Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 232

Thread: Kings with heavy interest in Landeskog

  1. #101
    Bring Chips, That's a 20
    Crockett77's Avatar
    Karma: 3206000
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,217
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    231 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mondo Blando View Post
    You have absolutely no idea if any of the goalies who have played here over the past six seasons could win a series or Cup. It's just conjecture, same as saying that any of them could have won the Cup.
    Former Kings backup, circa 2014-15, Jones won 3 out of the 4 series he has started in San Jose so far in his young career. Maybe think before you spew your BS as fact, it wasn't that long ago.

  2. #102
    Inanimate ****ing object
    santiclaws's Avatar
    Karma: 11153502
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    17,149
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2525 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salami View Post
    This is a joke, right?
    Well, maybe. It may take a lot more to get rid of what is one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, contracts in the NHL. I might be too optimistic.

  3. #103
    Regina...rhymes with fun
    RockPile's Avatar
    Karma: 960005000
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,772
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    198 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gretzky99 View Post
    Colorado wants to make a deal that shakes up their roster. They also want to move Iginla.

    Muzzin, Brown + Kempe

    for

    Landeskog + Iginla

    Colorado gets the Top Pair D-man they want and a guy that can be the Captain or at least bring leadership. Plus they get a highly skilled winger that they can rebuild with. Colorado has to take on Brown's contract but they get three regulars in the starting lineup for next year for Landeskog.

    LA gets a guy to play with Kopitar for the foreseeable future. They get Iginla for this year to try and jumpstart the team. If they fall out of the race they can move Iginla to a contender out east. They lose Kempe but can re-sign Pearson at LW with the savings from the Brown contract.

    McNabb plays with Martinez and Gravel plays with Greene or Gilbert.
    I love to see Brown's name included in trade speculation but it never seems to include an obvious probability. It would be flirting with disaster for any GM to make a deal that included Brown without the Kings retaining significant salary no matter who he is packaged with, at least until someone gives Mike Milbury another shot. As far as Brown's fallen he's still only 1/2 way down that cliff and taking on an almost 6m cap hit for a soon to be 4th liner through 21-22 is Russian roulette with 5 bullets. Also, any deal including Brown will be made with one eye on when, not if, he will be bought out and no team wants to take on the full responsibility for that buyout.

    So keep the Brown speculation coming but trading him is going to bring less cap relief than is generally presumed.

  4. #104
    1st Scoring Line
    Helvetica's Avatar
    Karma: 1048144647
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,932
    Images
    15
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1531 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gretzky99 View Post
    Back to Landeskog...

    Does anyone consider Landeskog better than Taylor Hall? I sure don't. Different type of player but Hall is clearly the better offensive player.

    I also think Muzzin is a superior d-man to Larsson. He's accomplished a lot more, without question.

    So Hall only returned Larsson. LW for D.

    That's the market, folks.

    Maybe Colorado wants nothing to do with Brown - that's fine. We may be stuck with him.

    But giving up anything more than Muzzin for Landeskog is a major overpayment. It might be an overpay straight up but worth it because I think Landeskog would be a good fit with Kopitar.

    Sakic is doing the right thing by asking a lot. Maybe he doesn't make a deal if he doesn't get someone to overpay. But any GM that pays much more than what NJ paid for Hall will look foolish.
    For the sake of discussion, i think Hall is probably the more offensively gifted player no doubt. But taken as a whole, Landeskog has a lot of qualities that improve his value. I think it was rumored too, that management felt Hall was a little cancerous in the locker room. I think, unfortunately, you have to consider some of the intangibles when setting Landeskog's value. There's also the issue that Edmonton desperately needed to improve it's defense, and had a glut of forwards to trade. So Hall's value is maybe diminished a bit there, while Larson's is increased as one of a handful of guys that were actually available. I seem to remember a lot of raised eyebrows on that trade because many expected Hall to return more, but given the climate at that time, that was perhaps the best that could be done.

    I'm with you that Muzzin is more valuable than Larsson, and i'm balking at a significant increase over a one for one trade here, but i'm not sure it would look foolish if the Kings paid more to get Landeskog. I think he brings quite a bit more to the table than just scoring.

  5. #105
    Super Sexy
    Birdman's Avatar
    Karma: 600098000
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,013
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1553 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipcheck View Post
    King should have been moved seasons ago. Not bashing him...just another vanilla player on a roster filled with vanilla players.
    See, that's where I think you are wrong, because he's not just a vanilla player. That dude is money along the boards and in the corners, and we won in 2012 and 2014 because we won ALL of those battles. Not just King, but every line did their job in that fashion.

    Now, he can't be effective because he's a bit slower, and we can't get into that part of our game. The one where we're in the opponents end for long stretches, grinding and cycling, so that they can't breathe.

    I'm going to hate to lose him, but I think he's going to end up headed elsewhere. He's going to be a cap casualty.
    at the draft party a couple of years ago, and under a considerable haze, i heard Birdman yell out the following (about 4 or 5 times, i think) - "don't marry yourselves to players!" he went on to reiterate that idea more than once on the boards, and i believe it to be absolutely sage.

    ---gescom

  6. #106
    Any head will do.
    Vrankol's Avatar
    Karma: 1122400
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    88 Post(s)

    Default

    Colored glasses removed, I don't think Muzzin addresses Colorado's needs. Many reports claimed they are only interested in young defenders with clear-cut top pairing potential. Muzzin is a piece you add to an already contending team that happens to have a semi-big hole on defense but is otherwise set. I am not even sure if a package of Pearson and Muzzin for Landeskog would make it happen. Lande is still the best player in this deal and adding quantity such as secondary picks or 3rd line role players (which is, admittedly, the most Kings would want to offer), simply won't do. Doesn't help that Muzzin right now is having a pretty unspectacular, if not bad season. So Muzzin for Lande straight up is something Sakic probably laughs at, considering he reportedly turned down the possible Carlo deal.

    This MIGHT get done if a first round pick is involved. But I'm not sure Deano wants to go there again, even if it's tempting and this time, for all the right reasons.

    And can we please stop adding Brown to anything resembling an NHL hockey deal?
    Last edited by Vrankol; January 11th, 2017 at 01:15 PM.

  7. #107
    All Star
    gretzky99's Avatar
    Karma: 2042730
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,177
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2252 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvetica View Post
    For the sake of discussion, i think Hall is probably the more offensively gifted player no doubt. But taken as a whole, Landeskog has a lot of qualities that improve his value. I think it was rumored too, that management felt Hall was a little cancerous in the locker room. I think, unfortunately, you have to consider some of the intangibles when setting Landeskog's value. There's also the issue that Edmonton desperately needed to improve it's defense, and had a glut of forwards to trade. So Hall's value is maybe diminished a bit there, while Larson's is increased as one of a handful of guys that were actually available. I seem to remember a lot of raised eyebrows on that trade because many expected Hall to return more, but given the climate at that time, that was perhaps the best that could be done.

    I'm with you that Muzzin is more valuable than Larsson, and i'm balking at a significant increase over a one for one trade here, but i'm not sure it would look foolish if the Kings paid more to get Landeskog. I think he brings quite a bit more to the table than just scoring.
    i don't disagree with you at all. but isn't Colorado in the same position as Edmonton was? they have a glut of forwards but can't keep the puck out of their own net? (last in defense). and even though we think Edmonton overpaid, it does seem to be working for them. that bodes well for the pro Muzzin camp, right?
    i actually like Landeskog a lot. Hall puts up more numbers but Landeskog might be the better fit in LA.
    my point is the market is the market. and the market said a top line LW is worth a top 3 d-man - straight up. and if anything, Edmonton has showed more improvement from the deal so far than NJ has. there are other circumstances, of course, but by all accounts the deal has been good for Edmonton.

    all of that information leads me to believe Colorado is asking way too much for Landeskog. So either they aren't really looking to deal him or they are setting the price high hoping someone will overpay. but the market says Landeskog is worth a quality, young Top 3 d-man. Muzzin is that and a little more. i'm not saying the deal will happen, but i am saying offering anything more than Muzzin is an overpay.

  8. #108
    All Star
    gretzky99's Avatar
    Karma: 2042730
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,177
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2252 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RockPile View Post
    I love to see Brown's name included in trade speculation but it never seems to include an obvious probability. It would be flirting with disaster for any GM to make a deal that included Brown without the Kings retaining significant salary no matter who he is packaged with, at least until someone gives Mike Milbury another shot. As far as Brown's fallen he's still only 1/2 way down that cliff and taking on an almost 6m cap hit for a soon to be 4th liner through 21-22 is Russian roulette with 5 bullets. Also, any deal including Brown will be made with one eye on when, not if, he will be bought out and no team wants to take on the full responsibility for that buyout.

    So keep the Brown speculation coming but trading him is going to bring less cap relief than is generally presumed.
    yes, DL might have to retain some salary to move Brown in the proposed deal. but again, Colorado wants assets and to improve their defense. you do that by taking on bad contracts.

  9. #109
    1st Scoring Line
    xvvvx's Avatar
    Karma: 1611743
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,002
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    916 Post(s)

    Default

    landeskog just inst that number 1 oa pick people thought he would be, he's declining and is only 24. will be brown 2.0 imo,

  10. #110
    All Star
    gretzky99's Avatar
    Karma: 2042730
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,177
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2252 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vrankol View Post
    Colored glasses removed, I don't think Muzzin addresses Colorado's needs. Many reports claimed they are only interested in young defenders with clear-cut top pairing potential. Muzzin is a piece you add to an already contending team that happens to have a semi-big hole on defense but is otherwise set. I am not even sure if a package of Pearson and Muzzin for Landeskog would make it happen. Lande is still the best player in this deal and adding quantity such as secondary picks or 3rd line role players (which is, admittedly, the most Kings would want to offer), simply won't do. Doesn't help that Muzzin right now is having a pretty unspectacular, if not bad season. So Muzzin for Lande straight up is something Sakic probably laughs at, considering he reportedly turned down the possible Carlo deal.

    This MIGHT get done if a first round pick is involved. But I'm not sure Deano wants to go there again, even if it's tempting and this time, for all the right reasons.

    And can we please stop adding Brown to anything resembling an NHL hockey deal?
    the Hall/Larsson deal sure makes this post look a little silly, no? Muzzin is clearly a better player than Larsson. And Hall is at least as good as Landeskog.
    Team Canada picked Muzzin - so unless they all have the same "glasses" on, I think you might be a little off in your assessment.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •