I just...one for one?
Granlund points 4 years ago:
68 games 8+31 = 39 points
Fiala last year 80 games 23+25= 48 points
I'm clinging to this.
I clung to it.
I feel vindicated.
I just...one for one?
Granlund points 4 years ago:
68 games 8+31 = 39 points
Fiala last year 80 games 23+25= 48 points
I'm clinging to this.
I’m disturbed that people are still upset we got bad value at the time of the trade.
The add on at best would probably have been a 2nd round pick. Do you know who the predators picked in the second round? Egor Afanasyev. If that is what bothers you I can’t help you.
Be happy we fleeced a division rival in a trade.
The problem with saying “we should’ve gotten this add because player x had never had y points” is that, just like with everything else, numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Coming into last year, everyone thought Fiala was going to be a ppg player in the league at some point, his tough year set his value back, and was ultimately allowed us to grab him.
The gamble wasn’t on our end, it was completely on Nashville’s end the whole time. Fiala was always going to be a 60 point player in this league just based on his skill, the question always was if he could hash out the deficiencies in his game and push to be an elite forward.
Like what FBC said, why can’t we just be happy that Nashville, a team that has never drafted and developed an elite forward, may have delivered us their only shot at one on a silver platter.
Why don’t you take a gander to all the threads that were made a year or two back for the Fiala hype. Fiala was always going to be a 60 point player. He was too skilled. Why don’t you assemble me a list of players who get 48 points as a 21yo and then don’t break 60 points in their career.You're trading a 60+ point player for a 40+ point player at that point. You're taking a bigger risk, because there is a good chance (and like you said numbers don't tell the whole story) they won't reach it because of a lot of reasons. The thing is Minnesota is taking more of a risk and should have been compensated for that.
Huh? No one thought Fiala was going to be a PPG. They thought he was going to be a good to elite winger, but no one thought that he was going to be a 80+ point winger.
That isn't true; the gamble was on our end. Fiala wasn't always going to be a 60 point player in this league based off his skills alone. I mean Galchenyuk has deficiencies in his game, but still managed to put up 30 goals in a season.
What about Viktor Arvidsson? He has scored 117 goals in 334 games.
And because it's revisionist history. Just because Fiala is on a good tear right now, doesn't mean he can't top out at around 30-35 goals.
Why don’t you take a gander to all the threads that were made a year or two back for the Fiala hype.
At the time of the trade virtually everyone agreed that Minnesota was exposing itself to too much risk to not get a pick/prospect back. Fenton apparently thought the bigger risk was passing on the opportunity to add Fiala. It'd be easier to fault him if it wasn't a player he was so familiar with, but as it stands I can't hold the "missing pick" against him.
Locking onto Fiala looks like the best idea in the world right now.It was also that he didn't shop Granlund to drive up his value, that he got locked into one certain player and his other trades were thuds and duds. Adding all of that up, it looked like a terrible trade.
You mean before his leg injury? Why didn't trade Coyle straight up for Donato? You're still risking potential vs realism. Prospects vs players are very much like stocks in real life. You can have a 'guarantee' that just fails for no reason. Hell, look at Yakupov. Fail for Nail? He shouldn't have failed either, but he did.
Fiala and Donato had nowhere near the same amount of NHL equity at the time of the trades.
Fiala wasn't a prospect.
Locking onto Fiala looks like the best idea in the world right now.
Separate situation with different motivations, and I don't think many have argued that that trade was all that smart.Yeah, but locking in on Rask? Doesn't look so smart.
Fiala’s 48 point season was after his leg injury. Donato, Who was a minor-leaguer at the time of the trade, is completely different than Fiala who was in his 2nd season of being a top 6 forward. The fact of the matter is that 9/10 times we tend to over-value our own players. I promise if Fiala got moved today we’d be rattled at the return. Granlund, who had been averaging .33ppg for the better part of two months, with a year and a half to UFA, didn’t carry nearly the value many of us thought he did. Even if Fiala hadn’t turned into the player he is today, it’s hard to argue that a 22yo top 6 forward with a 20 goal, almost 50 point season under his belt isn’t worth a year and a half of Granlund. Just because you felt that we should’ve gotten more doesn’t mean it was realistic. Poile knew he was taking on risk. Russo reported on one of his podcasts that Polie almost had Fenton adding to Granlund.You mean before his leg injury? Why didn't trade Coyle straight up for Donato? You're still risking potential vs realism. Prospects vs players are very much like stocks in real life. You can have a 'guarantee' that just fails for no reason. Hell, look at Yakupov. Fail for Nail? He shouldn't have failed either, but he did.
Why don’t you take a gander to all the threads that were made a year or two back for the Fiala hype. Fiala was always going to be a 60 point player. He was too skilled. Why don’t you assemble me a list of players who get 48 points as a 21yo and then don’t break 60 points in their career.
Victor Rask scored 48 points as a 22 year old... and well..
Actually he was 23. Coyle and Nino both had near 60 points as 23yos. 23 is prime for a lot of players; it’s not unusual to see career years at 23. Fiala was 21.Victor Rask scored 48 points as a 22 year old... and well..
The fact of the matter is that 9/10 times we tend to over-value our own players.
I promise if Fiala got moved today we’d be rattled at the return.
Granlund, who had been averaging .33ppg for the better part of two months, with a year and a half to UFA, didn’t carry nearly the value many of us thought he did.
Even if Fiala hadn’t turned into the player he is today, it’s hard to argue that a 22yo top 6 forward with a 20 goal, almost 50 point season under his belt isn’t worth a year and a half of Granlund.
Just because you felt that we should’ve gotten more doesn’t mean it was realistic. Poile knew he was taking on risk. Russo reported on one of his podcasts that Polie almost had Fenton adding to Granlund.
I’m not forcing any narrative. Even if Granlund was playing like the 60 point player he was for us this season and Fiala was playing like just a “20 goal winger” 5+ years of asset protection of the 20 goal winger is worth a ton. If Granlund had 3+ years of term left, you need an add. It was a trade of “a better track record” for “only a 20 goal winger with team control for years to come”. It was a fair trade at the time based on track-record. A year and a half (garunteed) of a 60 point player for 5+ years of a 20 goals, 50 points. My disdain at the time was because I get granlund hadn’t reached his full potential yet. It turns out, he had, and Fiala hadn’t reached his (surprise suprise).9/10 times we tend to overvalue our young players and our prospects than established NHL players.
Yes, only because he's had one - maybe two solid seasons and he has potential. But he is at his highest right now. Will he eclipse it? Who knows? I mean - look at Dumba. If we moved him last year when his value was the highest, would we be complaining now? You're looking at TODAY. It's easy to look back and go, yep! that was such a smart trade - when Fiala was on pace for less than 20 goals last season.
Actually, he probably did and does. He had two 60 point seasons and is a good defensive player along with being a good offensive wing.
Depends; what would Granlund take to sign back? And it would create a log-jam of 20 goal scoring, 50 point wingers.
Most analysts and fans thought that the Wild should have gotten more. Poile wanted more, because he knew Fenton wanted Fiala regardless of the cost. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
You are looking at the trade in hindsight and forcing the narrative. It's great the Fiala is doing well, and there was a good chance he would break out - but equally a good chance that he'd been a 20 goal scoring winger as well.
Not the same player, not exactly comparable
Actually he was 23. Coyle and Nino both had near 60 points as 23yos. 23 is prime for a lot of players; it’s not unusual to see career years at 23. Fiala was 21.