Around the League 2018-2019 Part 3

[redcard]

All of our best prospects are signed to 3 year ELCs, so even if all of them make the team out of camp we don't have to worry about raises for 3 years. There's no "well we have to sign Doughty next year" or "we're going to need space in two years." Kempe needs a contract now and Grundstrom and all our scrubs will need new contracts next year but none of them will garner raises that require more space than the veteran contracts that will be coming off the books.

I'd gladly take on a contract with 2-3 years left like Shattenkirk or Staal if it came with an unprotected potential lottery pick or two.

 

[DoktorJeep]

Roster turnover isn’t pretty, so trying to paint getting rid of dollars on the books as a bad move because it’s a sentimental fan favorite getting dealt, is short sighted.

We waited 40 years for a cup, we’ll wait more than that if fans are married to the players who won the first two.

 

[johnjm22]

Roster turnover isn’t pretty, so trying to paint getting rid of dollars on the books as a bad move because it’s a sentimental fan favorite getting dealt, is short sighted.

We waited 40 years for a cup, we’ll wait more than that if fans are married to the players who won the first two.

You're trying to paint a bad move as positive roster turnover.

Trading Brown for Shattenkirk makes no sense. It doesn't help the Kings at all. Not now, not in the future. If the Kings move Brown it needs to be for picks/prospects/young players, not a cap dump.

It has nothing to do with not wanting to trade a fan favorite. If the Kings could get a 1st for Brown most people around here would drive Dustin to LAX themselves even though we love the guy and don't want to see him go.

 

[lumbergh]

I believe so.

So basically the whole Larry Brook article is BS because the Rangers can’t do anything he’s suggesting.

 

[kilowatt]

Roster turnover isn’t pretty, so trying to paint getting rid of dollars on the books as a bad move because it’s a sentimental fan favorite getting dealt, is short sighted.

We waited 40 years for a cup, we’ll wait more than that if fans are married to the players who won the first two.

Forget the fact that Brown is a good player, what about the fact that Shattenkirk isn't very good at hockey anymore? I'd trade Quick with five years left for Shattenkirk and then possibly retain 50% of his contract and flip him for an asset, but Brown's extra year over Shattenkirk isn't an issue. That's just crazy.

Over the past two years combined, Brown is in the top 75 in scoring amongst forwards. That's pretty good.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

What do people think we need cap space for?

If you can answer that, I can maybe buy in to a Brown for Shattenkirk swap.

Spoiler: there's no answer. We're gonna be closer to the floor than the ceiling by next year at this rate. Cap space for the sake of cap space is bunk.

 

[kilowatt]

What do people think we need cap space for?

If you can answer that, I can maybe buy in to a Brown for Shattenkirk swap.

Spoiler: there's no answer. We're gonna be closer to the floor than the ceiling by next year at this rate. Cap space for the sake of cap space is bunk.

Hypothetically, to take on more bad contracts, to get more pieces? But we have a lot of pieces already, and over the next couple years while we wait for those pieces to be ready, we’ll certainly acquire a couple more.

I agree though - there’s really no point in clearing cap space just to clear cap space. Not until our core pieces are ready to make a real impact.

 

[Bandit]

Roster turnover isn’t pretty, so trying to paint getting rid of dollars on the books as a bad move because it’s a sentimental fan favorite getting dealt, is short sighted.

We waited 40 years for a cup, we’ll wait more than that if fans are married to the players who won the first two.

That last bit is pretty ridiculous. Even if Kopitar Quick Brown & Doughty retire as kings they could still go through Plenty rebuilds in 40 years.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't you guys realize that trading Dustin Brown for Kevin Shattenkirk is going to hold the Kings back from winning any more Stanley Cups over the next 40 years?

 

[Johnny Utah]

No comments on the Lucic trade? Hopefully this works out for both teams. Both have four years left.

 

[deeshamrock]

Read some rumors about Quick to Columbus.

That's caught fire again the last couple of weeks. It almost happened in Feb, but the Jackets decided to keep Bob and Panarin and make a run of it. They just ran into a hot goalie.

