SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Why not

Created by: NYR1983
Team: 2020-21 Los Angeles Kings
Initial Creation Date: Jan. 27, 2021
Published: Jan. 27, 2021
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
I'm no expert on LA prospects so no need to attack how the line up is or who would be a scratch. I based it off the actual current lines
Trades
LAK
  1. Francouz, Pavel
  2. Graves, Ryan
Additional Details:
Just a base
COL
  1. Quick, Jonathan
Additional Details:
Just a base
Buyouts
Termination Fees
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2021
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the STL
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the CGY
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
2022
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
2023
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
Logo of the LAK
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$81,500,000$68,890,421$0$3,507,500$12,609,579
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$2,425,000$2,425,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$10,000,000$10,000,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$2,000,000$2,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$1,200,000$1,200,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$2,636,364$2,636,364
RW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$894,166$894,166 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
C, LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RW, C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$5,875,000$5,875,000
RW, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$725,000$725,000
LW, RW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$775,000$775,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$700,000$700,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
LD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$11,000,000$11,000,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$858,333$858,333
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$761,666$761,666 (Performance Bonus$107,500$108K)
LD/RD
RFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$700,000$700,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$3,166,667$3,166,667
LD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$2,650,000$2,650,000
LD/RD
UFA - 4
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$2,000,000$2,000,000
G
UFA - 2
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$1,133,333$1,133,333
RW, LW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$725,000$725,000
RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$3,333,225$3,333,225
LD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$700,000$700,000
RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$875,000$875,000
LD/RD, LW
UFA - 2
Taxi Squad
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$795,000$795,000 ($0$0$0$0) (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
LW, RW
RFA - 3
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$778,333$778,333 ($0$0$0$0) (Performance Bonus$132,500$132K)
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$747,500$747,500 ($0$0$0$0) (Performance Bonus$182,500$182K)
C, LW, RW
RFA - 2
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$735,000$735,000 ($0$0$0$0)
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Los Angeles Kings
$700,000$700,000 ($0$0$0$0)
RD
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:09 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2017
Posts: 8,440
Likes: 6,061
Quick is 35 years old and on a terrible contract. He has negative value, you arent getting 2 better players for him (especially from a contender like COL). LAK would have to add so much to this it wouldnt even be worth it
Foppa21, Richard88 and Pond_Duck liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:19 p.m.
#2
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 1,529
Likes: 1,070
Quoting: moli92
Quick is 35 years old and on a terrible contract. He has negative value, you arent getting 2 better players for him (especially from a contender like COL). LAK would have to add so much to this it wouldnt even be worth it


^This^

Big ol' HELL NO from the Avs
UpsideDownQue and Pond_Duck liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:23 p.m.
#3
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 6,456
Likes: 2,587
Quoting: moli92
Quick is 35 years old and on a terrible contract. He has negative value, you arent getting 2 better players for him (especially from a contender like COL). LAK would have to add so much to this it wouldnt even be worth it


I mean, from a 3rd party perspective I think he would be a legit G behind your team. He is playing well in LA as it is. COL G is suspect, sure it's better than EDM and a few others but...... This is the COL window and if the G isn't good enough you will have wasted the window. But there will be a lot of playoff games and series to enjoy, just missing the cup.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:31 p.m.
#4
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
LAK would have to retain 50% on Quick to even begin the conversation. Non-starter for Colorado.

I could see Graves being a decent fit for LAK though. How about a deal around Graves and Lizotte or Kempe?
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:33 p.m.
#5
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: moli92
Quick is 35 years old and on a terrible contract. He has negative value, you arent getting 2 better players for him (especially from a contender like COL). LAK would have to add so much to this it wouldnt even be worth it


If LAK retained 50% to have Quick as backup at $2.8m might work. But even then it's really far down on the list of options in goal given his age and the term on his contract.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:34 p.m.
#6
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 6,456
Likes: 2,587
Quoting: Richard88
LAK would have to retain 50% on Quick to even begin the conversation. Non-starter for Colorado.

