Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency XXI

[thestonedkoala]

1. Finding a way to be rid of Vanek/Pominville, and keeping the promising young players is a no brainer.

2. If #1 cannot be accomplished, then getting some sort of asset/return for those promising young players, instead of losing them for nothing, is also a no brainer.

Any short term signed player should be seen as an asset. Not just Vanek/Pominville. (Pominville might be extremely difficult to move).

 

[nickschultzfan]

And the team that we're trading with a) has these kinds of players available, and b) has enough unprotected spots to not have to worry about any of the multiple players that they received being taken in the draft?

I'm very interested in which team this is.

Across the league, you'll soon start seeing a bunch of buyouts to clear rosters of NMC players, which will open up the field for protecting young players. That will change the market.

But even now there are a handful of teams that really only have a small group of players that they actually care about keeping. If push came to shove, the Wild would probably be ok with losing any of our forwards outside of maybe Coyle.

 

[forthewild]

Across the league, you'll soon start seeing a bunch of buyouts to clear rosters of NMC players, which will open up the field for protecting young players. That will change the market.

But even now there are a handful of teams that really only have a small group of players that they actually care about keeping. If push came to shove, the Wild would probably be ok with losing any of our forwards outside of maybe Coyle.

Problem with buying out a guy on an NMC is the cap hit, if you buy out two guys and get cap penalty it screws you more than losing 1 youngster.

 

[Wild11MN]

I missed the part where San Jose and St. Louis traded their promising young players for draft picks.

Because that we what we are talking about.

Yeah I misunderstood the point.

It should be a buyer's market next summer for sure if there will be a bunch of teams trying to avoid losing a valuable player for nothing in the expansion draft. Wonder how many teams will actually be affected.

Should be easier to sell high this year than next.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Across the league, you'll soon start seeing a bunch of buyouts to clear rosters of NMC players, which will open up the field for protecting young players. That will change the market.

But even now there are a handful of teams that really only have a small group of players that they actually care about keeping. If push came to shove, the Wild would probably be ok with losing any of our forwards outside of maybe Coyle.

If they're buying out players, it's to keep and protect their own (like we would be), not to have 3 open spots to absorb someone else's players.

 

[BUX7PHX]

And the team that we're trading with a) has these kinds of players available, and b) has enough unprotected spots to not have to worry about any of the multiple players that they received being taken in the draft?

I'm very interested in which team this is.

Arizona

Two picks in round 1 (#7, #20), two picks in round 2 (#37, #53). Likely prospects that could be parted with - Perlini, H. Samuelsson, Merkley, Letunov.

The Coyotes only have a limited number of players that they can protect, b/c many will be in their first or second year (my understanding is that they are already protected) or have contacts expiring soon. Heading into 2017-18 season, the following players are most likely to be protected, with comments in parentheses:

G Mike Smith
D Oliver Ekman-Larsson
D Connor Murphy (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
D Michael Stone (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
F Brad Richardson
F Anthony Duclair
F Tobias Rieder (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
F Shane Doan (UFA '16 - if-re-signed to one year deal, does not need to be protected as UFA '17)
F Martin Hanzal (UFA '17 - will be protected if extension is signed)

Everyone else on the roster will have less than two years experience, for the most part - Domi, Strome, Perlini, Dvorak, etc. So in theory, the Coyotes could pick up a defenseman from MIN and go the 4 F, 4 D, 1 G route. Or make a decision between Stone and the D acquired, but still have room to add a long-term contract or two at the forward position and be able to protect them.

Again, since the Coyotes don't necessarily have to do this, Arizona has a little more leverage. Of course, this point could also be moot if you buy out Vanek and then protect more D to risk losing a forward. Could offer a draft pick to prevent a team from taking the best forward that the Wild would expose.

#7 OA and Perlini for Scandella and #15 would be an excellent basis to build around. #7 OA, #53 OA, and Letunov for Brodin and a 2017 pick?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Arizona

Two picks in round 1 (#7, #20), two picks in round 2 (#37, #53). Likely prospects that could be parted with - Perlini, H. Samuelsson, Merkley, Letunov.

