HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2011-12 All Purpose Kings Trade Rumors and Proposals Thread II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2012, 11:17 AM
  #151
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Since 2008-2009:

Loui Eriksson: 281 games, 106 goals 240 points, a goal per game pace of .377

Rick Nash: 267 games, 117 goals 239 points, a goals per game pace of .438

Stats wise, a slight tilt towards Nash. Extrapolated over a full season at their respective goals per game pace, Nash would have 36 goals, Eriksson would have 31.

Erikkson is a full year younger, and has a cap hit of $4.25 million until 2015-2016, while Nash has a cap hit of $7.8 million until 2017-2018. Nash might be slightly better, but if we are doing a trade here, sign me up for Eriksson.
The problem with that is Dallas would never trade Eriksson in the division.

KopitarFAN is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 11:19 AM
  #152
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,689
vCash: 500
100% agree. Just replying to a post suggesting Eriksson wouldn't be as good of a pick up.

kingsfan is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 12:28 PM
  #153
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post
I'm not arguing for Nash over Iginla in the short term. I am merely arguing against the turning away of Nash for a reasonable price because of some HF board misconceived notion that he is overrated. Which doesn't exist amongst the top brass or internally within the NHL and is merely a response to fans on message boards and their opinions.

I agree, for this team, I would rather have Iginla right this very second. Of course, that depends on assets. If we are paying Roster player+ top prospect + 1st ++ for the guy, I would rather have Nash. Iginla would likely not be on this team or performing at an elite pace by the time we are ready to go to the finals, Nash will still be here ready to go.

I disagree with Nash being a passenger though.
But whats a reasonable price? CBJ are going to want the vault for him.

Nash isnt a passenger per se but hes also not a go to guy. Hes not a guy that is really going to elevate the play of those around him. Hes the type of guy thats needs those star players to elevate his play.

kingpest19 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 12:35 PM
  #154
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Deitell View Post
If the Blue Jackets are the Titanic, Nash could be a passenger or the ship's captain and it wouldn't matter either way. It was the same knock against Luongo when he was playing in Florida. Nash has performed in the Olympics and I think he'd be stellar on a good team.
Has he really though? 5p in 7g isnt really performing especially when you see he played the 2nd most minutes among forwards behind Crosby and had 6 other forwards score more than him all playing less time.

kingpest19 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:05 PM
  #155
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
But if we signed someone by overpaying we don't have to also give up a bunch of good assets like Voynov, Loktionov, etc.
We make that mistake every year and watch them pass us by. If we had just given up Simmonds earlier, we likely would have Kovalchuk on this team for $6 million. The only way to guarantee top talent is by trading for it. Kings fans of all people should know free agency is worthless to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
So you are an NHL insider or soemthing? You know all this "top brass" personally and have asked them this and they have told you as much?

If you think a bunch of GM's in this league are drooling at the chance to give up whatever Columbus would be asking to get Nash the way he is producing now combined with his $7.8 million cap hit, you are dillusional. Not to mention I call BS on your "top brass" claims.

Bang for the buck, Nash isn't producing. He's not Penner bad or something, but he's hardly producing anywhere near what they expected from him. $7.8 should be a guarantee of 40 goals in a healthy year. He's reached 33, 32 and on pace for 26 the last two plus years. And a career low pace in points to boot right now.
It is merely an assumption based on everything I've heard around the league since Nash's drafting. He is overrated by price, but the HFBoard claim that he is so overrated that we would hang up the phone is laughable. Go ask Lombardi if he would hang up the phone if Columbus offered Nash, wanna take wagers on what he would say? That's what I am arguing here. Not how good he is, what his contract is like, etc... I am merely arguing against the HFBoards bias that has stemmed up that he is so overrated that nobody would want him. That is ridiculous. He is still a premier goal scoring power forward. You would be a fool to ignore such an offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Since 2008-2009:

Loui Eriksson: 281 games, 106 goals 240 points, a goal per game pace of .377

Rick Nash: 267 games, 117 goals 239 points, a goals per game pace of .438

Stats wise, a slight tilt towards Nash. Extrapolated over a full season at their respective goals per game pace, Nash would have 36 goals, Eriksson would have 31.

Erikkson is a full year younger, and has a cap hit of $4.25 million until 2015-2016, while Nash has a cap hit of $7.8 million until 2017-2018. Nash might be slightly better, but if we are doing a trade here, sign me up for Eriksson.
That's ridiculous. Again, just hoarding the stats. Eriksson's goal scoring ability is nothing close to Nash's. He'd be just like the rest of our wingers. We need a game changer and someone that guarantees goals. Not to mention that Eriksson is even less likely than Nash because Dallas would charge us a premium that would debilitate us since we are in the same division fighting for the same playoff spot. Eriksson is a good player, but he is not the pure goal scorer that Nash is and that should be all we care about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
But whats a reasonable price? CBJ are going to want the vault for him.

Nash isnt a passenger per se but hes also not a go to guy. Hes not a guy that is really going to elevate the play of those around him. Hes the type of guy thats needs those star players to elevate his play.
If they resign themselves to trade him, they would have to conform the structure of any hockey deal. It would cost a pretty penny, but no more than trading for anyone else's franchise star. It is the only way to acquire one, we sure as hell aren't going to sign one.

__________________

“This is for you Kings fans wherever you may be. All the frustration and disappointment of the past is gone. The 45 year drought is over. The Los Angeles Kings are indeed the Kings of the National Hockey League. They are the 2012 Stanley Cup Champions!” - Bob Miller
Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:12 PM
  #156
DaAnimal
Registered User
 
DaAnimal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pasadena
Country: United States
Posts: 1,376
vCash: 500
whats the general consensus on hemsky?

DaAnimal is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:17 PM
  #157
DontgoZiggy
Registered User
 
DontgoZiggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 1,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaAnimal View Post
whats the general consensus on hemsky?
Good when he's on the ice, but he makes Gagne and Williams look durable when it comes to injuries. If he's cheap and could be re upped for 2-3mill then I'd probably take a risk on him.

DontgoZiggy is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:18 PM
  #158
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaAnimal View Post
whats the general consensus on hemsky?
We'd receive a coffin off the plane. We'd have to pay the same price we paid for Penner, except instead of not performing, he may just be sitting in the press box for the rest of the year, and then not sign with us and walk.

Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:34 PM
  #159
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,689
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Telos;41896999]
Quote:
We make that mistake every year and watch them pass us by. If we had just given up Simmonds earlier, we likely would have Kovalchuk on this team for $6 million. The only way to guarantee top talent is by trading for it. Kings fans of all people should know free agency is worthless to us.
Like trading for Penner last year was guaranteeing top talent? We didn't let that "pass us by" and it worked well huh? And whose to say we'd have Kovalchuk still? Just because he signed in NJ doesn't mean he'd sign here. In fact, a lot of posters seem to believe good FA's wouldn't sign in LA, which if true means Simmonds would have been dealt for a rental. I'll trade him for a guy like Richards before I'd move him for a guy like Kovalchuk, thanks.


Quote:
It is merely an assumption based on everything I've heard around the league since Nash's drafting. He is overrated by price, but the HFBoard claim that he is so overrated that we would hang up the phone is laughable. Go ask Lombardi if he would hang up the phone if Columbus offered Nash, wanna take wagers on what he would say? That's what I am arguing here. Not how good he is, what his contract is like, etc... I am merely arguing against the HFBoards bias that has stemmed up that he is so overrated that nobody would want him. That is ridiculous. He is still a premier goal scoring power forward. You would be a fool to ignore such an offer.
As I said, I like him. As such, even I'd listen if Columbus offered him up. Where I'd be willing to take your wager on DL is when Columbus states their price. If you notice, I always include in my reasoning for not wanting Nash the price tag it would cost us to get. Columbus would want the farm for him. Your idea of a "reasonable price" isn't realistic because he is the face of that organization. Given the problems they are purported to have financially and otherwise, trading the face of the team would make no sense barring getting back a Kings ransom (pun intended). At his current production, he's basic one-dimensional skill level and the salary space he takes up, no way DL would listen to what Columbus would be asking. He'd kick the tires like any GM would, but he's not going to pay it unless Columbus is desperate to get rid of him, something I doubt very much.

Quote:
That's ridiculous. Again, just hoarding the stats. Eriksson's goal scoring ability is nothing close to Nash's. He'd be just like the rest of our wingers. We need a game changer and someone that guarantees goals. Not to mention that Eriksson is even less likely than Nash because Dallas would charge us a premium that would debilitate us since we are in the same division fighting for the same playoff spot. Eriksson is a good player, but he is not the pure goal scorer that Nash is and that should be all we care about.
What's ridiculous is to attest that stats are ridicoulous, but your own opinion isn't. You think Nash is some great goalscorer. Good. No one is debating that. Even I've said he can score. But numbers wise, Eriksson isn't far behind, and at nearly half the cap hit while being a year younger.

I also never said we'd trade for Eriksson, because, as you said, it'd cost us a retarded premium. I'm simply stating that it is beyond foolish to dismiss a guy like Eriksson who is averaging 31 goals a season while banging the drum of a guy who scores a handful more goals a season at twice the cap hit. But if you are going to use the fact Eriksson would cost us a "premium that would debilitate us" why not use the same rationale for Nash? Columbus wouldn't deal him for anything short of a huge payoff since he's basically all they have for their fanbase to cling too. Nash would cost as much or more than Eriksson to us.

kingsfan is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:43 PM
  #160
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
As long as we are talking about HIGH BIG BUCK uber talents why not throw Vanek's name in the mix? He is at least available according to Buff rumors.

etherialone is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:57 PM
  #161
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post

Like trading for Penner last year was guaranteeing top talent? We didn't let that "pass us by" and it worked well huh? And whose to say we'd have Kovalchuk still? Just because he signed in NJ doesn't mean he'd sign here. In fact, a lot of posters seem to believe good FA's wouldn't sign in LA, which if true means Simmonds would have been dealt for a rental. I'll trade him for a guy like Richards before I'd move him for a guy like Kovalchuk, thanks.




As I said, I like him. As such, even I'd listen if Columbus offered him up. Where I'd be willing to take your wager on DL is when Columbus states their price. If you notice, I always include in my reasoning for not wanting Nash the price tag it would cost us to get. Columbus would want the farm for him. Your idea of a "reasonable price" isn't realistic because he is the face of that organization. Given the problems they are purported to have financially and otherwise, trading the face of the team would make no sense barring getting back a Kings ransom (pun intended). At his current production, he's basic one-dimensional skill level and the salary space he takes up, no way DL would listen to what Columbus would be asking. He'd kick the tires like any GM would, but he's not going to pay it unless Columbus is desperate to get rid of him, something I doubt very much.



What's ridiculous is to attest that stats are ridicoulous, but your own opinion isn't. You think Nash is some great goalscorer. Good. No one is debating that. Even I've said he can score. But numbers wise, Eriksson isn't far behind, and at nearly half the cap hit while being a year younger.

I also never said we'd trade for Eriksson, because, as you said, it'd cost us a retarded premium. I'm simply stating that it is beyond foolish to dismiss a guy like Eriksson who is averaging 31 goals a season while banging the drum of a guy who scores a handful more goals a season at twice the cap hit. But if you are going to use the fact Eriksson would cost us a "premium that would debilitate us" why not use the same rationale for Nash? Columbus wouldn't deal him for anything short of a huge payoff since he's basically all they have for their fanbase to cling too. Nash would cost as much or more than Eriksson to us.
Bringing up Penner in a discussion about Nash and Kovalchuk is mind boggling. It is no surprise that he ended up signing and staying with the team that traded for him. What were his odds of randomly picking NJ and it all working out the same way if they hadn't traded for him? The answer is unknowable, as is every single piece of nonsense we are discussing, but I'd doubt that NJ would have made the same offer and things would have worked out the same way if they hadn't already paid for him.

I don't even care about this discussion. Nash is very low on my list of wants around the league. I am merely arguing that the propensity of rolling your eyes and screaming "overrated" is silly when looking for top talent around the league. We need a top goal scorer. Eriksson is not a top goal scorer. We need a Nash, Kovalchuk, Hossa, Parise, Stamkos, etc... Someone who is going to guarantee offense. It is not foolish to dismiss a playmaker who scored 36 when his team got hot one year, over a habitual 30+ talent. I'd take 6 goals over 15 second assists any day. Eriksson's goal scoring ability is a few notches below Nash. We need a shooter, we are a team filled with passers, but no shooters. If I am paying some stupid price, it will be for a player like Nash, not Eriksson.

