Proposal: Leafs - Wild

[White Shadow]

It's not that we think brodin for nylander is fair, it's just the only thing that would make trading brodin worth it. We know it's a no from Toronto

Whatever X draft trade the Wild make will be in favour of the opposing team. I'm sure the Wild management have accepted that fact already.

There are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. Make no X draft trade and lose one of the best players available in the draft.

2. Make some sort of trade that mitigates the loss of the above player.

If 2 is the outcome, the return will be less than favourable for the Wild, but still better than the outright loss of the player in 1.

 

[Bazeek]

Whatever X draft trade the Wild make will be in favour of the opposing team. I'm sure the Wild management have accepted that fact already.

There are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. Make no X draft trade and lose one of the best players available in the draft.

2. Make some sort of trade that mitigates the loss of the above player.

If 2 is the outcome, the return will be less than favourable for the Wild, but still better than the outright loss of the player in 1.

And yet, after months of discussing here and elsewhere, no one has managed to come up with a realistic trade that's actually better than option 1. Because it doesn't mitigate the loss of the player, it just shifts the crosshairs to a different one.

It sucks for Minnesota, but it doesn't present the sort of golden opportunity for other teams that many seem to think it does.

 

[NotYou]

Whatever X draft trade the Wild make will be in favour of the opposing team. I'm sure the Wild management have accepted that fact already.

There are only 2 possible scenarios:

1. Make no X draft trade and lose one of the best players available in the draft.

2. Make some sort of trade that mitigates the loss of the above player.

If 2 is the outcome, the return will be less than favourable for the Wild, but still better than the outright loss of the player in 1.

Option 3: offer Vegas a carrot to take the second best player we expose.
Your caveat for 2 is dead on but it doesn't seem like anything will actually fit it

 

[White Shadow]

And yet, after months of discussing here and elsewhere, no one has managed to come up with a realistic trade that's actually better than option 1. Because it doesn't mitigate the loss of the player, it just shifts the crosshairs to a different one.

It sucks for Minnesota, but it doesn't present the sort of golden opportunity for other teams that many seem to think it does.

I'd say it's favourable to other teams but not necessarily golden. There's still 30 other teams, including Vegas to compete with.

I would think a trade that sends you 1 or 2 X draft exempt players (1 forward, 1 defense) for Pominville and one of your Dmen is favourable to just losing one of your strong Dmen. This saves you cap room and has you losing a forward at the expense of a small downgrade on both defense and forward. Of course, this all would be contingent on Pominville accepting a trade.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at the Wild's expansion situation so maybe I am way off on this.

 

[NotYou]

I'd say it's favourable to other teams but not necessarily golden. There's still 30 other teams, including Vegas to compete with.

I would think a trade that sends you 1 or 2 X draft exempt players (1 forward, 1 defense) for Pominville and one of your Dmen is favourable to just losing one of your strong Dmen. This saves you cap room and has you losing a forward at the expense of a small downgrade on both defense and forward. Of course, this all would be contingent on Pominville accepting a trade.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at the Wild's expansion situation so maybe I am way off on this.

You're a bit off. Suter spurgeon brodin scandella and dumba are all good. Trading one of those+poms means we still have to expose a good dman= 3 good dmen next year. If we just let vegas take one we go into next year with a good top 4. A trade covering that gap means the other team isn't getting anything close to a bargain

 

[White Shadow]

You're a bit off. Suter spurgeon brodin scandella and dumba are all good. Trading one of those+poms means we still have to expose a good dman= 3 good dmen next year. If we just let vegas take one we go into next year with a good top 4. A trade covering that gap means the other team isn't getting anything close to a bargain

Wouldn't you go 4 + 4 if you moved a Dman?

 

[Bazeek]

Wouldn't you go 4 + 4 if you moved a Dman?

Then we'd end up losing one of Coyle, Nino or Granlund, which is arguably worse. It's not appreciably better, anyway.

 

[White Shadow]

Then we'd end up losing one of Coyle, Nino or Granlund, which is arguably worse. It's not appreciably better, anyway.

But remember, you've moved Pom and received an extra exempt forward in this hypothetical, freeing up another forward protection spot. So you'd most likely be able to choose which one of those 3 you would want to expose. Vegas would be choosing between Staal and one of those 3 forwards.

Being a fan of a team that is starved for good defenseman, maybe I'm overestimating the value of defense.

 

[TaLoN]

But remember, you've moved Pom and received an extra exempt forward in this hypothetical, freeing up another forward protection spot. So you'd most likely be able to choose which one of those 3 you would want to expose. Vegas would be choosing between Staal and one of those 3 forwards.

Being a fan of a team that is starved for good defenseman, maybe I'm overestimating the value of defense.

Even if we don't trade Poms,we need to ask him to waive his clause to gain the protection spot for Zucker.

We simply have a larger need for forward protection spots that we have to go 7-3-1 no matter what.

We can afford to lose 1 single D, but imo we're better off trying to trade with Vegas to dictate who that D is than we are trying to do a trade with someone else to try to mitigate that upcoming loss.

 

[Bazeek]

Even if we don't trade Poms,we need to ask him to waive his clause to gain the protection spot for Zucker.

We simply have a larger need for forward protection spots that we have to go 7-3-1 no matter what.

We can afford to lose 1 single D, but imo we're better off trying to trade with Vegas to dictate who that D is than we are trying to do a trade with someone else to try to mitigate that upcoming loss.

Agreed. I think our hopes of bribing Vegas away from Brodin and Dumba are slim to nil, but still better than trying to maneuver around all this by trading with other teams.

 

[White Shadow]

Even if we don't trade Poms,we need to ask him to waive his clause to gain the protection spot for Zucker.

We simply have a larger need for forward protection spots that we have to go 7-3-1 no matter what.

We can afford to lose 1 single D, but imo we're better off trying to trade with Vegas to dictate who that D is than we are trying to do a trade with someone else to try to mitigate that upcoming loss.

Interesting. So you guys are resigned to losing one of Brodin, Dumba or Scandella plus whoever Vegas wants in order to let the Wild choose the outgoing Dman?

 

[TaLoN]

Interesting. So you guys are resigned to losing one of Brodin, Dumba or Scandella plus whoever Vegas wants in order to let the Wild choose the outgoing Dman?

I'd gladly offer Vegas Haula + a 1st for them to take Scandella.

We save cap space with Scandella moving out, and get to keep both Brodin and Dumba,. Haula is starting to become too expensive to retain long term and will have to be moved in favor of someone on an ELC anyway, which we have internally ready to replace next season with Ericsson-Ek.

 

[White Shadow]

I'd gladly offer Vegas Haula + a 1st for them to take Scandella.

We save cap space with Scandella moving out, and get to keep both Brodin and Dumba,. Haula is starting to become too expensive to retain long term and will have to be moved in favor of someone on an ELC anyway, which we have internally ready to replace next season with Ericsson-Ek.

That's fair. I can't see any other team offering a better return than that.

I suppose it's the price you pay when you are as deep as you guys.

 

[TwiztedHeat]

I'd gladly offer Vegas Haula + a 1st for them to take Scandella.

We save cap space with Scandella moving out, and get to keep both Brodin and Dumba,. Haula is starting to become too expensive to retain long term and will have to be moved in favor of someone on an ELC anyway, which we have internally ready to replace next season with Ericsson-Ek.

It's honestly this. I'd give up Haula+1st+Scandella to Vegas every day before losing Brodin, Dumba, or any of our other top 9 forwards.

 

[57special]

I'd gladly offer Vegas Haula + a 1st for them to take Scandella.

Crazy talk.

 

[MakeCgyGreatAgain]

We get it. Your a Leafs fan. Stop with your proposals. They heavily favour the Leafd.

 

[NotYou]

Interesting. So you guys are resigned to losing one of Brodin, Dumba or Scandella plus whoever Vegas wants in order to let the Wild choose the outgoing Dman?

Yes. The goal isn't not to lose a good player for free, it's to get the team out of this in the best situation possible

Crazy talk.

Eh. I don't agree with the first but haulas gone if scandella isn't taken. Adding him isn't any skin off our back. The difference between dumba and scandella isn't quite a first but in a mediocre draft it isn't far off either

 

[Bruce Granville]

For league minimum? Because we don't have money or roster space for him.

Should be no problem for him, if he decides to live in his cabin whole year...

 

[TaLoN]

Yes. The goal isn't not to lose a good player for free, it's to get the team out of this in the best situation possible



Eh. I don't agree with the first but haulas gone if scandella isn't taken. Adding him isn't any skin off our back. The difference between dumba and scandella isn't quite a first but in a mediocre draft it isn't far off either

Keep in mind, it's a very late 1st in a weak draft.