Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency XXIV

[57special]

ftfy

ah, of course... well done,etc..

 

[57special]

At this rate you use two protection slots on Staal, just to make sure.

 

[57special]

Ok, we've had multiple discussions of trading scenarios involving our Dmen before the XDraft. Has anyone thought about our situation at forward? We will have to expose at least one forward from the top 9, probably two. Those two will likely be Haula and Zucker. Once our playoff fate is decided, what do you think of trading both of these players for draft ineligible assets?

Haula, as a RFA, would have the least value. Zucker has one more year left at 2M. If he keeps playing like he is, he would have to be attractive to teams, especially mature teams who could use a jolt of speed on their forward line. Many teams aren't like the Wild with lots of forward depth. They have a few top line guys, and then a bunch of meh.

Would you be OK having Zucker, Haula, Dumba, Scandella all lined up along the wall and losing one of them at the draft, or do you think that Fletcher should look at making some dramatic moves that allow us to reap returns for each of these players rather than let them go for nothing? Some thoughts;

- the improved play of Granlund, Staal, and Zucker makes it a no brainer that we protect them if possible, and go the 7,3,1 route.

- part of these dramatic moves has to begin with a sit down with Poms, asking if he would consider waiving in his NMC for the X draft only. A REALLY. Dramatic move would be asking Koivu, also, which would make this whole conversation moot, as we could then protect Haula and Zucker. I can't see LV taking Koivu when he has only one year left on his contract, especially if he makes it known behind the scenes that he won't re-sign with them.

- anyone else think we should expose some other forward besides Z & H?

 

[MNRube]

Ok, we've had multiple discussions of trading scenarios involving our Dmen before the XDraft. Has anyone thought about our situation at forward? We will have to expose at least one forward from the top 9, probably two. Those two will likely be Haula and Zucker. Once our playoff fate is decided, what do you think of trading both of these players for draft ineligible assets?

More I think about it, more I realize Vegas will take either Dumba straight up or Zucker+Scandella or Haula+Scandella. I'd hate to lose Zucker, not worried about Haula as Graovac/JEE are cheap replacements. Big thing for me is keeping Suter-Spurgeon, Brodin-Dumba as our top 4. That is the lifeblood of our team, and Dumba still has so much room to improve.

 

[57special]

But if Dumba continues as he is, with some good offensive games, but also some defensive gaffes, and Zucker ends up with a 25/25/50 season, are you going to package Zucker with Scandella just so we can keep Dumba? What if Scandella regains the form that we have seen from him in the past, with solid D and a bit offense thrown in?

Isn't there a point where we just let Dumba go?

Anyway, I'm back to talking about the D, when I really wanted to talk about our forwards.

 

[Fremitus Borealis]

- part of these dramatic moves has to begin with a sit down with Poms, asking if he would consider waiving in his NMC for the X draft only. A REALLY. Dramatic move would be asking Koivu, also, which would make this whole conversation moot, as we could then protect Haula and Zucker. I can't see LV taking Koivu when he has only one year left on his contract, especially if he makes it known behind the scenes that he won't re-sign with them.

Is that even "legal"? I'm not super well-versed on how the whole NMC thing works under this CBA. I know the players' union would be completely against it, and I'm sure any player who OK'ed it would be on their ****list.

Assuming it is kosher, that'd still be a really awkward conversation to have. "Look Jason, you're so bad now that there's no way in hell they'll draft you; please let us use your spot so we don't lose any good players!" Even if you ask nicely and use all the right words, it's hard to imagine a player being the same after that (though... maybe it would light a fire under his ass? Who knows.)

 

[57special]

Is that even "legal"? I'm not super well-versed on how the whole NMC thing works under this CBA. I know the players' union would be completely against it, and I'm sure any player who OK'ed it would be on their ****list.

Assuming it is kosher, that'd still be a really awkward conversation to have. "Look Jason, you're so bad now that there's no way in hell they'll draft you; please let us use your spot so we don't lose any good players!" Even if you ask nicely and use all the right words, it's hard to imagine a player being the same after that (though... maybe it would light a fire under his ass? Who knows.)

That's why Fletcher gets the big bucks.

Pominville is a grown man, he can take it. His game fell apart two years ago. You think he didn't know what fans/media/scouts were saying about him? The thing that he has to get from this is the Fletcher's request would come with the assurance that he would not be bought out for the remainder of his contract. He would also understand that the Wild would be able to keep one more player, which would give them that much stronger of a team. I'm sure the one thing he would love to have would be a Cup before he retires, and this would help him get it.

 

[hirawl]

There's no way we're going to give Vegas two valuable pieces. They can only choose one and it's Fletcher's job to make that one be the one he would like it to be. Out of all undesired possible ones.

