Kings trading Quick and a first plus to Columbus?0

[Clif]

Apparently he told the team he wanted to keep playing beyond this season and it was pretty clear the Kings weren't going to renew his contract. So he was going to play somewhere else next season anyway. So now I don't understand why he was surprised or upset.

I’d think a heads-up to him that he could be moved is a reasonable courtesy.

 

[hockeygolucky]

There's something to be said about loyalty. Quick brought this team two cups and he deserved more. To TM and Blake, he was the guy that ousted them from 3-0 lead. The price for disloyalty is a team of players who will give no loyalty back. Just like how TM ran SJ to the ground.

 

[VCRW]

I’d think a heads-up to him that he could be moved is a reasonable courtesy.

And I think he will be flipped again - this time to a playoff team needing some insurance. Let's see what happens before the 3/3 expiration.

 

[Liz4LA]

I still can’t believe it. I’ve been listening to XM and they’re saying he was blindsided by the trade…that’s not how you treat a legend. What bull**** about creating a team culture.

I hate you Rob Blake!

 

[jt]

Per TSN, we are also sending a 3rd round pick. The 1st round pick is conditional on the Kings making the playoffs.

This sucks but I'm not going to criticize Blake. Quick has the worst save % in the NHL. The only two goalies lower than him on the list are Spencer Martin and Cal Peterson, and they are both buried in the minors. Quick is ranked #51 . Korpisalo is [URL=https://letsgokings.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 5[/URL] . It's not realistic to bury two goaltenders with a combined $10.8 cap hit in the minors and Quick simply can't play at an NHL level.

It's sad how this ended, but it was already sad how this was ending for Quick. None of this changes that he's a legend, the greatest goalie in Kings history.

He's one of my 2 favorite Kings of all time and I'm sad to see him go. But the reality is that when was paid market value on a TEN year contract. He valued money over security. He could have taken less money for a NTC/NMC, but didn't. That's sports.

I'm wondering if the guy the Kings really wanted was Korpisalo, with this season as his audition. Presumably he's the new No. 1.

I think it's this exactly. Audition him for the 23-24 #1 job.

 

[jt]

And I think he will be flipped again - this time to a playoff team needing some insurance. Let's see what happens before the 3/3 expiration.

What team would want to trade for him at $2.8M (50%) retained? And before talking about a 3rd team brokering it. That would cost at least a 3rd, so what would the net return be? Pretty low.

 

[Clif]

And I think he will be flipped again - this time to a playoff team needing some insurance. Let's see what happens before the 3/3 expiration.

I expect that too. From my read on it the communication from CLB about him being traded again came after the initial trade. Hopefully Hextall reunites him with Carter in PITT.

 

[KopiFan11]

And I think he will be flipped again - this time to a playoff team needing some insurance. Let's see what happens before the 3/3 expiration.

The fact that CBJ doesn't have a game until after the deadline all but confirms this for me.

 

[santiclaws]

And I think he will be flipped again - this time to a playoff team needing some insurance. Let's see what happens before the 3/3 expiration.

I've read that's what Columbus is trying to do but I'd be surprised. He's put up an .876 SV% this season and .896 over the past five seasons. He has a pedigree, but all evidence suggests that he's done as an NHL goalie. Maybe someone takes a chance anyway. We'll see.

 

[Stormy2213]

Seeing a lot of 'I want the Kings to be good' paired with 'how dare they trade away the worst player on the team'. LGK in a nutshell.

 

[HTK]

Seeing a lot of 'I want the Kings to be good' paired with 'how dare they trade away the worst player on the team'. LGK in a nutshell.

100% the worst player. I get loyalty but this is a good trade for the team.

 

[KHenry14]

Any professional sports team that puts sentimentality above what's good for the team is doomed to fail. A GM has to be dispassionate about these things, especially when the issue revolves around a fan favorite like Quickie. Nobody wants to see him leave, but it had to happen.

Also, players get blindsided by trades all the time, so Quickie shouldn't be too surprised by this trade.

 

[jgs]

Its Buisness. Getting traded most of the time is never taken positively, it is being reported that Quick let it be known that he wanted to keep playing next year and clearly the Kings were not going to resign him and he knew that. How, well Copley took his job and I'm sure Quick doesn't want to be a backup. Problem is, I don't see him being a starter for any team next season. Thank you Quick for all you have done for the Kings.

 

[HeadInjury]

What team would want to trade for him at $2.8M (50%) retained? And before talking about a 3rd team brokering it. That would cost at least a 3rd, so what would the net return be? Pretty low.

I suppose Vegas has the room, with all their LTIR space, but I don't see it happening. To answer your question, Columbus would probably get nothing and the team taking 25% of Quick's salary would get the draft pick the acquiring team trades. It would be about Columbus just doing Quick a solid and saving some money at the same time. All seems pretty far fetched.

The team taking 25% of Quick's cap hit would have to pay about $156,250 in cash. That's twice what Minnesota took on in exchange for a 4th rounder.

 

[symbology]

Quick to Vegas? oh man.......

 

[MBX5]

I think what is getting lost in this thread is that it isn't only about trading Quick. Rather it is (i) a first round pick was given up for two rentals, at least one of whom has publicly said that he intends to test free agency, while (in my humble opinion) the team is likely not good enough to get out of the West with Colorado getting healthy and certainly not good enough to beat the likes of Boston, Toronto or Tampa in a seven game final series and, as such, a trade to further build the team for the future, even if overpaying for the player, rather than playing for the present, may have made more sense; and (ii) that Quick did not get the same courtesy that the likes of Carter received (and that Blake went out of his way to discuss when Carter was traded), that the veteran players would not be blind sided, which clearly did not happen in this instance. Put differently, while one can debate whether or not this was a good trade from a long term hockey perspective, I think many of us feel that it wasn't handled properly - there is a right way to do something and a wrong way to do something and it sounds like the latter happened here.

 

[SaltyPuck]

I think what is getting lost in this thread is that it isn't only about trading Quick. Rather it is (i) a first round pick was given up for two rentals, at least one of whom has publicly said that he intends to test free agency, while (in my humble opinion) the team is likely not good enough to get out of the West with Colorado getting healthy and certainly not good enough to beat the likes of Boston, Toronto or Tampa in a seven game final series and, as such, a trade to further build the team for the future, even if overpaying for the player, rather than playing for the present, may have made more sense; and (ii) that Quick did not get the same courtesy that the likes of Carter received (and that Blake went out of his way to discuss when Carter was traded), that the veteran players would not be blind sided, which clearly did not happen in this instance. Put differently, while one can debate whether or not this was a good trade from a long term hockey perspective, I think many of us feel that it wasn't handled properly - there is a right way to do something and a wrong way to do something and it sounds like the latter happened here.

And the award for the longest sentence on this thread goes to......

 

[jgs]

It is hard making decisions like this but What the Kings owe their players is the money that both sides agreed to in the contract signed by both. That is it. People on this thread are not happy with how Blake handled this trade. Well if the Kings owed Quick, then Quick also owed the Kings. I could argue that Quick owed the Kings much better net minding than he has given them the past two years. Anyone with hockey sense can see that Quick's ability to perform at the high level needed was no where close to being what it needed to be. It is clear that Quick's is on the down side of his career. The writing was on the wall that the Kings would not be resigning Quick and he had to have known that and the fact that Quick made it known that he want to continue playing put Blake in a position of trading him. Why, because Blake wasn't going to resign him. The goaltender position must be improved upon. Copley is playing well but that position must be improved and a opportunity to improve our defense and the goaltender position presented itself and Blake made the deal. In fact it is a great move for Quick. He wasn't going to be a King next year and now he has a chance to play for a team in the NHL next year.

 

[AngelEyes]

I still can’t believe it. I’ve been listening to XM and they’re saying he was blindsided by the trade…that’s not how you treat a legend. What bull**** about creating a team culture.

I hate you Rob Blake!

I hope you are familiar with the term, "gaslighting", because that's what you're likely hearing there.

 

[jgs]

I think what is getting lost in this thread is that it isn't only about trading Quick. Rather it is (i) a first round pick was given up for two rentals, at least one of whom has publicly said that he intends to test free agency, while (in my humble opinion) the team is likely not good enough to get out of the West with Colorado getting healthy and certainly not good enough to beat the likes of Boston, Toronto or Tampa in a seven game final series and, as such, a trade to further build the team for the future, even if overpaying for the player, rather than playing for the present, may have made more sense; and (ii) that Quick did not get the same courtesy that the likes of Carter received (and that Blake went out of his way to discuss when Carter was traded), that the veteran players would not be blind sided, which clearly did not happen in this instance. Put differently, while one can debate whether or not this was a good trade from a long term hockey perspective, I think many of us feel that it wasn't handled properly - there is a right way to do something and a wrong way to do something and it sounds like the latter happened here.

If these players play well and make a impact in the positions they play, Blake will work hard to resign them. I don't think he made this move with the thought of losing them after this season.