HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Would you do the Ziggy trade? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=132780)

Venom_17 03-04-2005 01:26 AM

Would you do the Ziggy trade?
 
In retrospect, would you have made the trade:

To LA: Ziggy Palffy, Bryan Smolinski, Marcel Cousineau, and 4th rounder (Daniel Johansson)

To NYI: Olli Jokinen, Josh Green, Mathieu Biron, and 1st rounder (Josh Green)

I would probably still do this deal from an LA perspective. Palffy was good when he lasted and didn't get hurt. We turned Smoke into Timmy Gleason.

Jokinen turned out to be a number, albeit in Florida. Biron, Green, and Pyatt didn't live up to potential.

Mxpunk 03-04-2005 01:33 AM

I would do it too, since, in retrospect, it's basically Jokinen for Palffy and Gleason....

As an interesting side note, Jokinen and Luongo were packaged to FLA for Kvasha and Parrish....

The Isles seem to be the losers in every aspect of the trade IMO!

Legionnaire 03-04-2005 02:20 AM

No. We should have continued the re-building process. 8 years later and we're at the same place we were before.

Yeah, we had some good memories, but I would much rather have a Cup win than the Stunner at Staples.

Reaper45 03-04-2005 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legionnaire
No. We should have continued the re-building process. 8 years later and we're at the same place we were before.

Yeah, we had some good memories, but I would much rather have a Cup win than the Stunner at Staples.

I don't know I mean, I think I would still do it. Who were our legitimate prospects then? Berg? Storr? I think our crop of prospects is better now then it was before. Sure it could turn out worse, but I think that was a good trade....

KingPurpleDinosaur 03-04-2005 02:29 AM

jokinen would not change our situation too much. i dont kno why people have this tendency to overrate joki. sure, he's good, but is he even really a "star"? palffy is better then joki every will be. not to mention, we got gleason out of that deal. hell, if a team ever offered joki for gleason straight up, i'd prob have to think about it heavily.

Venom_17 03-04-2005 02:31 AM

The fact that we are where we are right now is solely attributable to one thing: injuries. Allison-Palffy-Deader were one of the top 3 lines in the league when they were together. It's not hard to fill in a supporting cast around a line like that.

I hate to use an excuse, but those damn injuries. The one year that Ally and Deader got hurt, we would have made an impact, damn it.

But oh well, I like the crop of kids we have now. Them's the breaks.

Legionnaire 03-04-2005 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper45
I don't know I mean, I think I would still do it. Who were our legitimate prospects then? Berg? Storr? I think our crop of prospects is better now then it was before. Sure it could turn out worse, but I think that was a good trade....

They were drafted before we expanded our scouting system.

TwzKing 03-04-2005 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venom_17
The fact that we are where we are right now is solely attributable to one thing: injuries. Allison-Palffy-Deader were one of the top 3 lines in the league when they were together. It's not hard to fill in a supporting cast around a line like that.

I hate to use an excuse, but those damn injuries. The one year that Ally and Deader got hurt, we would have made an impact, damn it.

But oh well, I like the crop of kids we have now. Them's the breaks.

I know it seem silly, its well know and everything but gawd i wish we could have seen a kings team that didnt have the injuries........ i do believe we could have went deep into the playoffs..... seeing how potvin was good to great in the playoffs. Compared to the regular season........... i guess one cant live a life on regret

willie 03-04-2005 05:43 AM

Without hesitation. None of the assets in the deal, Jokinen included, make me regret that move. (especially given that we lucked out with Gleason)

Not to mention, who's to say Palffy's tenure is even done in LA? Who knows what will happen after the CBA gets resolved and Palffy's best years as a King could possibly still be ahead.

Freddie79 03-04-2005 07:48 AM

I liked the trade back wehen it happened and I still like it today.
Ziggy was, and still is, one of the best scoring wingers in the entire league.
When you have the chance to acquire top notch talent, you have to do it.
I was dissappointe dbecause we traded Jokinen and Biron away.
I really thought that both would break thru soon.
Jokinen turned out to be a pretty good centre, although not nearly as good as he was thought to be.
Biron is a complete bust, just like Josh Green.
The first round pick turned out to be Tyler Pyatt, who should become a pretty good NHLer.
So all in all (assuming Palffy leaves as a free agent) the Kings cleary got the better end of that trade.
Especially if you considered what the Isles did with Jokinen.

BTW does anyone remember the initail offer that Milbury excepted but Bettman rejected?

willie 03-04-2005 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddie79
BTW does anyone remember the initail offer that Milbury excepted but Bettman rejected?

Don't open that can of worms. :lol That topic has been beaten to death, though I'm not sure if we've had any conclusive evidence.

I believe all the players were the same except it was either Rosa or Barney instead of Jokinen. I personally think it was Rosa but there are enough people here who would swear it was Barney so who knows.

KingsFan7824 03-04-2005 09:23 AM

No. As good as Palffy is, at the time, the Kings weren't ready for a trade like that. They were 2 or 3 years into the rebuilding process that started with the 97 draft, the year they finally could look a few years into the future and see that they had actual 1st round picks to use in the draft.

If the Kings weren't going to break the bank to try to build a team around Palffy and Blake, then they shouldn't have done that deal. They were coming off a non-playoff season when they traded for Palffy. They were also in a new building, so that star power had something to do with selling seats.

Obviously all the prospects never work out. Zultek turned out to be a bad 15th overall pick. Green, Biron, and Pyatt aren't star players. But who's to say one of them wouldn't have developed with the Kings? You never know with prospects. Their situations may change depending on the team they're on, what coach they have, when they play, when they don't play, where they play, etc. Then again, they may not.

It seems odd to me to look back on a deal, then look forward from that deal to another deal that involved a players from the previous deal. Yes, so far Smolinski for Gleason seems like a decent trade for the Kings. But there are too many variables involved to say that that deal helps make the original Palffy deal look even better.

The Kings weren't deep enough to make the Palffy deal when they did. They weren't deep enough on the NHL level, nor the prospect level. Then they didn't spend enough money(which then gets us back to this wonderful lockout) to give the Palffy deal a chance to work. There are times to take chances, but a few weeks before the 1999 draft wasn't one of them for the Kings. In terms of just simply a trade by itself, it was a good trade. But when I factor in everything else that made up this team back then, it just wasn't the right deal to make at the time.

Now we just need this debate to mean something. If there is no NHL in the future, who really cares about the Palffy deal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.