Rumor: Planning Ahead: 2019 Off-Season

[BigKing]

If the plan is to rebuild, you're looking at several seasons before you're going to be looking to get into the playoffs. Quick isn't going anywhere unless there's a buyer. Otherwise, he can hold the fort while they re-organize. He has cultural and marketing value. Barring Campbell or Petersen effectively forcing their way into being starters by being exceptional, they will likely stay back ups or even get moved as circumstantially, they're not fitting into the time frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the Kings looked at getting a goalie in the draft(not first round obviously).

Feels like there are a lot of goalies in the system now so I'm not sure about drafting another one. Of course, I'm not looking this up but it just seems like there are already a few below the AHL level.
Speculation wise, what if Quick decided to hang-em up? Is there a penalty?

 

[AzKing]

I highly doubt that Campbell will be moved yet because the Kings don't have that position solidified as of today. Petersen struggled going back down but he would be one of a large list of prospects that struggle after they are sent down from the NHL. Some guys just don't do well with it and need time to get back on track. Up until that period, he has been quite good and most propsect lists have him highly ranked in the organization so he isn't getting traded. Villalta is a nice prospect but he isn't even close yet.

As for Campbell's age, I don't subscribe to theories that use past players as some sort of measuring stick to make a roster decision on a current guy. I just don't see the relevance because everyone is different. Campbell is his own guy and he could be anything moving forward but right now, he seems to have put together the elements to get a shot as a consistent starter somewhere. Why not here? Well, Quick impedes that path for now.

The best path for the Kings is to explore the market on Quick. I don't think that he will get a 1st round pick unless you attach something with him. Maybe you can package him and Toffoli and get back a 1st and a highly ranked prospect. If it isn't there then they need to probably hold on to him and ride that same duo into next year and see what they have. Moving Campbell however does not align with what Luc and Rob have said is the long range plan. Quick is more likely the guy who doesn't fit that plan due to his age and the fact that the Kings will not be competing for a Cup for quite sometime so they really don't have a need for goalie who will turn 34 in January of next year and seems to do his best work with big games on the line and in the playoffs. It's actually doing Quick a favor by trying to move him to a contender rather that subject him to a rebuild that he will never be in a position to reap the benefits of due to his age.

 

[YP44]

I highly doubt that Campbell will be moved yet because the Kings don't have that position solidified as of today. Petersen struggled going back down but he would be one of a large list of prospects that struggle after they are sent down from the NHL. Some guys just don't do well with it and need time to get back on track. Up until that period, he has been quite good and most propsect lists have him highly ranked in the organization so he isn't getting traded. Villalta is a nice prospect but he isn't even close yet.

As for Campbell's age, I don't subscribe to theories that use past players as some sort of measuring stick to make a roster decision on a current guy. I just don't see the relevance because everyone is different. Campbell is his own guy and he could be anything moving forward but right now, he seems to have put together the elements to get a shot as a consistent starter somewhere. Why not here? Well, Quick impedes that path for now.

The best path for the Kings is to explore the market on Quick. I don't think that he will get a 1st round pick unless you attach something with him. Maybe you can package him and Toffoli and get back a 1st and a highly ranked prospect. If it isn't there then they need to probably hold on to him and ride that same duo into next year and see what they have. Moving Campbell however does not align with what Luc and Rob have said is the long range plan. Quick is more likely the guy who doesn't fit that plan due to his age and the fact that the Kings will not be competing for a Cup for quite sometime so they really don't have a need for goalie who will turn 34 in January of next year and seems to do his best work with big games on the line and in the playoffs. It's actually doing Quick a favor by trying to move him to a contender rather that subject him to a rebuild that he will never be in a position to reap the benefits of due to his age.

what about taking a bad contract back to get a first i.e. Darling + 1st or Hutton + 1st (San Jose's) or Reimer + 1st.

I don't like any of those goalies but with LA's proven ability to turn goalies around and each of those 3 showing promise in the pat no reason to think it cannot happen again.

 

[AzKing]

what about taking a bad contract back to get a first i.e. Darling + 1st or Hutton + 1st (San Jose's) or Reimer + 1st.

I don't like any of those goalies but with LA's proven ability to turn goalies around and each of those 3 showing promise in the pat no reason to think it cannot happen again.

The Kings are a team that can take on bad contracts in order to get assets. It remains to be seen if they will go in that direction but if they determine that this is going to take 3+ years before they are in a position to acquire big UFA's or make trades for elite players then they probably can absorb some bad money that will be off the books by then.

 

[Herby]

How is that not even worse? You were suggesting a buyout before the drug thing. Consummate leader whose play declined sharply due to a hit to the head. That situation had to look great to UFAs.

If we go the UFA route, sans young players who might have potential, we are simply repeating the same mistakes that saw this team go nowhere. Mercenaries are not the answer. They mostly come for money and the lifestyle.

I am not advocating signing a bunch of UFA's. I think anyone who has read my posts over the years knows how much I value the draft more than anything. That is how you win in this league. But UFA are still a part of it and if the Kings are seen as a franchise that makes a player like Jonathan Quick ride a bus it's going to be difficult to attract players and keep our own.

