Minnesota Wild General Discussion IV

[Bazeek]

The burden is not on advocates for a rebuild at this point. It is on the retoolers / tweakers.

The only teams to have won a Cup in the last decade are:

Caps (Ovechkin, Backstrom)
Pens (Crosby, Malkin)
Hawks (Kane, Toews)
Kings (Doughty)
Boston (Horton)

Those are the players drafted in top-5, which is higher than the Wild have drafted in that time.

Those teams were also built through drafting well later in the 1st and 2nd. That goes without saying.

But beside maybe Boston, there is not really a model for the Wild to follow. Take away those guys from the Caps, Pens, Hawks, or Kings and they do not win a Cup.

Assuming that drafting in the top-5 is a requirement for a cup, how do we account for the fact that all of those teams rebuilt under a completely different lottery system? The 2015 draft saw the odds of finishing last translating to a 1st overall reduced, and in 2016 picks #1-#3 all became lottery picks. Since 2016 the top-5's have looked like this:

2018
#1 - Buffalo (finished 31st)
#2 - Carolina (finished 21st)
#3 - Montreal (finished 28th)
#4 - Ottawa (finished 30th)
#5 - Montreal (finished 29th) *Edit: WRONG! Like Minnesnota said, this was actually Arizona

2017
#1 - New Jersey (finished 27th)
#2 - Philadelphia (finished 19th)
#3 - Dallas (finished 24th)
#4 - Colorado (finished 30th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 29th)

2016
#1 - Toronto (finished 30th)
#2 - Winnipeg (finished 25th)
#3 - Columbus (finished 27th)
#4 - Edmonton (finished 29th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 28th)

Under this system it's not all that hard to find yourself in the shoes of Vancouver (bottom-3 two years straight and only got to 5th overall) or Arizona (finished bottom-3 twice and bottom-5 once and still haven't gotten a top-5 pick *Edit: WRONG! see above). Meanwhile, teams like Philadelphia, Carolina, and Dallas have jumped up into the top-3 in seasons where they were pretty clearly aiming for the playoffs.

To me it seems like the combination of the newer lottery odds and high league parity (which means that teams stuck in the middle can jump around in the standings dramatically without big differences in performance) means that the tank-and-rebuild approach doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Drafting well, developing players properly, managing assets and cap space are all more crucial than ever, but deliberately being bad to shoot for high picks doesn't pay off the way it used to.

 

[DANOZ28]

im still frustrated i dont see any improvement to look forward to next season. if staal comes back to earth and only scores 30 ish ; zucker drops to 25-28; suter only 75% healthy meanwhile other teams are improving. only hope & prayer would be parise 25G; coyle 20G; nino 25G; granny 25G; jee 15G . i see a low 90 point season ahead just missing the playoffs.

 

[2Pair]

The burden is not on advocates for a rebuild at this point. It is on the retoolers / tweakers.

The only teams to have won a Cup in the last decade are:

Caps (Ovechkin, Backstrom)
Pens (Crosby, Malkin)
Hawks (Kane, Toews)
Kings (Doughty)
Boston (Horton)

Those are the players drafted in top-5, which is higher than the Wild have drafted in that time.

Those teams were also built through drafting well later in the 1st and 2nd. That goes without saying.

But beside maybe Boston, there is not really a model for the Wild to follow. Take away those guys from the Caps, Pens, Hawks, or Kings and they do not win a Cup.

Minnesota has two guys that were drafted in the top five, and another five guys that were top ten.

 

[Wild11MN]

Coyle and Nino were terrible and basically have to improve. Parise should be normal all year this year. All three of them should help a bunch. Staal will obviously regress a bit. Koivu is sort of an unknown at this point. Have to think JEE is better too.

With a fully healthy team (which is probably impossible), they should score more goals than last year I'd think.

 

[Minnesnota]

Assuming that drafting in the top-5 is a requirement for a cup, how do we account for the fact that all of those teams rebuilt under a completely different lottery system? The 2015 draft saw the odds of finishing last translating to a 1st overall reduced, and in 2016 picks #1-#3 all became lottery picks. Since 2016 the top-5's have looked like this:

2018
#1 - Buffalo (finished 31st)
#2 - Carolina (finished 21st)
#3 - Montreal (finished 28th)
#4 - Ottawa (finished 30th)
#5 - Montreal (finished 29th)

2017
#1 - New Jersey (finished 27th)
#2 - Philadelphia (finished 19th)
#3 - Dallas (finished 24th)
#4 - Colorado (finished 30th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 29th)

2016
#1 - Toronto (finished 30th)
#2 - Winnipeg (finished 25th)
#3 - Columbus (finished 27th)
#4 - Edmonton (finished 29th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 28th)

Under this system it's not all that hard to find yourself in the shoes of Vancouver (bottom-3 two years straight and only got to 5th overall) or Arizona (finished bottom-3 twice and bottom-5 once and still haven't gotten a top-5 pick). Meanwhile, teams like Philadelphia, Carolina, and Dallas have jumped up into the top-3 in seasons where they were pretty clearly aiming for the playoffs.

To me it seems like the combination of the newer lottery odds and high league parity (which means that teams stuck in the middle can jump around in the standings dramatically without big differences in performance) means that the tank-and-rebuild approach doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Drafting well, developing players properly, managing assets and cap space are all more crucial than ever, but deliberately being bad to shoot for high picks doesn't pay off the way it used to.

You forgot to switch Arizona to the #5 spot.

As far as the 2nd bold part: All things considered, the Wild have drafted pretty damn poorly since 2011 - and you can make a damn good argument that the entire draft history overall is poor. They have one of the worst development programs in the entire league, and for the entirety of this teams history asset management has been one of their weakest attributes.

Given that reality, where do you go? Tweaks won't make this team a cup contender. This team should be building itself for 2020 and beyond.

 

[Bazeek]

You forgot to switch Arizona to the #5 spot.

As far as the 2nd bold part: All things considered, the Wild have drafted pretty damn poorly since 2011. They have one of the worst development programs in the entire league, and for the entirety of this teams history asset management has been one of their weakest attributes.

Given that reality, where do you go? Tweaks won't make this team a cup contender. This team should be building itself for 2020 and beyond.

Ah crap, good catch. I must've read the list wrong. 2018 should have been:

#1 - Buffalo
#2 - Carolina
#3 - Montreal
#4 - Ottawa
#5 - Arizona

So Arizona did get their top-5 pick this year instead of the #6's they'd been stuck at.

I'm not quite as down on the team's drafting as some are. I don't think we've excelled there, but for the last decade we've done pretty well with our 1sts (setting aside Phillips), gotten a few NHL players from the 2nd, and some surprisingly decent prospects from the late rounds. We've struggled in the mid-rounds though, and doing well in the 1st and 2nd doesn't count for much if you can't hang on to those picks. The good news there is that Fenton sounds like someone who will focus more on the pipeline and be more conservative about moving those high picks. That's something that will take time to pay off though, even if it goes well.

Personally I'd just rather see us focus on the things we can control instead of playing the RNG game that is the draft lottery. I think there's a point at which the team is in such a bad state that that route makes more sense, I just don't think we're there right now.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Keeping your picks, hitting homeruns with late picks, superior scouting/player development......these are the ways out of the one and done abyss. As much fun as it would be to land the next McDavid, who here really thinks we would be that lucky?

Stay the course, be smart and hope that Parise and Suter are viable players as long as possible.

 

[57special]

The other approach is to sell a good, but not great roster player for a high first rounder, I.e. a 2017 Brodin for a #8 ( Mittelstadt). Risky, as you can just as well draft a Strome or Yakupov, but it's an option that doesn't require a team to tank in order to get a high pick.

The Wild under Fletcher didn't even seem to consider that option( one step back to take two forward), and far more consistently traded picks in order to get established players( one step forward to take two back later).

He was a good Gm , but lacked vision, IMO. I don't know how much of that was because of pressure from above demanding immmediate results.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The other approach is to sell a good, but not great roster player for a high first rounder, I.e. a 2017 Brodin for a #8 ( Mittelstadt). Risky, as you can just as well draft a Strome or Yakupov, but it's an option that doesn't require a team to tank in order to get a high pick.

The Wild under Fletcher didn't even seem to consider that option( one step back to take two forward), and far more consistently traded picks in order to get established players( one step forward to take two back later).

He was a good Gm , but lacked vision, IMO. I don't know how much of that was because of pressure from above demanding immmediate results.

Assuming that the team holding the high first rounder wants to trade it for a good, but not great roster player.

 

[Bazeek]

Assuming that the team holding the high first rounder wants to trade it for a good, but not great roster player.

Stepan for #7 is the closest one I think we've seen recently, and that involved other pieces both ways. I'd be surprised if anyone moved a top-10 pick for Brodin.

 

[57special]

Assuming that the team holding the high first rounder wants to trade it for a good, but not great roster player.

Of course. It does happen, though. Some teams are desperate to get out of the cellar, have had bad luck developing their top picks, and are looking for very competent starting players. Mittelstadt slipped in the draft rankings because of the combine/MNHS....I could easily see BUFF choosing Brodin over him, with their pitiful D.

