No worries, the whole re-sign vs resign thing around here just grates on me sometimes.
Player Discussion Jared Spurgeon
- Thread starter jaredspurgeon
- Start date
2Pair
Registered User
- Oct 8, 2017
- 12,633
- 5,103
If Granlund walks in a year is it still bad value? If the Wild use the cap space they gained to sign Panarin/Duchene is it still bad value? Are the extra cost controlled years of Fiala still bad value? When Granlund was 22 he only had 8 goals and 39 points. Fiala this year has 12g and 35 points.
Since the trade:
Granlund 7GP 1g 3a 4pts -4 17:07 TOI
Fiala 10GP 2g 2a 4pts -5 17:50 TOI
Not exactly a huge difference so far. I think you need to take a step back and realize this trade is going to look really good in about a year. Or would you rather pay Granlund $8m+ a season?
You're saying that because a year from now, Granlund could walk, so let's take pennies on the dollar now?
It was lost value plain and simple.
I'm not against trading him in general, just the low value return of the deal.
Granlund was a top line player for 200 feet most nights.
Fiala is a top 6 player in the offensive zone only some nights, not even top 9 in the offensive zone only other nights, and we HOPE he can become a top line player someday.
You HAVE to get something more for taking such a risk.
I'm saying 1 year of Granlund is nowhere near as valuable as 5 years of Fiala. You're only accounting for the player, not the contracts as well. Contract status has a direct impact on value.
Granlund was hot garbage for a lot of nights this season. I'm not saying Fiala is a better player right now. I'm just saying the value of a younger, worse (right now) player + cap space + cost control and RFA status vs an older, better player with 1 year left on his contract isn't some HUGE difference that you seem to think it is.
Look at the return Fletcher got for Burns whom the Wild couldn't afford.
There is a return gap between what Fletcher got vs what Fenton should've gotten. (No, I'm not saying Granlund carried the same value, just that he carried significant value that Fiala alone doesn't account for)
Fenton fell too much in love with "his guy" to even shop around to see if there was a better deal.
I see the value in trading for youth, but I don't see the value in giving away a top line player that didn't need to be moved right then for pennies on the dollar.
You will not convince me that we got enough in return.
Fiala by himself is not worth a top line proven rw.
I get what Fenton was trying to do, but I have no faith in his understanding of player values.
If Fiala ends up being better than all of Setoguchi, Coyle and Philips, who actually got the better return?
I get that there should have been a pick included in the deal, but we're talking a (relatively late) 2nd or 3rd. I don't think that's the difference between a fair trade and a horrible one.
Anyway, with Spurgeon 5 years and something around $6.5m would be nice. I could get my head around $7m but I'm not sure if that gets it done or not. As important as I think he is to the team we also don't need him as badly as some other teams would. Staying here likely means leaving at least a little money on the table, which is always a risky thing to bank on.
Should've been a late 1st or another prospect.
Also, Coyle has now turned into Donato, so the returns from the Burns trade are still on going.
Thus far Donato >> Fiala
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
Spurgeon's turnover in which Kunin was, for some reason, looking in the opposite direction of the puck.
I think the fact that Fiala's still on his ELC and comes with several years of team control while Granlund's a year from UFA counts for quite a bit here. Enough for me to think the "missing pick" wasn't as high as a 1st, but that's just me.
As for Coyle/Donato, it seems weird to point out that Fletcher got better value in the Burns trade because Fenton eventually traded part of the return for Donato. I follow the logic, but it also seems to undercut the broader point about Fenton's trade aptitude.
Anyway, my point was just that comparing those two trades has limitations. Setoguchi, Coyle and a 1st seemed like good value before any of those pieces had a chance to contribute anything to the Wild; 8 years later it's more disappointing. Granlund for Fiala straight across currently feels like kind of a raw deal but Fenton's obviously banking on Fiala being the better player in the medium-long term. If he ends up being right I find it hard to find fault with the trade.
Edit: and to pull all this back on topic, the last few trades don't have me especially worried about Fenton trading Spurgeon if it comes to that. I don't think I'd like the return, but that's sort of how it goes with guys that are a year from UFA.
Last edited:
That is not a good analogy. Do you know who had 48 point when he was 22-years old? Victor Rask. Look what he is now. There is zero guarantee that Fiala will become what Granlund has been during the past few years or that he is better than him next year or after 3 seasons. It can very well also be that Granlund is next year a 70 points guy and Fiala stagnates at 40. This uncertainty should have landed Fenton a lot of insurances.
And what do you do with the cap space? If you want to get players that are Granlund's caliber, you have to pay their worth that is not smaller than what Granlund would have cost. If you want Panarin, you need to pay 10m+, not that he is coming here. There is actually a case to be made that a best chance for Wild to get a discount would have been Granlund who had established his base in Min during his several seasons in here.
There is zero guarantee of anything. There are a million scenarios where either team wins or loses this trade. The Wild get the much longer window for turning Fiala into a 60+ point player. Nashville gets a short lived two playoff push with Granlund before he hits the free agent market.
I wouldn't want Granlund at $8m+ to begin with. He's a good player but I don't consider him elite. If the Wild kept him for this year his value probably would have gone from Fiala to 1st+non-elite prospect with only one year left on his contract. Which would you rather have? Try to re-sign Granlund at $8m+, Fiala+cap space, or 1st+non-elite prospect + cap space? I think I'm leaning towards Fiala+cap space.
Yes, I'd pay Panarin $10-11m a season. Yes, I'd pay Duchene $9-9.5m. All would be better deals than Granlund at $8m or higher. Cheaper player to target: Donskoi.
There is certainly a point to take Fiala and longer window. Wild probably won't be contenders while Granlund is in his prime. But it still doesn't change the fact that Fenton should have gotten more.
Btw why do so many think Granlund would cost 8m+? After the small cooldown he has had this year, I'd say he gets 6-7m if he signs next summer. As a small guy in his late 20s, I don't think he get more in free agency either. GMs are smarter these days about overpaying ageing UFAs.
