Toggle sidebar

Around the League 20-21 Thread: Playoffs Edition

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
bland said:
I will always defend that deal, the team had earned another shot, Sekera was perfect for the system, and they had a Voynov shaped hole. That one was worth it. Sekera got hurt, the team was spent, and he took the extras to go to Edmonton.

The Lucic trade, that was a disaster from Day 1. It was impossible to re-sign him, no cap space available, no expiring contracts, nobody they could afford to trade to retain him. That was the first sign of desperation from Lombardi, far too much was sacrificed for a rental on a team that needed to rebuild its dwindling asset list. That was the moment "retooling" was lost as an option.
Click to expand...

Same thought process for me. Chicago injured Sekera's knee and that was that. His skill set was the missing ingredient that season. Lucic played well with the Kings, but he didn't help as much as a true #2 defenseman would have for a 1 season rental.
 
bland said:
I will always defend that deal, the team had earned another shot, Sekera was perfect for the system, and they had a Voynov shaped hole. That one was worth it. Sekera got hurt, the team was spent, and he took the extras to go to Edmonton.

The Lucic trade, that was a disaster from Day 1. It was impossible to re-sign him, no cap space available, no expiring contracts, nobody they could afford to trade to retain him. That was the first sign of desperation from Lombardi, far too much was sacrificed for a rental on a team that needed to rebuild its dwindling asset list. That was the moment "retooling" was lost as an option.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely defensible. But you can also be critical or say what makes it a bad deal.

Sekera had an injury history. And while they were missing Voynov, he was more of a Martinez upgrade. I maintain they should have tried to trade away Martinez at that time, save space to re-sign Sekera, and get assets to start the process of getting younger. None of that was done, and the team got older, didn't make the playoffs, and didn't start changing direction.

The move itself wasn't bad, but it was a symptom of bad things to come if mishandled. Which it was.

Agree 100% on Lucic and I tried to be hopeful, but ultimately couldn't stomach it.
 
King'sPawn said:
It is absolutely defensible. But you can also be critical or say what makes it a bad deal.

Sekera had an injury history. And while they were missing Voynov, he was more of a Martinez upgrade. I maintain they should have tried to trade away Martinez at that time, save space to re-sign Sekera, and get assets to start the process of getting younger. None of that was done, and the team got older, didn't make the playoffs, and didn't start changing direction.

The move itself wasn't bad, but it was a symptom of bad things to come if mishandled. Which it was.

Agree 100% on Lucic and I tried to be hopeful, but ultimately couldn't stomach it.
Click to expand...
I remember wanting to deal Martinez as well for the cap space. Didn’t feel like he was a legit top 4 solution for us at the time.
 
The other sucky part of the Sekera trade was doing it to keep him AWAY from Chicago and well you know the rest of that story
 
Meant to post this in here rather than the trade rumors discussion…

The same year the Kings acquired Andrej Sekera, the Canadiens traded for Jeff Petry and gave up much less to acquire him. That right there would've been the Voynov replacement and top 4 defenseman who would've helped the Kings' blueline for a long period of time.

As RJ mentioned, the Hawks didn’t get Sekera, but they didn’t need to as they settled on Kimmo Timonen for a considerably lower cost, and he was sparingly used as a depth defenseman.

Justify the Sekera deal anyway you want, but there were other options at a lower cost. It’s not like Sekera was a battle tested, stable veteran like a Willie Mitchell or Robyn Regehr they were adding, and Sekera had two goals and 19 points at the time of the trade. Friggin’ Brayden McNabb had better numbers than Sekera that season.
 
Sekera was miles ahead of Petry at that point in their careers. He played both sides and had one of the best breakout passes in the league. He was coming off of a 40+ point season when Petry was in the teens. Sekera fit the Kings perfectly. Petry didn't really break out until 3 or 4 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigBrown, KINGS17, Mats26 and 2 others
bland said:
Sekera was miles ahead of Petry at that point in their careers. He played both sides and had one of the best breakout passes in the league. He was coming off of a 40+ point season when Petry was in the teens. Sekera fit the Kings perfectly. Petry didn't really break out until 3 or 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

At the time they were dealt, Sekera had two goals and 19 points and averaged 22:46 in 57 games. He also had a history of issues with durability.

When Petry was dealt, he had four goals and 15 points in 59 games, averaging almost 21 minutes per game.

Both ended up signing similar extensions at six years, $5.5M per year, but one cost considerably more than the other.

Make any excuses you want, that was overpayment for a rental the team had no shot at re-signing, a mistake that was repeated one year later on draft day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom