1. It's useless to argue against stupid trade proposals like Bjornfot for Chychrun 1-for-1, because there's no way Arizona would ever go for that. The point of saying that the Kings won't trade Bjornfot is because he's worth more to the Kings than his trade value. If Arizona offered that 1-for-1 deal or greatly inflated Bjornfot's trade value, then the Kings would go for that in a second. However, given the fact that Bjornfot and Durzi/Spence are all right around the same trade value right now, the Kings wouldn't be keen on trading away Bjornfot if a RHD could fill in for the same value.

2. I commented on pretty much every ACGM last summer involving Clague saying that if a team just waited, they could probably get him for free off waivers. However, at one point, the Kings were very high on Kale Clague. If you remember, LA turned down a deal for Pacioretty because Montreal wanted Clague, and LA wouldn't give him up. There were reported trades with Toronto that were killed prior to the Muzzin deal because LA wasn't willing to give up Clague. So if you're criticizing Kings fans for turning down Clague trades, then you have to criticize Rob Blake for it as well, because he turned down several.

3. The desire to keep Faber over Grans has nothing to do with the overall value of the prospect, but rather the defensive role that each guy plays. Clarke, Durzi, Spence, Walker, and Grans are all offense-first prospects. Faber was the only defense-first prospect in the organization. If anything, Grans had higher trade value than Faber, so he not only would have a greater value in a trade, but was more expendable because the Kings already have several offensive RHD prospects that fill that role. If the Kings were trading with any team other than Minnesota, then Faber is likely still a Kings prospect. However, as several sources have reported, Minnesota specifically asked for Faber and the Kings were willing to oblige because they felt they were getting better than fair value out of him. However, the biggest winner of this trade is Matt Roy, because the heir apparent to the shutdown RHD position is now no longer in the organization.

4. As discussed above, Faber's departure made Roy's potential departure even less likely than it was before. Similar to what I said about Bjornfot and Faber above, if a team comes in and is willing to pay significantly over fair value in a return for Roy, than the Kings would obviously consider it. If Toronto called up Blake and said that they want to do a Roy for Nylander 1-for-1 trade, then Roy is as good as gone. However, in a fair value trade, Roy is worth more to the Kings than he is for whatever he could possibly return.

Thank you for your deep explanation.

I have also rather been picking fan community than one specific person. In fact fan communities of the other teams are pretty much the same. It is all about the biases. Fans of all franchises are masters of overvaluing their prospects and young roster players. That's why I rarely participate in ACGM.

1. If ARI would prefer to give back Bjornfot as their young LHD downgrade, do it. Both teams are relatively thin on LD and Bjornfot is young roster player who also makes sense for ARI. He is roster player... and right now not much more than that. At the best he is 6th D-man on a team. Surprisingly (in part due to injuries) he is 1st on a D-squad with 70GP, but only 11th of 14 players in TOI (16:46). He is expandable. The fact he is former (recent) 1st round pick also helps with his trade value, despite it is not related to his performance on ice.

2. I don't know the names of the fans and it doesn't matter. I also don't put much attention to the media reports, it is just too much noise and artificial stories. I am paying attentions on the official deals. It was a mistake if LAK were that high on him. It wouldn't be the first time (Forbort?), but we are all people and we do mistakes. Waiving Clague was a mistake, period. With, at the time, 11GP and 5P it looked obvious to me somebody would take him. But also expecting unreal returns for not-that-young-anymore and unproved player is childish, no matter if that's GM or ACGM. The opposite case should be Durzi. He has shown he can be fill-in as team's 1st D-man on both end of the ice, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. His trading value should be high, despite (or because of) it was his rookie season. Which I don't think should mean he is untouchable. If the right deal comes by he should be available, but that's another story.

3. and 4. I know Faber and Roy are defensively-oriented. But on the 1st team there are roster spots for 3 healthy RHDs, potentially more if LHDs are injured. At first, defense is easier to learn than offense. At second, dividing D-men on offensive ones and defensive ones diminishes the impact of the players that can do both. Doughty can defend and Durzi has shown he can also. Assuming Durzi signs an extension, these are already 2 complete roster players for 3-men RHD position. And at third, in comparison to Faber, Grans' height can't be learnt. Teams need some size on the back end and fans often don't want to understand that. That's why smaller D-men are easier to acquire and therefore cheaper. I don't expect Spence to be good defensively, he might be too small and/or too scared , but Grans can be.
So I would say LAK can trade 2 of the Walker, Roy, Spence, Grans, Durzi. They CAN, they don't NEED to. Do you imagine either Walker or Roy would sign extensions with the LAK in next 2 years? I don't. Well, maybe Roy can, if Durzi gets traded prior to the Matt's extension, but that is less likely. Roy is also expandable, not just Walker. I would imagine with his LTIR history Walker's value is only mid-round pick. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Roy gets traded for average return and Walker starts the season with LAK.

This barely scrapes LA's prospect pool great deal for them