Prospect Info: Who does LA pick #2? Part 2 To Byfield or to Stutzle? That is the question

[funky]

I definitely think Stutzle is the best 'fit' for our current list of personnel. I just think that's a terrible reason to make a draft choice.

Agreed. Take the best player available as Yanetti said numerous times.

 

[Rorschach]

I definitely think Stutzle is the best 'fit' for our current list of personnel. I just think that's a terrible reason to make a draft choice.

Who said one equates to the other? I simply prefer the more accomplished player is all.

I have Byfield 5th overall so why would I want to spend the 2nd overall to get the 5th ranked player? We already reached once with Thomas Hickey. Some scouts have him at 6th. Some have him maybe at 1st.

I’m sorry I have a difference of opinion on a message board. I guess you guys are taking turns regulating my opinion. Won’t happen again.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Who said one equates to the other? I simply prefer the more accomplished player is all.

I have Byfield 5th overall so why would I want to spend the 2nd overall to get the 5th ranked player? We already reached once with Thomas Hickey. Some scouts have him at 6th. Some have him maybe at 1st.

I’m sorry I have a difference of opinion on a message board. I guess you guys are taking turns regulating my opinion. Won’t happen again.

Never said one does equate to the other. All I'm insinuating is there are plenty of reasons to take Stutzle high, but 'complementing current prospect group' isn't one of them. It was just an observation based on what you and @bland were saying, not an attack. And it sounds like you're actually agreeing, so

 

[Statto]

But still not as bad as people that use that use the letter u in color or flavor or leave a b out of Robbins

Hmm.. that’s how the English spell English words ...

 

[Statto]

Who said one equates to the other? I simply prefer the more accomplished player is all.

I have Byfield 5th overall so why would I want to spend the 2nd overall to get the 5th ranked player? We already reached once with Thomas Hickey. Some scouts have him at 6th. Some have him maybe at 1st.

I’m sorry I have a difference of opinion on a message board. I guess you guys are taking turns regulating my opinion. Won’t happen again.

I understand and fully respect your view/argument (as you know I do not agree In the slightest). However even if the whole world had Byfield at #6, taking him at #2 would not be a reach in the same stratosphere as the reach that was made with the Hickey pick. I’m an unashamed Lombardi fan-boy but I cannot fathom nor defend that one I’m afraid...

 

[Statto]

I think the one thing we all need to factor in is that the draft date is a way off and things will have evolved by the time we pick. With play in Europe resuming before the draft it will give all the EU based prospects an opportunity to move up in the rankings. Equally if those prospects don’t use the extra time well, they could drop like a stone.

So with Stützle from a positional standpoint his ability to play wing certainly would be a plus point. What I want to see from him in this period before the draft is that he’s used this lockdown time to work on his strength and I hope he’s also done work on his shot and uses it more. If he’s not done those things it would be a huge red flag for me.

I use Stützle as an example here but it applies to everyone in the draft and the prospects we already have in the system. They all need to have used the time as effectively as possible, so every player that needs to improve strength and conditioning had better of used this time well. I’m sure the guys in the system have done that, so I expect Turcotte has added the muscle weight he’s needed. However what the likes of Stützle, Byfield and Co. have done during lockdown will potentially have a significant impact on their draft position. It will be hard to quantify for some players if their leagues haven’t resumed but they all need to be able to demonstrate that they’ve done all they can, to continue their respective development as players. Failure to use this time effectively would scare me off anyone in the draft, talent wouldn’t come into it.

 

[ru4reals]

I'm seriously just pissed we weren't able to have a Kings Development camp this summer. Last year was by far the most highly anticipated camp since Drews draft year. I can just imagine how crazy it would have been seeing the young guys go at it again. Turcotte, Byfield(yes he would have been the pick ), Madden, Kaliyev, Fagemo, Nousiainen, Holts, Ingham, Parik, Thomas, Spence and the 2020 draftees. Maybe even Bjornfot and Kupari. I know I'm missing some but upcoming year is gonna be off the hook. Assuming all leagues get back to normal of course.

 

[KINGS17]

Even if the clear cut best pick in the draft is a LW?

I too believe that Byfield is the best option, but I have a nagging feeling that Stützle ends up just as good, but with a skill set that would do more to compliment the rest of the asset list instead of leading from the front. In a vacuum, its Byfield. Looking at the prospect list, its Stützle.

Its not as easy a choice as many here find it, these are two very different players who would both be incredible assets to the Kings.

I am surprised you would advocate making a pick at #2 overall based on what is in the current prospect pool. I can't pass on Byfield's ceiling (and I understand he is still your pick at this spot). Let Blake and company adjust the asset pool to fit the game of a potentially dominant 1C, not the other way around.

 

[Lt Dan]

Hmm.. that’s how the English spell English words ...

They also used to say thee and thrice.
Get with the times

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

15 years ago...

 

[lumbergh]

What about a #3 & #5 overall for #2+ trade with the Senators? I don't know how badly the Senators want the #2, but it might seem attractive if they want to build around Byfield really bad. If the Kings add two second rounders, would that work?

