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

Kings open contract talks with Jonathan Quick

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-26-2012, 10:23 PM
  #101
Reclamation Project
#BeatLA
 
Reclamation Project's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 18,714
vCash: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
That would be ideal. Once they have that commitment, they could also look into moving Bernier and maybe sign a cheaper backup (say Montoya or Clemmensen) and look into upgrading the #2 LW spot since it seems that Penner won't be back.
True. I was really hoping, if everything went according to plan, we could take a run at Jonas Gustavsson or Curtis Sanford. No chance now. I still believe Bernier will bring a great return. If he's done in a package with a few other players/prospects we could possibly get a veteran goalie coming back.

Reclamation Project is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 10:34 PM
  #102
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 500
Assuming they have this Quick deal done and over with by July 1, in looking at the goalie market, there are a few teams that could use a starter or have room to acquire a young goalie to groom as their starter.

Toronto and Edmonton are two clubs that may look to upgrade in net. New Jersey could look to add someone to eventually become the successor to Brodeur. If Calgary moves Kiprusoff, they'll be in need of a goaltender for the future. I don't view Craig Anderson as a permanent solution in Ottawa (liken him to Patrick Lalime) and could see the Senators upgrading in net at some point.

If the Kings do end up moving Bernier this summer, I don't think it will be to acquire immediate help but to replenish the reserve list with an area of need, or draft picks. Maybe Paajarvi for Bernier? He can dominate in the AHL for a season or so and possibly be ready to graduate to the NHL and contribute as a top six forward a couple of years from now.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
06-26-2012, 10:51 PM
  #103
Reclamation Project
#BeatLA
 
Reclamation Project's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 18,714
vCash: 592
Manchester could definitely use some more fire power.

Reclamation Project is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:19 PM
  #104
driller1
Dry Island Reject
 
driller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reclamation Project View Post
Manchester could definitely use some more fire power.
You want to trade our backup goaltender for AHL firepower?

driller1 is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:27 PM
  #105
Reclamation Project
#BeatLA
 
Reclamation Project's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 18,714
vCash: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by driller1 View Post
You want to trade our backup goaltender for AHL firepower?
Yes, I want to trade our potential number 1 goalie after Quick gets an extension for possible prospects that will boost Manchester and in a few years be on the Kings roster. We don't need any roster players. Bernier for a solid prospect or a Bernier package for a group of prospects. Monarchs firepower will turn into Kings firepower.

Reclamation Project is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:33 PM
  #106
Asheru
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The Rinne signing hasn't hampered the Predators one bit. I don't get where a few of you think it has harmed them. How has it harmed them in any way? They defeated the Red Wings in the first round and Rinne was hung out to dry against Phoenix on many of the goals that the Predators surrendered.

I don't see the Rangers being dissatisfied with the contract they gave to Lundqvist. It isn't as if the Kings are extending an old veteran on the downside of his career or an unproven netminder. It's a goalie who is years away from entering his prime who has been getting better every year and has been the most consistent performer on the team.

Given the comments made by Lombardi, he seems to indicate that the talks are just a formality, which leads me to believe that they already may have a dollar figure in mind and that the term of the deal is being negotiated.
The Predators can go with a model where they get out shot all the time and get bailed out by Rinne if they want. But it doesn't look good for the future. They are a budget team, and they needed to keep at least one of the big three for their fanbase's sake. That made them give out a stupid contract (I say this even as I know Rinne is very, very good). Beating the Wings in one round is no guarantee their magical record in one goal games is going to carry over into the regular season next year. I bet that it won't.

Lundqvist is the most consistent goalie out there in the league today, in my opinion. They are of course happy with him. He had a Vezina caliber season. And yet he still couldn't save the Rangers from being out-chanced by their opponents forever.

Big goalie contracts often make for weaker overall teams.

So far there is what, one conference final appearance and 0 cups for those two? And Rinne's nutso contract hasn't even kicked in yet.

Asheru is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:38 PM
  #107
Asheru
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reclamation Project View Post
Yes, I want to trade our potential number 1 goalie after Quick gets an extension for possible prospects that will boost Manchester and in a few years be on the Kings roster. We don't need any roster players. Bernier for a solid prospect or a Bernier package for a group of prospects. Monarchs firepower will turn into Kings firepower.
What's the harm in keeping Bernier around for another year as a cheap backup, and then moving him? Is some over the hill backup going to be cheaper and better? They invested the number one pick in him, might as well get some more use out of it.

