Speculation: 2020-21 News/Rumors/Roster Thread
- Thread starter LAKings88
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 21,478
- 18,920
They were dumb enough to throw away a 1st round pick for Taylor Hall even though they're not a contender. I think that move had more to do with the owner than the GM.
But it really just depends on what you think Clague is going to be. If he turns into an all-star defenseman down the road, than this type of trade could end up looking pretty bad.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,582
- 11,767
I dunno, Clague is what 22-23 years old? If he was going to become something special in the NHL, he probably would have already been a fixture on the Kings' blue line in at least a 5-6 role. Let's see what the Kings end up with in the way of defenseman in the draft and following UFA signings. I would be okay with moving Clague in a deal for an unconditional 1st round pick from Arizona in 2021.
No Name The Nameless
Registered User
The idea of protecting Quick in ANY way doesn't computer to me. I don't care about how his salary goes down, he's a bad netminder at any cost. I appreciate him and I'm sure he's nice to have in the room but he's a roster block. I'd rather sign a vet for 1.5 million.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
I'm with you in general but Clague JUST turned 22 and remember he was injured on the eve of his callup AND now had a season cut short. Typically remember guys break in at 21-ish. Clague is right on the verge of making it or not imo.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
Who's he blocking?
If I have to keep Quick or sign some random vet, I'm keeping Quick. The devil you know vs. the one you don't and all that. He's a good influence on Petersen if nothing else and why shake that up to save 1.5 in salary?
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,582
- 11,767
Yeah, I agree with you on your evaluation of Clague, but an unconditional 1st round pick in 2021 from Arizona would be too good to pass up for him.
AlphaBravo
Registered User
There is zero reason to trade Quick. He has no value to outside teams so we won’t get an asset back. We don’t need cap space to pay to get rid of him. Further, we need a number 2 and there is no young goalie coming up that Quick is blocking. Plus, Quick is not washed up. If we make the playoffs and Peterson struggles or is injured, I think Quick’s competitive edge will help him get hot and go for a run.
- May 9, 2014
- 5,822
- 8,237
Not to mention that depending on any UFA moves that are made we may need his cap hit to reach the floor... I’ve not done the maths but I’m pretty sure we are going to be close to it anyway.
Quick will be a good mentor for Petersen and will have the mindset to step up when needed. We won’t be able to sign a better backup and let’s be realistic we are yet to see if Petersen can handle the no1 job. I think he will be fine, but we don’t yet know it.
No Name The Nameless
Registered User
Master Yoda
LA Legends
I agree with everything you said.
But if we're talking about protecting him in the expansion draft, I'm not sure I'd want them to give up anything more than a late pick or a low level prospect like Rempal.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,582
- 11,767
johnjm22
Pseudo Intellectual
- Aug 2, 2005
- 21,478
- 18,920
I'm very happy with the tandem of Quick/Petersen. The veteran and the rookie. Quick can still play.
That said, if Seattle wants JQ, I think you gotta let him go.
That said, if Seattle wants JQ, I think you gotta let him go.
TruKingFan
Two-Time Cup Winner
And pencil inVilalta as the backup? Even if Petersen is ready for full-time duty, that's a lot of pressure? If the idea is to sign a vet backup then what's the point of losing Quick? More cap space?
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
I'm not going to worry too much about a potential back up when this franchise has pulled guys like Budaj off the scrap heap.
I'm not saying I want Quick gone: not at all. That said, I don't want to necessarily give up anything valuable to entice Seattle not to take him.
If Wagner shows progress this season, I'd be more inclined to entice Seattle not to take him since he could have a long career ahead of him v. Quick. It's not like we were all big McNabb fans but it is f***ing stupid watching him play 20 minutes a night for a 1st place team.
I won't go back to the 1993 expansion draft since the rules were a joke and it was hard to lose good players, but the Thrashers draft is the only one since then that the Kings didn't f*** up and I'd like them to not do it again. Sending an asset to protect Quick at this stage of his career seems stupid and reeks of exposing O'Donnell so Taylor could protect both Fiset and Storr. Sure, Taylor didn't know which guy would be the future #1 but you have to know that it wouldn't be both: just like we know Quick isn't long for this team post-Seattle draft.
Forget trading a pick to protect Quick: it could be a prospect instead since the Kings will have so many. Of course, sometimes you have to trade Kimmo Timonen to keep Galley while also ensuring you don't lose one of the stellar Fiset/Storr combo in the Atlanta draft the following year.
Classic Kings to lose quality NHL players so they could protect two goalies that never amounted to anything. I'd hate for them to get cute again so they can keep two goalies when it is obvious one of them has a short shelf life in LA.
I'm not saying I want Quick gone: not at all. That said, I don't want to necessarily give up anything valuable to entice Seattle not to take him.
If Wagner shows progress this season, I'd be more inclined to entice Seattle not to take him since he could have a long career ahead of him v. Quick. It's not like we were all big McNabb fans but it is f***ing stupid watching him play 20 minutes a night for a 1st place team.
I won't go back to the 1993 expansion draft since the rules were a joke and it was hard to lose good players, but the Thrashers draft is the only one since then that the Kings didn't f*** up and I'd like them to not do it again. Sending an asset to protect Quick at this stage of his career seems stupid and reeks of exposing O'Donnell so Taylor could protect both Fiset and Storr. Sure, Taylor didn't know which guy would be the future #1 but you have to know that it wouldn't be both: just like we know Quick isn't long for this team post-Seattle draft.
Forget trading a pick to protect Quick: it could be a prospect instead since the Kings will have so many. Of course, sometimes you have to trade Kimmo Timonen to keep Galley while also ensuring you don't lose one of the stellar Fiset/Storr combo in the Atlanta draft the following year.
Classic Kings to lose quality NHL players so they could protect two goalies that never amounted to anything. I'd hate for them to get cute again so they can keep two goalies when it is obvious one of them has a short shelf life in LA.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
The expansion draft isn’t until the summer of 2021, by the time Seattle joins the league, Petersen will be 27 and in the last year of his contract.
I don’t think the Kings need to be concerned about leaving Quick exposed a year from now.
TruKingFan
Two-Time Cup Winner
That's true. Guess we'll see how Petersen performs this coming season. I do think he can be a #1 goalie on this league.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
I do prefer to have Quick stick around and retire a King, as his contract runs out in a few seasons and isn’t hurting the franchise, but I also don’t think we need to lose any sleep over Quick being left exposed, nor should they be giving up assets to keep him here.
The Kings will have younger talent available who might be more enticing to Ron Francis and the future of his team.
Listening to numerous hockey podcasts, the sentiment among NHL execs seems to be that they learned their lesson from the Vegas expansion draft and won’t repeat similar mistakes in trading multiple assets to protect a player, or to force them to select a specific player.
The Kings will have younger talent available who might be more enticing to Ron Francis and the future of his team.
Listening to numerous hockey podcasts, the sentiment among NHL execs seems to be that they learned their lesson from the Vegas expansion draft and won’t repeat similar mistakes in trading multiple assets to protect a player, or to force them to select a specific player.
- May 9, 2014
- 5,822
- 8,237
AlphaBravo
Registered User
Yeah same here. My comments pertained to the issue of trading Quick, which I am against. Leaving him unprotected is another issue. Doubt Seattle takes him.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Yeah, I think Ron Francis is in for a rude awakening if he thinks the other GMs are going to get as fleeced as they did when Vegas came in.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Jericho111091
Registered User
- Status
