Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency IX - Wild Looking For A Defenseman?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Minnesota

L'Etoile du Nord
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2011
28,377
1,399

Sharppi

4 more years of Dub.
Jul 15, 2011
6,419
2
Finland
I think that we have decentish depth currently, but I would like to see Veilleux permanently in the AHL teaching work ethic to the guys in Iowa and preferably sign someone like Tootoo to a 1y 625k contract to be the 13th forward.

In defense, I'm not sure how the depth will hold. Can we call up guys like Olofsson and Dumba or do we need to sign one more vet as the 7th Dman for one more year?

Goaltending will hopefully be fine and Bryz in speed dial if everything goes to ****.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
With Niklas Backstrom and Josh Harding under contract, MIN wants Kuemper on two-way contract. Kuemper, after strong playoff, wants one-way.

— Bob McKenzie (@TSNBobMcKenzie) September 8, 2014

That's pretty shocking to me. I think its pretty obvious the Wild are going to have to give him a one way deal. And he's earned a one way deal. Unless they can manage something like 700k AHL, 1.25m NHL.
 

tomthestone*

Guest
Follow up.

Yeah ok Darcy. The kids needs to take a two-way or take a hike. He's athletic but has huge gaps in his stance and needs to get a LOT tougher to be an NHL goalie.

I doubt Fletcher gets pushed around by this kid and his agent. Kuemper is going to end up bending over and taking whatever the Wild offer.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
Good luck to him.

<--- Never been a fan.

Whether your a fan or his or not, he saved our ass last year and we pretty much need him.

It just seems pretty damned shortsighted of the Wild. He’s only got 10ish games of waiver exemption left, and god knows Backs/Harding aren’t going to dress for 82 games anyways. At some point, probably pretty early on in the season, Kuemper’s exemption is going to expire and the Wild will be stuck with 3 goaltenders on the roster(no way they risk losing him for nothing via waivers).

So they are arguing for a two way for what? Save 200k until his waiver exemption expires in December?
 

BusQuets

Registered User
Jul 16, 2010
11,942
2,852
I assumed he was getting one-way either way and the issue was money.. Pretty shocking to me.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
I assumed he was getting one-way either way and the issue was money.. Pretty shocking to me.

Me to, I figured the Wild were trying to keep it around 1 Million, so the cap doesn't count when he starts the season in Iowa, and Kuemper was chasing 2-2.5m.

The Wild trying to hold firm on a 2 way seems ridiculous to me.
 

this providence

Chips in Bed Theorem
Oct 19, 2008
10,391
1
St. Paul
Whether your a fan or his or not, he saved our ass last year and we pretty much need him.

It just seems pretty damned shortsighted of the Wild. He’s only got 10ish games of waiver exemption left, and god knows Backs/Harding aren’t going to dress for 82 games anyways. At some point, probably pretty early on in the season, Kuemper’s exemption is going to expire and the Wild will be stuck with 3 goaltenders on the roster(no way they risk losing him for nothing via waivers).

So they are arguing for a two way for what? Save 200k until his waiver exemption expires in December?

He and his agent want a one-way AND significant dollar signs which are not reflective upon what he's done at the NHL level.

At the end of the day, the Wild have two goaltenders on roster. Whether or not people think they'll be able to hold up is besides the point. They're not going to get pushed around by an agent of a player like Kuemper who's proven little, at the most replaceable position in the game. Especially for this team.
 

DANOZ28

Registered User
May 22, 2012
6,887
428
nearest bar MN
kemps has to know next year hes in like flynn, why would he mess around & threaten khl? not a wise career move. he knows we're stuck with backs & hards contracts it not like hes being passed over. grrrrr! (since i cant swear too much on this gentlemans msg board)
 

tomthestone*

Guest
Kuemper just isn't that good of a goalie. When Harding and/or Backs go down, someone serviceable will be available for the low price. Kuemper isn't about to become a Vezina winner. He wouldn't be missed at all if he decides he wants to live in Russia of all places in the world.
 

this providence

Chips in Bed Theorem
Oct 19, 2008
10,391
1
St. Paul
Kuemper just isn't that good of a goalie. When Harding and/or Backs go down, someone serviceable will be available for the low price. Kuemper isn't about to become a Vezina winner. He wouldn't be missed at all if he decides he wants to live in Russia of all places in the world.

They'll get every bit out of Bryz that they would out Kuemper.
 

Lapa

Global Moderator
Feb 21, 2010
13,154
2,067
Don't like the sound of that.

