Toggle sidebar

Speculation: LA Kings News, Rumors, Roster Thread 2022-23 Season

  • 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.
AbsentMojo said:
Hypothetical: If a team asked you for one of Turcotte or Pinelli, which would you offer?
Click to expand...

Good question, I think it depends on what else has to be added to Pinelli. I think both will be NHL wingers. Turcotte is obviously better all-around but I think Pinelli will translate better.

The equivalency for me right now is Turcotte = Pinelli + 2nd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BringTheReign and AbsentMojo
Fishhead said:
Good question, I think it depends on what else has to be added to Pinelli. I think both will be NHL wingers. Turcotte is obviously better all-around but I think Pinelli will translate better.

The equivalency for me right now is Turcotte = Pinelli + 2nd.
Click to expand...
Right now to me thats a coin flip due to Turcotte's injury issues - it remains to be seen if its just bad luck or not. Since we have Danault for 4.5 seasons (2 way 2/3C), Turcotte is less important to the roster in my opinion (I see him as a 3C). We need a future 1C and 2C... and Maybe Pinelli could provide the 2C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fishhead
AbsentMojo said:
Hypothetical: If a team asked you for one of Turcotte or Pinelli, which would you offer?
Click to expand...
Tough one. If they are confident Turcotte will be healthy and still develop into something close to his upside he’s easily the one I keep.

However it’ll be tough to get to his upside at this point, although not impossible. Given the uncertainty with Turcotte it’s a coin flip but if it were today I’d probably let Pinelli go… probably. I think that’s because I think Turcotte’s game does translate at the pro level and we have evidence to support that (despite lack of points his underlying NHL numbers were good - poor finishing cost him a couple of assists at least). For Pinelli whilst I think his game likely translates we don’t know for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo
Ekholm
Gavrikov
McCabe
Edmundson

These appear to be the 4 LHD who are at the top of the trade market. We will be competing with Edmonton and probably other teams as well.
Which one do we want the most?
Which one do we not want the most?
 
Peter James Bond II said:
I guess my Werenski idea was hated. I have been hoping Gavrikov could be a target, for the top 4 LHD
badly needed....but that's 1 reason why I thought why not go for Werenski, if he could play by playoffs?
That could Kekalainen a better return than Gavrikov and actually allow him to have the cap space to resign Gavrikov to a longtern deal. Werenski's NMC clause kicks in next yr. Must take back Walker, to help with cap next year. Quick is expiring and should not be rsigned. There could be a way to make the cap work, if CBUS does not retain any $

Werenski Doughty
Anderson Clarke
Bjornfot Spence

Roy and Durzi could be moved too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're losing one or two of those defensemen you'd like to keep if you're somehow getting Werenski.
 
Seattle King said:
Ekholm
Gavrikov
McCabe
Edmundson

These appear to be the 4 LHD who are at the top of the trade market. We will be competing with Edmonton and probably other teams as well.
Which one do we want the most?
Which one do we not want the most?
Click to expand...

Of those 4 I'd rank it

Gavrikov
Edmundson
Ekholm
McCabe

Gavrikov is the right age, right size, eat a lot of minutes and can put up points. Probably be the more "expensive" player as a pending UFA and more teams are probably interested in him.

Edmundson is probably more of a veteran player who can also eat up minutes, biggest player on this list which the defense is definitely lacking, probably a more cost effective player than anybody else among these 4.

Ekholm I really like as a player, but the contract doesn't make him palatable. Too expensive, too many years at the wrong age unfortunately.

McCabe, nothing about his game jumps out at me unlike the other players on this list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psych3man, Fishhead, Schrute farms and 4 others
Teams rarely ever turn it around in 1 rebuild. It usually takes 2-3 rebuilds to truly create a contender.
 
Seattle King said:
Ekholm
Gavrikov
McCabe
Edmundson

These appear to be the 4 LHD who are at the top of the trade market. We will be competing with Edmonton and probably other teams as well.
Which one do we want the most?
Which one do we not want the most?
Click to expand...
I think the ask on Ekholm will be enormous. Gavrikov and Edmunson will have Ben Chariot-like overpays and McCabe is not good enough.

If we are spending assets I want it on someone who fits long term and has term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trash Panda
The only deadline acquisition on the back end should be a bench ride for walker, and a recall for Spence.
 
dman3474 said:
Don’t see Blake going out and getting a rental. This team is not 1 LD away from competing for a cup.
Click to expand...

Yeah it will be someone long term if it's a significant player. I can see Gavrikov or another pending FA if they get to chat with them about an extension before-hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus
Fishhead said:
Yeah it will be someone long term if it's a significant player. I can see Gavrikov or another pending FA if they get to chat with them about an extension before-hand.
Click to expand...

The Trade board acts like this never happens but Blake has done well with it. It's a win for all parties, originating team gets basically full value, receiving team gets contract they want. See: fiala

I imagine especially a Gavrikov trade would involve extension discussion at the very least if CBJ wants something good. Or they could wait till the deadline when someone goes full Chiarot stupid
 
  • Like
Reactions: kinghock and Ollie Weeks
Seattle King said:
Ekholm
Gavrikov
McCabe
Edmundson

These appear to be the 4 LHD who are at the top of the trade market. We will be competing with Edmonton and probably other teams as well.
Which one do we want the most?
Which one do we not want the most?
Click to expand...

We should stay away from all of them.
The asking price will be astronomical and they are not the upgrade that turns us into a contender.

We have Bjornfoot and Moverare coming up for LD, which are rock solid already.
Also the age window is not fitting at all since our young core is 19-22.
I don't see the team seriously competing in less than 4-5 years, so no reason to give away anything of substance until then
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piston and BringTheReign
Kurrilino said:
We should stay away from all of them.
The asking price will be astronomical and they are not the upgrade that turns us into a contender.

We have Bjornfoot and Moverare coming up for LD, which are rock solid already.
Also the age window is not fitting at all since our young core is 19-22.
I don't see the team seriously competing in less than 4-5 years, so no reason to give away anything of substance until then
Click to expand...
Whilst I think 4-5 years is a tad pessimistic (if things go broadly to plan), I agree with the principle. We certainly aren’t competing this year or next, so there is no need to go big unless the age profile and contract situation are within the right bracket. Someone up to the age of Fiala is ideal if it’s going to cost multiple big assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kurrilino
Statto said:
Whilst I think 4-5 years is a tad pessimistic (if things go broadly to plan), I agree with the principle. We certainly aren’t competing this year or next, so there is no need to go big unless the age profile and contract situation are within the right bracket. Someone up to the age of Fiala is ideal if it’s going to cost multiple big assets.
Click to expand...

According to....who exactly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cianide
Apparently nobody has noticed that Colorado and Edmonton, the two biggest obstacles in our path, are not good this year and have assorted issues that have significantly diminished their short-term prospects.
Only losers say "we are 4-5 years away" and those losers will still be losing in 4-5 years with that attitude.
People with no sense of urgency ever accomplish anything worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghetty Green, Peter James Bond II and Telos
Seattle King said:
Apparently nobody has noticed that Colorado and Edmonton, the two biggest obstacles in our path, are not good this year and have assorted issues that have significantly diminished their short-term prospects.
Only losers say "we are 4-5 years away" and those losers will still be losing in 4-5 years with that attitude.
Click to expand...

I mean the division is ours for the taking, the whole West is pretty weak--or, at the very least, everyone is "flawed" this year.

But it's still early, and window-open teams--like Edmonton and Calgary--may push all their chips in in a manner that the Kings probably shouldn't (yet).

I do think it's shaping up to be a weird year where whoever gets the hottest goalie and random scorer down the stretch will take the entire conference. My dark horse for all that is Winnipeg--if Hellebuyck shows up and Morrissey comes back hot. Otherwise despite our complete game vs. them last night Dallas is a good bet with Oettinger and with Robertson/Hintz having gone nuclear.

So I see what you're saying, I just don't think the Kings are 'ready' for that window-prolonging move yet. IE Toronto/Edmonton are teams that would/could/should sling it all for Chychrun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telos and Seattle King
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom