Yes. You should have gone for Miller. Better chances to drive you to playoffs. Plus He'd be resigning right now.
- Nuck4U

Ha ha ha ha...no.

It's one thing to talk about theoretical value in a vacuum, but without knowing the team dynamics that might be different than what we perceive. these trades probably aren't as good in real life.

Unless it's a cap issue, he should be a King for life.
- 333inthe3rd

Your first point is very true.

As for cap issues, well, the Kings certainly have them. Even the near-million you might save trading Quick could mean a lot. Of course, getting rid of Brown/Gaborik would be ideal, but that seems unlikely. Quick is the most tradeable expensive asset in a position of strength (that is, before LA surrendered Bishop's rights).

Sure, for example, you could trade Carter for cap relief, but LA needs scoring more than anything. Of course, Doughty would bring in a king's ransom, but the Kings don't have the defensive depth to bear it. Therefore, Quick.

Your first point is very true.

As for cap issues, well, the Kings certainly have them. Even the near-million you might save trading Quick could mean a lot. Of course, getting rid of Brown/Gaborik would be ideal, but that seems unlikely. Quick is the most tradeable expensive asset in a position of strength (that is, before LA surrendered Bishop's rights).

Sure, for example, you could trade Carter for cap relief, but LA needs scoring more than anything. Of course, Doughty would bring in a king's ransom, but the Kings don't have the defensive depth to bear it. Therefore, Quick.
- Sheng Peng

The Hawks went through this same exercise when deciding between Crawford/Darling, and it was debated ad nauseam on our board. The synopsis is that Crawford is the proven money goalie, and Darling is a legit goalie who comes cheaper, but not that much cheaper. Ultimately the Hawks got a third round pick for Darling instead of entertaining the impossible task of trading Crawford and saving $1.5 to 2 mill. What we know about this scenario is that it's never as simple as shedding the salary (as we already learned 5 years ago when trading Campbell's $7 mill annual cap hit). Something is inevitably coming back. And there are very few dance partners for such a trade. Crawford apparently had to submit a list of 10 teams, and so on. JJ did a great job of detailing what was going on.

IMO the issue with Quick is his insane contract and his health. His style of play is going to land him another injury. Likely another groin injury. No doubt he is an amazing goaltender and the best the Kings have had, but he may have only a couple years left before he really declines due to injuries.

Jones was the one the Kings should have kept all along.