Kings Article: It Still Hurts…But Take A Step Back Before Looking at the Jonathan Quick Trade

Statto

Registered User
Sponsor
May 9, 2014
4,988
6,805
I can only go my experience in professional hockey plus a bit of common sense on this. When players move both parties want confidentiality for a whole bunch of reasons, an unnecessarily unsettled player for a start if it doesn’t go through. Columbus would have been trying to drive the price of the two assets up and I’m sure they’d have insisted on it. If you think it stays secret once you tell the player in advance you are kidding yourself.

Let’s say the trade falls apart because details leaked and it later turns out it’s because Blake had a heart to heart with Quick a few days prior. In the case the people saying Quick deserved better would slaughtering him to sucking up to the old guard. Lose, lose for most of you. Yes it was cold but it’s absolutely what a GM must be and the same people complaining now also griped that they didn’t think he could make such a decision.

I‘m pretty sure that Blake knew that CBJ would try to flip him back West but as we know trading within division/conference is much harder to figure out when both teams are in the race. There’s a lot of sentimental stuff in here as well as a fundamental dislike of Blake, it’s obscuring the objectivity. The controversial bit is the 1st and assessing that we can only do after the play-offs and if these guys sign.
 
Last edited:

Rorschach

Who the f*** is Trevor Moore?
Oct 9, 2006
11,269
1,837
Los Angeles
I think Quick put the Kings in a horrible position where they needed a goaltender badly and Quick was not even good enough to play backup with his .877 SV%. At times, several times, it looked like he wasn’t even trying. Petersen put the Kings and Quick in this position by having completely stopped trying after signing his big contract.

Quick got blindsided after Blake was unable to trade Petersen’s un-trade-able contract and Blake had to make this ugly decision. The Kings couldn’t hold all that cap and make all the necessary adds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Telos

Statto

Registered User
Sponsor
May 9, 2014
4,988
6,805
why assume he was trying to trade Petersen at all? I certainly don’t think anyone wasn’t trying either.
 

FeartheFur

Registered User
Jul 15, 2018
341
279
Still watching the dust settle, but it definitely stings regardless. It is a complex deal with so many moving parts that have now been picked apart tirelessly, but ultimately, the problem isn't that Quick was dealt, although it was bound to feel like it in the emotional hours right after the trade. The problem with the trade is the timing (and how it was done) given Quick's status and the shock that management was willing to throw the first for rentals to make a postseason push right now. I guarantee if this was a deal for a long-term option that was guaranteed to help the team get better beyond this season the reaction would have still been very emotionally charged but a lot less severe.

This deal is extremely divisive and garners little love from any party that views it. There is no question that this trade makes the roster better right now until the end of this season, but this is a very large gamble by Blake that literally no one expected. Not the fanbase, not the media, and not even executives and personnel around the league. Literally, no one was expecting Blake to push valuable chips in the center to win this season. Everyone was expecting him to make the move for a Chychrun-type deal because the Kings are certainly in the ballpark and moving towards becoming a contender, but no one believed the window was now, except for Blake and Kings brass I guess.

The funny thing is their logic makes sense in that the team has put up a valiant fight. They have clawed their way into top contention in the West despite significant flaws in the roster. With just the basic/average goaltending of Copley, the team has the offense to still win games despite their weakness on defense. However, these significant flaws were seen as a reason by the fanbase and everyone else that they weren't ready, but to the management, this signaled that they were just a few steps away. They believe that the players on the roster deserve a reward for their play and efforts, and that by addressing and plugging those holes this speed boat could take off. Now obviously we are all skeptical, but I mean a trade with Columbus has had that effect on this team a couple of times before... But it does come off as a far greater gamble than the last two trades given the players' rental status and Gavrikov being very open about his desire to test the market. All in all, they are right that the team deserved some help and a reward for their play, I can understand their logic, but I don't think many would agree that reward would be making a contender's final deal of throwing away their first for a couple of rentals.

The issue with Quick is that it is still vague even though we now have a lot more pieces. We knew that Quick was upset but gracious and okay with the deal especially after he was traded to Vegas, can compete, and knows that his family doesn't have to move and his kids can remain in school, etc. We know that Blake handled it as best as he could in that the deal had to happen then and there with Columbus and he didn't wait. The timing sucked but he did the right thing in calling Quick and then Kopitar and Doughty immediately. Obviously, Kopitar and Doughty are sad but know the business and that it is time to compete, but there is also an unbreakable bond, Quick's number is going straight to the rafters after he retires, and he will be forever a King and will be treated like royalty in LA forever after the dust has settled regardless of the deal or anything that went down. Obviously, we haven't heard from Quick yet or his perspective, I am sure his presser is coming soon, but it sounds like he is doing okay.

The vagueness all lies in Jonathan's intentions. Robitaille said that last summer Quick indicated that he wants to play after this season, but wasn't clear if that had been discussed with him since. Obviously, this has changed since last summer in terms of Quick's performance and given he plays goal there is very little room to carry around a goaltender that isn't performing. Blake said he had spoken to Quick throughout the season, but didn't indicate about what and couldn't confirm if Quick was intending to continue or not.

This is where the fanbase is focused. Blake has stated that the likes of Brown, Carter, Quick, Doughty, and Kopitar, etc. had earned their say or to be at least communicated to about their future with the team. What surprised everyone is they believed that surely Quick knew the writing was on the wall and now being a couple months away from the end of his season and contract he was destined to have the fairytale ride out into the sunset like Brown and it was going to work out perfectly. But if Quick was determined to play after this season, neither the organization nor the fanbase was going to be okay with that regardless of his status, and Quick doesn't have any trade protections. It seems evident through Kopitar and Doughty's reactions that they, including Quick, were blindsided and didn't even expect this turn of events which means that Blake never hinted in any way shape or form that there was even a possibility they were exploring options or had a recent conversation with Quick in regard to his future. Sure, if Quick was hellbent and said I am playing fine and want to keep going for a couple more seasons, then absolutely nothing can be helped, but if Quick was planning to retire anyway in two months and wanted to retire a King...

That puts Blake between a rock and a hard place, but that is a lot more of a gray area to be in because an argument could be had that Quick has earned that. You can carry three goalies, you can still upgrade the goalie position without moving him. If they end up not utilizing this cap space it could be a deafening slap to the face.

So, there still is a piece of the puzzle to determining the correct emotional logic of the whole situation, and we will have no clue on the overall value of the trade until the season is over and we are able to see the results, but from the initial perspective of it all there isn't much to go on over the necessity of the diceroll and forcing and attaching Quick's name to it guarantees that this will be scrutinized to the N'th degree and will go down as one of the most memorable good or horrific trades in Kings history.
Jesus.
 

AbsentMojo

F-ing get up and hunt! Cmon Todd!
Apr 18, 2018
8,734
8,556
twitter.com
Cal got Jon fired - for if he resembled what his contract thought he was, none of this goes down. A more interesting deep dive would be who in the org thought Cal deserved 3 x 5mil + m-NTC and what was the reasoning - e.g. he looked good for 20+ games one season i think he will translate to a starter based on X
 

Fishhead

Registered User
Jul 15, 2003
7,306
5,764
PNW
Cal got Jon fired - for if he resembled what his contract thought he was, none of this goes down. A more interesting deep dive would be who in the org thought Cal deserved 3 x 5mil + m-NTC and what was the reasoning - e.g. he looked good for 20+ games one season i think he will translate to a starter based on X

I don't think it was just the one season.

The Reign were decimated when Cal came in as we had traded a ton of picks and the system was completely bare. He put up a .910 and a 2.58 on a poor reign team led by Mersch, Molulson, Hensick, and Maillet. The next season wasn't as good, but the team was terrible, the only time they've missed the playoffs. Campbell and Cal were both playing OK, and Cal was putting up better percentages than Budaj, who was fine with the Kings. It was difficult to get a read on anyone that year, all 3 were fairly close.

He came up to the NHL and put up a .924. Campbell looked good as well, they both looked better than JQ. Cal goes back down next season and puts up a .906, then he's back up and puts up a .922. Then next season he comes up and puts up a .911. JQ was sub .900 that year.

Remember, it came down to Cal and Campbell, both put up similar good numbers in the NHL so they went with the younger one. So this is what they saw:

.910 - AHL
.896 - AHL
.924 - NHL (small sample)
.906 - AHL
.922 - NHL
.911 - NHL

His numbers were increasing, he looked better than Quick for sure. And this was mostly behind rebuilding AHL defenses and a Kings team in turmoil who had just fired their coach and GM, and were in transition.

At the time most thought $5M was too much and maybe $3.5-$4M would have been better, and now we definitely know that. An arbitrator probably would have been somewhere closer to 4. The 3-years part was a no-brainer considering there was no one else in the system worth a shit.

In hindsight, it would have made sense to sign Cal to an even longer contract, but at least they got that part right. He gave no indications of falling apart. Even in his first year after signing it didn't look terrible, he was getting the tougher starts and still put up a .898.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo

chris kontos

Registered User
Feb 28, 2023
3,406
2,087
do any of you blake apologists realize your boy traded a first rounder for 20 games of 2 unsigned free agents and b**h f****ed a franchise icon in the process?
 

Schmooley

Registered User
Apr 5, 2016
2,980
3,670
do any of you blake apologists realize your boy traded a first rounder for 20 games of 2 unsigned free agents and b**h f****ed a franchise icon in the process?
Seems like hes going all out to sign Gavrikov. So at least if he signs Blake gets a player that is worth the first.
I am no Blake apologist though. I dont agree with a lot of what hes done.
If both players walk and they get bounced first round I hope he theres some real changes made. You dont drop two first round picks on one season without intending to go deeper and improve on last season.
 

Schrute farms

LA Kings: new GM wanted -- inquire within
Jul 7, 2020
2,266
3,992
do any of you blake apologists realize your boy traded a first rounder for 20 games of 2 unsigned free agents and b**h f****ed a franchise icon in the process?
Step away from the ledge there Chris. This is more over dramatics than an episode of Housewives.

Listen, i dislike Blake as much as anyone. But the Quick story is unknown -- did him dirty, it was agreed upon, did him a favor, other -- we don't know. So i'm not going to get my panties all up in an uproar. IT does seem like Quick is benefiting going someone else to play rather than sitting as #3 or going on IR.
As to the two additions, they look great right now. But being URFA, the true determination of this trade comes down to both how we do in the playoffs and whether one (or both) sign here this offseason.

I'm going to enjoy the now. There is plenty of time for pitchforks this summer if this team falters, both guys go elsewhere, and bad Quick news/facts come out.
 
Last edited:

AbsentMojo

F-ing get up and hunt! Cmon Todd!
Apr 18, 2018
8,734
8,556
twitter.com
I don't think it was just the one season.

The Reign were decimated when Cal came in as we had traded a ton of picks and the system was completely bare. He put up a .910 and a 2.58 on a poor reign team led by Mersch, Molulson, Hensick, and Maillet. The next season wasn't as good, but the team was terrible, the only time they've missed the playoffs. Campbell and Cal were both playing OK, and Cal was putting up better percentages than Budaj, who was fine with the Kings. It was difficult to get a read on anyone that year, all 3 were fairly close.

He came up to the NHL and put up a .924. Campbell looked good as well, they both looked better than JQ. Cal goes back down next season and puts up a .906, then he's back up and puts up a .922. Then next season he comes up and puts up a .911. JQ was sub .900 that year.

Remember, it came down to Cal and Campbell, both put up similar good numbers in the NHL so they went with the younger one. So this is what they saw:

.910 - AHL
.896 - AHL
.924 - NHL (small sample)
.906 - AHL
.922 - NHL
.911 - NHL

His numbers were increasing, he looked better than Quick for sure. And this was mostly behind rebuilding AHL defenses and a Kings team in turmoil who had just fired their coach and GM, and were in transition.

At the time most thought $5M was too much and maybe $3.5-$4M would have been better, and now we definitely know that. An arbitrator probably would have been somewhere closer to 4. The 3-years part was a no-brainer considering there was no one else in the system worth a shit.

In hindsight, it would have made sense to sign Cal to an even longer contract, but at least they got that part right. He gave no indications of falling apart. Even in his first year after signing it didn't look terrible, he was getting the tougher starts and still put up a .898.
Thanks for the details on the history and what maybe led to that ridiculous contract. Still if Cal performs even as #2 (e.g. a 905 save pct). JQ is still here because Cal would be starting JQ on back to backs and probably wouldnt be exposed. We have to be grateful that JQ was solid for over 90% of that 10 year contract... fading his final year was basically expected... once Cal went into the shitosphere JQ couldnt hold up even as a #2 and the rest is history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fishhead

Rick Knickleback

Registered User
May 18, 2022
363
852
Long Beach
The ex ante assumption that neither Korpisalo nor Gavrikov will be Kings next year because, you know, reasons, is as weird as it is dumb. Maybe they won't be, maybe they will. Like most trades, it'll take awhile to evaluate this one. Definitely a calculated risk on Blake's part, both in terms of the concept and the execution. Winning sure cures a lot of ills though.
 

