Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 232

Thread: Kings with heavy interest in Landeskog

  1. #131
    1st Scoring Line
    hokiecat's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,661
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    790 Post(s)

    Default

    I think people here are really under-estimating what a top-4 defenseman with a friendly contract can fetch.

    Two summers ago, the Bruins traded Dougie Hamilton to the Flames for the #15 , #45 , and #52. Now he's an annual cap hit of $5.75 until 2021. Muzzin is signed for only $4M cap through 2020. Yeah, you're giving up 4 years but we are also talking about defenseman years. Not a big deal IMO. The point is a cost-controlled top-4 D should fetch a ransom in prospects based upon recent history.

    Also, there was a rumored Lindholm for Lande rumor before the Ducks finally re-signed Hampus. Another very promising young defenseman (only 22) but was a straight up deal for a guy who carries a 5.25M cap hit. I look at the Kings recent deals like Lucic and it seems like teams are willing to pay a premium for retained salary. Eat a couple million so that a contender can go over the salary cap and you can get a nice draft pick thrown in. The AAV savings on Muzzin's deal, IMO, is equivalent to the age difference of a younger guy like Hamilton or Lindholm.

    If the Kings move Muzzin, they should try to get a killing in return. He's probably the most valuable trade asset on the roster (since Doughty is untouchable).

  2. #132
    Just... just listen.
    darby's Avatar
    Karma: 2818644
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    12,480
    Images
    5
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    681 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hokiecat View Post
    Gravel does not have to be exposed. So your example does not make sense.

    Without a deal, the Kings protect Kopi, Carter, Toffoli, Pearson, and 4 D. With the trade, they now have 5 forwards of protection, so can only protect 3D. So making the deal and getting a top-6 forward back does nothing to improve the calculus for the expansion draft.

    So I will repeat, it is awful trade when you lose a first and still do nothing for asset preservation.
    This is Gravel's third year as a pro. Only first and second year professionals are exempt:
    All first- and second-year professionals, as well as all unsigned draft choices, will be exempt from selection (and will not be counted toward their club's applicable protection limits).
    Year 1 - '14-15 - 58 games for Manchester
    Year 2 - '15-16 - 55 games for Ontario, 5 games for Los Angeles
    Year 3 - '16-17 - 6 games for Ontario, 26 games for Los Angeles

    And I may be wrong, but Brown may also need to be protected due to his limited no trade clause. So, if you go with 8 to protect 4 D, then you'd leave leave several players exposed that you may wanna rethink.


    Another thing to keep in mind: while you may value that 1st rounder, keep in mind it'd most likely be a mid-round selection. So any player you pick would probably be a year or two away. As opposed to a 24-year-old Landeskog who would be in your top six two days after the trade.


    All that being said, I still don't know where the Kings get the extra $2M or so.


    "Only a numbskull thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about."
    "It's understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself."

  3. #133
    2 Late to Change My Name
    HeadInjury's Avatar
    Karma: 1550862
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,811
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    269 Post(s)

    Default

    Gravel's first pro year was not an NHL contract. I don't think he has to be exposed.

  4. #134
    1st Scoring Line
    hokiecat's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,661
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    790 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HeadInjury View Post
    Gravel's first pro year was not an NHL contract. I don't think he has to be exposed.
    That is correct. Remarkably the Kings did not sign Gravel to a pro contract so he signed an AHL deal with Machester. See also: http://lakingsinsider.com/2016/07/25...helpful-tools/

    Brown does not need to be protected. The NHL released the draft exempt list (i.e. people with NMC who had to be protected) and Kopitar was the only King.

  5. #135
    Just... just listen.
    darby's Avatar
    Karma: 2818644
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    12,480
    Images
    5
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    681 Post(s)

    Default

    Oh, REALLY???

    I had assumed that "professional" wasn't limited to NHL deals. Like, if a player played in Sweden or Russia or something. Weird. But, hey, one load off, y'know?


    "Only a numbskull thinks he knows things about things he knows nothing about."
    "It's understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself."

  6. #136
    For King, Ace Whole
    vindogla's Avatar
    Karma: 2982174
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,801
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    316 Post(s)

    Default

    So, some of you want to bet the bank yet again on a 5.5+ million contract for 4 years on a player that is severely underperforming as compared to his previous stats and think it will work out for you? With Daryl's system?

    Do you think our staff can fix every player? Do you think COL would trade the guy they made Captain if they didn't know something not cool as opposed to TooCool?

    You want to dismiss and discard Muzzin, a proven middling D-man with a Ring after the abortion we had for D last year in the playoffs? We are, right now, one injury to D away from having a lot of things falling apart again.

    "Build from the Net out" they said, and did, and won.

    "Wingers are easy to get/replace (Brown, Gaborik)" they said, and didn't, and lost.

    Why fold the defense for a winger, at 5.5 million dollars AAV who has 6-7-13 points this year? We already have those!

    I understand the long term prospects of a young player, but couldn't this type of deal once again be the bane of Kings history, especially if we would ADD A PICK with Muzzin????

    You're/We're screwed already, why the bandwagon for getting deeper in the hole? Another long term large contract?

    If Kopitar was living up to his contract, then maybe, we should get him some help. But as Lombardi once famously said, players should look in the mirror instead of the trade wire for help.

    Mondo: Don't you think that putting a young player like Land into this system of Sutter's will decrease his production, wear him out with the 10 million dollar main man being a sleepy head, and just turn out to be another delay in the inevitable necessary reconstruction (top to bottom) the team needs to make when they can after Kopi et al are somehow made to go away?

    Wouldn't we be better suited to keep our first round and other lower draft picks and have another 5 (or 6) year plan as before instead of delaying the obvious? I understand the need to "fill boxes" properly, but with the heavy yoke of some players that clearly will not be the correct fill at the correct price for a long time, why dig the deeper hole. It's depressing already without another bad decision for future hopefulness and reason.

    I would love another unrealistic chance at a Cup Right Now if it were somehow possible, but I also may live long enough to where I could wait for a reasoned approach to a Cup later.

  7. #137
    Bartender on Dry Island
    jt's Avatar
    Karma: 2789587
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    17,594
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1592 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    That, and Muzz rode the pine for nearly the entire World Cup.
    Getting selected for the team is great, when you hit the ice for only one game in the tourney, that's another.
    That's true. But Doug Armstrong, Mike Babcock, and company still thought he was better than any Canadian they didn't select. Discount it all you want, the fact is they liked him enough to select him.

    I think Muzz will get a fair return, but some people on here think he's gonna bring back the holy grail in return.....I think those are the same people who still think Brown has trade value.
    What kind of return do you think he'd get - in terms of players, not draft pics?

    And can you reference a single post that talks about him bringing back the holy grain? Landeskog is NOT the holy grail.

  8. #138
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 2022611647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,374
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1193 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jt View Post
    That's true. But Doug Armstrong, Mike Babcock, and company still thought he was better than any Canadian they didn't select. Discount it all you want, the fact is they liked him enough to select him.



    What kind of return do you think he'd get - in terms of players, not draft pics?

    And can you reference a single post that talks about him bringing back the holy grain? Landeskog is NOT the holy grail.
    While I can agree the fact that he was picked for Canada means "something", there were plenty of great players not picked for the team.
    Take a look at team USA, and that disaster of a team assembly, plenty of players that didn't make that roster who were fantastic as well.
    I guess what I'm saying is getting picked for the team does not necessarily equal greatness. One's play makes him great, and Muzz played only one game and that is telling to a degree.

    Just read this thread...there are a few who act as if Muzz is the biggest catch in the league at the trade deadline.
    As I've said before, Muzz will bring a fair return, no doubt, but some of the nonsense in here of Muzz being such a huge get that teams would gladly accept Brown with him in a deal is just nuts.

  9. #139
    Inanimate ****ing object
    santiclaws's Avatar
    Karma: 11017502
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    17,101
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2507 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post

    Just read this thread...there are a few who act as if Muzz is the biggest catch in the league at the trade deadline.
    He may well be. Top-4 defensemen in their prime, on a good contract, are pretty much the holy grail at the trade deadline. I don't know if there will be any others available.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    As I've said before, Muzz will bring a fair return, no doubt, but some of the nonsense in here of Muzz being such a huge get that teams would gladly accept Brown with him in a deal is just nuts.
    That, I agree with.

  10. #140
    Concussed Villain
    Mondo Blando's Avatar
    Karma: 5609204
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,826
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3943 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vindogla View Post
    So, some of you want to bet the bank yet again on a 5.5+ million contract for 4 years on a player that is severely underperforming as compared to his previous stats and think it will work out for you? With Daryl's system?

    Do you think our staff can fix every player? Do you think COL would trade the guy they made Captain if they didn't know something not cool as opposed to TooCool?

    You want to dismiss and discard Muzzin, a proven middling D-man with a Ring after the abortion we had for D last year in the playoffs? We are, right now, one injury to D away from having a lot of things falling apart again.

    "Build from the Net out" they said, and did, and won.

    "Wingers are easy to get/replace (Brown, Gaborik)" they said, and didn't, and lost.

    Why fold the defense for a winger, at 5.5 million dollars AAV who has 6-7-13 points this year? We already have those!

    I understand the long term prospects of a young player, but couldn't this type of deal once again be the bane of Kings history, especially if we would ADD A PICK with Muzzin????

    You're/We're screwed already, why the bandwagon for getting deeper in the hole? Another long term large contract?

    If Kopitar was living up to his contract, then maybe, we should get him some help. But as Lombardi once famously said, players should look in the mirror instead of the trade wire for help.

    Mondo: Don't you think that putting a young player like Land into this system of Sutter's will decrease his production, wear him out with the 10 million dollar main man being a sleepy head, and just turn out to be another delay in the inevitable necessary reconstruction (top to bottom) the team needs to make when they can after Kopi et al are somehow made to go away?

    Wouldn't we be better suited to keep our first round and other lower draft picks and have another 5 (or 6) year plan as before instead of delaying the obvious? I understand the need to "fill boxes" properly, but with the heavy yoke of some players that clearly will not be the correct fill at the correct price for a long time, why dig the deeper hole. It's depressing already without another bad decision for future hopefulness and reason.

    I would love another unrealistic chance at a Cup Right Now if it were somehow possible, but I also may live long enough to where I could wait for a reasoned approach to a Cup later.
    Well, there is what should have happened, then there is what happened. My personal opinion is that the Kings should have gone in a rebuild by dealing Kopitar, avoiding the Lucic deal, and put more emphasis on getting out from under the lengthy deals they have with declining players.

    Lombardi did the opposite and doubled down. I think it is far less likely that they will succeed that way, and that they are only delaying the inevitable in favor of prolonged mediocrity.

    However, by trying to do both at the same time, I can't see either succeeding as a series of half measures. Now that Kopitar is locked in, and the path is set as a cusp team, there are hockey moves that need to be made in order to try and make things work.

    Gabriel Landeskog is not a world beater. He is far closer to Justin Williams than say a Panarin or star scorer that some folks want to see. He is a glue player, and that is an element missing from this organization. He is skilled enough to justify assignment on Kopitar's wing, he has leadership skills, plays a hard game, is young enough and locked into a very reasonable contract that would assure you of at least four more seasons of service.

    The contract is key - if he were a RFA, or has a deal coming up in a year, that cost uncertainty would present a problem.

    Should this happen, I would expect a balance to be achieved in the forward group that is missing now. Fewer square pegs being asked to round out. It would be a very similar situation to 2012 where you have the right people for the right roles.

    Would it make them an immediate Cup favorite? No, but it puts them closer than they could be by riding out the length of Gaborik, Carter, and Brown's deals, especially given that they don't have a single wing prospect who looks capable of playing top 6 minutes in the pipeline.

    So yeah, the best ship has sailed. I lament it, but sitting around and moping won't help either. Landeskog is the right type of player.

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
  •