Player Discussion Devan Dubnyk II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,500
20,378
MinneSNOWta
Wrong. We have had consistent goalies in the past and certainly have had opportunities to have a number one guy. Yes, Dubs was consistent for half a season. Looking at that same time frame, so was Manny. So was Roloson. So was Backstrom. So was Harding. And they were given extensions giving them the opportunity to work off of a great season. And guess what? They always ended up falling right back down to earth within the next 1-2 years. And they were given much shorter contracts too.

Now maybe Dubs turns out to be a stud. But we've had many goalies show consistent seasons, we're rewarded for it, and yet it still came back to bite us. Except this time around, it's SIX years.

Again, I like the guy and he saved our tails last year. And I was hoping to have him back....but six years will more likely result with the team sinking rather than swimming should it not work out.

Manny's MN save % was .914 and it's dragged down by one putrid year out of six, behind a horrid team in 2001-02.

Roloson's % was .918 in his 4 seasons here.

But they aren't exactly relevant with an entirely new roster and coaching staff, so let's move on to Backstrom and Harding. I'm pretty sure Dubnyk isn't 36 years old or has a debilitating disease.

I know we're trained to expect the worst, but I really think there is just as much upside as downside here.
 

gphr513

Watch the world burn
Jan 14, 2014
17,728
629
Minneapolis, MN
If you get "playoff" Dubnyk to start the season, 6 years is going to seem like an eternity.

And if you get Vezina candidate Dubnyk, 6 years and under 4.5 per is a steal.

The Wild traded for the guy, and have now committed 6 years to him. They are obviously pretty confident in his abilities. Let's hope that confidence is rewarded!
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,500
20,378
MinneSNOWta
In your opinion. I think it is, and if you have to list a bunch of bad contracts and trot out the "he's only the 20th highest paid goalie" line, I think that only helps to prove my point.

Yes, in my opinion.

So let's just get on the same page here. Are you fine with the $'s, but just think it's too long? Or is he overpaid at that amount, even if it was a 3-4 year deal?
 

J22*

Guest
Yeah, playoff Dubnyk who held the Blues to 1 goal in each of the last two wins. Hate to have that guy

Yeah, two very good games out of 10 is very promising. Dubnyk was decent against the Blues, but he was a trainwreck agains Chicago.
 

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,961
1,957
MinneSNOWta
Yeah, two very good games out of 10 is very promising. Dubnyk was decent against the Blues, but he was a trainwreck agains Chicago.

I love how people are criticizing me for using half a season and you're literally using a 4 game sample size vs. The Hawks. The whole team played like ****.
 

J22*

Guest
And if you get Vezina candidate Dubnyk, 6 years and under 4.5 per is a steal.

The Wild traded for the guy, and have now committed 6 years to him. They are obviously pretty confident in his abilities. Let's hope that confidence is rewarded!

Absolutely agree, I just don't think it was necessary to risk a 6 year term.


Yes, in my opinion.

So let's just get on the same page here. Are you fine with the $'s, but just think it's too long? Or is he overpaid at that amount, even if it was a 3-4 year deal?

I don't hate the deal at all. IMO- $4M should have been the max $ amount on any term. $4.33 doesn't make me all that angry. 3 years should have been the max term. 6 years does make me shake my head.

I still believe that there's a decent chance it works out in the Wilds favor and probably an even better chance that it really isn't consequential either way. I just don't understand taking a risk when you don't have too. Like I said before, maybe Fletcher had information that made him believe that he either gave him this deal or lost him, but until I know that, I think it's an unneeded risk to give him that much term.
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,500
20,378
MinneSNOWta
Absolutely agree, I just don't think it was necessary to risk a 6 year term.




I don't hate the deal at all. IMO- $4M should have been the max $ amount on any term. $4.33 doesn't make me all that angry. 3 years should have been the max term. 6 years does make me shake my head.

I still believe that there's a decent chance it works out in the Wilds favor and probably an even better chance that it really isn't consequential either way. I just don't understand taking a risk when you don't have too. Like I said before, maybe Fletcher had information that made him believe that he either gave him this deal or lost him, but until I know that, I think it's an unneeded risk to give him that much term.

So what about the risk of a short-term deal then? We give him 3 years, he plays like a top 5 or top 7 goalie for those years, and now a 32 year old goalie is asking for a 5-6 year deal at big money. Not the best spot to be in either.
 

