What would you trade for Rob Blake?

[Losesomemore]

The least valued (to the team) amount of assets possible.

Bargaining 101: the seller starts high (like Cammellari and his agent did) and the buyer starts low (like the Kings did with Cammalleri).

[jt]

Originally Posted by King'sPawn

Sure it matters. Trades are done to address team needs. If Nashville, for example, offered LA Weber and a first for Blake, and Philadelphia offered Jeff Carter and a first for Blake, which package would you go for? With the Kings needing to solidify their blueline moreso than forwards, I'd take Weber and a 1st.

Remember if it's a player as good as Blake under you scenario, the Kings likely aren't the only team bidding for him. So, you want to make the package as appealing as possible to get that final piece.

Not really. Look at the Caps for instance when they traded all their vets a few years ago. They took prospects at all positions, including goalie when they knew Kolzig would be #1 for years.

If I got that offer I wouldn't make the trade for Weber because I "need" Weber more. IMO, trades for young guys like that don't work that way. I make the trade for Weber because he's a more valuable asset overall (i.e. if I were Philly I'd trade Carter for Weber in a heartbeat and if I were Nashville, there's NO way I'd trade Weber for Carter). But if the offers were Carter + a 1st or Klein + a 1st, I take Carter because he's the more valuable asset...even though I "need" Dmen more.

I do agree that trades for vets (vets for vets or when you're trading a prospect for a vet) are about "need", but when I'm shipping out vets for prospects, I want the most valuable (overall, not just to me) prospect I can get.

[wupmasta2000]

Originally Posted by jt

No, not if you were the GM of another team...if you were the GM of the Kings and they were in serious contention.

For those who can't fathom it, make a few assumptions:

1) The Kings are in 3rd/4th place in the conference with a good record and a legit shot to go deep in the playoffs and make a serious run at the Cup.
2) Their goaltending is settled and JLB is playing like a legit #1.
3) The forwards are all doing very well with Kopitar, Brown, Frolov, Cammy, O'Sullivan and Nagy all playing great in the top 6 and Handzus, Calder, Army, Willsie, Giuliano/Zeiler, Thornton & Ivanans all playing well in the bottom 6.
4) The Dmen are Visnovsky, Stuart, Johnson, Preissing, Modry, Dallman & Klemm and they're fine but could use a Blake-type Dman.
5) The team with Blake wants only picks and/or prospects.
6) Blake is unlikely to re-sign with you.
7) And the big assumption...that Blake is a good leader, has gas in the tank and is playing well both offensively and defensively.

What would you offer a team for Blake? Hickey + Moller + a 1st? Tukonen and a 6th?

Are we in serious contention for the Stanley Cup (i.e. we are among the favorites to win it all), or are we just a good team w/ a "you never know" type chance?

Edit: Because if I felt we had a serious chance at winning the Cup (I write this as Blake makes a turn over that leads to a goal) and I had the chance to pick up a Norris Trophy winner, hell yes I dump Hickey and Tukonen and 1st. But, I have to be confident that I have a REAL chance at the Cup.

[Ararat15]

Lewis/Boyle/Tukonen, Dallas' 1st, and a 2nd is the most I would go.

I'm holding on to Hickey and Bernier like no tomorrow. And I'm partial to Moller. Every other prospect we have in the pipeline right now is replaceable.

[KOPI! PEVS!]

Old box of shoelaces.

I think many of you think that Blake is worth tons more then he actually is.

[gescom]

Nigel Williams and a first.