The Coyotes only have a limited number of players that they can protect, b/c many will be in their first or second year (my understanding is that they are already protected) or have contacts expiring soon. Heading into 2017-18 season, the following players are most likely to be protected, with comments in parentheses:

G Mike Smith
D Oliver Ekman-Larsson
D Connor Murphy (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
D Michael Stone (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
F Brad Richardson
F Anthony Duclair
F Tobias Rieder (RFA '16 - will be re-signed)
F Shane Doan (UFA '16 - if-re-signed to one year deal, does not need to be protected as UFA '17)
F Martin Hanzal (UFA '17 - will be protected if extension is signed)

Everyone else on the roster will have less than two years experience, for the most part - Domi, Strome, Perlini, Dvorak, etc. So in theory, the Coyotes could pick up a defenseman from MIN and go the 4 F, 4 D, 1 G route. Or make a decision between Stone and the D acquired, but still have room to add a long-term contract or two at the forward position and be able to protect them.

Again, since the Coyotes don't necessarily have to do this, Arizona has a little more leverage. Of course, this point could also be moot if you buy out Vanek and then protect more D to risk losing a forward. Could offer a draft pick to prevent a team from taking the best forward that the Wild would expose.

#7 OA and Perlini for Scandella and #15 would be an excellent basis to build around. #7 OA, #53 OA, and Letunov for Brodin and a 2017 pick?

Except Arizona doesn't have the 1 player coming back. The crux of the theory is that we'd trade 2-3 expansion eligible players for 1, therefore freeing up a spot for another player on our roster to be protected. A very unlikely example would be Brodin+Granlund for somebody like Couture. We give 2 expansion eligible players for 1.

Arizona doesn't have the "Couture" player.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Except Arizona doesn't have the 1 player coming back. The crux of the theory is that we'd trade 2-3 expansion eligible players for 1, therefore freeing up a spot for another player on our roster to be protected. A very unlikely example would be Brodin+Granlund for somebody like Couture. We give 2 expansion eligible players for 1.

Arizona doesn't have the "Couture" player.

That's fair - but to your point, there are going to be so few teams that can add 2-3 expansion eligible players for the price of one, so maybe that is a path that MIN simply can't go down.

The advantage is that packaging the #7 OA and a prospect means that MIN takes on players who would have less than two years in the NHL at the time. Perlini or Samuelsson is an example of the player who is likely NHL ready as a prospect, and is therefore protected. You could also make the case that the player taken at #7 may be able to crack the lineup if all things work out correctly, which was what the original premise was:

trade multiple expansion eligible players for one or trade players for protected assets who are NHL ready

 

[thestonedkoala]

I missed the part where San Jose and St. Louis traded their promising young players for draft picks.

Because that we what we are talking about.

Blues did have the 2nd overall pick and 1st overall pick.

San Jose just are good at drafting in the top rounds and trading.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

That's fair - but to your point, there are going to be so few teams that can add 2-3 expansion eligible players for the price of one, so maybe that is a path that MIN simply can't go down.

The advantage is that packaging the #7 OA and a prospect means that MIN takes on players who would have less than two years in the NHL at the time. Perlini or Samuelsson is an example of the player who is likely NHL ready as a prospect, and is therefore protected. You could also make the case that the player taken at #7 may be able to crack the lineup if all things work out correctly, which was what the original premise was:

trade multiple expansion eligible players for one or trade players for protected assets who are NHL ready

Right. And that's my point. I don't think that it's a viable option. I don't think, like you, that that team exists.

If we can't protect everybody that we want to because we're forced to protect some that we don't, and we can't make the fabled 2-3 players for 1 type deal, then the final option would be to get a protected asset for a good player that would otherwise be left unprotected. That is where the Brodin or Dumba to Buffalo or Arizona or whoever for their high draft pick would be an option to be considered. Take the hit now, and there would be a hit giving up somebody like Brodin, in order to hopefully see a benefit later on.

 

[nickschultzfan]

If they're buying out players, it's to keep and protect their own (like we would be), not to have 3 open spots to absorb someone else's players.

If there are 9 scenarios on what you can do with a Brodin nor Dumba to avoid losing them to the expansion draft, I am not going to convince you to not pick the 1 scenario where you dump them hasty for a pick in a few weeks.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Right. And that's my point. I don't think that it's a viable option. I don't think, like you, that that team exists.

If we can't protect everybody that we want to because we're forced to protect some that we don't, and we can't make the fabled 2-3 players for 1 type deal, then the final option would be to get a protected asset for a good player that would otherwise be left unprotected. That is where the Brodin or Dumba to Buffalo or Arizona or whoever for their high draft pick would be an option to be considered. Take the hit now, and there would be a hit giving up somebody like Brodin, in order to hopefully see a benefit later on.