J22*

Guest
So what about the risk of a short-term deal then? We give him 3 years, he plays like a top 5 or top 7 goalie for those years, and now a 32 year old goalie is asking for a 5-6 year deal at big money. Not the best spot to be in either.

That's a fair point. I personally would rather take that risk, because one thing I know is that there are always options at goaltender.
 

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,961
1,957
MinneSNOWta
Like I said before, maybe Fletcher had information that made him believe that he either gave him this deal or lost him, but until I know that, I think it's an unneeded risk to give him that much term.

Considering he was in the contract discussions, I'm sure he knows what he had to offer.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,319
1,618
I think Dubnyk will be fine for the first 3-4 years but those last 2 years might be killer. Essentially, Dubnyk's contract is the epitome of Minnesota's problem and that's working with a budget and under the cap.
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,500
20,378
MinneSNOWta
I think Dubnyk will be fine for the first 3-4 years but those last 2 years might be killer. Essentially, Dubnyk's contract is the epitome of Minnesota's problem and that's working with a budget and under the cap.

Best hope a nice steady growth in the cap then. Minimize the damage.
 

Minnesota

L'Etoile du Nord
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2011
28,377
1,399
I think Dubnyk will be fine for the first 3-4 years but those last 2 years might be killer. Essentially, Dubnyk's contract is the epitome of Minnesota's problem and that's working with a budget and under the cap.

I'd agree, I'd have been much more comfortable with a 4 year contract. Luckily his cap hit isn't ridiculously large; it's pretty average for starting goaltenders. In fact, he'll probably be underpaid in a few years looking at how crazy contracts are getting nowadays. All-in-all, I'm just happy we didn't hand out another NMC. If Dubnyk turns a complete 180, we can still offload him on some other team.

Bolded is the case with any team contending for the cup, no?
 

Slick Willy*

Guest
Look at it this way.


Corey Crawford got $6Mx6=$36M and he's a worse goalie than Dubnyk. That's $10 mill less for what I see as a better goalie in Dubnyk.


I see all the naysayers have no comment on the above. :laugh:
 

Dr Jan Itor

Registered User
Dec 10, 2009
45,500
20,378
MinneSNOWta
I see all the naysayers have no comment on the above. :laugh:

Crawford got his deal after winning a Cup, so while Dubnyk may very well be better (up for debate, and I think Crawford has become pretty underrated recently), at least you can definitively say that you can win a Cup with Corey Crawford. Can't yet say that about our guy.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,319
1,618
I see all the naysayers have no comment on the above. :laugh:

Because Crawford has earned 2 cups

I'd agree, I'd have been much more comfortable with a 4 year contract. Luckily his cap hit isn't ridiculously large; it's pretty average for starting goaltenders. In fact, he'll probably be underpaid in a few years looking at how crazy contracts are getting nowadays. All-in-all, I'm just happy we didn't hand out another NMC. If Dubnyk turns a complete 180, we can still offload him on some other team.

Bolded is the case with any team contending for the cup, no?

It depends on how he performs. We don't know if he has a NMC or not. That might be buried in the contract and not reported. Minnesota seems to struggle because they don't have a solid prospect base, so they have to pick up free agents to off-set the major holes they have.
 

Slick Willy*

Guest
Crawford got his deal after winning a Cup, so while Dubnyk may very well be better (up for debate, and I think Crawford has become pretty underrated recently), at least you can definitively say that you can win a Cup with Corey Crawford. Can't yet say that about our guy.

Or you could say Chicago gave him bags of money but still had leftover to construct their Cup caliber teams.
 

Marlowe Syn

R-O-C-K-F-O-R-D
Sep 2, 2008
2,197
96
Alone? We could package Kuemper with another player.

As for AHL, I believe Michalek is headed to the AHL and we can always get a guy like Curry in free agency.
If goalies are not worth much in a hockey trade deal, do you think they will have any enticing value as part of a secondary piece. Kuemper is more valuable to us than he would be in a trade.
The difference is next year he knows there is almost zero chance he is becoming the #1 goalie.
Right. So he does not have the leverage he did in his last negotiation. His agent knew he had us in a tight spot and pressed the situation to get his client the best deal possible. Like an agent should do. Now with a starter in place he doesn't have that. So if he wants to play hardball again we have the luxury of showing him the door. I do hope we can re-sign Kuemps reasonably for a back up, because I do think he's a good goaltender. We don't need him though.

Yeah, two very good games out of 10 is very promising. Dubnyk was decent against the Blues, but he was a trainwreck agains Chicago.
Who on this team wasn't a trainwreck against Chicago? That butt kicking was a team effort.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,900
24,588
Farmington, MN
I already said my peace about the deal... now we all have to live with it. I will set this aside now unless his contract becomes a hindrance in the future.

As long as he plays well, I'll cheer him on.
 
Last edited:

Makorov

Minnesota Wild Fan
May 22, 2014
53
3
Unknown
And if you get Vezina candidate Dubnyk, 6 years and under 4.5 per is a steal.

The Wild traded for the guy, and have now committed 6 years to him. They are obviously pretty confident in his abilities. Let's hope that confidence is rewarded!

God, I hope he isn't another Harding..:(
 

tomgilbertfan

#WhyBother
Jun 22, 2008
16,024
268
Minnesota
Russo's take on the contract

Obviously, time will tell if the contract pans out, if the second half was a flash in the pan or the real Dubnyk.

But for what he played behind in Edmonton, the Wild analyzed that his numbers were way better than they should be and they’re confident that as long as the Wild continues to play with the defensive structure we saw at the beginning of last season and in the second half, that Dubnyk will fit perfectly right into that.

Also, remember, if the Wild didn’t sign Dubnyk, it would have had to trade for a goalie. The goalies that were traded this weekend all cost a significant number of draft picks, and then the Wild, if those goalies panned out, would have eventually had to sign them to a contract similar to this one.

This the market for No. 1 goalies in today’s NHL.

...

This structure is right in line with many goalie contracts in the league. By going longer-term, the Wild gets a more manageable cap number. Go short-term, and the cap number would have been a ton higher and when you see the depth chart below for at least this upcoming season, you’d see that it would be impossible for the Wild to afford much higher. The deal includes a limited no-trade clause during certain windows.

This is not a Niklas Backstrom deal, as I’ve seen some people comment. Backstrom’s last three-year deal from Chuck Fletcher was given to a goalie that was up there in age and constantly going under the knife, as recent as less than a few months after being re-signed to the three-year deal. At the time of the deal, I think we all saw where that would likely end (awfully).

Honestly, I’d love to go back and try to figure out how many surgeries Backstrom has had in Minnesota. It’s got to be seven or eight. His entire insides has to be made up of scar tissue.

Dubnyk is 29, entering his prime and has shown throughout his career (so far) that he’s durable. He hasn’t suffered any big injuries and he showed his agility by starting 38 consecutive games for the Wild, which is nothing to sneeze at physically and especially mentally when you consider that ANY losing streak along the way last season would have caused the Wild to fall on its face and miss the playoffs.

Yet, he strived impressively through that pressure and stress. His entire demeanor is one of a cool, calm, collected goalie who doesn’t get all uptight, proven by the fact that he’ll sit there and yuck it up with teammates, staff, coaches and media on game days.

He went almost three months without losing consecutive regulation games, was 15-2-1 on the road and was a rock star in the second of back-to-back games despite the team in front of him being severely outplayed in basically every one of those second of back-to-backs.


Did he give up some bad goals in the second round of the playoffs? Absolutely. At least one in three games by my count and you do have to wonder if the Wild wins Game 1 if he doesn’t give up the high half-wall flutterer Teuvo Teravainen goal in the last minute of the second period after the Wild rallied from down 3-0.

But the Wild lost that series because it’s big guns again couldn’t score, because it never scored the first goal, because it never had the lead. And the one thing I do like about Dubnyk is he doesn’t unravel. One bad goal doesn’t turn into three like Darcy Kuemper showed a bunch last season.

...

Fletcher said, "If you look at the top-20 goalies in terms of salary, I don’t know if any of them have less than five years. It’s a market contract. The salary will put him somewhere between the top-23 and 24 goalies in the league (top-20, according to capfriendly.com). I don’t think that’s an unreasonable number for what he’s done. It’s a fair contract. The cap number will work very well for us and the term is what he was hoping to get. That’s the compromises you make."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad