Minnesota Wild General Discussion VIII

[Dr Jan Itor]

If you think Staal should've been traded, then you have to believe the same about Spurgeon. Especially if that contact is the alternative.

I thought Staal should've been traded because I thought that a wink-wink "come back" deal was doable.

 

[2Pair]

And if the value for him on the block isn't there, all of a sudden you've shot yourself in the foot, Spurgeon won't re-sign, you either take less value for him or he walks. His deal isn't team friendly, but it's not going to break the franchise at any point.

Regardless, how does putting Spurgeon on the trade block improve the team and what does it do to address the fact that all the other veterans have been bad?

If your team is aging and getting worse? You're not going to fix it by waiting it out.

 

[TaLoN]

I agree, but that doesn't change anything that I said

Staal could have been traded, yet Spurgeon re-signed...other moves could have been made to fill a center position...

That said, I wanted to trade both and said as much at the time, but that's besides the point.

 

[NHL1674]

We're 0-4..I'm thinking it's perfect time to maintain the course.

I've come to terms with them being bad this year simply based on their roster, but I won't ever embrace a tank. I won't ever hope for them to go out there and lose.

 

[2Pair]

Staal could have been traded, yet Spurgeon re-signed...other moves could have been made to fill a center position...

That said, I wanted to trade both and said as much at the time, but that's besides the point.

At least Staal was willing to take a team friendly deal. Spurgeon bent Guerin over

 

[AKL]

If your team is aging and getting worse? You're not going to fix it by waiting it out.

So we have a situation where Guerin inherits this roster with a signed Staal, Koivu, Suter, Parise, Zuccarello for varying lengths and amounts. We also have an unsigned Spurgeon. Guerin should have anticipated that the team was going to take a nosedive off a cliff to start the year, led by the five aforementioned veterans. Fine. From that we go to say he shouldn't have signed another aging veteran. Fine.

So now we have Spurgeon as an expiring UFA on the block because we successfully anticipated our other five veterans would suck. What do we do now that we've anticipated that. How does not having Spurgeon signed affect in any way the fact that the team and the veterans suck? Does Guerin walk into the office and immediately pick up the phones trying to trade Zuccarello, Koivu and Staal?

What does he do once he anticipates that our guys are going to age out this quickly?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

At least Staal was willing to take a team friendly deal. Spurgeon bent Guerin over

Spuregon only "bent Guerin over" if he only deserved 5 x $5, which brings us back to what started this whole thing.

 

[Jaakarh]

I am fine about Spurgeon's contract. The guy has done great for the Wild and been underpaid and underrated so long that he can get his money. I much rather give it to him than someone coming outside. Things are going downhill anyway so fast that his cap hit shouldn't be an issue when the team goes into a rebuild in the coming years.

 

[2Pair]

So we have a situation where Guerin inherits this roster with a signed Staal, Koivu, Suter, Parise, Zuccarello for varying lengths and amounts. We also have an unsigned Spurgeon. Guerin should have anticipated that the team was going to take a nosedive off a cliff to start the year, led by the five aforementioned veterans. Fine. From that we go to say he shouldn't have signed another aging veteran. Fine.

So now we have Spurgeon as an expiring UFA on the block because we successfully anticipated our other five veterans would suck. What do we do now that we've anticipated that. How does not having Spurgeon signed affect in any way the fact that the team and the veterans suck? Does Guerin walk into the office and immediately pick up the phones trying to trade Zuccarello, Koivu and Staal?

What does he do once he anticipates that our guys are going to age out this quickly?

Is the answer to sign 30 year olds to long term contracts? Didn't think so

 

[AKL]

Spuregon only "bent Guerin over" if he only deserved 5 x $5, which brings us back to what started this whole thing.

+1
There was no chance Spurgeon was ever going to get under 6.5M. An extra 1M for an extra 1 year isn't "bent over"

 

[2Pair]

Spuregon only "bent Guerin over" if he only deserved 5 x $5, which brings us back to what started this whole thing.

Huh?

 

[AKL]

Is the answer to sign 30 year olds to long term contracts? Didn't think so

Yeah, I'm asking you what the answer is since you seem to have them all. In this scenario I've already conceded that we don't re-sign Spurgeon. I'm asking you what's next to address the actual, real problems this team is facing right now.

 

[TaLoN]

I am fine about Spurgeon's contract. The guy has done great for the Wild and been underpaid and underrated so long that he can get his money. I much rather give it to him than someone coming outside. Things are going downhill anyway so fast that his cap hit shouldn't be an issue when the team goes into a rebuild in the coming years.

That's the thing, I don't see a years long rebuild coming. We have high quality talent coming soon.

If we go into a years long rebuild, how long do you think Kaprizov wants to stay in flyover country on a losing team?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Huh?

I don't live in a world where $6.6M is "fair" and $6.8M is "bent over". Or whatever the numbers are.

 

[NHL1674]

Further more, Kap isn't going to want to join a team that is tanking hard for a few years.

Listen, I know the roster is in rough shape and that it needs a lot of fixing. Not disagreeing with that. It's going to be a rough season, and I'm accepting of that at this point. It is what it is. But tanking isn't a message you want to send, and very, very rarely do teams ever benefit from it.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

That's the thing, I don't see a years long rebuild coming. We have high quality talent coming soon.

If we go into a years long rebuild, how long do you think Kaprizov wants to stay in flyover country on a losing team?

If the "rebuild" takes longer than the 4 years we have him under control, then it really doesn't matter much what he thinks when he's 27.

 

[TaLoN]

If the "rebuild" takes longer than the 4 years we have him under control, then it really doesn't matter much what he thinks when he's 27.

People talk like it will take 4-5 years to fix this. We're not in such dire straits.

 

[2Pair]

Yeah, I'm asking you what the answer is since you seem to have them all. In this scenario I've already conceded that we don't re-sign Spurgeon. I'm asking you what's next to address the actual, real problems this team is facing right now.

The answer is that you turn Spurgeon into, at a minimum, 1 quality young asset and then use the $7.5M in cap space for more assets.

 

[NHL1674]

That's the thing, I don't see a years long rebuild coming. We have high quality talent coming soon.

If we go into a years long rebuild, how long do you think Kaprizov wants to stay in flyover country on a losing team?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

People talk like it will take 4-5 years to fix this. We're not in such dire straits.

How may teams have dropped from playoffs to top 3 drafting teams to Stanley Cup contenders in a matter of 2-3 years?

 

[2Pair]

I don't live in a world where $6.6M is "fair" and $6.8M is "bent over". Or whatever the numbers are.

But you do live in a world where you have to keep referencing 5x5 to make your point seem worthwhile?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The answer is that you turn Spurgeon into, at a minimum, 1 quality young asset and then use the $7.5M in cap space for more assets.

Kevin Hayes?

 

[AKL]

Further more, Kap isn't going to want to join a team that is tanking hard for a few years.

Listen, I know the roster is in rough shape and that it needs a lot of fixing. Not disagreeing with that. It's going to be a rough season, and I'm accepting of that at this point. It is what it is. But tanking isn't a message you want to send, and very rarely do teams even benefit from it.

What definition of tanking are we using? Teams and coaches never tank. Front offices might recognize that they're not going anywhere and need to stock up on picks and prospects for a few years to be better in the long run. Is that tanking? Teams like Colorado, Buffalo, Edmonton (finally), Carolina have been bad for years, purposely stocking up on picks and prospects, and are now reaping the benefits. Tampa Bay is reaping the benefits of "tanking" or being bad.

It may not happen instantly with one draft, or possibly even two. But there's a reason teams focus so much on building through the draft, and there's a reason that when teams are past their expiration date they start selling off veterans to get picks and prospects.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

But you do live in a world where you have to keep referencing 5x5 to make your point seem worthwhile?

I'm just trying to go "way off" from 7 x $7.5

 

[AKL]

The answer is that you turn Spurgeon into, at a minimum, 1 quality young asset and then use the $7.5M in cap space for more assets.

Why do you keep focusing on Spurgeon? We're past Spurgeon. We've already decided to trade him. We're talking about what Guerin does with Staal, Koivu, Zuccarello, Suter and Parise. And what he does to address the fact that this team still sucks even if we trade Spurgeon.