I think we are saying the same thing - I doubt any team would be able to give away 1 player for 2 or 3 that the Wild have. So, that leaves deals of 3rd or 4th year players for prospects who are close.

My question immediately becomes when does Minnesota accept that this is likely the best option? Doing so this offseason is much better, IMO, b/c the longer that the Wild waits to sell these players, the closer the expansion draft becomes, and the closer that they will be to losing a player of value. It's a slippery slope, and I think it would make sense for Minnesota to explore these deals sooner, even if it means relaxing their stance on the value of some players this summer. Because the value is going to continue to decrease when Minnesota may be forced to deal a player to submit the most optimal protected list.

 

[elnewby]

^^ I don't think they will realize this. Owner, management are ready to win and I think they view this as their window to win. Whether that's the best option or not is debatable....But I think the powers that be are thinking they want to win in the next few years.

 

[Victorious Secret]

Brodin

for

Vrana
2nd

 

[57special]

Brodin

for

Vrana
2nd

Heh?

 

[nickschultzfan]

Keep in mind that the expansion team will have a limited number of expansion picks, so they might be open to save those for other players and engage in side trades.

So, Fletcher offers Zucker to Vegas for a 6th rounder and an agreement to not draft from the Wild. Vegas then can go draft guys from other teams, but basically "adds" another expansion draft pick for a 6th rounder.

 

[BigT2002]

Keep in mind that the expansion team will have a limited number of expansion picks, so they might be open to save those for other players and engage in side trades.

So, Fletcher offers Zucker to Vegas for a 6th rounder and an agreement to not draft from the Wild. Vegas then can go draft guys from other teams, but basically "adds" another expansion draft pick for a 6th rounder.

Is that even legal?

 

[ThatGuy22]

Is that even legal?

It was in previous expansion drafts. San Jose and Buffalo both traded players/picks to Minnesota and Columbus in order for them not to select Nabokov and Hasek.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Russo discussed it on a recent Male Pattern Podcast as well.

 

[TaLoN]

Is that even legal?

It satisfies the expansion draft as Zucker would technically count as their pick from the Wild, even though it wasn't from them choosing Zucker.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Keep in mind that the expansion team will have a limited number of expansion picks, so they might be open to save those for other players and engage in side trades.

So, Fletcher offers Zucker to Vegas for a 6th rounder and an agreement to not draft from the Wild. Vegas then can go draft guys from other teams, but basically "adds" another expansion draft pick for a 6th rounder.

Also keep in mind that the value of the pick given has to relate to who the expansion team could potentially take. Poor example, but let's envision that the Wild make no moves during the year, and then protect the following players after this year:

F Pominville
F Koivu
F Parise
F Coyle

D Suter
D Spurgeon
D Scandella
D Dumba

G Dubnyk

That leaves Brodin available, along with some pretty good RFA in Haula and Neiderreiter. What pick are you going to send that will convince a team to pick Zucker over any of those three? If I am the expansion team, I will be demanding a 1st round pick to take Zucker over Brodin. Hell, I am probably asking for a 1st round pick to pick Zucker over any of those three. I think that is the gray area that needs to be addressed. Theoretically, you can stop a team from taking a certain player. But again, the power of who to take and who not to take lies in the expansion team, not in the Wild (or any other team that exposed some decent players).

Sorry for kind of hi-jacking the thread into my thoughts, but MIN and AZ really make some good sense as trade partners, b/c each team has pieces that can help the other heading into the unknown territory of the expansion draft. I think this represents what I have been trying to say all along - the closer that teams get to the expansion draft with the potential of exposing high quality players, that team will lose value in trying to keep certain players. You never want to lose someone of value for nothing, but there is a point of diminishing return if management paints themselves into a corner.

 

[nickschultzfan]

Also keep in mind that the value of the pick given has to relate to who the expansion team could potentially take. Poor example, but let's envision that the Wild make no moves during the year, and then protect the following players after this year:

F Pominville
F Koivu
F Parise
F Coyle

D Suter
D Spurgeon
D Scandella
D Dumba

G Dubnyk

That leaves Brodin available, along with some pretty good RFA in Haula and Neiderreiter. What pick are you going to send that will convince a team to pick Zucker over any of those three? If I am the expansion team, I will be demanding a 1st round pick to take Zucker over Brodin. Hell, I am probably asking for a 1st round pick to pick Zucker over any of those three. I think that is the gray area that needs to be addressed. Theoretically, you can stop a team from taking a certain player. But again, the power of who to take and who not to take lies in the expansion team, not in the Wild (or any other team that exposed some decent players).

Sorry for kind of hi-jacking the thread into my thoughts, but MIN and AZ really make some good sense as trade partners, b/c each team has pieces that can help the other heading into the unknown territory of the expansion draft. I think this represents what I have been trying to say all along - the closer that teams get to the expansion draft with the potential of exposing high quality players, that team will lose value in trying to keep certain players. You never want to lose someone of value for nothing, but there is a point of diminishing return if management paints themselves into a corner.

You can't look just at the Wild. And even if you did those aren't the players who would be exposed.

The expansion team will have 30-90 quality players to draft. If one of our exposed players are in their top-10, then, yeah, that trade doesn't work. But if the highest guy is say Granlund, who they rank down the list, they are going to go draft their personal top 10-15, and go add guy like Zucker for depth outside of the draft.

 

[BUX7PHX]

You can't look just at the Wild. And even if you did those aren't the players who would be exposed.

The expansion team will have 30-90 quality players to draft. If one of our exposed players are in their top-10, then, yeah, that trade doesn't work. But if the highest guy is say Granlund, who they rank down the list, they are going to go draft their personal top 10-15, and go add guy like Zucker for depth outside of the draft.

OK, who would be protected and exposed, given the stipulations of the expansion draft.for Minnesota only?

Secondly, not all teams are in bad shape. Some are. Chicago is one of them. The Wild, right now, are not in an enviable position relative to a team like Anaheim. That is b/c there are some players on Anaheim who would not be exposed b/c their 2nd year would be the 16-17 season. There are roughly 8-9 teams with interesting roster decisions based solely upon the number of NMCs and the number of contracts expiring after 16-17 season. Minnesota is one of those 8-9 teams. Depending on how money is allocated in those teams, the Wild could be exposing the most prominent D outside of maybe one or two teams. I mean, look at some other rosters and factor in the players that both must and can't be exposed. I think you will see that Minnesota has a lot to lose relative to other teams. Some opinion, but some fact mixed in as well. The names that I listed in the above.scenario are probably the most likely if choosing 8 skaters and 1 goalie. If choosing the option of 7 F and 3 D, well, you can pretty well guarantee a D will be lost. Try and protect all 5 D? Likely losing Coyle or Pominville.

 

[Wild11MN]

OK, who would be protected and exposed, given the stipulations of the expansion draft.for Minnesota only?

Secondly, not all teams are in bad shape. Some are. Chicago is one of them. The Wild, right now, are not in an enviable position relative to a team like Anaheim. That is b/c there are some players on Anaheim who would not be exposed b/c their 2nd year would be the 16-17 season. There are roughly 8-9 teams with interesting roster decisions based solely upon the number of NMCs and the number of contracts expiring after 16-17 season. Minnesota is one of those 8-9 teams. Depending on how money is allocated in those teams, the Wild could be exposing the most prominent D outside of maybe one or two teams. I mean, look at some other rosters and factor in the players that both must and can't be exposed. I think you will see that Minnesota has a lot to lose relative to other teams. Some opinion, but some fact mixed in as well. The names that I listed in the above.scenario are probably the most likely if choosing 8 skaters and 1 goalie. If choosing the option of 7 F and 3 D, well, you can pretty well guarantee a D will be lost. Try and protect all 5 D? Likely losing Coyle or Pominville.

I'd think Coyle will for sure be protected. If Pominville was taken, that would be phenomenal for cap space purposes, though I think we still don't know the full details of his partial NTC/NMC, so who knows.

For those who would be protected, considering NMCs must be, it would probably be:
Koivu
Parise
Coyle
One of Nino, Granlund, Haula

Suter
Spurgeon
Two of Scandella, Brodin, Dumba


All of the guys in the options categories above are prime trade candidates this offseason, barring Haula probably. It's too hard to know for sure who will actually be here next year, so hard to speculate at this point.

If we went the 7/3 route, it would be the 6 forwards above + ???. There would likely be only 4 of those 5 defenseman on our team at that point, so hard to say again.

You're right though in that trade values will probably be lower this time next year because of other teams in the same situation. I still think Brodin/Dumba for Drouin makes sense because I think(?) Drouin would still be protected automatically at that point.

But to recap, it's really hard to know without seeing what this team looks like at the start of next year. The other missing piece of the puzzle is if the 25% rule applies, where you would have to expose at least 25% of your salary cap in the expansion draft. I don't think that's been confirmed or denied at this point.

 

[57special]

I thought Drouin would be eligible for the draft.