best guy out of this draft, but there's also the chance that both QB and AL pass him by. It's just too early to evaluate those picks in any way.

 

[bland]

Stützle is doing exactly what was expected of him. Lafreniere is doing exactly what was expected out of him. Nobody could have expected that Byfield would be in the AHL, but nobody should have expected him to be competing with those two this or next year.

If any of your expectations were different than those, that is on you for not understanding how these things work.

Byfield was always a long term project, and in selecting him you were committing to a period of time in which he would develop the style of play and mentality of a dominant top line center.

I argued that it was a far tougher call than most thought. I added that while Byfield may take longer to reach a higher potential, those earlier years of value were pluses in Stützle's column. Ultimately Byfield's potential was too much to pass on, and the Kings were in the perfect place to make that pick.

So if you make that pick its because you are willing to be patient with his development and not lose your mud when the other options do exactly what everybody worth listening to knew that they would do.

Rethinking anything after a few months is just a fools errand.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I don't change my draft pick just because the other guy is scoring like Tanner Pearson/Nail Yakupov as expected. It's that simple.

The people in this thread pumping up a guy 'looking good' are ignoring actual results and then go to the reign thread to talk shit about...guys who "look good" but aren't getting actual results.

Some terribly poor faith arguments going on here today.

 

[Herby]

I don't change my draft pick just because the other guy is scoring like Tanner Pearson/Nail Yakupov as expected. It's that simple.

The people in this thread pumping up a guy 'looking good' are ignoring actual results and then go to the reign thread to talk shit about...guys who "look good" but aren't getting actual results.

Some terribly poor faith arguments going on here today.

Quite hilarious to talk about bad faith arguments then compare Stutzle to Tanner Pearson and Nail Yakupov rather than any of the other stars in the league who produced like he has as an 18 year old. That is such a great faith argument, but yeah he is Nail Yakupov and Tanner Pearson more than he is Nathan Mackinnon or Patrick Kane. That is a take that will surely age great.

Although it's a good thing maybe the Kings didn't draft Stutzle, you go gaga and have every excuse in the book for a prospect who has 3 goals in his last 27 league games since last Thanksgiving, you'd probably have already commissioned a Stutzle statue next to Luc's had the Kings drafted him and he had done what he's done in Ottawa.

It's all good though, I'm sure the Reign play Arizona St. soon and that cold streak will end.

And yeah, we all should be singing kumbaya in the Reign thread, things look great!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Quite hilarious to talk about bad faith arguments then compare Stutzle to Tanner Pearson and Nail Yakupov rather than any of the other stars in the league who produced like he has as an 18 year old. That is such a great faith argument, but yeah he is Nail Yakupov and Tanner Pearson more than he is Nathan Mackinnon or Patrick Kane. That is a take that will surely age great.

Although it's a good thing maybe the Kings didn't draft Stutzle, you go gaga and have every excuse in the book for a prospect who has 3 goals in his last 27 league games since last Thanksgiving, you'd probably have already commissioned a Stutzle statue next to Luc's had the Kings drafted him and he had done what he's done in Ottawa.

It's all good though, I'm sure the Reign play Arizona St. soon and that cold streak will end.

And yeah, we all should be singing kumbaya in the Reign thread, things look great!

Ah, the irony of owning yourself. Can always count on you, Herby. Didn't even need to do it for you this time.

 

[Fishhead]

TS's numbers are nowhere near Kane's his rookie year so far, after 23 games Kane had 25 points, not 14. I don't see him at Kane's level, very few players are.

He is very comparable to Yakupov and Mackinnon, which is the whole point. Both of those players started at the same pace as Stutzle and both had very different career directories. It's too early, things could go many different ways for him. He could stay a highly effective player, or teams could adjust to him and he could not adapt well.

 

[Herby]

Ah, the irony of owning yourself. Can always count on you, Herby. Didn't even need to do it for you this time.

Why did you mention Nail Yakupov and Tanner Pearson instead of other top 3 picks who produced similarly as 18 year olds, is that not a dishonest argument? Do you think he is closer to Nail Yakupov or elite players in the league? State your position, if it's the other players why not use those players?

Everything I have said about Turcotte is rooted in fact, he has 3 goals in his last 27 games between the NCAA and AHL (2 vs. Arizona St. and 1 vs. Ohio St.), he has 0 goals and 1 point in 7 games in the AHL with one very strong and one very weak WJC mixed in (don't believe in using that tournament for good (Turcotte) or bad (Byfield/Turcotte) it means much less than what is done in league games where since being drafted Turcotte has not looked the part of a future scoring line forward vs. professional caliber competition. You choose to continue to make excuses for him, injury (that miraculously healed for one weekend vs. ASU), his coaches and teammates at UW, Covid etc. At what point do we actually see a top 5 pick look like a top 5 pick for any significant stretch? Please enlighten me when it's fair to be critical and stop with the excuses. Is he going to start looking like a Top 5 pick this season or will this be another lost season?

 

[Eagle Fang]

Turcotte looked like a top 5 pick at the WJCs, especially when it mattered most. I only watched a handful of games when he played at Wisconsin, and he's had limited action in the AHL, but in the games he has played, he's looked pretty good for the most part. I don't know if top-5 pick good, but he's been one of ONT's better forwards at generating chances. It's hard to gauge on such a short sample size.

But since this is the Byfield thread, I stand by what I said before; to me he's been ONT's best forward thus far... though the last 2 games he's looked pretty bad. Maybe that's not saying much as the whole team's looked like shit overall and maybe it's partially due to the WJCs. I mean he honestly looked like dog shit in the tournament.

With ONT, he's showing a lot of the 'tools' he was touted for and I don't see a lot of the things I had issues with when watching him at the WJC. I've listed some of those things several times so I won't again, but he just looks like a totally different player and in a good way. Even though the points aren't coming as much as we'd like, he's generating chances. Voxel mentioned in the other thread he had 2 point blank chances today vs BAK. I can see why he was touted so high pre-draft. Sure there are a lot of flaws in his game and sure he may never translate to the NHL, but at THIS VERY MOMENT, I see no reason to second guess the pick.

Stutzle is a fine player. He's doing well, but it's not like he's setting the world on fire. He's getting top 6 minutes for the Sens in the Canadian division... i mean, the all-offense, no defense division. He's scoring at a .58 ppg which is good. Patrick Kane scored at a .88 ppg... that's amazing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For those who are in a state of panic over Byfield and fawning over Stutzle, das wunderkind has scored one goal in the last 16 games. If Byfield did that we'd see many people on here bemoaning his lack of production. Calm down.