I could see Graves being a decent fit for LAK though. How about a deal around Graves and Lizotte or Kempe?


I'm a Rangers fan so I wouldn't begin to get deep in this. Just seeing COL dumping Graves for a G from other teams. LA obviously needs to move to Cal in the next year or 2. Seemed like a good fit with the issue in COL pipes
Richard88 liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:39 p.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2017
Posts: 8,440
Likes: 6,061
Quoting: NYR1983
I mean, from a 3rd party perspective I think he would be a legit G behind your team. He is playing well in LA as it is. COL G is suspect, sure it's better than EDM and a few others but...... This is the COL window and if the G isn't good enough you will have wasted the window. But there will be a lot of playoff games and series to enjoy, just missing the cup.


Quick has been absolute garbage since 18-19 and its no different this season. Sub-.900 sv% and 3.15 GAA to start the year isnt what I would call "playing well". Even adjusting for shot quality he is below average and below expected. Plus his age and contract are clearly not very desirable.

Idk why everyone thinks COLs goalies are bad. The only knock on Grubauer and Francouz as a tandem is their injury history (which I will admit is a very valid criticism) - But when healthy they are both very high quality goalies. Both have career averages of .920+ sv%, which places them 3rd and 9th among all active goalies with 10+ GP and both have career GAA below 2.43 which places them 7th and 10th among active goalies with 10+ GP. How is that a suspect G tandem?
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:42 p.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2017
Posts: 8,440
Likes: 6,061
Quoting: Richard88
If LAK retained 50% to have Quick as backup at $2.8m might work. But even then it's really far down on the list of options in goal given his age and the term on his contract.


Even 50% retained I would not be interested at all. With 3 years term he would still have negative value imo
Richard88 liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:44 p.m.
#9
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: NYR1983
I mean, from a 3rd party perspective I think he would be a legit G behind your team. He is playing well in LA as it is. COL G is suspect, sure it's better than EDM and a few others but...... This is the COL window and if the G isn't good enough you will have wasted the window. But there will be a lot of playoff games and series to enjoy, just missing the cup.


If Quick was in Colorado, he'd be the starter... That guy obviously hasn't watched Quick this season or last.

Quick hasn't had a good team in front of him since 2015.

In 2017-18 when we went to the playoffs our blueline was:

Forbort Doughty
Phaneuf Martinez
Muzzin Folin

Lol...

Kings decline.

Blake isn't trading Quick. He is a great mentor for Petersen and will be a great backup to him when Petersen is ready to take the torch.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:45 p.m.
#10
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: Richard88
LAK would have to retain 50% on Quick to even begin the conversation. Non-starter for Colorado.

I could see Graves being a decent fit for LAK though. How about a deal around Graves and Lizotte or Kempe?


Kings aren't trading Quick, Kempe, or Lizotte. Graves would be a great fit if we didn't already trade for Maatta. There isn't a deal to be made.
NYR1983 liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 3:56 p.m.
#11
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Lines are spot on btw, good job.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 4:40 p.m.
#12
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: moli92
Even 50% retained I would not be interested at all. With 3 years term he would still have negative value imo


Perhaps I didn't emphasise it enough when I said "even then it's really far down on the list of options in goal". Like, reaeaaaally far down the list. I.e. at or near the bottom.
UpsideDownQue liked this.
Jan. 27, 2021 at 4:41 p.m.
#13
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: NYR1983
I'm a Rangers fan so I wouldn't begin to get deep in this. Just seeing COL dumping Graves for a G from other teams. LA obviously needs to move to Cal in the next year or 2. Seemed like a good fit with the issue in COL pipes


Fair enough, I appreciate seeing a new idea! If you have any more ideas feel free to suggest them. smile
Jan. 27, 2021 at 4:41 p.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: Aug. 2017
Posts: 8,440
Likes: 6,061
Quoting: Richard88
Perhaps I didn't emphasise it enough when I said "even then it's really far down on the list of options in goal". Like, reaeaaaally far down the list. I.e. at or near the bottom.


Got it lol
Richard88 liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll