Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency XX

[57special]

I was pretty sure Vanek is a NMC, but he shouldn't be included in the draft? If he doesn't need to be protected, I would suggest that we let him play out the string this year (unless we can trade him for dimes on the dollar), then next year we can CONSIDER buying out MK's final year so we don't have to protect his spot. Would then take him back on a final,career ending deal.

A bit radical, I know, but losing a good young player for a final year of Mikko just doesn't make sense, to me.

Is there actually going to be an expansion team(s)? Shouldn't here be more action, if they are going to be playing in 2018?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I was pretty sure Vanek is a NMC, but he shouldn't be included in the draft? If he doesn't need to be protected, I would suggest that we let him play out the string this year (unless we can trade him for dimes on the dollar), then next year we can CONSIDER buying out MK's final year so we don't have to protect his spot. Would then take him back on a final,career ending deal.

A bit radical, I know, but losing a good young player for a final year of Mikko just doesn't make sense, to me.

Is there actually going to be an expansion team(s)? Shouldn't here be more action, if they are going to be playing in 2018?

Ah, yes. Burnside's article differed from Russo, who listed an NMC. Either way, I can't see forced protection on a guy whose contract expires in a week.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Ah, yes. Burnside's article differed from Russo, who listed an NMC. Either way, I can't see forced protection on a guy whose contract expires in a week.

Is it weird I can totally see the NHL being petty enough to make teams do that? They hate NMCs (they hate anything that gives player's power). Just like they punished teams that signed legal long term deals with cap recapture, they could punish teams that gave out NMC.

 

[BUX7PHX]

spitballing...

To Arizona - Dumba/Brodin (+4th if helps any)

To Minnesota - #7 + Dvorak

No. Not close. Dvorak is moving very high up on prospect lists...

Is there anything around Scandella and #15 for the #7 pick?

To MIN: #7 OA, #157 OA, Klas Dahlbeck

To AZ: #15 OA, Scandella, #105 OA

 

[AKL]

No. Not close. Dvorak is moving very high up on prospect lists...

Is there anything around Scandella and #15 for the #7 pick?

To MIN: #7 OA, #157 OA, Klas Dahlbeck

To AZ: #15 OA, Scandella, #105 OA

Not a chance. Wouldn't do Scandella for 7 straight up.

 

[tomgilbertfan]

Not a chance. Wouldn't do Scandella for 7 straight up.

Agree. If we're trading Scandella it better be for a young, current top-6 NHL center.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Not a chance. Wouldn't do Scandella for 7 straight up.

Agree. If we're trading Scandella it better be for a young, current top-6 NHL center.

Fair enough - hopefully the Coyotes win the lottery. Would offer Strome and Dahlbeck for Scandella and #15 as a basis, but might still be a little much to deal with there.

 

[Saga of the Elk]

No. Not close. Dvorak is moving very high up on prospect lists...

Is there anything around Scandella and #15 for the #7 pick?

To MIN: #7 OA, #157 OA, Klas Dahlbeck

To AZ: #15 OA, Scandella, #105 OA

Why 7th? Tomorrow changes everything as far as trade speculations.

Not sure why Arizona would trade Dahlbeck anyhow and the Wild need the space on D. Scandella would definitely be a nice fit there skillwise, but he's expensive for the upgrade he represents. Think they'll sign Stone, Cannauton and Dahlbeck at least before looking for trade help.

 

[AKL]

What I thought it was going to be.

So only Parise, Suter and Koivu will be forced protects then.

Went back and looked at the Vanek signing and Pominville extension articles, and they refer to no-trade clauses, not no-move.

So if that's the case, our protection list is

F: Koivu, Parise, Coyle, Granlund, Nino, Haula, ??
D: Suter, Spurgeon, Scandella
G: Dubnyk

Barring any trades. Still lose either Brodin or Dumba.

Let's say we trade Brodin or Dumba + a forward for another forward... Either way we're still losing one of our defensemen and one of our forwards.

If we did that we could just choose the 8 skaters option, we leave Granlund, Haula and Nino to be exposed, but we can keep our top 4 defensemen.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Why 7th? Tomorrow changes everything as far as trade speculations.

Not sure why Arizona would trade Dahlbeck anyhow and the Wild need the space on D. Scandella would definitely be a nice fit there skillwise, but he's expensive for the upgrade he represents. Think they'll sign Stone, Cannauton and Dahlbeck at least before looking for trade help.

Stone, Murphy, Connauton, and Dahlbeck are all RFAs, and honestly all may be re-signed. The major issue is that late this season, Stone went down with a full ACL and MCL tear. Prognosis is roughly 6 months before he even starts skating again.

I am preparing for the worst, where OEL and Murphy are protected, then we have to make a decision between Stone and Scandella to protect. If Stone doesn't come back healthy, we expose him, and maybe a team passes, fearing medical history. If we do lose Stone, I'd rather lose the player who injured his knee within the last year vs the one that didn't.

As of right now, the Coyotes are picking 7th in the draft.

Part of the reason behind this is that the expansion draft creates some scenarios of protecting players - scenarios which Minnesota is less prepared for than other teams b/c of the number of long-term contracts sent out. I do know that in past expansion drafts, you could offer picks to take a player, so could that be a gentleman's agreement where Minnesota trades Scandella, leaves Brodin unprotected, but then tells a team that we will trade you a 2nd round pick to take player X from the Wild, but not touch Brodin.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Convert Dumba to forward.

7F: Koivu, Parise, Coyle, Granlund, Haula, Nino, Dumba
3D: Suter, Spurgeon, Scandella
1G: Dubnyk

Hope Las Vegas takes Zucker over Brodin.

It could work

 

[BUX7PHX]

Not a chance. Wouldn't do Scandella for 7 straight up.

Right now, I am sensing a massive flaw here. In various forums, I have seen basically the same response for Dumba, Brodin, and Scandella:

You are consistently asking for the equivalent of a top 10 pick for each of these players.

The problem is that you will have to keep the NMCs on your roster, of which 4 are forwards and Suter at D. So you can protect all 3 D and that is it. Or protect 2 D to save some forwards. Regardless, it appears that the team is about to lose one (or more) D for nothing in the expansion draft. Right now, there is little leverage going forward, b/c teams will work down from this top 10 stance that you are taking. Eventually, Scandella, Brodin, or Dumba may return less unless major changes to the roster are made.

Just want to understand your thoughts, b/c I get the feeling that not a lot of teams are willing to give up picks or prospects that are not in the NHL, and therefore would not be exposed in the expansion draft, whereas the D you are looking to deal would be protected by another team.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Fair enough - hopefully the Coyotes win the lottery. Would offer Strome and Dahlbeck for Scandella and #15 as a basis, but might still be a little much to deal with there.

Strome+Dahlbeck for Scandella+#15?

**** I'd think about that. Strome is gonna be awesome and I asked Coyotes fans about him earlier in the year and all said he wasn't available.

 

[TaLoN]

Right now, I am sensing a massive flaw here. In various forums, I have seen basically the same response for Dumba, Brodin, and Scandella:

You are consistently asking for the equivalent of a top 10 pick for each of these players.

The problem is that you will have to keep the NMCs on your roster, of which 4 are forwards and Suter at D. So you can protect all 3 D and that is it. Or protect 2 D to save some forwards. Regardless, it appears that the team is about to lose one (or more) D for nothing in the expansion draft. Right now, there is little leverage going forward, b/c teams will work down from this top 10 stance that you are taking. Eventually, Scandella, Brodin, or Dumba may return less unless major changes to the roster are made.

Just want to understand your thoughts, b/c I get the feeling that not a lot of teams are willing to give up picks or prospects that are not in the NHL, and therefore would not be exposed in the expansion draft, whereas the D you are looking to deal would be protected by another team.

FYI - it's only possible to lose ONE SINGLE PLAYER in the expansion draft. The moment a player is picked from your roster, all the others are removed from expansion draft eligibility.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

FYI - it's only possible to lose ONE SINGLE PLAYER in the expansion draft. The moment a player is picked from your roster, all the others are removed from expansion draft eligibility.

Unless they're having 2 teams come in at the same time.

 

[TaLoN]

Convert Dumba to forward.

7F: Koivu, Parise, Coyle, Granlund, Haula, Nino, Dumba
3D: Suter, Spurgeon, Scandella
1G: Dubnyk

Hope Las Vegas takes Zucker over Brodin.

It could work

No thank you.

Unless they're having 2 teams come in at the same time.

The NHL has already said if they expand, it's only one team at this time... meaning the 2nd team has to wait.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Strome+Dahlbeck for Scandella+#15?

**** I'd think about that. Strome is gonna be awesome and I asked Coyotes fans about him earlier in the year and all said he wasn't available.

Just remember, there is one particularly large contingency to this. I'd put its odds at 6.5%-ish.

If Arizona gets Matthews, it would not hurt to see what the Coyotes can update on the defensive end. Strome was going into the lineup anyhow, and Matthews would take his place in that scenario. If Strome is kept, in two years, Arizona's center depth is likely Matthews/Strome/Dvorak. A lot of centers in the prospect pool, so it is possible Dvorak slides to wing and not all prospects hit the league. Players like Hanzal (FA17), Richardson (FA18), or Vermette (FA17) could be re-signed and our management will always be looking to add C depth through FA and/or draft, so it is the type of risk that I would be willing to explore. Not everyone agrees with my thought and that is why the cost would be high for both teams.

