Thread: Allison News
View Single Post
Old
07-20-2004, 02:25 PM
  #19
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Well, we're obviously at different sides of the issue on this one.

Quote:
Losing Zigmund (valuable asset) for nothing doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, trading him away doesn’t mean the Kings don’t have a shot at the playoffs because like you said anything can happen, or is that only if Palffy is in the lineup or Playoff related?
Granted, it'll be disappointing to lose Palffy for nothing, but it would make no sense to trade him halfway into the season. If it were at the trade deadline and we were out of a playoff position, it should be considered. But trading a player of Palffy's calibre for no other reason than he's there and you have the ability to would be illogical. Dumping an integral offensive player in the thick of a playoff race because the possibility exists that he may decide to leave would not be a constructive decision.

Quote:
I agree with the notion that if you are in the “Playoff hunt” you don’t really want to upset the team, but there are always exceptions and times where you have to. I didn’t get in to this with jfont and maybe you can tell me. Should we be talking about Playoffs after 5 regular season games? 10 games? 20 games? 30 games? There are so many teams that have a good first half of season and then completely crap out in the 2nd half.
Again, there is no case to be made for trading a player who has effectively carried your team on his back offensively while you are still in a playoff position. With regards to the playoff question, its true that there are many teams that tail off near the end of the season, but you can't simply trade away your best player because you might start to falter as the season goes on.

Quote:
The Kings goal should be trying to make the Playoffs very year, but hard decisions about the future must be made as well. Trading away young talent for someone who may help you get into the Playoffs and possibly past the first round (more money for Kings owners) may not be a wise decision. Not trading Palffy in hopes of making money one year may not be a wise decision either.
Again, I would argue that there wasn't any indication that Palffy was leaving, and that trading the team's franchise player for picks and prospects wouldn't have benefited the Kings to any great degree. Trades involving players of Palffy's calibre normally happen when that player is either too expensive for the team to justify holding onto, when the team is out of the playoffs, or when the team is lacking in prospects. At the point you are suggesting that Palffy should have been traded, none of these descriptions could be applied to the Kings.

Quote:
I hope he does, losing a valuable asset that could have been traded for something that could of helped us down the road would have been good. Who knows they could have gotten a player that could have helped us get into the playoffs last year because we didn’t too badly when Palffy went down. We were eliminated in what the last 10-15 games?
Yeah its disappointing, but trading him at that point would not have made any sense. Ziggy would have helped us down the road and I doubt that trading him would have brought us a player who could've proved to be of more value in getting us into the playoffs than Ziggy himself would have. As I have already stated, the Kings are fairly well-stocked on the farm and have a number of prospects ready to come into the NHL and make a difference. And since the Kings obviously are not going into rebuilding mode, and certainly weren't when Ziggy would still have been deemed a tradebale commodity, trading him away would not have been condusive to to their goal of being a competitive team.


Last edited by kingsfan25: 07-20-2004 at 02:31 PM.
kingsfan25 is offline