SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

OldNYIfan

Once a Kings Fan Too
Member Since
Jun. 23, 2018
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
2nd Favourite Team
Los Angeles Kings
Forum Posts
40674
Posts per Day
19.0
Forum: Armchair-GM5 hours ago
Thread: Does LA Take This
LA can't afford to upgrade from Kempe to Marner. Due to their cap situation, any trade the Kings make this off-season has to be cap-neutral or cap-positive, not $6 million cap-negative.

In no particular order, Rob Blake's objectives this summer are:
1. agree on a new contract with Quinton Byfield
2. fill both goaltender positions
3. fill out the roster
4. acquire a quality winger to turn DuBois into a productive player

We'd love to have Marner. If the cap ceiling was about $92 million, we could afford to have him. But the math is the reality.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JackSC87</b></div><div>To anyone in this comment section who either thinks this is a good deal for Toronto or thinks that LA would decline is out of their minds and so influenced by recency bias.</div></div>
Assume that the trade is two seasons of Kempe for one season of Marner, and not what is shown here, which is wildly unfavorable for Toronto.

Los Angeles would be forced to decline because to accept it would mean the Kings would have to play every minute of every game with an empty net. That $5 million difference in cap hits is the sum I'm pretty sure Rob Blake has available to fill the two goalie positions.
Forum: Armchair-GM6 hours ago
Thread: Marner to Utah
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lancebmx</b></div><div>Probably the best take on a Marner trade I've seen. You sent Toronto a replacement player and a project of a player with some decent potential. Utah can afford to send a bunch of seconds and still make a ton of picks.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>I kinda think Trevling would love to trade Marner. But it's a real difficult trade because of NMC and what teams can take on his cap?
So many would disagree, but I would prefer just getting a picks back in return and have 11m to spend on UFAs this summer.
Like the lineup you posted, but let's imagine Schmaltz and Haydon didn't come back in the trade. Maybe the Leafs sign Toffelli to play RW. That would leave cap for an 8th Dman like Edmundson,
It would leave the Leafs carrying 8 NHL Dmen, as I don't think there are any Marlies you could trust playing big minutes with the Leafs in 24/25. Liljegren not getting traded would also be an option.</div></div>
Thanks for the feedback, guys! :cheers
Forum: Armchair-GM7 hours ago
Thread: Moving up
To begin with, the difference between 3rd overall and 5th overall is 21st overall -- well up the ladder from where the Winnipeg first is even if Boston, Colorado and Edmonton win their second series.

Second, none of those young players is very appealing to Anaheim (specifically). Barron is a very good prospect and looks like he might be a second-pairing RD. However, Pat Verbeek's announced assignment for this off-season is to add a top-4 RD and we already have Gudas and Lindstrom on the roster and Luneau coming up, so he's not the jewel to us that he might (and should) be to other teams. Harris, while also a very nice prospect with second-pair potential, is a LD and we have no fewer than four young LDs already on the roster in addition to Cam Fowler plus two good prospects coming up on that side, so he isn't a needle-mover either. Kidney is, as you admit, a B prospect left-handed forward and we have a surplus of those both on the roster and in the pipeline, so he's effectively a nullity. If Chicago takes Levshunov, I think that Anaheim would only accept the Winnipeg first and another pick or a right-handed A prospect like Beck or Mesar plus your earliest 2025 second to move back to fifth overall. Easily affordable spare parts like Barron, Harris, Kidney, Heineman, RHP etc. no more close the gap in this kind of deal than they do in a proposed Trevor Zegras trade.