My ideal trade scenario would be:

Strome/Dahlbeck/2017 6th round pick

for

#15/Scandella/2016 4th round pick/2017 4th round pick

I am just a little thrown off by the value on some of the defensemen on your roster and it would appear that there is a greater need on Minnesota's part to get value on player's that would otherwise be exposed in the expansion draft. Arizona does not need to do this, so the Coyotes are likely in a power position in that regard. Like I said though, I am one of the few on the boards that would look at deals like this. Could be Dumba or Brodin instead of Scandella, as well - it appears that the value of each is very similar.

 

[BUX7PHX]

FYI - it's only possible to lose ONE SINGLE PLAYER in the expansion draft. The moment a player is picked from your roster, all the others are removed from expansion draft eligibility.

I am aware.

Suter - NMC so he is automatically there. 3 others with NMC at end of 2017: Koivu, Pominville, Parise Now the choice is 3 more D or 2 more D out of the following:

Spurgeon
Dumba
Scandella
Brodin

There is a strong chance you lose 1 of those players. If you do not, it comes at the expense of a Coyle, Neidereiter, or Granlund - all players on good contracts with two RFA contracts. Unless you are able to buy out Koivu as well, this sets your team up for good deal - removing Scandella's deal can expose Neidereiter or Granlund of you go 4 F, 4 D, 1 G. Could keep them both when you consider losing Scandella's contract. Opens up room for a bridge deal for Dumba, too.

Actually makes a lot of sense. If you do the 7 forward, 3 defense , 1 goalie idea and trade Scandella, expose Brodin, but offer a team a pick to take a different forward that the Wild did not protect (Zucker, Haula, really any RFA that the team does not want to sign). Now you keep your top 4 in place while keeping some forward depth.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Question: would we be able to buy Vanek out next offseason? Seems like a dumb question but if they force us to protect Vanek could we buy him out? When is the expansion draft supposed to take place?

 

[Wild11MN]

Question: would we be able to buy Vanek out next offseason? Seems like a dumb question but if they force us to protect Vanek could we buy him out? When is the expansion draft supposed to take place?

I asked the same thing a few weeks ago. Down to saying I felt like it was a dumb question I don't think anyone knows. The expansion draft is set to take place between the SCF and the draft. The buyout window is June 15th - 30th, or within the same time frame.

So from what it looks like, yes? But we'd be buying him out with no years left on the contract. So I have no idea how that would work.

 

[TNor31]

I dont think teams would be required to protect pending FA's with NMC's

 

[hirawl]

Yeah it would be pretty lame to force team to protect a player who's contract is up and who, as a pending UFA, is not going to get picked up in the draft. But you never know what the league comes up with.

An article on this very issue:
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2016/3/24/11296024/expiring-contracts-are-the-missing-piece-of-the-nhl-expansion-draft

That's very interesting about that 25% rule.

 

[Digitalbooya]

With that 25% rule we'd have to expose roughly $18m? Does that include all of Iowa or just NHL?

 

[57special]

I think the Wild would have to consider trading a Dman for a #7. Screw this sending away our #15...that way we could get two young players with a good chance of helping us on the top6 within 3 years. I would go Keller/ Jost, and maybe a Rubtsov, myself. Draft picks are never a sure thing. We need as many as we can get.

This deal would presuppose that next year is a down year, and that while we would be somewhat competitive, we wouldn't be competing for a Cup.

I think we can survive trading a Dumba far more than we can survive trading a Brodin/Scandella. If, next year, someone steps up as a solid defender ( Folin, Olofsson, Reilly), then we can look to trading one of those two. Personally, I think Olofsson is the only one who can replace what Brodin can do, but he is also the furthest away timeline wise from being able to do it. He simply can't stay healthy.

I don't think Spurgeon would get any more than a #4 pick, max. Unfortunately, it appears that this is a three person draft, especially if you are looking at forwards only. I don't see a big separation between 4-8, ergo, it's not worth trading Spurge.


Oh, and the Strome talk is a because he didn't perform well in the CHL playoffs. A month ago he an "untouchable"

 

[57special]

No. Not close. Dvorak is moving very high up on prospect lists...

Is there anything around Scandella and #15 for the #7 pick?

To MIN: #7 OA, #157 OA, Klas Dahlbeck

To AZ: #15 OA, Scandella, #105 OA

You expect us to be interested in Dahlbeck? Please, try and understand the needs of the team you are trading with just a little bit. WE DON'T NEED MORE D, ESPECIALLY MEDIOCRE D! He has less than zero value to us.

So, you are expecting us to trade a 105 for a 157, which obviously favors you, and a #7 for a Scandella and a 15, which again favors you. The difference between a 7 and a 15, especially in this draft, is not a mid 20's top4 D on a good contract.

That's a bad, bad deal for the Wild.