In the last post, I analyzed the first round of the NHL Entry Draft along with some noteworthy later picks. In this post, I will turn my eyes to just the activity of the LA Kings at the Draft. I’ll dive deeper into each of the Kings’ picks, their performance in sum, and critique their strategy.
First Pick: #8 Overall = Brandt Clarke
Grade = A / “Excellent”
There’s a lot to say about Brandt Clarke and this pick, but I’ll try to reign myself in and keep this relatively brief. With a judgmental eye, I give the Kings top marks for making the obvious choice — Clarke was the best player left on the board — that was both a steal at number eight and an excellent fit for the team. Not often do teams get to draft the best player available and also fill one of their biggest needs in the prospect system, but Clarke checked both boxes as an elite, offensive-oriented defenseman who is now the heir apparent to Drew Doughty.
Again, I’m not a scout and don’t even pretend to be — my assessments are simply based on aggregates of other rankings and mock drafts. And what my research found was that Clarke was a consensus top ten pick who ranked as high as #1 and no lower than #9. His average ranking was 5.6, with a median in that range as well, meaning that as soon as he fell past number 6 he would be a steal for the lucky team selecting him. Several rankings and mock drafts had him going ahead of other elite defensemen in the draft like Hughes and Edvinsson, so when the Kings added a puck-moving, right-shot defenseman to slot into their system, many prospect watchers simply shook their head in admiration and muttered, “Of course the top-ranked system — loaded with high-end forwards — just grabbed a future top-line defender.”
The only thing that would have made me more excited about this pick was if it were an elite LEFT-handed defensemen (ahem, Hughes). Right-shot defensemen are highly desirable, but the Kings have been doing a fine job loading up on the right side with recent surprises Roy & Walker, plus minor league talents Durzi, Faber, and Grans. Though Anderson and Bjornfot are establishing themselves as two future D on the left side, the Kings clearly have one more hole in the left that they don’t seem confident enough in existing youth Clague and Moverare to fill. I love that LA snagged a top D with their first round pick — the only other position I would have liked more would have been goalie — but it will beg the question, where does Clarke plug in (and when, considering the right side is all under contract for three more years at least). Not something to worry about now, and as Director of Amateur Scouting Mark Yannetti remarked, Clarke provides the Kings with a type of player they don’t possess, and never really have possessed, in their system.
Second Pick: #41 Overall (2nd Round, 10th pick) = Francesco Pinelli
Grade = B / “Good”
Let’s set the record straight — Pinelli should not have fallen to the 41st pick in the draft (technically No. 42 overall), and the Kings did well to get a borderline first-rounder this far into the second round. He seems promising, and has a good chance at becoming an NHLer some day. To put some numbers behind this, Pinelli’s average ranking was 27.2 in my aggregator, meaning every pick past 28 made him look more and more like a steal. None of the rankings I read had him pegged this low (36 was the lowest), while several had him ranked in the early 20s.
I am not as enthusiastic about this pick for two reasons. One, the Kings traded away an additional pick (#135) to jump up to this slot to nab Pinelli (two slots behind their former 2nd round pick, exchanged alongside a 3rd rounder for Viktor Arvidsson). Now a fifth-rounder is not extremely valuable, but considering the Kings were looking to jump back into the draft after their last pick in round 3, you think they may have liked to have had this pick. Especially because, seeing how teams were drafting, there was no indication that a player of Pinelli’s caliber would be unavailable to the Kings later in Round Two when their pick at #17 (49th overall) came around. Yes, Pinelli dropped far and may not have been there after several other teams drafted in the middle of the second round. But high-caliber players Nikita Chibrikov, Aatu Raty, Sasha Pastujov and Sean Behrens all could have been had by the latter half of the second round (or later).
The second and more straightforward reason I’m less than enthused is that Pinelli does not seem to fill any key need in the Kings system. He is a center who doesn’t score a ton of goals and doesn’t light up the highlight reels with playmaking. From what I can tell our system seems chock full of players who are like Pinelli (and who have few paths onto the roster, based on other off-season moves).
Third Pick: #58 Overall (2nd Round, 27th pick) = Samuel Helenius
Grade = C- / “Middling”
The more I think about this pick, the more I dislike it. It starts with the numbers: Helenius is the only Kings selection who was drafted higher than my aggregated scores projected. Though there wasn’t a ton of data on him, the numbers I found had him at an average ranking of 63.9 — or about 6 later than he was actually selected. Rankings ranged from a best of 44 to a worst of 76.
I really downgraded the Kings decision here because they again were so aggressive in nabbing Helenius, trading away an additional pick (#109) to move up from their later third rounder. Based on my ranking, it is very possible that Helenius would have been gone by the time the Kings picked at #71 overall. Still, as pointed out in the previous post, this draft was so topsy-turvy that consensus upper echelon picks were dropping entire rounds past their average ranking slot. In this instance, the Kings could have drafted several players who were ranked better than Helenius, from Stanislav Svozil to Simon Robertsson, or even waited at pick #71 and grabbed Ayrton Martino.
One last mark against the Kings for this pick is the position. Helenius plays center, and without a significant scoring touch seems destined for bottom six minutes. He’s big and bruising, so he adds some elements that are a bit more rare, but overall it felt like a real waste to package two picks to grab a player ahead of their slot who plays in a position you’re overflowing with.