Richards was completely done after 2013. He was terrible in 2014 and the franchise stuck with him longer than I think any franchise in the league would have. I was at those games in Chicago in 2014, Queneville was literally keeping his scoring lines out for two shifts in a row when #10 hopped over the boards. He could not keep up with the pace of the game and it very nearly cost the Kings the series. I think players around the league saw that the Kings were loyal to him, but ultimately there comes a point where you just can't keep a player on the roster who is that bad.

Carter and Quick are nowhere near that level right now (even with as bad as Carter has been), and the team as a whole is not in the same spot. Carter and Quick's salaries don't matter as much when the team is tanking.

The Kings may buy-out Quick and Carter, it's a possibility and a reasonable suggestion. Burying either one in the minors is not a reasonable suggestion. I am shocked it has even been brought up.

And just to add to that, Quick has been with the Kings over a decade and is an iconic player. Richards was with the Kings for parts of 4 seasons and was good in two of them and terrible in two of them. The situations really aren't comparable. And that's not even adding in the long rumored substance abuse issues that ended up being true.

 

[No Name The Nameless]

You are talking about contract length, not guaranteed contracts.

They all are the same in this equation.

A 6 year 60 million dollar deal with 30 million guaranteed is only a 3 year guaranteed deal with an option to roll over for three additional years.

 

[kingsholygrail]

@BigKing
I wasn't sure of how many we already had in the pipeline.

 

[KingsFan7824]

what about taking a bad contract back to get a first i.e. Darling + 1st or Hutton + 1st (San Jose's) or Reimer + 1st.

I don't like any of those goalies but with LA's proven ability to turn goalies around and each of those 3 showing promise in the pat no reason to think it cannot happen again.

All 3 of those guys have 2 fewer years left on their deals than Quick does, and are owed substantially less actual money than Quick is. How are the Kings getting the pick coming back? Some of the value in one of those deals would be getting rid of those last 2 years with Quick. I don't know if taking on those 2 years is worth a 1st for the other team. This isn't Quick 5, 6, 7 years ago. This is a 33 year old, coming off a career worst season, where the other goalies on the team have put up at least semi-decent numbers, albeit in a smaller sample size.

 

[KingsFan7824]

The best path for the Kings is to explore the market on Quick. I don't think that he will get a 1st round pick unless you attach something with him. Maybe you can package him and Toffoli and get back a 1st and a highly ranked prospect. If it isn't there then they need to probably hold on to him and ride that same duo into next year and see what they have. Moving Campbell however does not align with what Luc and Rob have said is the long range plan. Quick is more likely the guy who doesn't fit that plan due to his age and the fact that the Kings will not be competing for a Cup for quite sometime so they really don't have a need for goalie who will turn 34 in January of next year and seems to do his best work with big games on the line and in the playoffs. It's actually doing Quick a favor by trying to move him to a contender rather that subject him to a rebuild that he will never be in a position to reap the benefits of due to his age.

If they're not able to get rid of Quick, and keep Campbell, I think it's pretty easy to predict what we'll be posting about say 10 months from now; the missed opportunity to trade Campbell. It's nice what Blake and Robitaille say, it's nice to do Quick a favor, but the cap rules over all. It's great what Quick did 5 to 7 years ago, or even last year, but it doesn't mean much. Yes, GMs are stupid. Most of the time, that stupidity comes through free agency. Whoever signs Bobrovsky is going to be disappointed, and probably fired not too long after giving him whatever contract he's going to get. However, it will only cost money. Also most of the time, goalies don't have much value in a trade, especially older ones that are signed for a while.

All 3 goalies should be available, and whoever brings back the most value, in whatever form that takes, trade that guy.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Richards had some impactful games during that 2014 run even in a fourth line role. Whenever Sutter tried to pair him with Carter and match up against opposing top lines, it was a disaster. But as a low minute 4C, he was good.

Regardless, you can’t pay a 4C $5 million a year. He should have been CBOed post-2014. If the Kings don’t win a Cup in 2014, it wouldn’t even have been a question.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

 

[regulate]

If they're not able to get rid of Quick, and keep Campbell, I think it's pretty easy to predict what we'll be posting about say 10 months from now; the missed opportunity to trade Campbell. It's nice what Blake and Robitaille say, it's nice to do Quick a favor, but the cap rules over all. It's great what Quick did 5 to 7 years ago, or even last year, but it doesn't mean much. Yes, GMs are stupid. Most of the time, that stupidity comes through free agency. Whoever signs Bobrovsky is going to be disappointed, and probably fired not too long after giving him whatever contract he's going to get. However, it will only cost money. Also most of the time, goalies don't have much value in a trade, especially older ones that are signed for a while.

All 3 goalies should be available, and whoever brings back the most value, in whatever form that takes, trade that guy.

