Value of: Quinton Byfield

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
People said this about Puljujarvi, Kravtsov, Yakupov, and countless other disappointments.

Byfield looks more like them, than he does a star in the NHL IMO.

If I were LA I would try to trade him to Toronto as a package for Matthews.
People also said this about Jack Hughes. Byfield's only 20 and just had a near ppg playoffs
 

PensandCaps

Beddy Tlueger
May 22, 2015
27,842
18,283
People said this about Puljujarvi, Kravtsov, Yakupov, and countless other disappointments.

Byfield looks more like them, than he does a star in the NHL IMO.

If I were LA I would try to trade him to Toronto as a package for Matthews.
lol, Bit of a difference with Byfield. He just needs to grow into his frame.
 

Conbon

Registered User
Oct 4, 2016
1,628
1,813
London
Kings need to play him at his natural center position in a top 6 role before even considering moving him. Look at Bennett and Thompson. All it took was an opportunity at their natural position with some talent to play with and they look completely different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guitpik

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
10,524
5,814
lol, Bit of a difference with Byfield. He just needs to grow into his frame.

Same excuse was used for Puljujarvi.

People also said this about Jack Hughes. Byfield's only 20 and just had a near ppg playoffs

I can and have given plenty more examples than you can.

My point was unless you believe he's more like Hughes, chances are his value is as high as it's ever going to be right now. The whole "Why trade him when his value is at his lowest?" is a nonsense statement made by people who are bad at gambling and understanding basic math.
 

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
16,037
7,459
If Lindholm isn’t willing to sign with Calgary I think that would be an interesting basis of a trade.
 

Ledge And Dairy

Registered User
Same excuse was used for Puljujarvi.



I can and have given plenty more examples than you can.

My point was unless you believe he's more like Hughes, chances are his value is as high as it's ever going to be right now. The whole "Why trade him when his value is at his lowest?" is a nonsense statement made by people who are bad at gambling and understanding basic math.
Huh? I guess you just don't like him as a player because for some reason you seem to think he's a bust when he's actually been progressing quite well from my POV
 

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
10,524
5,814
Huh? I guess you just don't like him as a player because for some reason you seem to think he's a bust when he's actually been progressing quite well from my POV

I don't like what I've seen, but that's just my opinion. You have yours which is fine.

I simply see more similarities to busts, than I do with eventual star players. I don't think he has the brain for it all, personally.
 

Rorschach

Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Oct 9, 2006
11,578
2,125
Los Angeles
I don’t think Byfield is untouchable, it’s just that we have no need to trade him and we do have some reason to keep him. But none of this matters if GM Blake keeps McClellan as coach. Now if there was a deal for a top five prime goaltender AND a deal to unload Petersen’s contract, then perhaps. Especially after we sign Gavrikov, if that happens.
 

bernmeister

Registered User
Jun 11, 2010
28,713
4,234
Da Big Apple
I don’t think Byfield is untouchable, it’s just that we have no need to trade him and we do have some reason to keep him. But none of this matters if GM Blake keeps McClellan as coach. Now if there was a deal for a top five prime goaltender AND a deal to unload Petersen’s contract, then perhaps. Especially after we sign Gavrikov, if that happens.
Bingo, except "need" to trade should be open minded as to whether or not an offer that is sufficiently profitable is tendered. Then it becomes a matter of do you keep the hand you have, or do you hope the profitable offer has enuf upside to pay off.

In ordinary due course, By should not be traded
IF it was a package w/principal piece being KAM from nyr, that is something to consider.

dealing kam normally is a big no no
ny would have to bet on Robertson, Scanlin + Lindgren + Harpur + Mikkola
but it could be worth it if By improves -- reasonable but not a given --- and has chemistry w/Ws -- again, reasonable, but not a given

from LA side KAM is the larger, good skating, terrific reach LD constantly sought in dozens of threads

room for things to go wrong
either way/for both
BUT
also room for win win
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FSL KINGS

PensandCaps

Beddy Tlueger
May 22, 2015
27,842
18,283
Same excuse was used for Puljujarvi.



I can and have given plenty more examples than you can.

My point was unless you believe he's more like Hughes, chances are his value is as high as it's ever going to be right now. The whole "Why trade him when his value is at his lowest?" is a nonsense statement made by people who are bad at gambling and understanding basic math.
Byfield is a larger and more skilled player. No doubt he'll be a very good player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight and Guitpik

Mats26

Vet Movement - What's the Maatta?
Sep 16, 2005
3,864
3,800
Problem here is that the Kings management think they can compete for the cup. When in reality they should focus on developing the assets into successfully NHL players. Some Kings fans are confused on this. We are not going anywhere with a 36 year old 1C. Just ask Boston. So why would we trade the only potential 1C we have?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad