Confirmed Signing with Link: [LAK] Kings sign Paul LaDue to 2 year contract ($825k AAV)

[Little Psycho]

I've got both.

Y'all did that to yourself.

Here's the Landeskog thread from January 2017. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172503/page-12. Ladue's name only shows up on p.12, with no reference to being a trade, only mentioning the prospect depth.

Friedman's 30 thoughts 5 days later mentioned the Avs were scouting LA and looking at LaDue, though Friedman had heard that he wasn't available. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-canadian-team-land-kevin-shattenkirk The "source" Friedman was likely John Hoven who referred to LaDue as the only untouchable of the Kings blue line prospects

Since then there are 120 mentions of LaDue on the Avs board, all of them mocking the "untouchable Paul LaDue."

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-15

Here's the Kings' board discussion, in which an Avs fans suggests it may not be Landeskog, but a rental the Kings are targeting and the responses from Kings fans are that LaDue should not be traded for a rental. The general consensus in the posts that follow were that LaDue was not near enough to land Landeskog.

Conclusion: The "They wouldn't trade LaDue for Landeskog" was a narrative a few Avs fans created for themselves...and then oddly repeated for a year and a half.

 

[King'sPawn]

It was during the dark 16-17 year, and it was LaDue++ for Landy that was talked here, maybe even rumoured. Can't remember. Many Avs fans didn't like him as the main piece coming back for Landy, some Kings fans were telling us that Landy won't get LaDue++.

The biggest concern any Kings fans would have had with Landeskog is fitting him under the cap. He had 33 points that year, with a $5.5 million cap hit.

It was the same year Kopitar had his worst performance ever with his new cap hit. Not to mention Gaborik and Brown were on the decline.

Kings fans may have been wary to acquire Landeskog because he would have been just another overpaid forward looking at that season in a vacuum, but I don't recall anyone ever saying they wouldn't do LaDue + for Landeskog.

 

[TwzKing]

I've got both.

Y'all did that to yourself.

Here's the Landeskog thread from January 2017. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172503/page-12. Ladue's name only shows up on p.12, with no reference to being a trade, only mentioning the prospect depth.

Friedman's 30 thoughts 5 days later mentioned the Avs were scouting LA and looking at LaDue, though Friedman had heard that he wasn't available. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-canadian-team-land-kevin-shattenkirk The "source" Friedman was likely John Hoven who referred to LaDue as the only untouchable of the Kings blue line prospects

Since then there are 120 mentions of LaDue on the Avs board, all of them mocking the "untouchable Paul LaDue."

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-15

Here's the Kings' board discussion, in which an Avs fans suggests it may not be Landeskog, but a rental the Kings are targeting and the responses from Kings fans are that LaDue should not be traded for a rental. The general consensus in the posts that follow were that LaDue was not near enough to land Landeskog.

Conclusion: The "They wouldn't trade LaDue for Landeskog" was a narrative a few Avs fans created for themselves...and then oddly repeated for a year and a half.

Now that's hysterical, thanks for the time and effort.

 

[riznat]

I've got both.

Y'all did that to yourself.

Here's the Landeskog thread from January 2017. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172503/page-12. Ladue's name only shows up on p.12, with no reference to being a trade, only mentioning the prospect depth.

Friedman's 30 thoughts 5 days later mentioned the Avs were scouting LA and looking at LaDue, though Friedman had heard that he wasn't available. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-canadian-team-land-kevin-shattenkirk The "source" Friedman was likely John Hoven who referred to LaDue as the only untouchable of the Kings blue line prospects

Since then there are 120 mentions of LaDue on the Avs board, all of them mocking the "untouchable Paul LaDue."

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-15

Here's the Kings' board discussion, in which an Avs fans suggests it may not be Landeskog, but a rental the Kings are targeting and the responses from Kings fans are that LaDue should not be traded for a rental. The general consensus in the posts that follow were that LaDue was not near enough to land Landeskog.

Conclusion: The "They wouldn't trade LaDue for Landeskog" was a narrative a few Avs fans created for themselves...and then oddly repeated for a year and a half.

destroyed, that was awesome

 

[Murzu]

@redcard That's some Sherlock level investigation. I admit my defeat, at least for now. I still have this clear memory in my head that there were Kings fans that didn't want to include LaDue in a deal for Landeskog. Seems like it wasn't true according to your massive investigation. I need to use some of that search option also. Thanks for the effort.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Nah it was definitely true. Absolutely a few kings fans that didn't want to trade Ladue for Landy. I'm sure if you wanted to waste a bunch of time like that guy to find the posts you could but it's probably not worth the effort.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Nah it was definitely true. Absolutely a few kings fans that didn't want to trade Ladue for Landy. I'm sure if you wanted to waste a bunch of time like that guy to find the posts you could but it's probably not worth the effort.

The guy above you recognized he was wrong and you instead want to double down on the ignorance?

There were plenty of legitimate reasons why you probably remember Kings fans saying they wouldn't want to make a trade with the avalanche. None of it is because LaDue is/was 'untouchable' and never was it "lol Ladue for Landy" straight up. You're being intentionally reductive and obtuse so you can try to continue the lampooning of Kings fans over a unicorn.

Here, I'll even provide some of the stuff you are likely to remember since "search" is apparently a waste of time/too hard:

-LaDue was our only legit RHD prospect;
-Kings had just unloaded Colin Miller and Roland McKeown;
-Landeskog was coming off a brutal year and we had a similar year, player, and contract in Brown;
-At that point LaDue was on the verge of breaking in and we needed an ELC;
-Salary. Cap. Issues.
-LaDue viewed as some level of Voynov replacement which was (is?) our biggest hole from the moment he left;
-We just came off a series of trades of high picks and practically all our higher-end prospects;
-Most of the LaDue suggestions were for rentals rather than Landeskog which, well, see above;
-Probably some major Lucic PTSD.


So no deal was making sense for Kings and Avs fans, and apparently that turned into with the help of the knuckleheaded Dennis Bernstein and the support of Friedman "lol the untouchable Paul Ladue."


....anyway, looking forward to seeing what he can bring as a regular. 2-year commitment seems to suggest they believe. Killer wrister from the blueline that's for sure, and he's shown some energy on the wall, and WANTS to be aggressive, just doesn't have the size(bulk) for it it seems. But his offensive IQ and puck moving is gnarly, nice to have another PP guy on the roster.

 

[Murzu]

@Raccoon Jesus I still feel like digging into threads about this subject myself. My image of the situation is so clear.. I was proven wrong (so far) here but I'm feeling a little stubborn though. But I'm wrong till proven otherwise.

Many Avs fan remember the situation like I did, for some reason. @redcard talked about that too though.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

@Raccoon Jesus I still feel like digging into threads about this subject myself. My image of the situation is so clear.. I was proven wrong (so far) here but I'm feeling a little stubborn though. But I'm wrong till proven otherwise.

Many Avs fan remember the situation like I did, for some reason. @redcard talked about that too though.

That's fine, but even if there is a post or two out there that says so, that's a strange thing to latch on to, given the overwhelming amount of posts that give completely different reasons. My money is on someone got their lines crossed over the media comments about LA not moving him and the rumor mongers suggesting he's untouchable and attributed that to Kings fans.

 

[Foppberg]

It did happen, I remember it too but I assume it got lost in the software update.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Woof. Sorry, I don't have time nor the energy to search threads from 16-17 season. Maybe some Avs fans can chime in and confirm my memories of the situation.

No of course not, because its utter horse *****.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

It did happen, I remember it too but I assume it got lost in the software update.

Yeah my thinking as well. It definitely happened and it wasn't just a couple of posters either.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Can also confirm. Definitely remember Ladue and Carlo were the 2 names being brought up incessantly during the Landy trade rumors.

 

[BoxOfChocolates]

We might be witnessing a "Mandela Effect" folks

 

[schelstatic]

I've got both.

Y'all did that to yourself.

Here's the Landeskog thread from January 2017. https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172503/page-12. Ladue's name only shows up on p.12, with no reference to being a trade, only mentioning the prospect depth.

Friedman's 30 thoughts 5 days later mentioned the Avs were scouting LA and looking at LaDue, though Friedman had heard that he wasn't available. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-canadian-team-land-kevin-shattenkirk The "source" Friedman was likely John Hoven who referred to LaDue as the only untouchable of the Kings blue line prospects

Since then there are 120 mentions of LaDue on the Avs board, all of them mocking the "untouchable Paul LaDue."

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-15

Here's the Kings' board discussion, in which an Avs fans suggests it may not be Landeskog, but a rental the Kings are targeting and the responses from Kings fans are that LaDue should not be traded for a rental. The general consensus in the posts that follow were that LaDue was not near enough to land Landeskog.