Just presenting an alternative path to get out of the "slightly above average" plateau that we find this team in, rather than either;

1- tanking
2- selling draft picks for established players

I don't know what "tweaking" is in terms of hockey. Signing aging 4th liners and overpaying 3rd pairing Dmen? Maybe Leipold meant "twerking"? Maybe Fenton has no idea what he means either, but isn't saying anything and just nods his head when the boss says it.

 

[57special]

Stepan for #7 is the closest one I think we've seen recently, and that involved other pieces both ways. I'd be surprised if anyone moved a top-10 pick for Brodin.

The point is not to get locked onto Brodin, or any one player, but rather the concept. The player could be Zucker, or Coyle/Nino(both worth quite a lot after 2016/17),etc..

 

[BigT2002]

Of course. It does happen, though. Some teams are desperate to get out of the cellar, have had bad luck developing their top picks, and are looking for very competent starting players. Mittelstadt slipped in the draft rankings because of the combine/MNHS....I could easily see BUFF choosing Brodin over him, with their pitiful D.

Just presenting an alternative path to get out of the "slightly above average" plateau that we find this team in, rather than either;

1- tanking
2- selling draft picks for established players

I don't know what "tweaking" is in terms of hockey. Signing aging 4th liners and overpaying 3rd pairing Dmen? Maybe Leipold meant "twerking"? Maybe Fenton has no idea what he means either, but isn't saying anything and just nods his head when the boss says it.

We all probably have different definitions. Mine is to upgrade by position with proven talent as opposed to taking a risk at a prospect or draft picks. This doesn't mean sell the farm to get a like Taylor Hall. It means what players are available that can be gotten that either are upgrades to what they already have or can be plugged into the roster and fill a need the team is missing. But you're only looking at maybe 2-3 tops for the entire roster.

IMHO, that should only be done if you're within arms reach of what you're looking for. Right now. The Wild are not there any longer in my eyes. Too many pieces need to be enhanced and/or replaced.

 

[Bazeek]

The point is not to get locked onto Brodin, or any one player, but rather the concept. The player could be Zucker, or Coyle/Nino(both worth quite a lot after 2016/17),etc..

Yeah, I get that. I just think you'd have a hard time pulling a top-10 pick for any of those guys because the picks only seem to get moved under specific circumstances. Arizona had needed a 1C for multiple seasons, had the prospect pool to feel comfortable giving up #7, and had generally struggled to sign high-profile UFA's. It seems less likely (though not impossible) that you'll find a team that needs Zucker/Coyle/Nino/Brodin in the same way. They're valuable players, but you can often get similar caliber guys via other means.

Which isn't to say I'd fall over myself to trade Zucker for #9 overall or whatever either, because that trade doesn't necessarily make sense from our end either.

 

[Minnesnota]

Kind of interesting, there's a thread on some of the main boards talking about teams with the best top 4. Quite a few people have the Wild in the top 5, and even as high as #2. No opinion either way, just find it interesting to see where fans of other teams rate the Wild defense.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Kind of interesting, there's a thread on some of the main boards talking about teams with the best top 4. Quite a few people have the Wild in the top 5, and even as high as #2. No opinion either way, just find it interesting to see where fans of other teams rate the Wild defense.

I think they are pretty concensus top 5 now that Dumba has picked up his game, and the secret is out on Spurgeon.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

And yet the majority of posters will say the Wild will miss the playoffs in 2 months when the prediction threads start on the MB. Top 5 D = miss playoffs i guess. Gotta love HFB.

 

[Wabit]

And yet the majority of posters will say the Wild will miss the playoffs in 2 months when the prediction threads start on the MB. Top 5 D = miss playoffs i guess. Gotta love HFB.

Top 5 d-corps but they are only a 2 line team right now. Jets, Blues, and Preds also have really good d-corps, so it really is just par for the Central Division. It's not like we're in the defense optional, and weaker overall, Atlantic Division.

 

[2Pair]

And yet the majority of posters will say the Wild will miss the playoffs in 2 months when the prediction threads start on the MB. Top 5 D = miss playoffs i guess. Gotta love HFB.