Fishhead

Registered User
Jul 15, 2003
7,306
5,764
PNW
do any of you blake apologists realize your boy traded a first rounder for 20 games of 2 unsigned free agents and b**h f****ed a franchise icon in the process?

No one is apologizing for the mistakes, most are just giving context. Saying someone screwed up is easy and obvious, but figuring out why is more important.

It's not hard to illustrate why the Kings signed Cal and what led to this. But at the time a 3 year deal made complete sense. The money was a bit high, but not completely outlandish. If you go back and reread the responses with Cal's deal, it's largely positive, with the only discussion point the $5M per year. Most were excited about the guy.

Does JQ bear any responsibility for this? He was the one playing like crap. What about DL? He signed a goalie for 10 years knowing full well he'd be 37 at the end. That's a much higher risk proposition than Cal's deal. Yet, it allowed the team cap space to reload the team and win another cup.

Sometimes there isn't a clear win regardless of what you do. Was that 2nd cup worth it, even though it meant things might get sketchy at the end with Quick? Sure was. I think everyone was on board with benefit now, deal with the repercussions later. Now those are here and they need to be dealt with. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the reality, but if you do you can figure out why most teams do what they do with players.
 

mysterman2

Registered User
Jul 11, 2020
985
1,789
So Cal
The ex ante assumption that neither Korpisalo nor Gavrikov will be Kings next year because, you know, reasons, is as weird as it is dumb. Maybe they won't be, maybe they will. Like most trades, it'll take awhile to evaluate this one. Definitely a calculated risk on Blake's part, both in terms of the concept and the execution. Winning sure cures a lot of ills though.

If Kings win the cup and they dont sign- good trade.

They get bounced in the rd 1 and neither resign- bad bad trade.

If either one can get resigned- good trade.
If both get resigned- great trade.
 

chris kontos

Registered User
Feb 28, 2023
3,406
2,087
The ex ante assumption that neither Korpisalo nor Gavrikov will be Kings next year because, you know, reasons, is as weird as it is dumb. Maybe they won't be, maybe they will. Like most trades, it'll take awhile to evaluate this one. Definitely a calculated risk on Blake's part, both in terms of the concept and the execution. Winning sure cures a lot of ills though.
The fact that blake had to take that gamble proves he’s a fish and objectively demonstrates the ongoing process of blunders he’s made.
We better hope bergevin aint his replacement
 

AbsentMojo

F-ing get up and hunt! Cmon Todd!
Apr 18, 2018
8,734
8,556
twitter.com
Seems like hes going all out to sign Gavrikov. So at least if he signs Blake gets a player that is worth the first.
I am no Blake apologist though. I dont agree with a lot of what hes done.
If both players walk and they get bounced first round I hope he theres some real changes made. You dont drop two first round picks on one season without intending to go deeper and improve on last season.
I think Gavrikov is the right type of player to go for..they might have to slightly overpay due to CA 13% income tax for his bracket... but its worth it. If they got Chychrun, would still need a Gavrikov type to solidify the d-corps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schmooley

Fishhead

Registered User
Jul 15, 2003
7,306
5,764
PNW
The fact that blake had to take that gamble proves he’s a fish and objectively demonstrates the ongoing process of blunders he’s made.
We better hope bergevin aint his replacement

Show me a GM that doesn't gamble and I'll show you a GM that doesn't win anything. DL gambled 10x more than Blake ever has. If anything Blake is too conservative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrute farms

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,935
20,918
If Kings win the cup and they dont sign- good trade.

They get bounced in the rd 1 and neither resign- bad bad trade.

If either one can get resigned- good trade.
If both get resigned- great trade.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but would move things around a bit.

If the Kings win the cup, even if neither get re-signed, that's a great trade. If they lose in the first round and neither re-sign, it's a horrible trade. Everything in between ranges from bad to decent, pending what they do in the offseason.
 

johnjm22

Pseudo Intellectual
Aug 2, 2005
19,715
15,159
I think we're more likely to re-sign Korpisalo than Gavrikov.

I don't love the trade personally, but at the same time I can see the rationale behind it.

The ideal move would have been one that helps us now and for the long term, or an inexpensive low risk move. A 1st for rentals at this stage is not good.

