Value of: Players Minnesota should consider trading for, and what you’d give up for them

[Goose312]

Something around Dumba for Nylander works for me.

Yeah I bet it would. Certainly isn't happening from MN's end.

 

[exporta]

Dumba isn’t available.

Neither is Nylander, so we call it a day.

 

[exporta]

Yeah I bet it would. Certainly isn't happening from MN's end.

Cool, good luck then!

 

[Digitalbooya]

Neither is Nylander, so we call it a day.

So why even come here?

 

[exporta]

So why even come here?

No one is untouchable. Just because I would be willing to trade Marner for McDavid doesn't mean Marner is available.

Minnesota fan made a thread, and Nylander was mentioned as a target. I said I would move him for Dumba. A fan said he isn't available, and I am saying neither is Nylander unless it's for Dumba.

Am I to assume Minnesota rejects an offer of Dahlin for Dumba?

Is that too hard to comprehend?

 

[Digitalbooya]

No one is untouchable. Just because I would be willing to trade Marner for McDavid doesn't mean Marner is available.

Minnesota fan made a thread, and Nylander was mentioned as a target. I said I would move him for Dumba. A fan said he isn't available, and I am saying neither is Nylander unless it's for Dumba.

Am I to assume Minnesota rejects an offer of Dahlin for Dumba?

Is that too hard to comprehend?

Okay, but Nylander has less value than Dumba so your examples of Marner for McDavid and Dumba for Dahlin don’t apply

 

[exporta]

Okay, but Nylander has less value than Dumba so your examples of Marner for McDavid and Dumba for Dahlin don’t apply

????

Dahlin has more value than Dumba.
McDavid has more value than Marner.

Replace McDavid with Dumba, and Marner with Nylander. Or Dahlin with Dumba and Dumba with Nylander.

Dumba not available, Marner is not available. If there is a greater value asset to be had, they become available.

Are you suggesting marner has more value than mcdavid?

How does it not apply?

 

[Digitalbooya]

????

Dahlin has more value than Dumba.
McDavid has more value than Marner.

Replace McDavid with Dumba, and Marner with Nylander. Or Dahlin with Dumba and Dumba with Nylander.

Dumba not available, Marner is not available. If there is a greater value asset to be had, they become available.

How does it not apply?

They don’t apply because Minnesota isn’t getting a greater asset in Dumba for Nylander. Sure, if Edmonton came calling with the best player in the league then of course Dumba is available. Let me rephrase for you: Dumba isn’t available for Nylander. The upward trajectory he is on would be stupid to trade away barring massive overpayment.

 

[exporta]

They don’t apply because Minnesota isn’t getting a greater asset in Dumba for Nylander. Sure, if Edmonton came calling with the best player in the league then of course Dumba is available. Let me rephrase for you: Dumba isn’t available for Nylander. The upward trajectory he is on would be stupid to trade away barring massive overpayment.

And Nylander isn't available for anyone but Dumba.

How are you having a hard time understanding that statement? It was suggested Nylander was a target, I posted what it would take imo.

A poster replied, Dumba isn't available. Neither is Nylander.

You told me, why even bother posting? Because I posted what I would move Nylander for, which is a reasonable post.

Why are you asking why I bothered to post? This is a hockey board, for discussion. Someone brought up a player from the team I like, who imo isn't available unless we get an upgrade.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? And why do suggest my post is unworthy of a hockey board?

 

[Digitalbooya]

And Nylander isn't available for anyone but Dumba.

How are you having a hard time understanding that statement? It was suggested Nylander was a target, I posted what it would take imo.

A poster replied, Dumba isn't available. Neither is Nylander.

You told me, why even bother posting? Because I posted what I would move Nylander for, which is a reasonable post.

Why are you asking why I bothered to post? This is a hockey board, for discussion. Someone brought up a player from the team I like, who imo isn't available unless we get an upgrade.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend? And why do suggest my post is unworthy of a hockey board?

Spurgeon is the best I've got for you. Move on if it's not enough. It's been said in countless threads, including this one and the Nylander thread, that we won't trade Dumba for Nylander. You came into this thread where it already said Dumba for Nylander won't happen:

\. Even if they don't we're probably looking at something around Nylander and Dumba, which doesn't interest me personally. That idea is beginning to take on a distinct Dumba+ for RNH air.

If improving offense is the goal, it doesn't make much sense to trade away your 50pt 23yro right shot defenseman.

No, Dumba shouldn't be part of that deal.

That said, Spurgeon+ wouldn't be a terrible start on such a deal.

Then when it was said Dumba isn't available for the nth time your counter was that neither is Nylander? Okay, so what a waste of time.

Understand?

 

[exporta]

Spurgeon is the best I've got for you. Move on if it's not enough. It's been said in countless threads, including this one and the Nylander thread, that we won't trade Dumba for Nylander. You came into this thread where it already said Dumba for Nylander won't happen:



Then when it was said Dumba isn't available for the nth time your counter was that neither is Nylander? Okay, so what a waste of time.

Understand?

Dude, you are still on this?

I could care less about your conversations with other posters, my opinion is not effected or based on other leaf fans opinions.

*I* would do something based around Nylander and Dumba.

No one on this site is a GM, and everyone gets value wrong on here. If *I'm* dealing Nylander, it's for a Dumba type player in return.

I'm sorry if you feel like you are the authority on what people should or should not post.

Spurgeon is a good player, but *I* am not moving Nylander for anyone on Min (a team I actually like) for anything less than Dumba.

In my opinion, Nylander isn't available. But if we could get Dumba that changes.

 

[57special]

I'm one Wild fan who thinks that Nylander for Dumba is fair, especially if Nylander turns out to be able to play C.

 

[AKL]

I'm one Wild fan who thinks that Nylander for Dumba is fair, especially if Nylander turns out to be able to play C.

I think it's only fair if Nylander can play C. Why would we trade Dumba with what he is, for anything less than an equally valuable C?

 

[TaLoN]

Dude, you are still on this?

I could care less about your conversations with other posters, my opinion is not effected or based on other leaf fans opinions.

*I* would do something based around Nylander and Dumba.

No one on this site is a GM, and everyone gets value wrong on here. If *I'm* dealing Nylander, it's for a Dumba type player in return.

I'm sorry if you feel like you are the authority on what people should or should not post.

Spurgeon is a good player, but *I* am not moving Nylander for anyone on Min (a team I actually like) for anything less than Dumba.

In my opinion, Nylander isn't available. But if we could get Dumba that changes.

Then there is no discussion to be had.

 

[Bazeek]

I'm one Wild fan who thinks that Nylander for Dumba is fair, especially if Nylander turns out to be able to play C.

I wouldn't make the trade, but I don't see an argument for the two not being pretty close in value. Even as a wing he's put up 61 points the last two seasons and is only 22.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I'm one Wild fan who thinks that Nylander for Dumba is fair, especially if Nylander turns out to be able to play C.

Would you trade Dumba for RNH? That’s who Nylander reminds me of and he’s about to get the cap hit to match. Soft, one dimensional winger that benefits greatly from playing next to one of the best players in the league. He will never be a 1C on a good team.

 

[exporta]

Then there is no discussion to be had.

Exactly what I said 4 posts ago! Good luck to you guys in your search!

 

[Kamiccolo]

I've said it before but I would be very open to a Dumba for Nylander swap. I don't know if it would be 1 for 1 but I think Dumba is the kind of RD we need.

 

[Kamiccolo]

Would you trade Dumba for RNH? That’s who Nylander reminds me of and he’s about to get the cap hit to match. Soft, one dimensional winger that benefits greatly from playing next to one of the best players in the league. He will never be a 1C on a good team.

Psst Check out his splits when he played center this year vs wing, he was just as good. Don't judge him off the 7 playoff games he is consistently better than that, and was better than that last series against the caps.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I've said it before but I would be very open to a Dumba for Nylander swap. I don't know if it would be 1 for 1 but I think Dumba is the kind of RD we need.

*sigh*
Dumba is not available for Nylander.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Psst Check out his splits when he played center this year vs wing, he was just as good. Don't judge him off the 7 playoff games he is consistently better than that, and was better than that last series against the caps.

Somebody ran the numbers on the Wild board. I believe it came out to a 66pt pace with Matthews and a 45pt pace without Matthews though it was also a small sample size without Matthews.

That’s also the thing. The Wild have so many players that do well in the regular season and then no-show in the playoffs.

 

[57special]

Would you trade Dumba for RNH? That’s who Nylander reminds me of and he’s about to get the cap hit to match. Soft, one dimensional winger that benefits greatly from playing next to one of the best players in the league. He will never be a 1C on a good team.

No. RNH is 3-4 years older than Nylander, and has pretty well reached his ceiling. Nylander more than likely hasn't. Surprised that this has to be explained to you.

It's fine if you don't like Nylander, but to pretend that Dumba is a player with no holes in his game is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that MN should trade Dumba for Nylander, but I certainly think it's the basis for a fair trade. I think a line of Granlund, Nylander, and Coyle/Nino would be great in the future.

 

[Mickey the mouse]

No. RNH is 3-4 years older than Nylander, and has pretty well reached his ceiling. Nylander more than likely hasn't. Surprised that this has to be explained to you.

It's fine if you don't like Nylander, but to pretend that Dumba is a player with no holes in his game is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that MN should trade Dumba for Nylander, but I certainly think it's the basis for a fair trade. I think a line of Granlund, Nylander, and Coyle/Nino would be great in the future.

Dumba and Lodnia for Nylander ( signed ) and Kappanen

 

[57special]

Dumba and Lodnia for Nylander ( signed ) and Kappanen

Why even bother with Lodnia and Kapanen? Confuses things unnecessarily.

Having said all that, I don't see the Wild trading Dumba. Nylander is a luxury, Dumba and Brodin are the future #1 pairing for MN, and are a necessity to keep around. Dumba has his faults, but he is still scratching the surface when it comes to running the PP because he is blocked by Suter, and to a lesser extent, Spurgeon.

 

[Digitalbooya]

No. RNH is 3-4 years older than Nylander, and has pretty well reached his ceiling. Nylander more than likely hasn't. Surprised that this has to be explained to you.

It's fine if you don't like Nylander, but to pretend that Dumba is a player with no holes in his game is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that MN should trade Dumba for Nylander, but I certainly think it's the basis for a fair trade. I think a line of Granlund, Nylander, and Coyle/Nino would be great in the future.

I never said Dumba doesn’t have holes in his game. However the upward trajectory he’s on doesn’t bode well for trading unless it’s massive overpayment in return. Plain and simple. A franchise that traded away a young stud defenseman before should know better.