So I think they are seriously looking into trading for Quick again.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

No comments on the Lucic trade? Hopefully this works out for both teams. Both have four years left.

Just looking at the buyout comparison of the two players - EDM got the better of the deal. Maybe CGY will try to move Lucic -as they are in cap hell with Tkachuk needing a contract.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The funny thing is CGY still being in a bit of a bind with players yet to sign.

Loving all these win-nothing teams getting caught in the cap net after years of mocking good teams cap trouble. Well, James Neal and Mike Smith were still awful signings, we're going to trade for MILAN LUCIC to make our situation better. Ouch.

 

[KopitarFAN]

Something to keep an eye on, the Kings currently don't have a defenseman under contract for 21-22 to expose in the expansion, depending on what he's worth in a trade over the next 12 months, this could be incentive to keep and extend Martinez.

 

[tomd]

That's caught fire again the last couple of weeks. It almost happened in Feb, but the Jackets decided to keep Bob and Panarin and make a run of it. They just ran into a hot goalie.

So I think they are seriously looking into trading for Quick again.

Source(s) of rumor?

On the surface it makes no sense from a CBJ perspective as they are as close to winning the SC in the next 3-4 years as the Kings are. Why would they do it unless they were the were getting a sweetener from the Kings to take Quick?

 

[KopitarFAN]

Source(s) of rumor?

On the surface it makes no sense from a CBJ perspective as they are as close to winning the SC in the next 3-4 years as the Kings are. Why would they do it unless they were the were getting a sweetener from the Kings to take Quick?

I remember reading about a swap of bad deals like Quick for Wennberg or something, which doesn't make a ton of sense as the deals are equal in length, and the cash value for Wennberg is much higher. However, if the goal (no pun intended) is to clear the net, mission accomplished.

 

[KingsFan7824]

As of today, the trade has to favor Edmonton, just because of the condition on the pick. Neal has never scored fewer than 21 goals in any season, other than last year. Figure he's got the potential for a relatively higher upside. Maybe he clicks with the best player in the league. The Oilers desperately have to do something to make McDavid happy, so there's no downside to the trade for them. At least it's something. They have to try and squeeze a few more goals from everywhere on the roster.

Have to like it for the Oilers right now. Especially because the Flames got career best seasons from all 5 of their top 5 scorers last year. All were basically at or over a point per game for the season. In today's league, even with increased scoring lately, that's crazy. At this time last year, if you had said Neal would be terrible, nobody would've picked Calgary to finish 2nd overall in the league. But, they might be able to hide Lucic better than Edmonton could, if those numbers stay up.

 

[tomd]

I remember reading about a swap of bad deals like Quick for Wennberg or something, which doesn't make a ton of sense as the deals are equal in length, and the cash value for Wennberg is much higher. However, if the goal (no pun intended) is to clear the net, mission accomplished.

You're right...Wennberg was out there but I think that started on this board! Now that is a trade that makes sense for CBJ because they benefit from a cash savings perspective. Kings also benefit b/c they get a young-ish 2c which they desperately need who may benefit from a change of scenery. It's a intriguing trade scenario.

 

[kovacro]

Something to keep an eye on, the Kings currently don't have a defenseman under contract for 21-22 to expose in the expansion, depending on what he's worth in a trade over the next 12 months, this could be incentive to keep and extend Martinez.

Obviously this is all subject to change but, the Kings could be in a position by that time to be able to acquire a pretty good defenseman from another club who may be in a jam.

I will be interested to see how teams plan for this draft knowing the rules are the same.

 

[KingsFan7824]

I remember reading about a swap of bad deals like Quick for Wennberg or something, which doesn't make a ton of sense as the deals are equal in length, and the cash value for Wennberg is much higher. However, if the goal (no pun intended) is to clear the net, mission accomplished.

A $5.4m difference. That's another good reason why it wouldn't happen.

Regardless of how few goals Wennberg scores these days, are the Jackets in a position to be trading a soon to be 25 year old forward for a 33/34 year old goalie? They just traded a bunch of stuff for 1 series win. We talk about that age range of guys growing up on a team together. Wennberg is in that window with the rest of the Jackets main guys. Quick becomes the oldest player on the team if he went there. The Kings are adding to that deal, if only because of the near decade difference in age. Give me the choice, and I'll give the 25 year old a chance to bounce back over the 34 year old. Especially if we're talking about a 4 year investment. If Quick had 1 year left, he'd be much easier, and likely more valuable, to trade. This is when that stupid pre-2013 contract for 10 years to beat the cap hurts. It was good before, now it hurts. Same with Carter.

Older goalies don't get traded often, and they don't go for much when they are. Bishop brought back Cernak. Not sure anyone thought rock solid top 4 defenseman when it happened, and Bishop was 30, and also a UFA, and Lombardi was desperate. Budaj also had to be exchanged for roster purposes. Miller brought back a future #1 from St.Louis, but he was also a soon to be UFA, and the Blues were 5th in the league that year, and were probably around that position on the day they traded for Miller. Columbus doesn't know what they're going to be this year, and they're going to invest in an aging goalie, after everyone jumped ship? Trading for Campbell or Petersen would make more sense for Columbus.

Every team we've said would make sense for Quick to go to, hasn't gotten Quick.

 

[The Tikkanen]

If I'm a GM I want to see Quick play at least 20 games this year and be lights out before I make a trade.

 

[tomd]

A $5.4m difference. That's another good reason why it wouldn't happen.

Regardless of how few goals Wennberg scores these days, are the Jackets in a position to be trading a soon to be 25 year old forward for a 33/34 year old goalie? They just traded a bunch of stuff for 1 series win. We talk about that age range of guys growing up on a team together. Wennberg is in that window with the rest of the Jackets main guys. Quick becomes the oldest player on the team if he went there. The Kings are adding to that deal, if only because of the near decade difference in age. Give me the choice, and I'll give the 25 year old a chance to bounce back over the 34 year old. Especially if we're talking about a 4 year investment. If Quick had 1 year left, he'd be much easier, and likely more valuable, to trade. This is when that stupid pre-2013 contract for 10 years to beat the cap hurts. It was good before, now it hurts. Same with Carter.

Older goalies don't get traded often, and they don't go for much when they are. Bishop brought back Cernak. Not sure anyone thought rock solid top 4 defenseman when it happened, and Bishop was 30, and also a UFA, and Lombardi was desperate. Budaj also had to be exchanged for roster purposes. Miller brought back a future #1 from St.Louis, but he was also a soon to be UFA, and the Blues were 5th in the league that year, and were probably around that position on the day they traded for Miller. Columbus doesn't know what they're going to be this year, and they're going to invest in an aging goalie, after everyone jumped ship? Trading for Campbell or Petersen would make more sense for Columbus.

Every team we've said would make sense for Quick to go to, hasn't gotten Quick.

I think Quick's $7 million salary this coming year is a killer and when added to his 4 year cap hit and poor play last year makes him very difficult to move. If he doesn't improve in 19-20 I see him as a potential buyout candidate for LA.

 

[KopitarFAN]

Obviously this is all subject to change but, the Kings could be in a position by that time to be able to acquire a pretty good defenseman from another club who may be in a jam.

I will be interested to see how teams plan for this draft knowing the rules are the same.

Good point. As things stand, they will be offering a "dogs breakfast" because their highest paid players are the guys they would happily expose (Quick, Carter, maybe Brown) and protecting guys like Kempe, Iafallo(?), Grundstrom(?), Wagner(?), Campbell/Petersen and of course Dewey.

Many questions will be answered over the next 12 months.

 

[johnjm22]

Columbus would be more interested in Campbell or Petersen than they would be in Quick.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Something to keep an eye on, the Kings currently don't have a defenseman under contract for 21-22 to expose in the expansion, depending on what he's worth in a trade over the next 12 months, this could be incentive to keep and extend Martinez.

Time to extend the best defensive defenseman in the league: Derek Forbort.