Conclusion: The "They wouldn't trade LaDue for Landeskog" was a narrative a few Avs fans created for themselves...and then oddly repeated for a year and a half.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-16

post 389

"If the potential deal is LaDue, plus picks or prospects not named Kempe, for Landeskog that's definitely something worth considering, although I would not feel comfortable pulling the trigger. We don't have a right handed defenseman to anchor the second pairing, and I would rather keep LaDue for that role either mid-season next year, or the following year. From what I saw of LaDue during the preseason, I was very impressed by his play (although I have heard he has been up and down this season). "

 

[Chris P Hundo]

The mayorNHL guy said on his podcast at the time that the Kings wouldnt consider trading LaDue for Duchene AND Landeskog because he was that untouchable. But yeah, Avs fans made the rumour up.

 

[King'sPawn]

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/la-kings-with-heavy-interest-in-landeskog.2172499/page-16

post 389

"If the potential deal is LaDue, plus picks or prospects not named Kempe, for Landeskog that's definitely something worth considering, although I would not feel comfortable pulling the trigger. We don't have a right handed defenseman to anchor the second pairing, and I would rather keep LaDue for that role either mid-season next year, or the following year. From what I saw of LaDue during the preseason, I was very impressed by his play (although I have heard he has been up and down this season). "

Again... worth considering but hard to pull the trigger due to the loss of depth.

So the narrative of "lolz untouchable" is still false

 

[BallPointHammer]

Well he was Due for an extension at some point.

In LA. Thus La Due.

 

[Rorschach]

All you need to know is he is RHD. Kings fans keep hoping a guy like him will make us forget about Voynov but so far no dice.

 

[Seanaconda]

26 years old (in September) is rather late to start developing, even for a defenseman. He's coming close to being passed on the depth chart by younger players, especially Brickley. I think that this upcoming training camp is virtually make or break for him.

Does la even have a spot for anyone if they don't make a trade

 

[schelstatic]

Again... worth considering but hard to pull the trigger due to the loss of depth.

So the narrative of "lolz untouchable" is still false

I wasn't trying to make the argument of the narrative of "lolz untouchable" being an accurate one. Only that redcards post is incorrect.

Just wanted to show the inaccuracy of there being no LA fans that wouldn't trade LaDue++ for Landy which was what Redcard was responding to in the first place, and not what you are trying to change it to "So the narrative of "lolz untouchable" is still false".

Quote of Murzu's post
It was during the dark 16-17 year, and it was LaDue++ for Landy that was talked here, maybe even rumoured. Can't remember. Many Avs fans didn't like him as the main piece coming back for Landy, some Kings fans were telling us that Landy won't get LaDue++.

 

[Kingspiracy]

How about that Ladue signing eh. He needs to take a page out of former fan favourite Brayden Mcnabbs book and pick up the physical game to be more effective.

 

[redcard]

I wasn't trying to make the argument of the narrative of "lolz untouchable" being an accurate one. Only that redcards post is incorrect.

Just wanted to point this out because of poster redcard when he states " Ladue's name only shows up on p.12, with no reference to being a trade, only mentioning the prospect depth." This was false. Also, the inaccuracy of there being no LA fans that wouldn't trade LaDue++ for Landy which was what Redcard was responding to in the first place, and not what you are trying to change it to "So the narrative of "lolz untouchable" is still false".

Quote of Murzu's post
It was during the dark 16-17 year, and it was LaDue++ for Landy that was talked here, maybe even rumoured. Can't remember. Many Avs fans didn't like him as the main piece coming back for Landy, some Kings fans were telling us that Landy won't get LaDue++.

You misread, those are two different threads with the same name. One on the trade board and one on the king's board. The p.12 reference was the trade board thread. The quote you pulled was from the Kings board thread.

Furthermore, search for LaDue's name on the Avs board. I'm not convinced the post you quoted of a single poster reluctant to include LaDue in a deal stated as worth considering, flanked by several posters claiming that LaDue would not be nar enticing enough for the Avs, truly merits the response.

 

[schelstatic]

You misread, those are two different threads with the same name. One on the trade board and one on the king's board. The p.12 reference was the trade board thread. The quote you pulled was from the Kings board thread.

Furthermore, search for LaDue's name on the Avs board. I'm not convinced the post you quoted of a single poster reluctant to include LaDue in a deal stated as worth considering, flanked by several posters claiming that LaDue would not be nar enticing enough for the Avs, truly merits the response.

I agree, I did misread the first part, I had edited my response after posting, but it appears that you had already read it before my edit.

Agree to disagree on the second part.

 

[Foppberg]

The mayorNHL guy said on his podcast at the time that the Kings wouldnt consider trading LaDue for Duchene AND Landeskog because he was that untouchable. But yeah, Avs fans made the rumour up.

No, I remember quite clearly, as others do too. It was a pretty healthy debate for quite a few pages at least with some mudslinging here and there. But whatever, doesn't really matter now.