Most of the suitors in need of a #1 appeared to have moved on when Lombardi told them he wanted to sign Quick first. That's fine by me.

Asheru is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:42 PM
  #108
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
On Quick......

Pay the man.......pay him his money...............

On JB I love the kid and think he is going to be a special goalie but I would deal him if the right package came to us. It's just a fact that anyone can be traded for the right deal more so when you are talking about a talented young player versus an established star but who cares right?

etherialone is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:44 PM
  #109
SFKingshomer
Registered User
 
SFKingshomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sioux Falls
Posts: 5,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Assuming they have this Quick deal done and over with by July 1, in looking at the goalie market, there are a few teams that could use a starter or have room to acquire a young goalie to groom as their starter.

Toronto and Edmonton are two clubs that may look to upgrade in net. New Jersey could look to add someone to eventually become the successor to Brodeur. If Calgary moves Kiprusoff, they'll be in need of a goaltender for the future. I don't view Craig Anderson as a permanent solution in Ottawa (liken him to Patrick Lalime) and could see the Senators upgrading in net at some point.

If the Kings do end up moving Bernier this summer, I don't think it will be to acquire immediate help but to replenish the reserve list with an area of need, or draft picks. Maybe Paajarvi for Bernier? He can dominate in the AHL for a season or so and possibly be ready to graduate to the NHL and contribute as a top six forward a couple of years from now.
EDM or TOR maybe but OTT has Lehner and Bishop who are both NHL ready or at least close.

SFKingshomer is offline  
Old
06-26-2012, 11:58 PM
  #110
Reclamation Project
#BeatLA
 
Reclamation Project's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 18,714
vCash: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheru View Post
What's the harm in keeping Bernier around for another year as a cheap backup, and then moving him? Is some over the hill backup going to be cheaper and better? They invested the number one pick in him, might as well get some more use out of it.

Most of the suitors in need of a #1 appeared to have moved on when Lombardi told them he wanted to sign Quick first. That's fine by me.
The latest we could move him would be the Trade Deadline. I moderately doubt someone would want him then. The difference is we could get actual value for him now. We can't move him after the year for value, best we would get is probably a 7th round pick like Toronto just got. I'm not eager to ship him out but if Quick is signed to a lucrative contract extension and a veteran goalie with a solid track record is available, we would be stupid not to trade him. I honestly don't see him going anywhere.

Reclamation Project is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 12:38 AM
  #111
Master Yoda
Master Deano
 
Master Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Country: South Korea
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
Gustavsson will be an UFA, Bernier will still be a RFA. No need to rush a trade.

Master Yoda is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 10:33 AM
  #112
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
No reason to trade Bernier this summer when his value is low. He still has another year on his contract and will still be a RFA when it expires, Quick signed for $1.8 million as a RFA. Schneider's next contract will set the bar for promising goalies that are still RFAs.

Sutter has shown in the past that he is willing to play his #1 goalie 70+ games, but hopefully he will give Bernier more starts in October and November to get his confidence up and show the rest of the league that Bernier can be a #1 in the NHL. The team could be a little weary from the short summer and Bernier should be motivated to prove himself.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 10:54 AM
  #113
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perro View Post
I agree with this. Thomas won a Vezna, Con Smythe, Stanley cup and didn't earn that much. Chicago won with Neimi. Fleury in Pttsburgh doesn't make that much.

I think the max a team should devote to its starter is 6/year. Unfortunately Quick will get more.
Check out where Thomas and Fluery ranked in terms of salary for goalies when they signed those deals. They were, IIRC, top three in terms of salary. A better thing to compare is the percentage of the cap they consumed when they signed their deals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
Also, Quick is being signed to an extension, the Kings can sign a deal anytime they like since they own his rights.
Not entirely true. If Quick isn't signed by either the start of training camp or the start of the regular season (I forget which) he can't be signed to a contract after that until January 1st I believe. there is a shutdown window in there. Not saying they can't talk, but one would figure a shutdown period like that would kill talks for a while, plus there's nothing to say Quick won't tell LA that he doesn't want to talk contract once the season has started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Locking him up is fine. Locking him up for 8 years and more than $56M is dumb.