In the end, I don't want either. I don't even want Iginla. I wouldn't cry if we got any of them, but none are worthwhile for the team. I am just rolling my eyes are the stigmas HFBoards creates for itself. It is the exact same as if you walked into a proposal thread about Doughty and every single poster responds with "overrated" and that they would never consider it. Let's ask the GM's if they would want Doughty on their team...

Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:59 PM
  #162
Eshutz Escors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KopitarFAN View Post
The problem with that is Dallas would never trade Eriksson in the division.
Mattias Norstrom says hi.

Eshutz Escors is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 01:59 PM
  #163
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
As long as we are talking about HIGH BIG BUCK uber talents why not throw Vanek's name in the mix? He is at least available according to Buff rumors.
I'd make a move for Vanek, in a heart beat.

Stoll, Penner, Martinez, Deslauriers, and our 1st, in a heart beat....

Doubt that would do it though, it would have be a Voynov or Lotkionov and mmm....I really really don't want to give up either yet at this point..

sjmay* is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:04 PM
  #164
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eshutz Escors View Post
Mattias Norstrom says hi.
That's a different scenario. We were out of the playoffs, Norstrom was aging, and he wasn't near the caliber or return that Eriksson would warrant. It would be the same as if we fell out of the playoffs and traded them Mitchell for a first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
I'd make a move for Vanek, in a heart beat.

Stoll, Penner, Martinez, Deslauriers, and our 1st, in a heart beat....

Doubt that would do it though, it would have be a Voynov or Lotkionov and mmm....I really really don't want to give up either yet at this point..
Wouldn't mind it. Similar situation as Nash, but without the worries of conferences. Prospects and Picks likely won't do it, it would be a similar price tag that we are talking about with Nash, maybe like a pick less

Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:13 PM
  #165
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post
That's a different scenario. We were out of the playoffs, Norstrom was aging, and he wasn't near the caliber or return that Eriksson would warrant. It would be the same as if we fell out of the playoffs and traded them Mitchell for a first.



Wouldn't mind it. Similar situation as Nash, but without the worries of conferences. Prospects and Picks likely won't do it, it would be a similar price tag that we are talking about with Nash, maybe like a pick less
To be honest, if we are going between Vanek and Nash, I take Vanek.

As far as the price, yea, I know lol. Stoll and a 1st won't do it.

sjmay* is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:17 PM
  #166
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,415
vCash: 500
Jack Johnson+ gets you any Elite Winger that is available.

The question is would Dean give up Jack+ and what Elite winger is available.

Picks+ prospects gets the Kings another project player. You are going to have to give up a player of Simmonds potential + picks to get anyone worth while. The only team I can see wanting a (Hockey Trade) would be Carolina or Buffalo. No other team is going to be looking to do the Kings any favors by giving us more scoring. I don't think Columbus is eager to send any star to the Western Conference, plenty of East teams (Toronto) will offer a nice package for Nash/Carter (or whatever they decide to offload).

Dean should be listening to every offer, but I am sure the only realistic one's are out East (Carolina/Buffalo/ETC). Worst case scenario is the asking price is to high, stand pat wait for a shot at (Parise offseason).

That is my opinion.


Last edited by damacles1156: 01-04-2012 at 02:32 PM.
damacles1156 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:19 PM
  #167
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
To be honest, if we are going between Vanek and Nash, I take Vanek.

As far as the price, yea, I know lol. Stoll and a 1st won't do it.
They would probably ask or take 1st + 2nd + Stoll + Toffoli + Voynov + Penner for Vanek + Boyes. Only way I can think of to avoid giving up Johnson. I don't know who I would take between Vanek and Nash. They are very similar in my book. Wouldn't mind either, but I suppose you are right that I would have a natural tendency to lean towards Vanek, mostly based on price and ease of discussing the deal with Buffalo versus on ice production where Vanek is similar to Nash, though Buffalo is much more offensively potent.

Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:35 PM
  #168
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,175
vCash: 500
Doubtful Vanek or Nash are on the table and I'd rather not part with the assets it would take to acquire either.

SFKingshomer is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:37 PM
  #169
deeshamrock
Registered User
 
deeshamrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,946
vCash: 500
Dennis Bernstein (TFP) just back from covering Winter Classic just tweeted on what rumors he heard regarding Kings trade

Stafford, Roy, van Riemsdyk, Bourque to name a few. A deal is out there with Johnson as bait.

deeshamrock is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:40 PM
  #170
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 26,704
vCash: 424
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeshamrock View Post
Dennis Bernstein (TFP) just back from covering Winter Classic just tweeted on what rumors he heard regarding Kings trade

Stafford, Roy, van Riemsdyk, Bourque to name a few. A deal is out there with Johnson as bait.
None of those are appealing for Johnson. If I am trading Johnson to Buffalo, I would rather have Vanek over Stafford + Roy. JVR is intriguing, but a risk, I wouldn't be keen on swapping Johnson for JVR, there would have to be more involved with the deal. Bourque is ridiculous for Johnson, I wouldn't mind trading some lessers for him, but Johnson wouldn't be on the table for any Calgary roster player. If they were talking Igilna + Sven Baertschi, well then yes, Johnson would be on the table But Iginla is too old to consider trading a young Johnson for.

Telos is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:41 PM
  #171
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeshamrock View Post
Dennis Bernstein (TFP) just back from covering Winter Classic just tweeted on what rumors he heard regarding Kings trade

Stafford, Roy, van Riemsdyk, Bourque to name a few. A deal is out there with Johnson as bait.
Roy makes no sense but the others would be ok. Hate trading Johnson for any of those guys except maybe JVR.

SFKingshomer is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:43 PM
  #172
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 16,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
As long as we are talking about HIGH BIG BUCK uber talents why not throw Vanek's name in the mix? He is at least available according to Buff rumors.
Start with Johnson and add what TG? Maybe Johnson, Stoll and a high pick?

Quote:
Originally Posted by damacles1156 View Post
Jack Johnson+ gets you any Elite Winger that is available.

The question is would Dean give up Jack+ and what Elite winger is available.

Picks+ prospects gets the Kings another project player. You are going to have to give up a player of Simmonds potential + picks to get anyone worth while. The only team I can see wanting a (Hockey Trade) would be Carolina or Buffalo. No other team is going to be looking to do the Kings any favors by giving us more scoring. I don't think Columbus is eager to send any star to the Western Conference, plenty of East teams (Toronto) will offer a nice package for Nash/Carter (or whatever they decide to offload).

Dean should be listening to every offer, but I am sure the only realistic one's are out East (Carolina/Buffalo/ETC). Worst case scenario is the asking price is to high, stand pat wait for a shot at (Parise offseason).

That is my opinion.
I hadn't read down this far, but we are obviously on the same page.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:46 PM
  #173
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeshamrock View Post
Dennis Bernstein (TFP) just back from covering Winter Classic just tweeted on what rumors he heard regarding Kings trade

Stafford, Roy, van Riemsdyk, Bourque to name a few. A deal is out there with Johnson as bait.
Vanek (or a winger of his caliber) is the only type of player I see Dean giving up Jack for.

damacles1156 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 02:59 PM
  #174
kingpest19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telos View Post


If they resign themselves to trade him, they would have to conform the structure of any hockey deal. It would cost a pretty penny, but no more than trading for anyone else's franchise star. It is the only way to acquire one, we sure as hell aren't going to sign one.
Do we honestly need another teams franchise player considering we have two already and three if you include Richards? And is he really worth what it would take to get him?

kingpest19 is offline  
Old
01-04-2012, 03:02 PM
  #175
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 13,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
Do we honestly need another teams franchise player considering we have two already and three if you include Richards? And is he really worth what it would take to get him?
If teams are willing to trade them; and you have the pieces to acquire them+(fit under cap), HELL YES.

If Buffalo offers Vanek for Jack + you take that deal. You take it and run, the Kings after six years still need a Left Wing that can score.

damacles1156 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.