To be fair- You could pretty easily be a top 10 team in the NHL and still miss the playoffs in the Central.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Assuming that drafting in the top-5 is a requirement for a cup, how do we account for the fact that all of those teams rebuilt under a completely different lottery system? The 2015 draft saw the odds of finishing last translating to a 1st overall reduced, and in 2016 picks #1-#3 all became lottery picks. Since 2016 the top-5's have looked like this:

2018
#1 - Buffalo (finished 31st)
#2 - Carolina (finished 21st)
#3 - Montreal (finished 28th)
#4 - Ottawa (finished 30th)
#5 - Montreal (finished 29th) *Edit: WRONG! Like Minnesnota said, this was actually Arizona

2017
#1 - New Jersey (finished 27th)
#2 - Philadelphia (finished 19th)
#3 - Dallas (finished 24th)
#4 - Colorado (finished 30th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 29th)

2016
#1 - Toronto (finished 30th)
#2 - Winnipeg (finished 25th)
#3 - Columbus (finished 27th)
#4 - Edmonton (finished 29th)
#5 - Vancouver (finished 28th)

Under this system it's not all that hard to find yourself in the shoes of Vancouver (bottom-3 two years straight and only got to 5th overall) or Arizona (finished bottom-3 twice and bottom-5 once and still haven't gotten a top-5 pick *Edit: WRONG! see above). Meanwhile, teams like Philadelphia, Carolina, and Dallas have jumped up into the top-3 in seasons where they were pretty clearly aiming for the playoffs.

To me it seems like the combination of the newer lottery odds and high league parity (which means that teams stuck in the middle can jump around in the standings dramatically without big differences in performance) means that the tank-and-rebuild approach doesn't make a lot of sense anymore. Drafting well, developing players properly, managing assets and cap space are all more crucial than ever, but deliberately being bad to shoot for high picks doesn't pay off the way it used to.

You're point about the changing lottery is valid, but I fear Minnesota fans have an aversion to being bad short term because they fear they are never going to get out. But that is looking at bad team with high picks without any nuance.

Wolves are a great example. They suck for a long time. They put together ok teams around KG or Kevin Love, and then small market delusions set in where people think that is enough to get a Championship. It's not. It takes a lot of time and a lot more better players. So, the Wolves finally do the smart thing and trade Love for Wiggins. They draft Lavine. They draft KAT. They draft Dunn. They maintain cap flexibility. Then Thibs comes in and he gets frustrated with kids so he does something silly. He tries to "speed up" the rebuild (echos of Fletcher, no?) and he trades Lavine and Dunn (plus the pick that would be future NBA All-Star Markkanen) for Butler and a later 1st, just so the Wolves can get into the playoffs for 2 years before Butler check out to go play with Kyrie. That's a whole lot of bad rebuilding.

 

[2Pair]

You're point about the changing lottery is valid, but I fear Minnesota fans have an aversion to being bad short term because they fear they are never going to get out. But that is looking at bad team with high picks without any nuance.

Wolves are a great example. They suck for a long time. They put together ok teams around KG or Kevin Love, and then small market delusions set in where people think that is enough to get a Championship. It's not. It takes a lot of time and a lot more better players. So, the Wolves finally do the smart thing and trade Love for Wiggins. They draft Lavine. They draft KAT. They draft Dunn. They maintain cap flexibility. Then Thibs comes in and he gets frustrated with kids so he does something silly. He tries to "speed up" the rebuild (echos of Fletcher, no?) and he trades Lavine and Dunn (plus the pick that would be future NBA All-Star Markkanen) for Butler and a later 1st, just so the Wolves can get into the playoffs for 2 years before Butler check out to go play with Kyrie. That's a whole lot of bad rebuilding.

Using the T-Wolves as an example isn't going to help "team tank".

 

[TaLoN]

Dumba decided to file for arbitration, means no offer sheet possibility. Zucker is also expected to file by the deadline.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Zucker = JT Miller's deal (5 x $5.25)
Dumba = Seth Jones' deal x cap inflation (6 x ~$5.85)

Boom. Done. Not hard.

 

[Wabit]

Zucker = JT Miller's deal (5 x $5.25)
Dumba = Seth Jones' deal x cap inflation (6 x ~$5.85)

Boom. Done. Not hard.

Jones couldn't be used as a comparable, he signed his contract after his ELC. Dumba is coming off of a 2 year bridge deal after his ELC.

I'm not sure if Miller/Zucker works or not. If so then Nino and/or Granny (from last year) would also fall into that same grouping.

 

[Saga of the Elk]

Jones couldn't be used as a comparable, he signed his contract after his ELC. Dumba is coming off of a 2 year bridge deal after his ELC.

I'm not sure if Miller/Zucker works or not. If so then Nino and/or Granny (from last year) would also fall into that same grouping.

Doubt either guy actually gets to arbitration. These are just the reasonable ranges the agents and the Wild will be negotiating. Zucker's deal is somewhat contingent on his domestic situation - he's worth more than Miller. Seems a bit light for Dumba too but Fenton does come from the org that negotiated three of the best defenseman deals (for the org) in recent NHL history: Josi, Ellis, Ekholm.