What did Ziggy cost the Kings? They got significantly better after adding him (and Smolinski). Jokinen wouldn’t break out until he got his ass whipped into shape under Mike Keenan, and Jokinen only appeared in 6 career playoff games. To suggest the Kings would have been better not making that trade is downright silly. Maybe you can tell us where Jokinen got the teams he played on.
I don't know if it's necessarily about whether the Kings would've better without the trade. If DL said that, I know I've had to same thought. Open a new building, you get a name player, sell some extra jerseys, etc. Had it been the potential nixed trade, the one that involved Barney, or Rosa, or whatever that lesser deal was, that wouldn't have been bad. At least they keep Jokinen to add to the depth. To trade 3 of the better prospects in the organization(although 2 of them never did anything), plus a known top 10 pick(in what would become one of the all time worst drafts), was a lot for a team that had just started rebuilding a very barren prospect pool post-Gretzky.
If they're going to go for Palffy, they have to then go all in after that, but they didn't. They signed Schneider in 2000, but other than him, they didn't keep adding to the team. They got Deadmarsh and Miller, but had to trade Blake and Reinprecht to do so. They got Allison, and Eloranta was ok, but had to trade Stumpel and Murray to do so. Had they added some of those guys, while retaining talent, they might've had something. Plus they weren't very good at drafting, so they had no young guys coming in to help. Frolov's first year was 02-03, and that was the year Allison and Deadmarsh disappeared forever. It was always one guy in, one guy out. They got better with Palffy, and Smolinski, but that's as far as it went. They had a fun run in 2001, but they were outside of the playoffs when they traded Blake, and then they were also down 3-1 to the Avs, and the Wings lost Yzerman and Shanahan during the 1st round.