nocturn
Registered User
Between the goals Stamkos would score and the goals Quick would stop, Quick is more valuable.
Would not do it.
Would not do it.
Would you guys trade Quick for Stamkos?
- Thread starter Basilisk
- Start date
Didn't Scuds tell something like you pretty much need different mvps for every other series? First two series, against VAN and STL it was Brown without a doubt, then Quick had amazing series against PHX after that fluke goal and against Devils it was Doughty who stepped it up but overall it was Quick who was the most consistent.
About Stamkos, can't we trade Scrivens for him instead of Quick since he is just as good
About Stamkos, can't we trade Scrivens for him instead of Quick since he is just as good
The Kings still win even without a record breaking performance from Quick, but they don't go 16-4, hence why Quick was the MVP.
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
Didn't Scuds tell something like you pretty much need different mvps for every other series? First two series, against VAN and STL it was Brown without a doubt, then Quick had amazing series against PHX after that fluke goal and against Devils it was Doughty who stepped it up but overall it was Quick who was the most consistent.
About Stamkos, can't we trade Scrivens for him instead of Quick since he is just as good
That's true but teams simply do not win in the playoffs without consistent good to great goaltending. When the worst goalie to play for a cup winning team in the last 20 years is probably Mr. Consistency Chris Osgood (who was good throughout his career, not really ever great) it's very telling of how important the position is to having a winning team.
HYORI 1963
Grit & Character
Scrivens... nope... If a goalie like Lundqvist hit UFA (just signed an epic deal) wanted a shot at the cup and was willing to sign with the Kings. I think the scenario where you trade Quick would be considered. If you could pick up a player that will be with the team 5+ years and is on par with Carter/Doughty while moving laterally on goaltending, could put you over the top on a cup run. Unlikely scenario.
edit: and a gamble
edit: and a gamble
Yes easily. The Kings are a good enough defensive team that they can win with an Osgood in net, adding Stamkos and replacing Quick with a cheaper mid-level goalie would be a huge boost to this team, there's no way around it even though I love Quick.
Whiskeypete
Registered User
Wrong analysis: the real question is difference between Stamkos scoring and the guy he would replace and Quicks saves vs the guy who replaces him. Stammer is a PPG stud. Take away all of Colin Frasers goals and add .5 GPG from stammer. (even considering kopi and carter get less icetime) Thats roughly 40 more goals for the team over the season. No chance Quick saves 40 more goals than Scrivens over 82 games. Say each goalie faces 2,000 shots and Quick has a 930 while scrivs has a 915 (pretty liberal) thats only 30 less goals on quick.
Stammer will score an insane amount of goals. Thats a garuntee, the same cannot be said of Quicks regular season performance superiority over our next best option. So Stammer is better in terms of the ideal, average and safe outcome.
Not to mention the defensive contribution, energy etc... from stammer.
This is a no brainer.
Quick will have his jersey up in the rafters at Staples one day sooooo... no I wouldn't trade him.
Choralone
Registered User
I would make the trade, but Tampa wouldn't. The Kings are stacked enough now where we don't need to lean on a goaltender so much just to stay in the game.
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
As a Kings fan who saw this team not have a goaltender worth a crap for most of my years as a fan, the answer is no. Goalie is the most important position on the ice, and they are the real difference makers when it comes to winning a Cup.
Roy v the Great One.
Roy v the Great One.
Whiskeypete
Registered User
KingCanadain1976
Registered User
Stamkos is awesome, but he's not scoring 50 goals in LA. The system focuses far too much on responsible play for anyone to do that.
And as good as Quick is, he's not going to carry TB anywhere.
Basically a trade that would take players in ideal situations for their playstyle, and put them in places that are less than optimal. Why would either team do this?
And as good as Quick is, he's not going to carry TB anywhere.
Basically a trade that would take players in ideal situations for their playstyle, and put them in places that are less than optimal. Why would either team do this?
Nefarious
Classless Doty
Sean Burke is the best king goaltender ever 
I know Quick is really good, but it sure helps a **** ton when you have one of the best defensive teams in the NHL.
I know Quick is really good, but it sure helps a **** ton when you have one of the best defensive teams in the NHL.
HYORI 1963
Grit & Character
Why is it that a goalie is the most important part of a team, but the goalie doesn't hold similar value in a trade?
Reclamation Project
Cut It All Right In Two
- Jul 6, 2011
- 34,135
- 3,783
Papa Mocha 15
I love the smell of ice in the morning.
If hell froze over, I'd consider it...but that's just because I've never seen hell freeze over before so that would make me wonder about a lot of things. If hell froze over, could you play hockey on it? And if so, how fast would the ice be? If the ice was faster, would Quick be worse and Stamkos faster and more elite? In that case, I might say yes, but I need assurances that Hell's ice would be faster and Quick couldn't keep up.....and Stamkos has to pass a physical. That's not me, that's DL.... so I guess I would need both conditions in place to do the deal. So I guess it's a maybe.
