Would you guys trade Quick for Stamkos?

[Reclamation Project]

 

[KINGS17]

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.

Not a bad idea, but it's not going to happen if the Kings have a shot at winning a Stanley Cup this season, as the team has proven it can win while being backstopped by Scrivens.

 

[KINGS17]

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.

Yup, like a team's identity and winning Stanley Cups.

 

[jml87]

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.

Maybe we're not crazy. Maybe we just value goaltending over offense? Goaltending value in trades is ridiculously low as is and I think it's insane. Those guys are the difference in the playoffs. You can have a guy put up 60 goals in a season and still not win a championship. Quick made this team in 2011-12 when we couldn't even put up a goal.

I'm not saying that either stamkos is the best forward or that Quick is the best goalie but if you told me that I could choose the best goalie in the league vs. the top forward in the league to build my team around, I'd take the goalie every time. If you think that's crazy then so be it.

 

[Basilisk]

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.

Clearly we'd have to add, but I don't think what we'd be adding would necessarily be "high end roster player". It would have to be a cap-conscious deal. Something like Quick, Stoll, maybe some prospects. No team-gutting required.....

 

[KingCanadain1976]

Not a bad idea, but it's not going to happen if the Kings have a shot at winning a Stanley Cup this season, as the team has proven it can win while being backstopped by Scrivens.

techincally speaking they have won with jones as well and if scriven can bring a defenseman or lw that we need player in lineup worth more to me then a backup that jones can do as well as scrivens

 

[damacles1156]

Clearly we'd have to add, but I don't think what we'd be adding would necessarily be "high end roster player". It would have to be a cap-conscious deal. Something like Quick, Stoll, maybe some prospects. No team-gutting required.....

Quick and Stoll..... This thread has lost all credibility please close it.

Stevie Y would be asking for Quick + Richards before he even picked up the phone....

Richards only makes 2 million more cap wise than Stoll.

Jarret Stoll has zero value to a team like Tampa, if it was looking to deal Stamkos (hypothetically).

 

[KingsFan7824]

Goaltending value in trades is ridiculously low as is and I think it's insane.

I think it's completely sane. A good goalie is invaluable. Who would trade their #1 goalie? I mean a guy that is clearly the #1 guy? No team would do that, unless there was something wrong with the goalie. A contract that it too big, or not playing well enough to be the guy, or he gets embarrassed in front of his home town crowd and makes a big scene on the bench, etc. Whatever is wrong will lower the value.

Clearly we'd have to add, but I don't think what we'd be adding would necessarily be "high end roster player". It would have to be a cap-conscious deal. Something like Quick, Stoll, maybe some prospects. No team-gutting required.....

Stoll?

So the Kings would have Kopitar, Richards, and Stamkos down the middle? What would Tampa do to replace Stamkos? Kopitar or Richards would have to be involved.

 

[CNS]

If we still had Bernier, yes. But then again, if we still had Bernier I'd trade Quick for any TRUE top line player.

 

[jml87]

I think it's completely sane. A good goalie is invaluable. Who would trade their #1 goalie? I mean a guy that is clearly the #1 guy? No team would do that, unless there was something wrong with the goalie. A contract that it too big, or not playing well enough to be the guy, or he gets embarrassed in front of his home town crowd and makes a big scene on the bench, etc. Whatever is wrong will lower the value.

If a good goalie is invaluable than why do we need to add people to an imaginary stamkos deal? And why does Bernier not net you a top prospect or a at least a 2nd liner? Cause organizations do not value goalies as much as goal scorers and I think that's crazy.

 

[KingsFan7824]

If we still had Bernier, yes. But then again, if we still had Bernier I'd trade Quick for any TRUE top line player.

The Kings had Bernier, and they still gave Quick his Conn Smythe contract. If there was ever a time to trade Quick, it would've been after he won the Conn Smythe, but before he signed his huge deal.

But then I go back to the value thing. Why/How could the Kings trade a Conn Smythe winning goalie who just won the Cup? The Kings wouldn't get fair value because of that question, as no team would trade a goalie in that situation, so Bernier would've been dealt anyway, for less than his ultimate value, since he asked to be traded.

 

[KingPurpleDinosaur]

like the others, i don't agree with it, but let's indulge the idea a little bit.

What Scrivens and Jones is showing us (for the time being) is that we may have a system stable enough that it won't matter what goaltending we have. Kind of like what Detroit did with Osgood, their system didn't need a superstar goalie and they got stanley cups. So leveraging our strength to make our weakness stronger isn't a terrible idea. While I can't say for sure, but I really wonder if all we need is a goalie of Bryzgalov-caliber to be adequate. Adding someone like Stamkos to our system would make us ridiculous. This is a guy who Lombardi would have a hard time deciding between him and Doughty. That's insane talent right there.

 

[Mats26]

Value wise, we would need to add. You don’t trade a 50 goal scorer for a goalie. TB would ask for some production back.TB would ask for a center or top 6 forward : Toffoli or Richards would have to go.

But just for fun: Quick for Stamkos would still leave us needing a top 6 LW...lol

Brown Stamkos Williams
King Kopitar Carter
Pearson Richards Toffoli
Clifford Vey Nolan

 

[bmr]

like the others, i don't agree with it, but let's indulge the idea a little bit.

What Scrivens and Jones is showing us (for the time being) is that we may have a system stable enough that it won't matter what goaltending we have. Kind of like what Detroit did with Osgood, their system didn't need a superstar goalie and they got stanley cups. So leveraging our strength to make our weakness stronger isn't a terrible idea. While I can't say for sure, but I really wonder if all we need is a goalie of Bryzgalov-caliber to be adequate. Adding someone like Stamkos to our system would make us absolutely ridiculous.

I understand what the op is saying here, but it really sends shockwaves through a team if you gut the core to try and make yourselves better (see Philadelphia). Quick was the heart and soul of this team, and without him we don't even make the playoffs the year we won the cup. He always defers blame to himself and is the consummate, competitive professional. That being said, I like what I see from Scrivens and Jones and would like to see how they do during the whole course of a season and into the playoffs.

I don't think we have an issue with top end, offensive talent. It's the system that reduces our effectiveness on the offensive end. Look at what happens to Penner's production when he is on a different team. It's easy to surmise that having a better offensive team leads to Stanley Cups, but the true defensive powerhouses usually win out. DL and DS know this.

 

[KingKopitar11*]

Basilisk is brave. He was addressing a weakness from an area of strength. Be nice guys.

Our system is super goalie friendly so it'd be interesting to see what Quick alone would fetch. Also his contract is scary.

 

[yankeeking]

Who thinks DL would have taken DD over stamkos if we had won that coin flip, or kopi doesn't score until ot that last game, we debated it at the time but the way he values dman over forwards there was a good chance, and the way he values goalies, esp conn smythe winning, Stanley cup winning, signed to a good contract goalies whats the chance he guts the team for him now 1 in 10 I would think, maybe less

 

[Reclamation Project]

Basilisk is brave. He was addressing a weakness from an area of strength. Be nice guys.

Our system is super goalie friendly so it'd be interesting to see what Quick alone would fetch. Also his contract is scary.

How about that King Henrik guy's contract?

 

[tigermask48]

Until Stamkos has either of those the answer is no. Quick has taken the kings to a Stanley cup and then to the eff largely due to his play. Stamkos isn't even in the realm of equal value for that.

 

[KingsFan7824]

If a good goalie is invaluable than why do we need to add people to an imaginary stamkos deal?

To me, that's the weird and complex nature of the goalie position. Why did Montreal add in a player like Mike Keane when they were already trading maybe the greatest goalie of all time? For a package of players that wasn't ever really going to be worth just Roy by himself.

And why does Bernier not net you a top prospect or a at least a 2nd liner? Cause organizations do not value goalies as much as goal scorers and I think that's crazy.

I think it's the exact opposite. Some GM's may love their goal scorers above all else, but I'd say the majority value goalies at least as much as a goal scorer, if not more. Which is why a GM wouldn't trade their real, legit #1 guy. Unless there were extenuating circumstances, which lowers the value.

In Bernier's case, he was a RFA, and asked to be traded because Quick signed a monster deal. Other teams knew that, so they didn't have to offer anything crazy.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Basilisk is brave. He was addressing a weakness from an area of strength. Be nice guys.

Center is a strength on the Kings. I know you meant goal scoring, but you're not going to have Kopitar, Richards, and Stamkos down the middle. Stamkos is Tampa's #1 center. Kopitar or Richards would be going back.

Which is where the trade starts to get complicated. It would have to be a massive deal. It starts with Quick and Stamkos. Kopitar or Richards would have to be added. Then Tampa has to add something. It all eventually probably blows up.

Who thinks DL would have taken DD over stamkos if we had won that coin flip, or kopi doesn't score until ot that last game, we debated it at the time but the way he values dman over forwards there was a good chance, and the way he values goalies, esp conn smythe winning, Stanley cup winning, signed to a good contract goalies whats the chance he guts the team for him now 1 in 10 I would think, maybe less

I think he takes Stamkos, just because you don't want to be the GM that passed on Stamkos. I think it would've kept Lombardi up a few nights though.

 

[Reclamation Project]

How could you possibly trade a goalie that put his nose to the grindstone and pulled an offensively dead team into the playoffs. And then proceeded to have one of the best runs in NHL history. He's the reason we won that Cup. I wouldn't trade Jonathan Quick for ANY player in the entire league. I say that with apologies to no one. He'll retire a King and have his name retired. He encapsulates the King's identity - no ******** or excuses, just hard work. To consider trading him is ****ing stupid.

And are we really talking about Bernier still?

 

[DocWest]

**** no. Quick has proven himself with a Cup win and dragging us to the WCF the next year. All Stamkos does is win individual awards for scoring goals, which so far hasn't even helped the Bolts become a consistent playoff team let alone a Cup winner.

 

[Nefarious]

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.

I love how you warned about the train wreck, in slow motion, before your eyes. You left it alone, but watched it come perhaps with a smirk on your face. Good on you sir!

 

[kingsholygrail]

The goalie market is so saturated, no goalie on their own would fetch Stamkos.

And with a guy like Miller hitting free agency at the end of the season, I think Tampa would rather keep their 50 goal scorer and spend some cash on a guy like Miller for a few years, but they likely won't need to because Ben Bishop is having a fantastic season so far.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

He's the reason we won that Cup.

Been having this argument with a buddy of mine (who happens to be a Ducks fan) and I emphatically disagree with you. That cup run was an absolute team effort from top to bottom. In fact, Kopitar could have won MVP...and Brown wasn't too far behind him.

Was Quick stellar? Hell yes, but he didn't win that cup on his own.

Now, fast forward to last season....and yes, Quick is the reason why the Kings made it as far as they did...hands down.