I wonder what the cost of Korpisalo alone would have been. That's probably what I would have preferred.
 

kingsholygrail

Insurmountable Leads 1-3
Sponsor
Dec 21, 2006
81,573
15,877
Derpifornia
I think Quick put the Kings in a horrible position where they needed a goaltender badly and Quick was not even good enough to play backup with his .877 SV%. At times, several times, it looked like he wasn’t even trying. Petersen put the Kings and Quick in this position by having completely stopped trying after signing his big contract.

Quick got blindsided after Blake was unable to trade Petersen’s un-trade-able contract and Blake had to make this ugly decision. The Kings couldn’t hold all that cap and make all the necessary adds.
Blake put himself in a bad position with that contract for Cal knowing Quick is well into the twilight of his career. Quick's a professional athlete. He's not going to talk himself out of a job. It's up to management to assess him and deploy appropriately. Copley stepping up was a boon, but all this goes right back to that awful unmovable contract.
 

Raccoon Jesus

Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Oct 30, 2008
61,989
62,144
I.E.
No one is apologizing for the mistakes, most are just giving context. Saying someone screwed up is easy and obvious, but figuring out why is more important.

It's not hard to illustrate why the Kings signed Cal and what led to this. But at the time a 3 year deal made complete sense. The money was a bit high, but not completely outlandish. If you go back and reread the responses with Cal's deal, it's largely positive, with the only discussion point the $5M per year. Most were excited about the guy.

Does JQ bear any responsibility for this? He was the one playing like crap. What about DL? He signed a goalie for 10 years knowing full well he'd be 37 at the end. That's a much higher risk proposition than Cal's deal. Yet, it allowed the team cap space to reload the team and win another cup.

Sometimes there isn't a clear win regardless of what you do. Was that 2nd cup worth it, even though it meant things might get sketchy at the end with Quick? Sure was. I think everyone was on board with benefit now, deal with the repercussions later. Now those are here and they need to be dealt with. It's difficult to separate the emotions from the reality, but if you do you can figure out why most teams do what they do with players.

I agree and defended Cal--but it was even bigger picture than that.

I said before the season that we were one injury/goalie issue away from Copley and/or Villalta having to be the savior and it ended up being even worse than that.

It's not solely a Quick/petersen issue, it's a pipeline that was never addressed despite random idiots like me wondering about it for a couple of years.

So while yes some things are unforseen, there wasn't much of a plan B.
 

robitaillefan

Bababooey,Tatatoothy
Sep 7, 2005
496
234
BC, CANADA!
I am genuinely freaked the F out if we have to play Vegas in the first rd.

We know quickie had a bad season, but everyone knows what this guys capable of doing when he’s dialed in for a playoff run.

Should be a wild ride
 
  • Like
Reactions: chris kontos

Schmooley

Registered User
Apr 5, 2016
2,980
3,670
I think Gavrikov is the right type of player to go for..they might have to slightly overpay due to CA 13% income tax for his bracket... but its worth it. If they got Chychrun, would still need a Gavrikov type to solidify the d-corps.
Yea both Chychrun and Gavrikov woulda been huge
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbsentMojo

SettlementRichie10

Registered User
May 6, 2012
10,027
7,795
Sports is a business, but it’s a successful business precisely because fans become emotionally attached to teams and players. Yes, fans want to watch their team win. But fans also want to watch grand romantic narratives play out in sports. The young up and comer with something to prove. The old veteran chasing one last chance at glory. The sacrifice. The perseverance. Loyalty to team and teammates. Fidelity to duty. Honor, even.

These are the stories we project onto professional sports, and why we all ultimately watch. Sociologists have long said that pro sports are simply a stand in for war. And war, like sports, is easily romanticized regardless of its ugliness, its randomness, its cold removal from the human condition. And I think this says something interesting about human nature, doesn’t it? We need to win at all costs. We need to triumph. But we also need to feel something deeper thereafter, some greater purpose, be it sacrifice, perseverance, honor, or more. The joy of triumph itself is fleeting, so we search for something more meaningful and lasting underneath it. We need to win, but we also need to win the right way, whatever that means.

We don’t just talk about the Kings winning two Cups. We don’t just talk about wins and losses and goals and assists and saves. We talk about Quick skating up and down the bench against San Jose, refusing to give up. We talk about Richards “setting the tone” against Vancouver. We talk about Brown’s hit on Sedin “changing the momentum.” We talk about clutch. We talk about intangibles. We talk about grit. We talk about “Mr. Game Seven.” We talk about jazz hands.

So yeah, sports is a business. Or is it?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad