Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 13212223
Results 221 to 228 of 228

Thread: Kings with heavy interest in Landeskog

  1. #221
    RANGZ
    aaron's Avatar
    Karma: 1478700
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    5,079
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1255 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mondo Blando View Post
    He did all those things at Pearson's age.
    They are the same age. TP just took longer to develop. What's important is the next 4 years (300+ games).

    And you are discussing the "cliff" for a 24 year old? Really? I know you dig numbers and often contend that skill players peak at an early age, but that leaves out that players who score big early often hone their games to be better, more well-rounded players as they reach their primes.
    Yes. 24yo with 400 games played is a lot. His prime is anywhere from another 200-400 games. He might still be a good player, but the scoring goes sooner than most expect.
    Landeskog is multi-tool player not close to his prime with a tremendous pedigree. There is no risk there.
    There is always risk. Even his concussion history is a risk to consider. System differences must also be considered
    I understand the pain in losing a guy like Muzzin, I am not discounting that. But Landeskog is a virtually perfect Kings winger. They cannot provide that from within, and this is one of the very few chances you will have at getting that from the outside. Will it affect the balance of the roster? Sure, the defense will take a hit now and likely a hit in the expansion draft. It's six of one, half a dozen.of another. They are short a quality forward now. They would be short a quality defender if they make the deal. But, the winger is younger, locked in, has every intangible you could ask for, and fills a definite void. It's well worth the pain.
    You don't have to sell me on trading Muzz. I was an early adopter of the possibilities it opened
    .

  2. #222
    1st Scoring Line
    DarkLeftHand's Avatar
    Karma: 1147000
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    193 Post(s)

    Default Kings with heavy interest in Landeskog

    Trade prospect/picks for Landeskog, re-acquire different prospects/picks in a trade for Martinez at deadline, if necessary. Ship Muzzin out for the next coming of Stoll/Greene at deadline as well, if it's dire, and get the retooling well underway for next season and the season after.
    Last edited by DarkLeftHand; January 18th, 2017 at 09:48 PM.

  3. #223
    Bring Chips, That's a 20
    Crockett77's Avatar
    Karma: 3128000
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    191 Post(s)

    Default

    From what I see there is only 1 team in the modern era, 1967 to now, that has won the cup, totally dismantled that team and rebuilt thru the draft and won again shortly after that process, and that’s Pittsburgh. Detroit never dismantled, they just kept signing talent and had the Iron Curtain never fallen a good argument could be made that they would have never won those cups. Montreal after the 70’s won in 86 and 93 but Montreal never “Rebuilt” they just kept cycling players. Philly never won and Boston went 30+ seasons between wins. NYI and Edmonton are still looking for that 2nd era win.

    In fact the most repeat success has come through winning the cup and then holding on to as many of those players as you see fit and bringing in additional talent. If Peter Puck had money in the late 80's Edmonton could have won 3-5 more cups. But he didn't and the club was dismantled.

    Keeping as many players as you can is what kept Detroit at or near the top for 20+ seasons. 3 cups for Jersey doing this. It really doesn’t matter if the Kings give up an extra prospect, if you can acquire the better of the 3-4 players involved, then you pull the trigger especially when 2 of those players are completely unproven and may never make the NHL. Very few teams won the cup by relying on 4th round picks to develop into stars. They are merely role players in waiting.

    To me you are not mortgaging the future. You are capitalizing on what you have, because past history tells us, if you rebuild or even make the so-called “Winning Deals”, you may never win the cup again for many years, if at all.

  4. #224
    Dorkus Malorkus
    jom's Avatar
    Karma: 1585031
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    6,849
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    382 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jt View Post
    In some years a 1-for-1 trade might make sense but with the expansion draft I think people who think this trade would be smart need to focus on what it would do to the protection list. Is it worth making the deal if it ALSO costs them McNabb or Forbort too?

    It's also worth noting this from Dreger: http://www.tsn.ca/landeskog-hopes-to...g-avs-1.652053



    Dreger also called GL "questionably a 2nd line player".

    I find it interesting that a price some LGKers are willing to pay is called "outrageous" by actual NHL GMs.
    It certainly is an outrageous price so maybe Sakic is just testing the waters. Who knows but I doubt any GM would give up a 2/3rd defensemen + a #1 for GL.

    Myself I wasn't too negative on a "one for one" in this case but the above post about the Expansion Draft tells me the Kings should steer clear.

    jom

  5. #225
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 1857637647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1014 Post(s)

    Default

    .

  6. #226
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 1857637647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1014 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crockett77 View Post
    From what I see there is only 1 team in the modern era, 1967 to now, that has won the cup, totally dismantled that team and rebuilt thru the draft and won again shortly after that process, and that’s Pittsburgh. Detroit never dismantled, they just kept signing talent and had the Iron Curtain never fallen a good argument could be made that they would have never won those cups. Montreal after the 70’s won in 86 and 93 but Montreal never “Rebuilt” they just kept cycling players. Philly never won and Boston went 30+ seasons between wins. NYI and Edmonton are still looking for that 2nd era win.

    In fact the most repeat success has come through winning the cup and then holding on to as many of those players as you see fit and bringing in additional talent. If Peter Puck had money in the late 80's Edmonton could have won 3-5 more cups. But he didn't and the club was dismantled.

    Keeping as many players as you can is what kept Detroit at or near the top for 20+ seasons. 3 cups for Jersey doing this. It really doesn’t matter if the Kings give up an extra prospect, if you can acquire the better of the 3-4 players involved, then you pull the trigger especially when 2 of those players are completely unproven and may never make the NHL. Very few teams won the cup by relying on 4th round picks to develop into stars. They are merely role players in waiting.

    To me you are not mortgaging the future. You are capitalizing on what you have, because past history tells us, if you rebuild or even make the so-called “Winning Deals”, you may never win the cup again for many years, if at all.
    ^^ What is your definition of the "modern era" ?

    Clearly pre and post salary cap eras are apples and oranges comparisons.

  7. #227
    Bring Chips, That's a 20
    Crockett77's Avatar
    Karma: 3128000
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    191 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    ^^ What is your definition of the "modern era" ?

    Clearly pre and post salary cap eras are apples and oranges comparisons.
    Modern era to me is 68 forward. The bottom line is that since the league expanded from 6 teams it has been proven by those cup winners and those rosters. Winning a cup, rebuilding and winning a cup a short time later with different top players/captains has worked exactly 1 time. Pens early 90's, Pens 2006/2016.

    If you go pre salary cap it has never happened. If you go post salary cap, it has never happened.

    To take it a step further, no team has ever won a cup, rebuilt and won again with the same GM. Detroit and New Jersey had the same GM, but either team never went through rebuild. They just brought in players, which is what the Kings need to do, IMO, based solely on history.

    And I believe there is only 1 GM who has won a Cup post 68 and won again elsewhere. And that's Jim Rutherford, Carolina and Pittsburgh. I cannot think of another one. There may be another or 2, but I can't think of one.

  8. #228
    I've got Myxomatosis
    BDTR's Avatar
    Karma: 1227722
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,842
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    90 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    .
    That's a great point!

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
  •