 

[bland]

I am surprised you would advocate making a pick at #2 overall based on what is in the current prospect pool. I can't pass on Byfield's ceiling. Let Blake and company adjust the asset pool to fit the game of a potentially dominant 1C, not the other way around.

If there was a clear separation between the two, sure, but I firmly believe that "best player available" is just a cliche that folks misunderstand and that in this case Byfield would absolutely top the Kings chart, but Stützle would bring everybody else up a notch or two. Its a tough call. A potentially dominant leader up top in an already loaded position or an unbelievably skilled congealing agent with something nobody else on the asset list possesses.

I would swing for the fences with Byfield, but I would have some serious reservations about it. Like, a ton of reservations.

 

[bland]

Never said one does equate to the other. All I'm insinuating is there are plenty of reasons to take Stutzle high, but 'complementing current prospect group' isn't one of them. It was just an observation based on what you and @bland were saying, not an attack. And it sounds like you're actually agreeing, so

If you had a thinner set of assets, sure, but the Kings pipeline is loaded up the middle. That affords them two options: take the lottery ticket in Byfield or enhance your group with an elite and rare skill set missing from that list of players. Both are terrific choices.

If nothing else was considered, just purely the player, Byfield wins. But I don't think an organization, especially one in the Kings advantageous spot, should ever put on the blinders and ignore the other potential impact the choice will have.

The Kings are reaching the point where they have the luxury of too many quality kids all within the same age range. That will allow them to deal top prospects for immediate help, so that is a huge side bonus of adding another potential #1c. But both picks fit that bill too.

 

[King'sPawn]

Who said one equates to the other? I simply prefer the more accomplished player is all.

...

I’m sorry I have a difference of opinion on a message board. I guess you guys are taking turns regulating my opinion. Won’t happen again.

How is Stutzle more accomplished than Byfield?

 

[cyclones22]

What about a #3 & #5 overall for #2+ trade with the Senators? I don't know how badly the Senators want the #2, but it might seem attractive if they want to build around Byfield really bad. If the Kings add two second rounders, would that work?

There are value calculations out there on what it historically takes to move up to particular slots and it would cost way more than that to secure the #5 overall even while flip flopping #2 and #3 overall.

 

[Master Yoda]

If you had a thinner set of assets, sure, but the Kings pipeline is loaded up the middle. That affords them two options: take the lottery ticket in Byfield or enhance your group with an elite and rare skill set missing from that list of players. Both are terrific choices.

If nothing else was considered, just purely the player, Byfield wins. But I don't think an organization, especially one in the Kings advantageous spot, should ever put on the blinders and ignore the other potential impact the choice will have.

The Kings are reaching the point where they have the luxury of too many quality kids all within the same age range. That will allow them to deal top prospects for immediate help, so that is a huge side bonus of adding another potential #1c. But both picks fit that bill too.

If one guy is definitely more valuable than the other, you take him every time. There are other options like trades that can make things work.
I don't think it should matter that the Kings have bunch of Center prospects. You take the better player.
If those two are equal in value, then you can consider the fit.

 

[KINGS17]

If there was a clear separation between the two, sure, but I firmly believe that "best player available" is just a cliche that folks misunderstand and that in this case Byfield would absolutely top the Kings chart, but Stützle would bring everybody else up a notch or two. Its a tough call. A potentially dominant leader up top in an already loaded position or an unbelievably skilled congealing agent with something nobody else on the asset list possesses.

I would swing for the fences with Byfield, but I would have some serious reservations about it. Like, a ton of reservations.

BPA is definitely a cliche, but cliches and stereotypes exist for a reason.

I think you are correct, the move here is to swing for the fences with Byfield. This wouldn't be the same as the swing Dean took at Hickey though. It would be more akin to Blake hearing someone bang a trash can and knowing a fastball was coming.

Byfield has size, skill, speed, and drives the net. All of those things will create space and make other players better.

If Byfield is a very good 1C, but isn't a dominant leader, the history of the Kings tells us you can find "glue guys" (e.g. Williams, Richards, Stoll, Greene, Mitchell, etc.) to fill in the gaps.

 

[BigKing]

Even if the clear cut best pick in the draft is a LW?

I too believe that Byfield is the best option, but I have a nagging feeling that Stützle ends up just as good, but with a skill set that would do more to compliment the rest of the asset list instead of leading from the front. In a vacuum, its Byfield. Looking at the prospect list, its Stützle.

Its not as easy a choice as many here find it, these are two very different players who would both be incredible assets to the Kings.

But Stutzle isn't the clear cut best pick at #2 like Laf is at #1. All things being equal, give me the guaranteed center over the potential winger.

I also don't care about complimenting the list v. taking whoever Management believes is/will be the best player but I get how it becomes a factor if the scouts have them ranked very close together.

 

[BigKing]

How is Stutzle more accomplished than Byfield?

He isn't but Rorsch places a ton of emphasis on the fact that Stutzle played in the DEL and he wants someone that can immediately step in and play next season.

 

[bland]

If one guy is definitely more valuable than the other, you take him every time. There are other options like trades that can make things work.
I don't think it should matter that the Kings have bunch of Center prospects. You take the better player.
If those two are equal in value, then you can consider the fit.

Exactly. That is the case here - two equally attractive options, both with widely different attributes, with little to no separation between the two.

There is no consensus here despite a fan poll. You will see just as many educated, respected prognosticators on one side as the other.

 

[bland]

BPA is definitely a cliche, but cliches and stereotypes exist for a reason.

I think you are correct, the move here is to swing for the fences with Byfield. This wouldn't be the same as the swing Dean took at Hickey though. It would be more akin to Blake hearing someone bang a trash can and knowing a fastball was coming.

Byfield has size, skill, speed, and drives the net. All of those things will create space and make other players better.

If Byfield is a very good 1C, but isn't a dominant leader, the history of the Kings tells us you can find "glue guys" (e.g. Williams, Richards, Stoll, Greene, Mitchell, etc.) to fill in the gaps.

Just to play devil's advocate, "if" Byfield is like your last paragraph, would you still take him if his impact is nearly identical to what you already have in Vilardi?

 

[TreeLane]

I know, I'm in enemy territory lol but as a fan of an enemy team I would be much more concerned about LA if they drafted Byfield. He has similar qualities to Evgeni Malkin which means he would be the top pivot in the Pacific in a couple years time and certainly the best player in California in 3-4 years time while Karlsson ages. Stutzle is going to be an excellent player but Byfield is the crown jewel after Laf.

Byfield is a Franchise Pivot. Stutzle might be more skilled but I think he lacks the Franchise marquee status that I believe Byfield will carry for the next 15 years.

Either way LA is getting a damn fine player.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I am surprised you would advocate making a pick at #2 overall based on what is in the current prospect pool. I can't pass on Byfield's ceiling (and I understand he is still your pick at this spot). Let Blake and company adjust the asset pool to fit the game of a potentially dominant 1C, not the other way around.

Exactly.

If you had a thinner set of assets, sure, but the Kings pipeline is loaded up the middle. That affords them two options: take the lottery ticket in Byfield or enhance your group with an elite and rare skill set missing from that list of players. Both are terrific choices.

If nothing else was considered, just purely the player, Byfield wins. But I don't think an organization, especially one in the Kings advantageous spot, should ever put on the blinders and ignore the other potential impact the choice will have.

The Kings are reaching the point where they have the luxury of too many quality kids all within the same age range. That will allow them to deal top prospects for immediate help, so that is a huge side bonus of adding another potential #1c. But both picks fit that bill too.

Okay--so you're actively arguing against BPA then. I know you're adding nuance, but you're actively saying Byfield is better but you'd pick Stutzle. I respect your reasoning and I appreciate the background, I just totally disagree is all. I know what you're saying is different than, say, the idiots saying the Kings should take Drysdale at 2 because of positional need in the organization, but K17 said it the way I wanted to--way too much happens with the roster and prospect pool to pick a guy to try to 'gel' with the current crop. Guys can get traded, get injured, go bust.

If you really need a dynamic winger and all the Cs pan out--truly, that's a great problem to have. Move Vilardi or Turcotte to wing and call it a day.

 

[bland]

Exactly.





Okay--so you're actively arguing against BPA then. I know you're adding nuance, but you're actively saying Byfield is better but you'd pick Stutzle. I respect your reasoning and I appreciate the background, I just totally disagree is all. I know what you're saying is different than, say, the idiots saying the Kings should take Drysdale at 2 because of positional need in the organization, but K17 said it the way I wanted to--way too much happens with the roster and prospect pool to pick a guy to try to 'gel' with the current crop. Guys can get traded, get injured, go bust.

If you really need a dynamic winger and all the Cs pan out--truly, that's a great problem to have. Move Vilardi or Turcotte to wing and call it a day.

I have never said, nor do I believe that Byfield is the better player. I actually think Stützle is the better player now and likely in the future - but I completely acknowledge and support the idea that Byfield's top potential is well worth the 2nd overall pick because the impact of a dominant #1c is the most important position in hockey. If you are gifted that chance, you have to take it.

 

[bland]

Exactly.





Okay--so you're actively arguing against BPA then. I know you're adding nuance, but you're actively saying Byfield is better but you'd pick Stutzle. I respect your reasoning and I appreciate the background, I just totally disagree is all. I know what you're saying is different than, say, the idiots saying the Kings should take Drysdale at 2 because of positional need in the organization, but K17 said it the way I wanted to--way too much happens with the roster and prospect pool to pick a guy to try to 'gel' with the current crop. Guys can get traded, get injured, go bust.

If you really need a dynamic winger and all the Cs pan out--truly, that's a great problem to have. Move Vilardi or Turcotte to wing and call it a day.

Secondly, Stützle won't just improve the current group, he will likely improve everybody he plays with, be it Kaliyev, Fagemo, Vilardi, Madden, or any player brought in. THAT is his skill set, creating high level chances for players off of the puck. Of course Byfield does the same at a high level, just not to Stützle's extreme.