I don't underestimate Stutzle. I think he'll be an exceptional player in the NHL. Any team that gets him has a potential franchise player on their hands. I think he's on equal footing with Byfield right now, and the only reason why I lean towards Byfield is because he's a year younger. Byfield is significantly closer to where Lafreniere was at this point 12 months ago. I'm excited to see where Byfield could be 12 months from now.

Every player has flaws in his game. The flaws in Byfield's game are just hugely overshadowed by his strengths, and in areas that can be improved upon through professional coaching.

Stutzle's flaws are his strength and shot. Here's another quote from a direct comparison of both players:







Strength and shot are two areas that you can't really teach. You either have it or you don't. Hopefully Stutzle can grow into his frame and work on the physicality issue, as the lack of strength is only going to magnify when he starts playing against the biggest and strongest players in the world in the NHL. The shot issue is concerning as well. However, neither are dealbreakers. Like I said, anyone that gets Stutzle is getting a quality player.

I'm very aware of both Byfields and Stutzles flaws. It was Stutzles first year playing in a men's league while only 17 years old... hes got a decent frame, give him some time with Stoll and he'll be on a new level.

You can say the same thing about Byfield. Give him a season with Kopitar and he'll be on a new level.

I'm not advocating one player over the other. I'm personally leaning towards Byfield, but I don't think the Kings can go wrong with either player. My only point was that taking Byfield over Stutzle isn't the huge mistake that you're making it out to be, just as taking Stutzle over Byfield has its merits as well.

Can't give him a season with Kopitar if neither play wing.

I'm not sure I follow. By that same logic, Stutzle can't learn from Stoll because he doesn't play on his line (or at all).

The place to learn and get better is in practice. Kopitar can teach Byfield the ropes at practice. They don't need to play together on a line.

Or he can just teach Vilardi and Turcotte...

He can (and will) mentor those guys, but those players don't bring the same set of tools to the table that Byfield does. They're not on the same level. They'll both turn into fine regular NHLers, but neither is in the conversation to become one of the best players in the league. Byfield has that potential (as does Stutzle).

He can (and will) mentor those guys, but those players don't bring the same set of tools to the table that Byfield does. They're not on the same level. They'll both turn into fine regular NHLers, but neither is in the conversation to become one of the best players in the league. Byfield has that potential (as does Stutzle).

Don’t waste your time... I had this exact conversation with him the other night. Great points btw @tkecanuck341

There was a time when Kopitar was one of the best centers in the league. Nobody said he had the potential to be one of the best.

I disagree. Kopitar was the #1 ranked European prospect going into the draft, and people had him pegged as an elite talent. They didn't really do overall rankings back then, but mock drafts had Kopitar in the 5/6 range. He fell to 11 because of the normal anti-European sentiments back then, and worry that he might not come over to the NHL.

Here's a mock draft from 2005 showing Kopitar at #6 overall. It has him going to Columbus and Price going to LA at #11. Montreal went off the board and took Price at #5, and Brule "fell" to Columbus at #6. However, I bet Chicago, San Jose, Vancouver, Ottawa and Vancouver all feel pretty dumb for their anti-European bias.

http://hockeytraderumors.com/thecoachs-2005-mock-draft/

Key takeaway: "He is raw, and you’ll likely have to wait a year or two, but in terms of potential, he is one of the best."

It literally says in the draft profile that he has the potential to be one of the best.