As I said, I think 5 years and $33M is fair to both sides. The Nashville contract with Rinne is stupid.
it can be as stupid as you want, it will be used as a comparible and it will have a huge impact on the outcome. I also think you need to stop saying 5/$33 million is far to Quick. If you were Quick's agent, would you say that's fair, to leave two years and about $17 million on the table?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
That's what Canuck fans said.
Canucks fans were trying to defend a GM signing a goalie to a 12 year deal when he was 31. Massive difference between that and a 7-8 year deal on a guy who is 26. Quick's deal would expire by the time Luongo would be 1/3rd of the way into his. HUGE difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrice View Post
I'd love to see Quick get the same deal that Cam Ward got.

6 years @ 38 million.
And who is more valueable now, Quick or Ward? Quick has shown to be a top two goaltender right now (arguably behind/tied with Lundqvist due to Vezina/Conn Smythe). Barring a hometown discount, he'll be pushing hard for $7 million a year, and likely a little north of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
You don't give a 31 year old goalie a long term deal. It's dumb.
Yet you advocate putting LA in a position where Quick's contract would expire when he's 31 and face the prospects of either resigning Quick long-term (which one would assume he'd want to do) or hoping that somehow we will have a legitimate goalie to turn things over too when that day comes? Signing Quick until he's 34 seems like a far better guarantee of success than hoping five years from now some goalie is in place to take his spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheru View Post

Big goalie contracts often make for weaker overall teams.

So far there is what, one conference final appearance and 0 cups for those two? And Rinne's nutso contract hasn't even kicked in yet.
The last four goalies in the Stanley Cup finals are Thomas, Luongo, Quick and Broduer. The only one not making at least $5 million is Quick. Prior to that it was either a collection of flash in the pans that got hot (Leighton/Neimi) or guys like Fluery or Osgood. Fluery was set to get a big raise, just like Quick is now, while Osgood was more of a co-number one/backup that got the bulk of the playoff starts.

Big money goalies can and do lead their teams to the cup, and I'd rather sign Quick long-term at big money. Given recent Stanley Cup finals goalies, it seems the worst he can be is Fluery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reclamation Project View Post
The latest we could move him would be the Trade Deadline. I moderately doubt someone would want him then. The difference is we could get actual value for him now. We can't move him after the year for value, best we would get is probably a 7th round pick like Toronto just got. I'm not eager to ship him out but if Quick is signed to a lucrative contract extension and a veteran goalie with a solid track record is available, we would be stupid not to trade him. I honestly don't see him going anywhere.
Bernier is an RFA after the season. We'd get a lot more than a 7th. Gustavsson is a UFA in five days, hence why only a 7th.

kingsfan is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:24 AM
  #114
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
it can be as stupid as you want, it will be used as a comparible and it will have a huge impact on the outcome. I also think you need to stop saying 5/$33 million is far to Quick. If you were Quick's agent, would you say that's fair, to leave two years and about $17 million on the table?
It's a fallacious argument for an agent to use a contract as a comparable in a situation that isn't comparable. The Kings are not Nashville. That and Nashville made a mistake.

Quick doesn't lose 2 years and $17M on the table, he still gets to play at age 31 and make what he is worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Yet you advocate putting LA in a position where Quick's contract would expire when he's 31 and face the prospects of either resigning Quick long-term (which one would assume he'd want to do) or hoping that somehow we will have a legitimate goalie to turn things over too when that day comes? Signing Quick until he's 34 seems like a far better guarantee of success than hoping five years from now some goalie is in place to take his spot.
I love Quick, but there are no guarantees when it comes to goaltending, which is why 5 years is plenty. At age 31, if Quick is still on the top of his game, (let's face it folks the odds are against it) then you can pay him again for 3 more seasons.

I advocate maintaining the type of salary cap and contract flexibility that allows the GM to make the moves that need to be made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Big money goalies can and do lead their teams to the cup, and I'd rather sign Quick long-term at big money. Given recent Stanley Cup finals goalies, it seems the worst he can be is Fluery.
Big money goalies that can't win often can't be moved if they have a long term deal. I think there is ample evidence of that, but I see many of you are overcome by the euphoria of winning a Stanley Cup.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:29 AM
  #115
Reclamation Project
#BeatLA
 
Reclamation Project's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 18,714
vCash: 592
My mistake, I thought Gustavsson was a RFA.

Reclamation Project is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:33 AM
  #116
driller1
Dry Island Reject
 
driller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
It's a fallacious argument for an agent to use a contract as a comparable in a situation that isn't comparable. The Kings are not Nashville. That and Nashville made a mistake.
I don't hear anyone in Nashville saying it was a mistake. I don't believe it was a mistake. It's a free market- if Nashville didn't want to give Rinne that term/money, they shouldn't have offered it. If Rinne didn't want that term/money, he shouldn't have signed the offer.

Both Rinne and Lundquist are making ~$7M / yr on 6-7 yr contracts. Those are comparables for salaries and term whether you like it or not. Of all people, DL knows what happens when you low-ball players. See SJ.

driller1 is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:41 AM
  #117
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 500
I still have yet to see any convincing or reasonable or sensible argument supporting the silly suggestion that Nashville made a mistake by locking up their franchise goaltender. Citing their inability to sign Suter has no barring on having signed a player who would have commanded just as much, if not more, in the free market.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:46 AM
  #118
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by driller1 View Post
I don't hear anyone in Nashville saying it was a mistake. I don't believe it was a mistake. It's a free market- if Nashville didn't want to give Rinne that term/money, they shouldn't have offered it. If Rinne didn't want that term/money, he shouldn't have signed the offer.

Both Rinne and Lundquist are making ~$7M / yr on 6-7 yr contracts. Those are comparables for salaries and term whether you like it or not. Of all people, DL knows what happens when you low-ball players. See SJ.
It takes time. Yes, it's a free market and the Kings are free to not offer 7 or 8 years to Quick.

I am not saying low ball Quick on salary, I am saying to keep the term to no more than 5 years.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 11:54 AM
  #119
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 500
The Rangers signed Henrik Lundqvist to a 6-year extension back in 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...46748420080215

He has been New York's best player every season he's been with the team and has two years remaining on his contract. He has shown no signs of regression and I hear nobody complaining about his contract. It also hasn't prevented the Rangers from signing and acquiring players. Oh and he hasn't been hampered by injuries either.

You show that type of commitment to your best player. New York did it with Lundqvist, Nashville did it with Rinne. These aren't free agent signings where you're bringing in a player that your organization isn't familiar with. These teams re-signed their best players for a very long time. Think Lombardi is going to be dumb enough not to do that with Quick?

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
06-27-2012, 12:21 PM
  #120
INGLEWOOD JACK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Here
Country: Denmark
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
High Risk, Big Reward

I would be ok with a 12+ year deal if the cap hit was 6 mil or less. Quick seems to have the fitness and work ethic the be effective. I also like the fact that he had to work his way through the EHCL and AHL to prove himself.

If things go badly, as we have seen with Scott Gomez, virtually contract is untradable (or able to be hidden in the minors).

INGLEWOOD JACK is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 01:06 PM
  #121
damacles1156
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 12,268
vCash: 500
Contracts can always be moved or bought out.

I have no idea why people are so concerned with length(Five or Seven is not really that big of a deal).

his cap hit is going to be around 6 to 7 mill. No matter what the length is.

If Lombardi is able to lower that (kudos to him). But Quick is getting a nice contract, and deserves it.

He deserves it more than when (Kopitar/Drew) got paid.

This is Quick's third contract. He has improved his game every year.

He didn't take a year off like Kopitar/Drew did.

Quick deserves what ever contract he gets.

damacles1156 is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 03:52 PM
  #122
Mr Los Angeles
Registered User
 
Mr Los Angeles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 205
vCash: 500
While giving a long contract to a goalie might scare all of us, the fact of the matter is quicks holds all of the leverage. Expect a 7 year/$7mill deal

Mr Los Angeles is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 07:33 PM
  #123
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 500
http://twitter.com/reallisa/status/218138782325682177
Quote:
Re Jonathan Quick. Received three word text to describe contract talks w/Kings goalie: "Quick real close."

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
06-27-2012, 07:41 PM
  #124
KopitarFAN
Reno Sucks!
 
KopitarFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 9,427
vCash: 500
Hope she's right.

I know he can't sign until sunday, but a verbal agreement much like Staal would've had with Pitt is the next best thing.

KopitarFAN is offline  
Old
06-27-2012, 07:43 PM
  #125
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,251
vCash: 500
Quick's contract signing will be made official on July 1, and you'll also hear about the Kings pursuing one of the top free agent wingers on that very same day seeing that they'll have their top priority taken care of before hand.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
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 04:24 AM.

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.