Prospects?

[Peter James Bond]

Vey, Toffoli, Pearson, Shore, Andreoff, Sabourin, Weal. Zykov in Europe.

On D, Gravel, Forbort, Miller, Roach, Deslauries.

In goal...Jones, Berube.

I don't that is awful....

That is not awful and Mersch has potential as well. Nikolay Prokhorkin may be better than any of the above. Leading Moscow CSKA in scoring as a 19 year old. 10 goals, 16 points and 33 PIM in 25 games so far.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0050392014.html

 

[King'sPawn]

You are my Sutter from another Mother

Are you Shore you want to have that connection with me?

 

[Minor Boarding]

I'm not going to call out names or declare myself an prospect expert and I generally don't really care about these things but I have to question the sanity of the people who made the HF organizational rankings where the Kings prospect pool is ranked 26th...

Having 10 developed Manchester Monarchs players on the NHL squad. Developing guys like Moulson, Purcell, Boyle, Hickey, Harrold, Drewiske, Loktionov, Clune, Bernier, Simmonds, Schenn into solid NHL-ers should at least give the Kings some respect as far as drafting and developing goes,
no?
We probably ice THE BEST YOUNG AHL top line with Toffoli-Vey-Pearson, who are/were dominating the AHL like it's a beer league. Rookies like Miller and Forbort are playing really good hockey for two 1st year pro players. Andreoff, Shore playing good two way hockey with a few hot hit and miss prospects like Weal and Deslauriers rounding some really good prospects that have already turned pro and have NHL potential...
Prokhorkin is leading CSKA in scoring and both Martin Jones and Patrik Bartosak are having good seasons and have pro potential.
Zykov, Fasching, Mersch, Gravel seem to be doing more then fine according to their stats and the inputs from people who watched them and posted news in the sticky prospect threads....

Talk about underrating the Kings developing program...

 

[Jason Lewis]

I'm not going to call out names or declare myself an prospect expert and I generally don't really care about these things but I have to question the sanity of the people who made the HF organizational rankings where the Kings prospect pool is ranked 26th...

Having 10 developed Manchester Monarchs players on the NHL squad. Developing guys like Moulson, Purcell, Boyle, Hickey, Harrold, Drewiske, Loktionov, Clune, Bernier, Simmonds, Schenn into solid NHL-ers should at least give the Kings some respect as far as drafting and developing goes,
no?
We probably ice THE BEST YOUNG AHL top line with Toffoli-Vey-Pearson, who are/were dominating the AHL like it's a beer league. Rookies like Miller and Forbort are playing really good hockey for two 1st year pro players. Andreoff, Shore playing good two way hockey with a few hot hit and miss prospects like Weal and Deslauriers rounding some really good prospects that have already turned pro and have NHL potential...
Prokhorkin is leading CSKA in scoring and both Martin Jones and Patrik Bartosak are having good seasons and have pro potential.
Zykov, Fasching, Mersch, Gravel seem to be doing more then fine according to their stats and the inputs from people who watched them and posted news in the sticky prospect threads....

Talk about underrating the Kings developing program...

I was in on that panel.

First off, let me say that rankings 20-28 were pretty well interchangeable. We all kind of decided that when we started.

In terms of analysis, while the Kings DO have three top end players at the AHL level in Toffoli, Vey and Pearson, they have tons of bang or bust prospects past that. This isn't about the past development of players either. This is about the here and now. Right now, while the Kings do have plenty of potential talents, it remains to be seen just how useful they are. Yes Mersch, Gravel, Fasching, Zykov are all having great starts. Even a guy like Prokhorkin is having a great start. But is there any certainty in how their game translates? Let's briefly compare the Kings to say...an 11-20 team and a low 20's team. The Penguins at 17, and the Sharks at 22 shall we?

With Pitt you look at Pouliot, Bennett, and Depres. Those are your big three. They match the Kings big three I'd say in terms of talent and potential whatever that may be. You've also got Maata, Doumilin, and Scott Harrington. That's three pretty solid after the fact guys. With the Kings...alright Forbort, Gravel......and....Deslauriers? Weal? Weal is tremendously undersized, Deslauriers is still an experiment in the works so that's a difficult one to value. Sundqvist is in the SHL top flight, and NCAA prospects like Blueger, Scott Wilson, Guetzel, Blaine Byron and Josh Archibald are doing respectable. In goal Matt Murray is playing tremendous for the Soo and Tristan Jarry is doing average with the Oil Kings.

They match us prospect for prospect in terms of performances I would say, and they pull ahead purely due to a higher amount of top end. Maata, Pouliot, Bennet, Depres and Harrington are all NHL level talents. There is a little more assuredness. It's not much, but it's enough.

Let's compare them to the Sharks now. Hertl, Nieto, Freddie Harrington are your top guys, but overall the Sharks suffer the same exact affliction the Kings do. Bang or bust and not a lot of certain depth. A lot of people are high on Tennyson and Mirco Mueller, and rightfully so, they are skilled players. Chris Tierny is killing with London right now, Abeltshauser is a bang or bust guy also. O'Regan is off to a fine start with BC also. Acolatse, Doherty, Brodzinski, Schwartz, Reid, Boudreau...you can make cases for all of them. Are they as compelling as King prospects? Eye of the beholder.

I'm not trying to undervalue the Kings here. Just being real about being on the outside looking in. It's really tough to value the Kings system if you aren't actively involved like many of us are in watching the Kings system at work, and have seen it's work in the past. Very difficult to take into account. I had them rated higher than most because I agree with the potential of our midlevel guys, but the realistic nature of it is that we have a few top end players and a lot of players with an uncertain future and/or impact level. That leads to people rating them a little bit lower than most of us here. Almost every Stanley Cup winning team or high finishing perennial team goes through this. We will probably see our rankings jump back up in spring if our players continue to play well, and when we pick up a few more prospects in June.

 

[Minor Boarding]

I was in on that panel.

First off, let me say that rankings 20-28 were pretty well interchangeable. We all kind of decided that when we started.

In terms of analysis, while the Kings DO have three top end players at the AHL level in Toffoli, Vey and Pearson, they have tons of bang or bust prospects past that. This isn't about the past development of players either. This is about the here and now. Right now, while the Kings do have plenty of potential talents, it remains to be seen just how useful they are. Yes Mersch, Gravel, Fasching, Zykov are all having great starts. Even a guy like Prokhorkin is having a great start. But is there any certainty in how their game translates? Let's briefly compare the Kings to say...an 11-20 team and a low 20's team. The Penguins at 17, and the Sharks at 22 shall we?

With Pitt you look at Pouliot, Bennett, and Depres. Those are your big three. They match the Kings big three I'd say in terms of talent and potential whatever that may be. You've also got Maata, Doumilin, and Scott Harrington. That's three pretty solid after the fact guys. With the Kings...alright Forbort, Gravel......and....Deslauriers? Weal? Weal is tremendously undersized, Deslauriers is still an experiment in the works so that's a difficult one to value. Sundqvist is in the SHL top flight, and NCAA prospects like Blueger, Scott Wilson, Guetzel, Blaine Byron and Josh Archibald are doing respectable. In goal Matt Murray is playing tremendous for the Soo and Tristan Jarry is doing average with the Oil Kings.

They match us prospect for prospect in terms of performances I would say, and they pull ahead purely due to a higher amount of top end. Maata, Pouliot, Bennet, Depres and Harrington are all NHL level talents. There is a little more assuredness. It's not much, but it's enough.

Let's compare them to the Sharks now. Hertl, Nieto, Freddie Harrington are your top guys, but overall the Sharks suffer the same exact affliction the Kings do. Bang or bust and not a lot of certain depth. A lot of people are high on Tennyson and Mirco Mueller, and rightfully so, they are skilled players. Chris Tierny is killing with London right now, Abeltshauser is a bang or bust guy also. O'Regan is off to a fine start with BC also. Acolatse, Doherty, Brodzinski, Schwartz, Reid, Boudreau...you can make cases for all of them. Are they as compelling as King prospects? Eye of the beholder.

I'm not trying to undervalue the Kings here. Just being real about being on the outside looking in. It's really tough to value the Kings system if you aren't actively involved like many of us are in watching the Kings system at work, and have seen it's work in the past. Very difficult to take into account. I had them rated higher than most because I agree with the potential of our midlevel guys, but the realistic nature of it is that we have a few top end players and a lot of players with an uncertain future and/or impact level. That leads to people rating them a little bit lower than most of us here. Almost every Stanley Cup winning team or high finishing perennial team goes through this. We will probably see our rankings jump back up in spring if our players continue to play well, and when we pick up a few more prospects in June.

G: Jones/Bartosak can hang with the PIT guys and predicting goalies success is like predicting Lotto numbers...
rw: Toffoli and Zykov-Mersch/Fasching or Bennet-Archibald (who will be more of an AHL-er in my opinion)-Zlobin? I don't hink there is really that big of a difference...
lw: Seriously both Pearson and Prokhorkin have shown way more then the rest of the group. And Pearson has been the best lw prospect of both of teams by a fair margin...
c: Again, show me ONE PIT prospect that has had a better college career then Shore... Ok, now fill me in on their CHL/Europe guys that have shown more then Vey/Weal?
d: The highest upside of the bunch has Pouliot. The rest of the guys aren't any better then a guy like Forbort.
Actually I DID watch the Penguins AHL team playing vs the Monarchs 2-3 weeks ago and the Harringtons weren't any better then our boys. In fact little Penguins had used a lot more veterans in the game (Kostopolous, Mikelson(sp?)) and lucked out that OT win by virtue of Monarchs lack of finnishing. Berube hasn't impressed me either in that game...

As far as depth goes, our waiver dumps and cast offs are playing in some of the other teams (who appearantly have better ranked prospects and despite the lesser quality of their NHL squad can't beat them for NHL spots) top 4 (Hickey), center top 6 lines (Loktionov). Play top 6 minutes (Moulson, Purcell) and others (Boyle, Richardson 3rd liners)... And as far as boom or bust prospects goes - every team has them. Some just overvalue them (Archibald == Weal). And for every Sundqvist there is an Prokhorkin that leads his team in scoring in a better KHL.

Like I said before, my opinion. And I don't care if it hurts HF staff (or your) feelings. Sorry I am more Sutter and less Murray as far as speaking my mind out goes and I do believe the ranking is TRASH (Ottawa 2nd is also a joke and TBL is also way too high).
Agree to disagree and have a beer.

 

[Jason Lewis]

Fair enough. To each their own

 

[Minor Boarding]

Fair enough. To each their own

Yeah that's what I think about the Rangers rankings and hype... Prucha, Montoya, Grachev, Dell Zotto, too extent Kreider should be HHOF by the way HF and Rangers have rated these guys...

I admit tho, I enjoy reading the boards when some of the high flying fans of the original 6 teams (and a few others) consistently get their letdowns....

 

[CNS]

I disagree with the ratings as well but the bigger issue is you reducing Weal to nearly nothing because he's "undersized". I respect you a lot Jason but come on. Weal has been FANTASTIC. Seriously. He's legitimizing himself as an NHL prospect this year. Just so good.

 

[King'sPawn]

Yeah that's what I think about the Rangers rankings and hype... Prucha, Montoya, Grachev, Dell Zotto, too extent Kreider should be HHOF by the way HF and Rangers have rated these guys...

I admit tho, I enjoy reading the boards when some of the high flying fans of the original 6 teams (and a few others) consistently get their letdowns....

With all that said, you should know by now that HF ratings, while entertaining, are not to be taken as gospel, so it shouldn't really bother you about how much the Kings prospects are underrated anyway

JL and cns are doing a great job covering Kings prospects, and that's the information I would focus more upon. I do the best I can, as well.

But ultimately, the people who make the HF rankings see a lot more of everyone's prospects than we do, so I think there's a certain degree of respect to be afforded to their opinion... though in the end, it IS just an opinion.

 

[Telos]

Jason is objectively on the money. Can't give the Kings bonus points for past success or even the current development program and what that might do to prospect potential. You can only base it on the players themselves in their current state.

As for Weal, I know he's your guy CNS, but his status hasn't really changed, even since back when you and I debated it long ago between Weal and Andreoff. His size and build are detrimental to him, especially in this organization. As Vey noted, things are very different in the NHL versus the AHL. Weal has great determination and skill, and his tenacity is admirable as he battles through his deficiencies, but you can evidently see that he gets pushed around a bit in the AHL and even in preseason games against the Ducks. He produces and has a great IQ, but I don't see him having similar success or endurance in the NHL.

Not to mention that the Kings aren't huge on having smallish skilled guys on their bottom 6. I just don't see him beating Shore, Andreoff, and Vey for one of the few coveted spots in the lineup before it is time for him to move on. He's a good little player and might make it with another club with a different philosophy, but I don't see him being a NHL'er in Los Angeles.

 

[CNS]

Jason is objectively on the money. Can't give the Kings bonus points for past success or even the current development program and what that might do to prospect potential. You can only base it on the players themselves in their current state.

As for Weal, I know he's your guy CNS, but his status hasn't really changed, even since back when you and I debated it long ago between Weal and Andreoff. His size and build are detrimental to him, especially in this organization. As Vey noted, things are very different in the NHL versus the AHL. Weal has great determination and skill, and his tenacity is admirable as he battles through his deficiencies, but you can evidently see that he gets pushed around a bit in the AHL and even in preseason games against the Ducks. He produces and has a great IQ, but I don't see him having similar success or endurance in the NHL.

Not to mention that the Kings aren't huge on having smallish skilled guys on their bottom 6. I just don't see him beating Shore, Andreoff, and Vey for one of the few coveted spots in the lineup before it is time for him to move on. He's a good little player and might make it with another club with a different philosophy, but I don't see him being a NHL'er in Los Angeles.

My guy? Why the **** do people thing I have "guys"? This ******** mentality that I lash on to certain prospects is astounding. Outside of Prokhorkin and Gravel, I don't have any "guys". And those two are only favorites of mine because I am so high on them as actual PROSPECTS. It honestly pisses me off that people think that I'm biased. My well known feelings on Forbort are solely because every time I see him play, I'm disappointed. He's looked alright this year but I still feel he has a long way to go and had one game where he was utterly brutal with the puck on his stick.

That being said, I completely forgot about Weal in every way, shape, and form as a prospect before this year. Then he stepped on the ice and FORCED me to talk about him. That's how good he's been. There isn't a single Monarch better in the neutral zone. Period. His size has done NOTHING to hurt him so far. He doesn't play with fear and will get gritty if he has to. Sure, it'd be great if he was 6'2" and 200 lbs but he's not and that hasn't slowed him down in the least.

Sorry to use you as an example Telos but it's just a joke people think I pick and choose prospects that I "like".

 

[Telos]

I didn't mean anything by it, just mentioning that you've been giving him props this year, and I remember a couple season ago you and I debated whether Weal or Andreoff had the inside track to make the Kings, we both overestimated our sides, but I think Weal's stock, from a Kings standpoint, has been stagnant. He may have raised his trade value, which is good, but I don't think the organization considers him any better of an option over players that have been above him over that time and even today.

You're not wrong, he deserves praise for his play and has been very effective in the AHL; however, I disagree about his size and build not hurting his chances at becoming a NHL player, especially with us. In that Ducks preseason prospects game, I remember him getting slapped around quite a few times. He fought through it and made some good plays and reads, but he looked like he was a couple of years younger than everyone else in terms of physicality.

You know the Kings like the rest of us. He may be a good hockey player, and may have success in the NHL, but it won't be with the Kings because his size does hurt his chances with this organization. With the players we have on the roster now, and players such as Vey, Shore, and Andreoff coming up, there is just no room for a player of his stature on this team no matter how productive he is. Reminds me of Kozun's situation over the years. It should also remind you of Loktionov's as well...

 

[CNS]

I didn't mean anything by it, just mentioning that you've been giving him props this year, and I remember a couple season ago you and I debated whether Weal or Andreoff had the inside track to make the Kings, we both overestimated our sides, but I think Weal's stock, from a Kings standpoint, has been stagnant. He may have raised his trade value, which is good, but I don't think the organization considers him any better of an option over players that have been above him over that time and even today.

You're not wrong, he deserves praise for his play and has been very effective in the AHL; however, I disagree about his size and build. Especially in that Ducks game in the preseason. I remember him getting slapped around quite a few times. He fought through it and made some good plays and reads, but he looked like he was a couple of years younger than everyone else in terms of physicality.



You know the Kings like the rest of us. He may be a good hockey player, and may have success in the NHL, but it won't be with the Kings because his size does hurt his chances with this organization. With the players we have on the roster now, and players such as Vey, Shore, and Andreoff coming up, there is just no room for a player of his stature on this team no matter how productive he is. Reminds me of Kozun's situation over the years.

I don't really question you about Weal making it outside of the Kings but that's solely because no one is supplanting Kopi or Richards for a long time and I see Shore as the 3rd line center because of what the Kings liked that #3 center to be. But that still doesn't make him any less of a legit prospect. I haven't been impressed in the least by Andy Andy whereas Weal has wowed me nearly every game. He's scoring at a PPG (including another assist tonight) and is 5'10". That's not TERRIBLE height. I do think adding muscle would be a great benefit but you could say that for probably 90% of prospects league wide.

PS. I don't remember this Andy-Weal debate at all.

 

[King'sPawn]

Weal will be hard pressed to make it in the NHL not just because of his height, but his overall size. Granted, he's bigger than when he was drafted, but he just does not have good strength. That's the biggest obstacle from making him a legit prospect.

Just to further reinforce that when I was watching the Monarchs' first period, he just bounced off players he was trying to hit, one of which he actually fell down. To me, that's an issue.

Andreoff doesn't have wowing skill, but he has an attention to detail, along with his size and toughness, that make him a better prospect, in my opinion.

 

[HYORI 1963]

Some of you guys are making too much of Weal's size. Heck, he's 5'10 not 5'6. Marcel Dionne and Theoren Fleury 5'8 and 5'7 respectively. Just look at Mike Richards, he's only 5'11, Matt Read, 5'10. Weal just needs to fill out, which he will, as he seems to have a good dedicated workout regimen in the off season. He may not make the kings roster (which we may regret), but I think he will an nhl regular in a few years.

 

[Peter James Bond]

Crazy, but wing prospects were the weakness in the system.
Not any more. Legit top 6 wingers: LWs Pearson, Zykov and Prokhorkin and RWs: Toffoli and Fasching. With no top 6 centers (Vey may be a #2 center someday) or top 2 defensemen in the system, the Kings need to draft top end centers and defensemen.

Fasching is out of control! 2 more goals tonight. He turned 18 two months ago and has 11 points in his first 7.5 games. Incredible. 6'2 213 and still growing. He may turn out to be 6'4" and 230...or at least 6'3" 225.

 

[goosh]

Jordan Weal is closer to 5'8" than 5'10".

 

[HYORI 1963]

I'm pretty certain he's closer to 5'10, but even if he weren't, it's the weight of the hockey player that's just as important, if not more than height. And like I said, Jordan works out quite a bit and will continue to grow. Just look at his production this year with the extra weight compare to last year. Besides, he's just a baby at only 21 yrs old. His body will fill out with time and dedication.

 

[CNS]

Fasching is out of control! 2 more goals tonight. He turned 18 two months ago and has 11 points in his first 7.5 games. Incredible. 6'2 213 and still growing. He may turn out to be 6'4" and 230...or at least 6'3" 225.

Here were my posts on Fasching immediately after we picked him:

Has the potential to be the steal of the draft. Off to Minnesota next year, which will be great for his development. Dean doing good so far.

Hudson Fasching certainly didn't have a good year. But remember the last kid who was hyped coming in to his draft year, struggled, and was drafted by us? Max Kitsyn. Sure Max hasn't made it yet but he's still a quality prospect who can end up being a real quality piece of the puzzle for is. If Hudson puts it all together then it's a hell of a pick. These are the picks I love. It's a risk. Hudson can turn out to be a real good player or he can turn out to be a nobody. It's up to him now and you can bet he'll work his ass off to make it.

Clearly he is busting his ass. Been great this year.

 

[Peter James Bond]

Here were my posts on Fasching immediately after we picked him:





Clearly he is busting his ass. Been great this year.

CNS: I do recall you writing that on draft day. I am just blown away in that he was 17, 60 days ago, and producing top numbers...4 or 5 points away from leading the NCAA. Crazy. Update: he has now scored in ALL 8 of his first collegiate games. This only has the first 7, but he has 2 goals tonight, his 8th game.
http://www.uscho.com/stats/player/mid,22992/hudson-fasching/

 

[CNS]

CNS: I do recall you writing that on draft day. I am just blown away in that he was 17, 60 days ago, and producing top numbers...4 or 5 points away from leading the NCAA. Crazy.

Yep. You add in his impeccable character and he's such a great prospect. If he had a better draft year, he's a 1st round pick. Talent wise that's the type of player he is. That's two years in a row the Kings have gotten 1st round talents in the 4th round. THAT'S drafting.

 

[damacles1156]

Brandon Kozun is the only undersize guy, I can envision of making the Kings.

 

[Telos]

Brandon Kozun is the only undersize guy, I can envision of making the Kings.

I personally think his odds are less than Weal's. If Kozun had any shot in hell, he would have had a call-up by now. He paid his dues and was great in the AHL for a bit while we floundered with wingers. He's kind of in the same boat as Weal physically, I remember watching him get smacked around as well, but great skill.

I personally think he should have at least received one call-up by us, at the very least a cup of coffee with the team, especially given all he put into the club, but I think the ship has sailed for him. With Williams, Carter, Toffoli, Frattin, and Nolan ahead of him, I just don't see where he fits.

The problem with Kozun is he is top 6 or bust. He is either Martin St. Louis or he is Azevedo. There is no way in hell we allow him to play on the bottom 6. I think his chances are next to none with us, and very limited around the NHL.

 

[King'sPawn]

Kozun also probably would have been claimed when he was waived if a team was confident in his ability to make the line-up. Remember, a player who is claimed on waivers has to be kept on the active roster for 30 days.

Not to say he WON'T make it, but it's not like the Kings are the only team who think he currently fits best in the AHL.

 

[Rusty Batch]

These rankings are 80% draft pedigree. 20% evaluation/production.