I actually thought Darcy did a good job last year. Would suck to lose him.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
He and his agent want a one-way AND significant dollar signs which are not reflective upon what he's done at the NHL level.

At the end of the day, the Wild have two goaltenders on roster. Whether or not people think they'll be able to hold up is besides the point. They're not going to get pushed around by an agent of a player like Kuemper who's proven little, at the most replaceable position in the game. Especially for this team.

We have seem no credible source on this. Russo has never indicated what exactly the hold up is besides that the negations are going to be tough.

It very well could be 1way vs 2 way holding everything up.
 

this providence

Chips in Bed Theorem
Oct 19, 2008
10,391
1
St. Paul
We have seem no credible source on this. Russo has never indicated what exactly the hold up is besides that the negations are going to be tough.

It very well could be 1way vs 2 way holding everything up.

It's money on his term. Why? Because it's nonsensical if it's not.

Frankly, Kuemper isn't and will never be good enough (IMO) to warrant the headache he's bringing to simple contract discussions. It's probably time to just wash their hands of him now.
 

tomthestone*

Guest
Don't like the sound of that.

I actually thought Darcy did a good job last year. Would suck to lose him.

He did great for a stretch. Danny Valencia hit .300 in a partial season once, too. Kuemper isn't durable enough to shoulder the load without a capable backup behind him, and he gets exposed quite often when he has to quickly move side-to-side and stick with rebounds.

It would be unfortunate to just flat out lose a big goalie with some decent potential, but nothing remotely close to a crippling blow to the organization.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
It's money on his term. Why? Because it's nonsensical if it's not.

Frankly, Kuemper isn't and will never be good enough (IMO) to warrant the headache he's bringing to simple contract discussions. It's probably time to just wash their hands of him now.

Well contracts are always about money, but you said significant. Whats significant money?

Kuemper hold firm for a 1 way deal around 1m is significant money to him, but its not to the Wild.

He's done enough to earn a 1 way deal. I don't blame him for standing his ground, knowing there is a decent chance he starts in the AHL. Its not his fault the Wild blundered on Backstrom's contract, why should he take less because they messed up.
 

Nharris31

Registered User
Aug 9, 2013
4,433
225
Well contracts are always about money, but you said significant. Whats significant money?

Kuemper hold firm for a 1 way deal around 1m is significant money to him, but its not to the Wild.

He's done enough to earn a 1 way deal. I don't blame him for standing his ground, knowing there is a decent chance he starts in the AHL. Its not his fault the Wild blundered on Backstrom's contract, why should he take less because they messed up.

They signed Backstrom as a last resort so they wouldn't be stuck without a goalie.
 

Minnesota

L'Etoile du Nord
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2011
28,377
1,399
I think the Wild are resisting signing Kuemper to a 1-way deal because in the unlikely scenario where Backstrom & Harding stay healthy, they wouldn't be able to send Kuemper down to Iowa without exposing him to waivers - which means he's stuck riding the bench in Minnesota. I'd prefer he signs a 2-way contract, starts in Iowa (where he'll get to start in front of a very strong squad), and waits for one of Backstrom or Harding to get injured.

Harding is a UFA next season, which means Kuemper is basically guaranteed an NHL job. Kid needs to be patient.


Edit: Nevermind, forgot he's not eligible for waivers due to his contract type.
 
Last edited:

this providence

Chips in Bed Theorem
Oct 19, 2008
10,391
1
St. Paul
Kuemper isn't asking for $1m on a one-way, otherwise it'd be done.

I'm not arguing that he shouldn't get a one-way, he should, because a two-way deal is more or less meaningless. He asking for a contract that pays him annually more than they're willing to offer him given what he's provided.

And as you said, they may have screwed up on Backstrom. Why compound it with Kuemper who 1) isn't markedly better and 2) also has injury concerns?
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,194
I think the Wild are resisting signing Kuemper to a 1-way deal because in the unlikely scenario where Backstrom & Harding stay healthy, they wouldn't be able to send Kuemper down to Iowa without exposing him to waivers - which means he's stuck riding the bench in Minnesota. I'd prefer he signs a 2-way contract, starts in Iowa (where he'll get to start in front of a very strong squad), and waits for one of Backstrom or Harding to get injured.

Harding is a UFA next season, which means Kuemper is basically guaranteed an NHL job. Kid needs to be patient.

They can start him in the AHL without risking waivers. If he stays healthy, he simply stays in the AHL getting paid NHL money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad