Would you guys trade Quick for Stamkos?

[Basilisk]

Assuming we had the cap space, would you guys trade Quick for Stamkos?


Over the last dozen games or so, Scrivens has showed that he's just as capable as Quick. Though it's been only one game, Jones showed that he's as capable as Bernier.

Does it make sense, then, to NOT entertain the notion of trading Quick?


If the status quo is maintained, then we're one of 10 Stanley Cup contenders.

If we add Stamkos, I believe we become THE Stanley Cup contender.


Also, Yzerman has to realize that contenders are built from the net outwards. Martin St. Louis will retire soon and that would leave Stamkos virtually all alone up front. Long term, it would make more sense for the Tampa org. to focus on goaltending and defense.


Discuss!

Click to read more...

 

[MollerManor]

My good sir, I wish you the best of luck during the potential onslaught that might be bestowed on you come the rise of the sun for some of my fellow posters show no remorse for such a provocative and potential mad question to ask.

Enjoy the peace in this thread until they awake. I bid you farewell.

 

[Kurrilino]

under our existing coaching system this trade would make absolutely no sense.
Stamkos would turn into a 20 goal scorer like Kopitar.
Of course Tampa would ask the price for a 50 goal scorer.
So the trade would imbalanced in offerings and demands.

Plus i highly doubt Tampa would to that since nobody in NHL values goalies very high.

But if you ask me, i would be in favor of this deal as long as another playing style is coming with it

 

[Telos]

Just about everything you've said is false or debatable and hinges entirely on a hypothetical (if cap space no longer existed). Scrivens =/= Quick. That's a statement I'd expect to come straight out of Toronto, not LA. A goaltender that's played well for a little under a dozen games isn't the same as a Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup, winning goaltender that can make the elite save in the playoffs. Scrivens is good, but he doesn't have that extra gear, that unbelievable level or play when the time comes.

Stamkos is injured, so obviously the deal wouldn't even be considered this year. Yzerman would be an invalid to consider making the trade. Stamkos is their franchise and future. There are a million other options and assets to move to get a quality goaltender than trading their most valuable and significant one. Building from the net out doesn't mean you trade everything you have to accomplish it at all costs.

The trade would cancel out and likely hurt us. You would be changing LA's entire system from defense to all out offense, and I don't think we have the wingers to accomplish such a feat. Adding another great center isn't going to turn us into a dynasty, it would make us Pittsburgh 2.0 and we'd watch as teams beat us 7-6 in the playoffs.

Obviously Stamkos' value is astronomical and if Yzerman was stupid enough to make the trade you'd have to consider it just on the re-sale value alone. You could get a 1st line/elite winger + a top tier goaltender for that value. But only in a fantastical world where salary caps don't exist and we were given a blank check to spend to become the Yankees of the hockey world...

 

[damacles1156]

It wouldn't be just Quick.....

It would be Quick+ another high end roster player like Carter/Richards/Slava.

You would basically gut the team, so it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[jml87]

Why? Why would either team do that? We are already a Stanley Cup contender and we wouldn't become THE stanley cup contender because we just traded our elite goalie based on the performance of a guy who has played a dozen games for us. Scrivens has been outstanding but he is still not Jonathan Quick. If the Rangers backup goalie started a dozen games and did great, you think the Rangers fans would automatically be like, 'Welp Lundqvist isn't needed anymore'? It doesn't work that way.

Plus you are asking both teams to change their systems completely with that trade. Stamkos is not a two way forward. We'd need a more offensive system for him to live up to his potential. Then you want Tampa to turn into a defense team first which none of their players are used to either.

This is not a video game. You can't just swap star players like this. But even in a video game, the system would even out Scrivens numbers eventually. Because he's not the greatest goalie of all time. Seriously, stop with the let's trade Quick. Some people have the shortest memories around here. No one cares that Quick had one of the greatest years ever for a goalie in 2012 and gave us a Stanley Cup. No one cares that Quick was the only reason we made it to the Western Conference Finals last year.

No, let's trade our franchise Stanley Cup goaltender for offense and completely revamp our system because Scrivens has played 13 great games and Jones had 1 great game. That makes total sense.

 

[damacles1156]

Why? Why would either team do that? We are already a Stanley Cup contender and we wouldn't become THE stanley cup contender because we just traded our elite goalie based on the performance of a guy who has played a dozen games for us. Scrivens has been outstanding but he is still not Jonathan Quick. If the Rangers backup goalie started a dozen games and did great, you think the Rangers fans would automatically be like, 'Welp Lundqvist isn't needed anymore'? It doesn't work that way.

Plus you are asking both teams to change their systems completely with that trade. Stamkos is not a two way forward. We'd need a more offensive system for him to live up to his potential. Then you want Tampa to turn into a defense team first which none of their players are used to either.

This is not a video game. You can't just swap star players like this. But even in a video game, the system would even out Scrivens numbers eventually. Because he's not the greatest goalie of all time. Seriously, stop with the let's trade Quick. Some people have the shortest memories around here. No one cares that Quick had one of the greatest years ever for a goalie in 2012 and gave us a Stanley Cup. No one cares that Quick was the only reason we made it to the Western Conference Finals last year.

