Yes, yes you are. Kings don't touch that with a 10, no 50-foot pole.

not really that interested in that, i'd prefer one of the prospects the kings already have to iafallo and two likely late first round picks, if they're trading sorokin it's going to be a full rebuild

Don't ask to not be shredded and then post something this obviously unrealistic/bad lol.

I wouldn't trade Iafallo for Sorokin 1-for-1. Iafallo is one of the most underrated players in the NHL.

Sorokin is not being moved.

Profile is also brand new with their 1st post so clearly a troll.

Hasek in his prime got traded for a middle six forward and a prospect. Roy in his prime got traded for a couple of prospects. You think any goaltender in the league is going to fitch a first let alone two of them? Besides Vassy and MAYBE Ullmark theres not a chance youd get this kind of return for Sorokin

smart move not trading a low end 2nd liner for the best goaltender in the league

at some point sorokin will have to get traded, can't let him walk for nothing.

He might be the best goaltender while playing for the Islanders, but goaltenders are way too dependent on the team playing in front of them. The Kings traded defense for offense this season, and their goaltenders' performance has suffered as a result. I don't think Sorokin would be the "best goaltender in the league" on the Kings.

the isles are one of the worst defensive teams in the NHL, he'd be the best G on any team

Don't agree.

You can disagree, but this it’s a fact that the isles suck defensively so you’re argument that goaltenders are dependent on their teams is not true

The Kings defense was worse than the Islanders' over the first two months of the season. They were the worst in the league in goals against per game until around December 1st. Their defense was non-existent and much (not all) of the reason why Petersen got chased to the AHL. They have been doing better over the past 6 weeks or so except a few hiccups, and their goaltender performance (by both Quick and Copley) has improved dramatically as a result.

I don't think Sorokin would have done any better for the Kings during that time.

That’s not true. The isles were bottom 3 in the league over the first two months , only Anaheim and Chicago were worse.

LA gave up a lot of goals because Peterson sucked , not because the defense was bad.

You might be thinking about goal differential when it comes to NYI, Anaheim, and Chicago, but LA had the single worst GA/GP in the league around American Thanksgiving. However, they were also tops of the league in Goals For, so it didn't look so bad.

You clearly didn't watch the Kings play earlier this season. Quick and Petersen both had a couple of stinker outings, but there's only so much you can do when the breakaway and odd-man rush chances per game are in the double digits (not exaggerating). Even Pheonix Copley wasn't immune, allowing in 6 goals in about 10 minutes against Buffalo due to non-existent defense by the Kings.

After the Buffalo game, McLellan gave an interview where he said the Kings "pushed the reset button" and were going back to coaching fundamentals. Things have improved dramatically since then.

Defense was never the problem with LA, it was goaltending

LA ranks 5th in the league, isles 23

LA was never bad defensively

xGA is based upon "danger" chances which is entirely based on where on the ice shots come from. It has nothing to do with whether they're odd-man rushes or if there's traffic in front of the net, or missed coverages that leave attacking players unmolested to get the chances they want. It also doesn't account for how many times the Kings went shorthanded due to blown defensive coverages resulting in penalties, and the fact that their PK was hitting around 60% until mid-December.

Tell Kings fans that the Kings were never bad defensively this season. The Kings were horrendous defensively for the first two months of the season. They had more turnovers and defensive breakdowns over the first 8 weeks of the season than they did at the depth of the rebuild when they finished 30th in the NHL in the standings.

correct, it's still a much better indicator of a teams overall defensive impact than the eye test. LA is very good at preventing quality shots against, they can't be bad defensively if they are executing the most important part of defense

They have very clearly demonstrated that they can. For a period, every single game had at least 3-4 unstoppable shots against where the goalie had no chance. The fact that the Kings were good at suppressing shot quantity while still allowing that many guaranteed goals against is part of the reason why their goaltenders' SV% looks so bad.

Your chart also only shows 5v5 opportunities, while the Kings took a lot of penalties due to blown defensive coverages, and had among the league's worst PKs due to lack of appropriate personnel. If Sean Durzi is on your PK, you have problems.