So trading Quick makes the Kings your minor league team? Nope.
People are loyal because they get all the credit and rewards for winning. Guarantee that most people have never won or been the best and don?t know what it takes to get there.
Back to the Kings. Good teams maximize the value of their assets. Bad teams don?t. It?s pretty simple.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's one-trick-pony management. You can't simply apply one style to every situation. Having led teams anywhere from infantry squads in combat to where I am now at a Fortune 15 company, I can tell you with absolute certainty that a good leader morphs their management style based on at least dozens of factors. Rule number 1 is that you must manage each individual differently...some don't care about winning, not one iota.
I'll give you a recent example (100% true story): One of my peers led a small team of 15 or so to 120% of their goals in year '21. He did it by yelling, beating his fist on the table, literally kicking trash cans and driving them like mules. They got solid bonuses and he truly believed his team absolutely adored him. In March he was removed from his position after numerous and collaborative HR complaints (I guess he did teach them to work together, lol) and now manages a team of 3 under the watchful eye of Human Resources. He's currently failing in his role as he has no other management styles available to him. I have no doubt he'll be terminated before the end of this year.
As you can see from this example, winning doesn't always precipitate morale, even in an office environment. In this case, if a team exhibits disloyalty to a guy who has been loyal to them for 15 years and then throws a rookie in to sink or swim, that room will be listless. So if you want to win you'll need to sign a big money goaltender via free agency.
By the way here are a few material facts (assuming Blake was foolish enough to take the deal at a reasonable price or another GM was foolish enough to pay the price you mentioned):
1) Blake loses a starting goalie who carries a cap hit of $5.8M with an actual salary of $2.5M. The bean-counters will eviscerate him.
2) Filling the void with a bridge solution would be an even bigger slap in the face to a guy whose jersey will be in the rafters soon.
3) Based on 4+ year UFA signings over the last year, a replacement starter is going to cost $5.5M...cash money, along with the cap (evisceration 2.0)
4) It's simply illogical when you know
the following year+ is when you expect to truly be able to start making a run for the cup
So for a $300K cap hit benefit and 2 first round picks you have a goalie who:
1) hits the payroll for $3M more than his predecessor
2) is not the leader Quick is (few are)
3) is new to system
4) is new to the coaches, trainers and management staff
5) doesn't know his teammates personally, (let alone their positional tendencies), and
6) may not ever gel with the team
This is not a recipe for wins or morale. In fact, it's a recipe for delaying the rebuild by 3-5 years. On the other hand they'd have a much better chance of picking up Connor Bedard in the '23 draft.
Sorry dude, I know it's summer and all but that proposal is as about realistic as the Magic Mirror from Romper Room.
I'm done with this conversation so don't expect me to respond to any further rationalization. Once again, I suggest you put the shovel down, the hole you've dug for yourself is deep enough.
On a positive note, at least you generated a few dozen responses - LGK thanks you for the hits and momentary distraction from the doldrums of summer.
~s