No, let's trade our franchise Stanley Cup goaltender for offense and completely revamp our system because Scrivens has played 13 great games and Jones had 1 great game. That makes total sense.

No to mention Quick is the only reason the Kings made the playoff's AT ALL in 2012...

Without Quick in 2012.....The Kings would have been picking in a lottery slot.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

There always has tg be a new shiny toy. The old one just isn't fun anymore.

 

[Scottkmlps]

This thread receives two

 

[KINGS17]

under our existing coaching system this trade would make absolutely no sense.
Stamkos would turn into a 20 goal scorer like Kopitar.
Of course Tampa would ask the price for a 50 goal scorer.
So the trade would imbalanced in offerings and demands.

Plus i highly doubt Tampa would to that since nobody in NHL values goalies very high.

But if you ask me, i would be in favor of this deal as long as another playing style is coming with it

Plus the Kings have won a Stanley Cup, gone to the WCF, and now are near the top of the NHL in points, so why mess with something that has been so successful even though they don't play real hockey, right?

 

[BigBrown]

Really, you think that Scrivens has in a dozen games shown he is just as capable as Quick?

 

[BallPointHammer]

I wouldn't trade Quick for anyone in the league. He's the best goalie in the league and goaltending wins Stanley Cups. That's plural SCs because I believe the Kings will win more cups and Quick will be the goalie to lead the way.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

The Kings have been searching for a home grown, franchise goaltender since the dawn of time....now they finally got one, and one that's considered top 3 in the league, and now you want to trade him?

Just the fact that you consider Scrivens =Quick, should have you banned permanently from posting on this board.

One more thing, if Stamkos came to the Kings, he'd probably turn into a 20 goal scorer.....we got plenty of those.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

You are definitely brave, Basilisk

(also, I don't think TB does it for Quick straight up anyway, as gross as that sounds. They have Bishop, so the net difference isn't Stamkos)

 

[jml87]

Really, you think that Scrivens has in a dozen games shown he is just as capable as Quick?

This gif is amazing

And I know there are others on this board who believe that Quick should be traded because of what Scrivens has done recently or because of what Jones could become and I just don't get it. Should Canada make Scrivens their starting Olympic goalie too?

 

[KingCanadain1976]

I wouldnt consider tradeing Quick but when he comes back plays a few games i would consider trading Scrivens at the deadline. As a potential ufa theres very little chance he resigns with us and may as well get something for him.

 

[duffy9748]

Any LA fan that wouldn't do Quick for Stamkos straight up is off their rocker. Doesn't matter what your system is. Guy Boucher was playing a 1-3-1 and he was still putting up 60 goals. Not to mention Stamkos is 4 years younger.

 

[KingsFan7824]

If Scrivens is just as capable as Quick, why wouldn't the Lightning just trade for Scrivens, since it would cost them less?

Edit: Or, just do Scrivens for Stamkos.

 

[malks7171*]

this is the kind of thread outsiders feel tempted to enter into.

the idea that you could get stamkos for quick is almost as funny as the idea that stamkos would only score 20 on your team. carter just put up 26 in half a season.

 

[MynameisKing]

The villagers are getting angry! Here comes the torches and pickforks. Basilisk, lock your doors. Board your windows. Save yourself!......

Really, Scrivens = Quick? Or, serviceable in place of Quick? For Stamkos? No!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Any LA fan that wouldn't do Quick for Stamkos straight up is off their rocker. Doesn't matter what your system is. Guy Boucher was playing a 1-3-1 and he was still putting up 60 goals. Not to mention Stamkos is 4 years younger.

In a vacuum, sure. But there's a lot of moving parts there. It depends on the value you place on Quick vs. Scrivens/Jones as your starting goaltender if you're the Kings and if you see the upgrade from Bishop to Quick as being Stamkos. It's also seemingly an unnecessary shakeup.

I see that as a huge risk for the Kings. Stamkos is a hell of an offensive player, but it potentially re-opens the hole this franchise had for decades in goal, or at least reverts it to two unproven goaltenders.

I know you and Malks7171 came in here to essentially say Stamkos has more value than Quick in general and I don't disagree with that, but there's a lot more to this trade than individual player value.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

This gif is amazing

And I know there are others on this board who believe that Quick should be traded because of what Scrivens has done recently or because of what Jones could become and I just don't get it. Should Canada make Scrivens their starting Olympic goalie too?

yeah, they should....and here's a better idea, just trade Scrivens for Stamkos since he's just as good as quick.

 

[jml87]

Nevermind

 

[KingsFan7824]

this is the kind of thread outsiders feel tempted to enter into.

the idea that you could get stamkos for quick is almost as funny as the idea that stamkos would only score 20 on your team. carter just put up 26 in half a season.

As we saw in 2011, Tampa made the conference finals riding a hot goalie, while Stamkos neither led the Lightning in goals or points during the playoffs.

Quick has won a Conn Smythe, and was the main reason the Kings got to the conference finals last year, while guys like Kopitar and Brown were missing in offensive action.

It's obviously a trade that would never happen. You'd never get anywhere near a player like Stamkos for a goalie, and a goalie is the most important player on the ice, so you wouldn't trade a goalie like Quick in the first place.

 

[Bandit]

*****... ? 15 games of Scrivens = Quick. Now I've seen it all.