Sheng Peng: Did Kings Trade Wrong Goalie? Should LA have tried to trade Jonathan Quick?

Not sure about that? I would prefer Quick! But if a deal would of been in place to trade Quick for OLE or someone in that caliber? or together with brown say to Vegas for ? Or the two of them to Phoenix? I think with Budaj back and Ben bishop,it would be sufficient to still contend,with pieces Quick brings and the cap space (brown)might free up?....just spit balling I know but interesting read ..thanks,and all the best at the draft and offseason guys! oh and first suck it jero!did I get that right?

wow, trading Quick would be a ballsy move! He's practically an institution on the Kings. If the return was great I suppose it would work.

Not sure about that? I would prefer Quick! But if a deal would of been in place to trade Quick for OLE or someone in that caliber? or together with brown say to Vegas for ? Or the two of them to Phoenix? I think with Budaj back and Ben bishop,it would be sufficient to still contend,with pieces Quick brings and the cap space (brown)might free up?....just spit balling I know but interesting read ..thanks,and all the best at the draft and offseason guys! oh and first suck it jero!did I get that right?
- MR.Hunter

The Kings have two problems: bad contracts and a mediocre (at best) prospect pool. A trade that packaged Quick along with Brown/Gabi would address (at least) the former problem. This team is running in place unless it gets some relief from the ~10.7mm wrapped up in Brown and Gabi until the '21/'22 season.

wow, trading Quick would be a ballsy move! He's practically an institution on the Kings. If the return was great I suppose it would work.
- duxcup07

Outside of Schneider for a 1st (number 9 pick), can you remember the last goalie trade that returned much? I can't.

Doubtful they can move 12/23, so have to do the next best thing and make them productive again. Loosen the reins a bit and maximize what they have left without miscasting them. 3L minutes with PP time seems about right.

To answer the question about another big goaltending trade.

To St Louis: Ryan Miller and Steve Ott
To Buffalo: Jaroslav Halak, Chris Stewart, prospect William Carrier, 2015 1st, 2016 3rd

Losing Quick.would ba a sad day and an end of an era; but whether we keep Quick or Bishop, the fact remains that we have a #1 guy with an injury history and the goaltending pipeline needs to be addressed. If we were to trade Quickie though, I think we could get a very good pick and a prospect back, but still...

You guys are great posters! Haven't seen much if any trolling from the l.a. fans! Mind you van,San, and duck fans might disagree! but interesting read on your thoughts! Best of luck with the draft and offseason

Outside of Schneider for a 1st (number 9 pick), can you remember the last goalie trade that returned much? I can't.
- Only_A_Ladd

Ducks got a 1st and 2nd round pick out of Toronto when they traded Andersen. While that doesn't equal the #9 pick, it was still a pretty good return.

Ducks got a 1st and 2nd round pick out of Toronto when they traded Andersen. While that doesn't equal the #9 pick, it was still a pretty good return.
- Always Mighty

Colorado gave Washington their 2012 1st and a 2nd as well for Varlamov. I think that, if a team is desperate enough (like Colorado was), a top-end goaltender might fetch a good price. Especially with Vegas looking for one or two as well.

You guys are great posters! Haven't seen much if any trolling from the l.a. fans! Mind you van,San, and duck fans might disagree! but interesting read on your thoughts! Best of luck with the draft and offseason
- MR.Hunter

Kings fans only get ridiculous in the Ducks page from I've seen over the years.

I think that quick could of got a 1st and A prospect! More then Andersen and valy! Imho

Kings fans only get ridiculous in the Ducks page from I've seen over the years.
- poisondhearts37

That's fair for a bit of ribbing, just don't like the childish trolling from any fanbase, especially with the parity now,all teams have great player's, some good prospects, and scouting, coaching, some better than others obviously! But it's great to have great hockey talk and discussions about our teams and others!

wow, trading Quick would be a ballsy move! He's practically an institution on the Kings. If the return was great I suppose it would work.
- duxcup07

I think that quick could of got a 1st and A prospect! More then Andersen and valy! Imho
- MR.Hunter

Yeah, this hypothetical depends entirely on the return. Since the team fancies itself a contender, I don't think picks or prospects would be the objective.

To think about trading Quick, the return would have to be, at a minimum, a solid top-six forward or top-four defenseman. If he can't fetch that, there's no point.

Also, to add to the list of goalies who fetched a decent trade return recently, I can also throw in Jones (1st + prospect) and Lehner (1st).

The Kings have two problems: bad contracts and a mediocre (at best) prospect pool. A trade that packaged Quick along with Brown/Gabi would address (at least) the former problem.
- Only_A_Ladd

This is also an intriguing solution. However, I guess the kind of contending team who would want Quick probably couldn't absorb Gaborik or Brown too.

Doubtful they can move 12/23, so have to do the next best thing and make them productive again. Loosen the reins a bit and maximize what they have left without miscasting them. 3L minutes with PP time seems about right.
- hiway39

This would probably help spell another mediocre power play year, but you're right, LA doesn't have a lot of options. But it might be a shame if they suck PP time away from Dowd and Brodzinski.

Outside of Schneider for a 1st (number 9 pick), can you remember the last goalie trade that returned much? I can't.
- Only_A_Ladd

Martin Jones got the 14th overall pick from I believe when he went to SJ from Boston.

Martin Jones got the 14th overall pick from I believe when he went to SJ from Boston.
- Orange_me_Black

Then I think we could assume the market for Quick (alone) would be at least a first and a prospect. But like Sheng pointed out, though, moving Quick and Brown/Gabi would be complicated. I could see a team with space making a move for Quick only, but if you're a club with cap space (presumably a young, up-and-coming team), why saddle yourself with the Brown/Gabi contracts? Don't see it happening, and trading Quick straight-up without relieving the Kings of one of those contracts doesn't really do much good.

An injured Quick outperformed a healthy Ben Bishop. I'm happy with the 4th round pick because Quick is going to take the majority of starts and we just need to find another Budaj type backup.

How would they have traded Quick's contract even if he was theoretically the right one to deal? 6 years left, $5.8 mill annual cap hit. If I'm another team's GM and I think they are roughly equal, Bishop obviously costs less from an asset standpoint. Quick has proven himself to be a money goalie when healthy, so if they kept Bishop instead, that comparison would be forever in LA, and there would be real institutional downside risk to such a replacement. Unless a replacement is a proven money goalie in his own right, that's not an easy situation for anybody to inherit, taking over for a traded 2 time Cup winner.

Boston got #29(unprotected though I believe) and Sean Kuraly (quality bottom 6 prospect) for Jones. Gotta imagine you could have gotten more for Quick

Ya they could of got more than Jones! But sometimes thee best trades are the ones you don't make?

Sheng Peng: Did Kings Trade Wrong Goalie?
Should LA have tried to trade Jonathan Quick?
- Sheng Peng

Yes. You should have gone for Miller. Better chances to drive you to playoffs. Plus He'd be resigning right now.

This would probably help spell another mediocre power play year, but you're right, LA doesn't have a lot of options. But it might be a shame if they suck PP time away from Dowd and Brodzinski.
- Sheng Peng

i'd say this is more to start the year...hopefully they wouldn't necessarily end it the same way, to your point about dowd/brodz.

Then I think we could assume the market for Quick (alone) would be at least a first and a prospect.
- Only_A_Ladd

Certainly, that's the value you're looking for, but the market for goaltending always seems so volatile. I could see a cool market too, nothing against Quick, just timing.

Unless a replacement is a proven money goalie in his own right, that's not an easy situation for anybody to inherit, taking over for a traded 2 time Cup winner.
- 333inthe3rd

Indeed, but Bishop is almost as decorated a replacement as possible. I probably wouldn't have suggested such swap if LA hadn't had such a strong replacement available.

Indeed, but Bishop is almost as decorated a replacement as possible. I probably wouldn't have suggested such swap if LA hadn't had such a strong replacement available.
- Sheng Peng

The grass can seem greener, certainly, but Bishop had lost his #1 status in Tampa. Can't say I followed that saga closely, but it does make me wonder if he is anywhere near his peak of 2015. Besides, if Quick has injury issues, this discussion is moot, because he would be untradable by comparison to an expiring UFA. And unless there's something I don't know, I can't imagine the rest of the players on the team would be too thrilled about seeing him dealt. It's one thing to talk about theoretical value in a vacuum, but without knowing the team dynamics that might be different than what we perceive. these trades probably aren't as good in real life.

Unless it's a cap issue, he should be a King for life. #32 should be hanging in the rafters at Staples Center when all is said and done. He's one of the very few active goalies with at least two Cups right now.