Fourth Pick: #83 Overall (3rd Round, 20th pick) = Kirill Kirsanov
Grade = A- / “Very Good”
One of the players I would have applauded the Kings for grabbing with their third pick, 27th in the second round, would have been Kirill Kirsanov. I may be a little biased from some of the extra reporting I heard about him amid prospect previews, but the numbers speak for themselves. Kirsanov was supposed to fall within the second round (pick #54 according to the averages), so the Kings really got another steal in my mind here in the third round. Kirsanov, a dependable no-frills defenseman, was worth the extra pick to move up. Though a couple rankings projected him to fall to the early third round, none had him as low as #83 and one even ranked him #16 overall. Of course it’s possible that Kirsanov would have still been there at pick #88 when the Kings drew; but paying a sixth round pick in this instance to jump up and grab a likely second-rounder was justifiable. Sure the right side of the defense is a bit more loaded than the left, but at least they didn’t draft another center.
So an A, B, C-, and A-. But my assessment of the Kings overall Entry Draft performance isn’t simply an average of these grades. It’s important to take a few steps back and look at the whole draft and this team’s approach.
It has been said more than once that the Kings pursued quality over quantity with this draft; the former can only reveal itself over time but the latter was certainly diminished. The problem I had with this strategy is that I think it is harder than ever to properly assess and say with confidence which were the quality players in a draft where some leagues did not even play and viewings were limited. It seems more than likely that stars and NHLers will emerge from all corners of this draft, showing even more uncertainty than in prior years. Based on my numbers, there were spots in the draft where you were almost guaranteed to select a player who would have exceeded their average draft slot – the bottom of the top ten was one, and the first half of the second round was another. In the abstract, I think teams that grabbed a high number of picks, and were willing to move down to pool picks in the second and third rounds, stood a great chance of hitting on NHL talent through a combination of good players falling and increased probabilities in a veritable crapshoot of a draft. A team that did this, and which was willing to partner with the Kings, was the Carolina Hurricanes, quite overtly taking the opposite strategy to the Kings. To illustrate, Carolina traded their first round pick for two second rounders, bringing their total of 2nd round picks to four. Then after taking three solid players with picks #39, #43, and #50, Carolina dealt their own pick (#58) to LA for a third and fourth rounder. (To spin this out, that 3rd rounder was traded down to become a later 3rd + 5th while Carolina kept the 4th). Essentially, the Hurricanes kept using their draft position to multiply picks, dropping down slightly to add quantity while still getting decent players at their marginally lower slots.
Because of the nature of this draft, I think quantity over (presumed) quality was the right strategy in general. However, because the Kings farm system is so absolutely loaded, there is a part of me that is happy we are adding only four young talents to the system instead of twice that number. There isn’t room for the players they have currently, and there soon won’t be for many more prospects. So maybe, for the Kings, adding less players rather than more wasn’t terrible in 2021. And to be clear, in future draft years where there is more data and scouting information available on players, along with decreased uncertainty, I think packaging later round picks to move up into the early rounds — pursuing quality over quantity — is a defensible strategy. I just don’t know if it is optimal during a pandemic.
I realize the most constructive form of criticism is to proffer my alternative approach with a parallel mock draft, using the Kings’ draft slots. To start, I would have done nothing different in round one. With the players available, Brandt Clarke would have been my pick at No. 8. And seeing how the draft was shaping up, I’m glad the Kings did not try to trade up here nor trade down. Great value was guaranteed at No. 8, especially after McTavish and Johnson went early in the Top 10. Now the player I might have targeted, should Clarke and the other three defensemen have been gone, fell all the way to pick #20. It sounded like the Kings were trying to put together a package in order to get back into the later half of round one to grab Jesper Wallstedt, and I would have too. I was really excited about this goaltending prospect from Sweden. Glad they made the push, curious how much they were willing to spend, but in the end (knowing how highly valued first round picks are) it was probably the right bet to hold.
Round two I have a lot to quibble with. For starters, I would have loved for the Kings to have retained pick #40 and figured out something else, like a decent forward prospect in their system, to send along instead in the Viktor Arvidsson trade. But I will probably wind up loving Arvidsson and come to think of this as a steal. So assuming I started round two with just the lone pick at #49, here would have been my approach: Keep this pick (and the 5th rounder) — no need to trade up. Pinelli could have fallen further. Or, even if he was gone by the early 40s, the Kings could have sat at #49 and watched Aatu Raty or Nikita Chibrikov fall into their laps (I would have selected Raty at #49). Then, I would not have traded my 3rd and 4th rounders to jump into the 2nd round for Samuel Helenius. Seeing how teams were grabbing random players throughout round two, I likely would have stood pat, seeing that I could likely get solid players in the 3rd and 4th rounds (if I was picking 58th overall, I would have selected Sasha Pastujov for the record).
This means I’d be starting the 3rd round with pick 72, or the 71st overall selection. I’d use it to take Ayrton Martino, who went right after this pick. This would essentially be instead of Samuel Helenius, and I’d still have a 4th round selection at #109 (which to properly play out this simulation, I’d use to select Red Savage). Now later in round three, I think the Kings packaging of pick #89 + #168 to move up and grab Kirsanov 5 spots earlier was the right call. Would he still have been there at pick 89? Maybe. But giving up a 6th rounder to select a solid defensemen was the right call here. And I think that’s a good place to wrap my parallel universe draft, with me and my LA Kings in alignment.
I give the Kings a grade of B overall for this draft, buoyed by their first and last pick. (Many analysts had them in this range as well.) I think this grade could have been higher with simply a greater number of picks. However, I would not be surprised to see one star emerge from this small class alongside one additional NHLer – a welcome haul in any draft, especially for a team starting to climb out of the rebuild basement. My hope for this team in 2022 is the playoffs, and with it a draft slot out of the top ten, which means – fingers crossed for sustained pro level success – this could be the last time for a while that the Kings enter a draft in such a strong draft position (from both a quantity and quality of picks perspective).
The Kings of Kings 