Look it’s really not close. The leafs traded a second for jack Campbell who is better and cheaper than quick at last years deadline. The leafs are not trading their top prospect and a second for quick and clague. Like you just mentioned clague is expansion eligible while sandin is not. You even said he’s likely not good eneough to be protected.

Which stats would you like to talk about? The fact that he has a better winning percentage than Cal Petersen?

The fact hes a sub .900 save % and a negative xGSA. He's not a good goalie anymore and is being paid to be a starter despite now having been demoted to a backup. LA is competing despite Quick, not because of him, and its why they'll have to pay to move him.

I didn't say that he's not good enough to be protected. The Kings have Doughty, Walker, and Roy to protect, all of which are more important to the Kings than Clague right now. if Iafallo doesn't re-sign (he most likely will), then the Kings will probably go 4-4-1 instead of 7-3-1, and Clague would be the extra defenseman that is protected. However, if Iafallo does re-sign, then the Kings have too many forwards to protect and can't afford to protect a 4th defenseman, which would make Clague a no-brainer for Seattle to take.

Stop basing your player comparisons on numbers on a spreadsheet and actually watch a game. Quick has been really good this year. He got shelled a couple times this year (once against Minnesota and another time against Vegas) because the defense decided not to show up those games, but aside from that, he has been fantastic.

Stop basing your player evaluations on spreadsheets and actually watch a hockey game.

So you can't actually argue for why Quick should be a positive asset? I'm not surprised. When you have everyone telling you its a bad trade, even fans who arn't connected to either team, you know you've made a mistake.

Idk what to say but you are delusional. No one agrees with you, regardless of what team they cheer for.

1. The leafs are not trading their top prospect
2. Leafs don’t want clague they can’t protect him from the expansion draft
3. Quick is not much of an upgrade on Andersen. Stop bringing up win percentage it is a terrible stat to judge goalies. Andersen has a better win percentage than quick anyway
4. Quick is worse and more expensive than Campbell who the leafs traded a second round pick for last offseason

This trade is terrible. You can post it again and start a poll every single person will tell you this trade is terrible for the leafs.

I'm pretty sure I have been arguing why he should be a positive asset this entire time. He's been playing very well this season. Aside from two games which weren't his fault, he has been really good, and he has had even had several spectacular games that he downright stole. He has just as many wins as Cal Petersen (and 4 fewer losses), who is near the top of the NHL in every statistical category and who you would probably rate as a "positive value" goaltender given his spreadsheet stats.

Quick had a couple bad seasons a few years ago, and was playing poorly until around Christmas 2019. Since then, he has had a resurgence and is actually looking like 2012 Jonathan Quick again. Last season from Christmas until the season was canceled, he had a GAA of 2.27 and a SV% of .923. This season, take out the two games (1/28 vs Minnesota and 2/5 against Vegas, in both of which none of the 9 goals against were his fault...watch the highlights) and his stats are actually quite good.

Quick is a quality goaltender who would be a fantastic value for a team at a $2.9M cap hit.

50% retained Quick isn't a negative asset, but he sure as heck isn't worth Sandin.

Pagnotta hasn't gotten anything right in 2 years so I doubt they'd be in for Quick. 2.9 is still a lot for a backup for 3 years.

Fair enough. I respect that assessment.

I think Pagnotta's argument is that Quick would be the starter, not the backup.

Except everything tells us otherwise.



An old, backup goalie, putting up bad numbers, making 2.9 for the next few years as he ages even further, isnt value, its a negative.

I'm not sure he's a good starter at this point though.

Except Dubnyk hasn't been winning hockey games? At least half of those 6 wins that Quick has this season were games that the Kings should have lost that he downright stole. Goaltending (by both Petersen and Quick) is the primary reason why the Kings are even remotely close to a playoff spot halfway through the season.

How many games have you actually watched Quick play in the last 15 months? I suspect none.

He's been doing well playing behind a shaky Kings' team. Put him behind a good team and he would win a lot of hockey games.

'Don't look at the unbiased source, the stats, use the biased source, how I see the games ... but maybe not these games over here he was bad in, just the other ones.' -the biased Kings fan.

Except this isn't baseball, stop trying to moneyball hockey. Stats are good when you use them to reinforce the eye test, but you can't use them in place of actually watching the games.

Go read any local or national source (TSN, NHL Radio, The Athletic, even NHL.com has some good coverage). All of them are talking about how Quick is having a quality season.

And you also can't rely solely on the eye test. You have to find a balance of the two. Quick has let in a lot of soft goals, been weak in his positioning at times, etc. I have watched the clips and the stats arn't wrong.

I'm not relying solely on the eye test. LIke I said, look at his stats from Christmas 2019 until the season cancellation last year, then look at his stats from this season with the two outlier games removed when the goals against were not his fault. Combine that with the eye test, and you can very easily see that Quick is having a resurgence.

I have watched every game, and I can only think of one arguably soft goal that Quick has let in all season. I'd like to see examples of the "lot of soft goals" that you are referring to.

So pay attention to Quick, just not Quick outside of these small timeframes or his bad games? Thats not a very strong argument you are making.

He's still been the backup this year, hasn't he? Not saying he isn't good, but he's not good enough to upset the fact he's on a bad contract. Kings should keep him, he's been with the team a long time, and I don't see why they should get rid of him because they price for him will be low.

No, He and Petersen have been playing in a 1A/1B role this season. Quick was the 1A, but missed 10 days or so with an injury, so Petersen got most of the starts in his absence (all except the one game that Grosenick drew in).

I agree the Kings should keep him. Unless a team comes out with a deal like the one I proposed, I suspect he's not going anywhere before his deal expires. They're certainly not going to move him as a negative value asset. I suspect he'll finish out his contract with LA, unless Seattle decides that they want to take Quick in the expansion draft for some reason.

Again, I conceded that Quick was playing poorly up until Christmas 2019. Since then, he has been really good. Also, my point was that "his bad games" were not "his bad games" but rather that his defense hung him out to dry in both. So aside from two games that weren't his fault, Quick has been an exceptional starting goaltender for the past 5ish months of hockey he has played.

Here are the highlights from both of those games:

So you think teams should pay attention to the past 5 months, totalling around 20 games, rather than pay attention to the previous 4 or so years, hundreds of games, and that will give him positive value?

Lets have a look at those games. In 29 games, he's given up 7.14 more goals than expected and has a cap hit of 5.98 mil for it. Even a 2.9 mil cap hit doesn't make that a strong number. You arn't making your case stronger here.