Kings trading Quick and a first plus to Columbus?0

After watching the the game tonight, Kings need some serious grit (as been noted in recent threads). The Talent is getting pushed around too much.

Edit: Not that this possible trade adds the "Grit", but it is needed by the deadline for the PO's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Noooooooo!!! Even though he sucks, he's OUR sucky goalie!!

The last photo I'll ever take of him as a King
20230215-220429.jpg


The last warmup photo I'll ever take of him as a King
20230114-191007.jpg
 
Last edited:
Guess Chychrun was too expensive for Blake's taste.

I am no player analyst specialist....but I think by passing on Chychrun is a good thing.
Let the trade dead line play out.
 
Yikes! Trading the legendary (but clearly ready for retirement) Quick is one thing. But trading a first for two rentals WITHOUT a contract extension?! This kind of reminds me of the early 1980s Rick Martin for a 1st type of trade. Of course, it's always possible there's more to come. Perhaps Blake trades some of the prospects for a 1st (like DL trading Cammellari for a 1st in 2008). Somehow, I think (I HOPE!) there's more to come, even if it's at the draft.
 
Only way this happens is with some kind of insider, behind the scenes negotiating with Quick. He's got to be aboard with some longer term strategy here.
 
I am no insider, but I read somewhere there maybe a few "flipping" of traded players via trades by the end of the week.
Maybe I heard it here on LGK....maybe I read it somewhere else. Who knows.

Edit: Traded players
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone on Twitter said to say Quick didn't take it well would be a massive understatement. Can't believe it. Don't like the way they treat Quick here and really don't like giving up the first.
 
Listen, Quick was given EVERY opportunity to show he could still play - he failed repeatedly at it. He lost it somewhere, BUT... if we're trading for a goalie with term left, someone who can lead us for a few years, I get it. You have to. For a rental... and giving up our FIRST? I really don't get it. Thought Blake was playing chess, but this isn't even checkers. In one move, you hurt the culture of the team and potentially did damage to our future. We weren't one semi decent goalie away from the cup here.
 
Listen, Quick was given EVERY opportunity to show he could still play - he failed repeatedly at it. He lost it somewhere, BUT... if we're trading for a goalie with term left, someone who can lead us for a few years, I get it. You have to. For a rental... and giving up our FIRST? I really don't get it. Thought Blake was playing chess, but this isn't even checkers.

Might have a deal for an extension worked out already. Although I'm not really a fan of Gavrikov at all.
 
Makes me wonder if Blake's job was in jeopardy - no reason it should have been. I just don't get it. We needed a better goalie - got that, but the price - culture + a first. I'm lost.
 
I was as critical as anyone of Quick's play, but the odds of Korpisalo killing it in the playoffs and Quick finding his game in the playoffs were not that different for me.
 
I don't necessarily hate trading Quick and I'm of the opinion that championship teams are built on a good amount of luck; needing a specific type of player and having that player be available when you need it is fairly luck-based.

It was fairly fortunate that the Kings needed players like Richards and Carter and they were both available, and later on Gaborik being available when the Kings needed a scoring winger, but I'm not convinced that the Kings' needed players are available this deadline, but it remains to be seen.
 

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.
Back
Top Bottom