We're in a rebuild. You don't trade the younger player when he's proving he's got the right stuff (2nd in the NHL in sv pct, 4th in GAA) The market for so-called back up goalies is limited in trade return. You trade Campbell you won't get value, you lose an inexpensive contract, and he just might well turn into a terrific everyday NHL #1. Blake has more more chip season with Petersen since he is still exempt. Yep, that sucks for Petersen. You do everything you can to move Quick's cap and get the most value you can, even if it's not what we had hoped for.

 

[tny760]

was absolutely not expecting him to see a game this season, that's really surprising

 

[crassbonanza]

They all are the same in this equation.

A 6 year 60 million dollar deal with 30 million guaranteed is only a 3 year guaranteed deal with an option to roll over for three additional years.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing. Obviously it is preferable for the team to be able to buy out a contract at any point that they want to, but in this hypothetical scenario where contracts are not guaranteed, the player has to agree to that contract. Carter signed at a discounted rate because he was given 11 years and The Kings benefited for years by having a top 2nd line center with a low AAV. They wouldn't have that if contracts were not guaranteed, Carter does not sign a deal that pays him less than he is worth if he does not have guarantees attached.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

was absolutely not expecting him to see a game this season, that's really surprising

A pleasant surprise. I think back when the Kings signed Steven Reinprecht and Jason Blake they were able to get in a game as well. Jack Johnson as well, where his infamous highlight was being dumped over his head by Jan Bulis.

Rosen also posted this just now:

 

[King'sPawn]

was absolutely not expecting him to see a game this season, that's really surprising

This allows him to burn a year off his contract and makes him eligible for the expansion draft, I believe. I am sure burning off a year was a major selling point.

 

[No Name The Nameless]

I'm not really sure what you are arguing. Obviously it is preferable for the team to be able to buy out a contract at any point that they want to, but in this hypothetical scenario where contracts are not guaranteed, the player has to agree to that contract. Carter signed at a discounted rate because he was given 11 years and The Kings benefited for years by having a top 2nd line center with a low AAV. They wouldn't have that if contracts were not guaranteed, Carter does not sign a deal that pays him less than he is worth if he does not have guarantees attached.

It boils down to guaranteed money in a non guaranteed money system. Your argument assumes that Carter's entire contract is guaranteed. In a non 100% contract guaranteed world Carter and other players benefit from upfront money. If he signs for 50 million over 5 years, gets 25 guaranteed and 10 million bonus up front he is guaranteed to have 35 million and 10 from day one. He also has an opportunity to make money after being cut.

 

[Crownroyal21]

This allows him to burn a year off his contract and makes him eligible for the expansion draft, I believe. I am sure burning off a year was a major selling point.

So how good is this kid? He goes strait to the big club leaping over other prospects?

 

[regulate]

This allows him to burn a year off his contract and makes him eligible for the expansion draft, I believe. I am sure burning off a year was a major selling point.

Year of ELC, yes, expansion draft no. Has to play 11 pro games this season to count as a pro year for the expansion draft, so he'll be automatically protected.

 

[LAKings88]

Good post! And Mikey Anderson is rumored to sign, once UMD wins the NCAA championship again. He's probably the best King defenseman drafted since Doughty and Voynov in 2008.
Amazing poise, hockey sense, and solid at everything...including character and leadership.
I truly believe he's good enough to step in to Drew's left this coming season. Turns 20 next month...but think he's as good as Drew when he stepped in at 18. (may never be as good as Drew, not saying that) Good to know the Kings have some real talent coming on. I watched many of the WJC games and Anderson was as good or better than all of the highly touted / high pick D: Bouchard, Quinn Hughes, Alexyev, Branstrom, Boqvist. Bouchard has already played 8 games in Edm. Mikey looked way better than #1 picks and USA players K'Andre Miller and Samuelsson, for that matter.

Focused more on the forwards.

Anderson would be a huge add if he can make the transition. Definitely LA’s best dman prospect.

 

[BigKing]

@BigKing
I wasn't sure of how many we already had in the pipeline.

Not sure how I screwed up that response. Maybe they don't have a lot in the system, but it seems like they do. Cool with taking one, I guess, but not in the first few rounds.

 

[Little Psycho]

Would be nice to see him in Carter's place but WD 's obsession with Carter won't let it happen.

 

[Crownroyal21]

Put Carter on his wing damn it!!!!

 

[BigKing]

No MacD the rest of the year sucks. f*** this season.

 

[King'sPawn]

So how good is this kid? He goes strait to the big club leaping over other prospects?

I don't think it's an issue of talent. A lot of the top prospects are either injured (Vilardi) or still playing for their respective teams (Kupari, Thomas, Anderson-Dolan...). Both LA and Ontario are at the bottom of the league, so whomever plays where doesn't have any consequence.

So in either to draw a prospect, they have to have a selling point. The Kings can't sell on being a great playoff team to win a free agent over. So what they do is essentially say, "If you sign with us, you can play a game". Doing so burns off a year of their entry level contract sooner so they can become a free agent sooner, plus they get paid more money in the NHL than the AHL.

It's not necessarily that Lizotte is that much better than prospects already in the system, but more so a tactic to lure him to sign with the Kings over some other team.