To get there he probably needs to move a dman named Dumba or Spurgeon. Just because they can be seen as somewhat overlapping in what they bring to the table and both of whom carry so much trade value that losing either one for nothing is a no go. My guess is CF is kind of at ease with Vegas picking Zucker. I see that happening even with Scandella exposed.

I think Pominville waives if he's promised he won't be traded or bought out. He will not get picked that's for sure. There's small chance he could even waive for a trade where he's packaged with Dumba or Spurgeon for a grade A forward or a prospect and a 1st/2nd. Not likely though but if sold to him the right way you never know.

The problem with trading a dman is that while there are 29 teams dying to listen there are not too many who could easily protect that newly acquired dman AND who would have something of real interest to offer us.

 

[Digitalbooya]

But if Dumba continues as he is, with some good offensive games, but also some defensive gaffes, and Zucker ends up with a 25/25/50 season, are you going to package Zucker with Scandella just so we can keep Dumba? What if Scandella regains the form that we have seen from him in the past, with solid D and a bit offense thrown in?

Isn't there a point where we just let Dumba go?

Anyway, I'm back to talking about the D, when I really wanted to talk about our forwards.

Play the opposite if-game.

-what if Zucker goes back to being a 30-40pt winger?
-what if Scandella continues to play as a 3rd pairing quality dman?
-what if Dumba grows into a 50+pt dman while playing 1st pairing with Suter for 25 mins a night?

I think you scrutinize Dumba too much. No dman plays perfectly. I didn't see you lighting Brodin up earlier in the year when he was turning pucks over that directly lead to goals against.

Dumba is one of those guys who plays better when he gets a lot of minutes because he has to dial it down. This is why I think Spurgeon is the perfect trade bait. Most value. Highest cap. That's the opportunity to help us the most in a trade.

 

[hirawl]

To be brutally honest it has only been like the last five games where Dumba has shown he might be able to think the game a little bit ahead before the puck hits his stick blade. This really is the first sign ever he's shown he might be able to figure it out after all. So yay.

E: Talking about play in the own zone.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

1. Offer Vegas incentive to not take Pommer (i.e. trade them Pulkinnen).
2. Relay this to Pommer and ask him to waive; if he refuses, he's bought out.
3. Use extra protection on Zucker
4. Offer to trade Vegas Haula in exchange for them selecting Scandella, instead of Dumba; if they refuse, deal with it and move on.

 

[BagHead]

I think it's hard to talk about the forwards without talking about the defense, in reference to the expansion draft. We can really only protect 3 defensemen, so chances are high that while Zucker and Haula will likely be exposed, they're going to like that 4th defenseman of ours more than those forwards, so there's really no point in moving them. I think, even if Zucker is a 25-30 goal scorer, we might actually end up lucky if they take him over Dumba.

Now, the question is going to be are we losing Dumba (RHD, and the best OD we've got besides maybe Suter) or Brodin (great defenseman that is really coming along, but he's a left hand shot which we've got a lot of).

We can talk about moving guys to try to avoid a big loss, but we'd need to move two forwards and two defensemen to make it work. That's a lot of guys! Who's taking all those players (note: they all need to be protected by whoever we trade them to)? What are we getting back for them? Certainly not fair value. No single team could afford to give fair value back on those 4 players (likely Zucker, Haula, Dumba and Scandella), and if you want to move them to multiple teams, you've got a ton of moving parts, where if you move one guy, you suddenly NEED to move all of them, because you're committed now. Never mind that losing all those guys would be a huge blow to any playoff hopes we would have had this season.

No, it seems clear to me that it's far smarter to lose Dumba or Brodin in the draft. It's going to be a big loss, but it's better than trading away so many good players for what would likely be pennies on the dollar.

 

[57special]

1. Offer Vegas incentive to not take Pommer (i.e. trade them Pulkinnen).
2. Relay this to Pommer and ask him to waive; if he refuses, he's bought out.
3. Use extra protection on Zucker
4. Offer to trade Vegas Haula in exchange for them selecting Scandella, instead of Dumba; if they refuse, deal with it and move on.

1 &2 - great idea, and one I haven't heard before.

3- sounds like a birth control add

4- I guess so... LV should jump at that. Getting a sound top 4 guy in Scandella who is a young vet, plus a youngish C who can start a s a middle six C would be quite a haul. Adding in a Pulkinnen, who can play in a bottom six, and they've done very well off of the Wild.

 

[ClayAikenFan77]

1. Offer Vegas incentive to not take Pommer (i.e. trade them Pulkinnen).
2. Relay this to Pommer and ask him to waive; if he refuses, he's bought out.
3. Use extra protection on Zucker
4. Offer to trade Vegas Haula in exchange for them selecting Scandella, instead of Dumba; if they refuse, deal with it and move on.

^ Man I hope this happens.

 

[57special]

I think it's hard to talk about the forwards without talking about the defense, in reference to the expansion draft. We can really only protect 3 defensemen, so chances are high that while Zucker and Haula will likely be exposed, they're going to like that 4th defenseman of ours more than those forwards, so there's really no point in moving them. I think, even if Zucker is a 25-30 goal scorer, we might actually end up lucky if they take him over Dumba.

Now, the question is going to be are we losing Dumba (RHD, and the best OD we've got besides maybe Suter) or Brodin (great defenseman that is really coming along, but he's a left hand shot which we've got a lot of).

We can talk about moving guys to try to avoid a big loss, but we'd need to move two forwards and two defensemen to make it work. That's a lot of guys! Who's taking all those players? What are we getting back for them? Certainly not fair value. No single team could afford to give fair value back on those 4 players (likely Zucker, Haula, Dumba and Scandella), and if you want to move them to multiple teams, you've got a ton of moving parts, where if you move one guy, you suddenly NEED to move all of them, because you're committed now. Never mind that losing all those guys would be a huge blow to any playoff hopes we would have had this season.

No, it seems clear to me that it's far smarter to lose Dumba or Brodin. It's going to be a big loss, but it's better than trading away so many good players for what would likely be pennies on the dollar.

Your thinking isn't clear to me.

 

[BagHead]

Your thinking isn't clear to me.

I'm afraid that goes both ways. My thinking is: what's the point in moving just one or two of them? It still leaves important pieces exposed. No, if you move one, you need to move them all, or else you'll just have made your team weaker for no gain. If we move Dumba, then Scandella and Zucker are still exposed. So you need to move Scandella and Zucker, too. Then if you do that, Haula is exposed. Do you mind losing him for nothing? If you do, you need to move him, too.

Or you can just bite the bullet and ice your very best team this year, while you're winning a lot, in the hopes you win a cup.

 

[Bruce Granville]

Seriously, we don't need to offer LV anything for not taking Poms...
Why on earth would LV take Poms??
And even Poms knows there is zero chance he will be taken.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Nvm. I'm confused. So we would trade Pulkkinen for LV not to take Pominville and then ask him to waive knowing they wouldn't take him? Interesting...

 

[Minnewildsota]

I doubt any of this happens.
Protect who you don't want to/can't lose. Fill in for whomever they take.
Don't trade and lose more pieces just to protect an additional player.

 

[TaLoN]

I doubt any of this happens.
Protect who you don't want to/can't lose. Fill in for whomever they take.
Don't trade and lose more pieces just to protect an additional player.

I think this will happen more often than you expect.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I doubt any of this happens.
Protect who you don't want to/can't lose. Fill in for whomever they take.
Don't trade and lose more pieces just to protect an additional player.

I don't think it's what we'll do either, but it's what I'd do.

 

[Al Lagoon]

The good news is that the Wild have lower-cost pieces that will be ready to fill in whoever they lose.

Lose one, move on.

Priority given to those who put up points.

Dumba and Brodin both have more points than Spurg btw.

Seriously, losing Spurg gives the Wild some cap relief: I kNOW everybody here goes blue in the face about how he's a top pairing guy, and I like his game too.

However, He's the oldest, and the highest paid after Suter.

OR, for those that want to lose 2, trade him for untouchable assets, then pay your dues in the expansion draft.

I really think the Wild need to hang on to Brodin and Dumba.

 

[ThatGuy22]

The good news is that the Wild have lower-cost pieces that will be ready to fill in whoever they lose.

Lose one, move on.

Priority given to those who put up points.

Dumba and Brodin both have more points than Spurg btw.

Seriously, losing Spurg gives the Wild some cap relief: I kNOW everybody here goes blue in the face about how he's a top pairing guy, and I like his game too.

However, He's the oldest, and the highest paid after Suter.

OR, for those that want to lose 2, trade him for untouchable assets, then pay your dues in the expansion draft.

I really think the Wild need to hang on to Brodin and Dumba.

There's a reason for that...

 

[57special]

I'm afraid that goes both ways. My thinking is: what's the point in moving just one or two of them? It still leaves important pieces exposed. No, if you move one, you need to move them all, or else you'll just have made your team weaker for no gain. If we move Dumba, then Scandella and Zucker are still exposed. So you need to move Scandella and Zucker, too. Then if you do that, Haula is exposed. Do you mind losing him for nothing? If you do, you need to move him, too.

Or you can just bite the bullet and ice your very best team this year, while you're winning a lot, in the hopes you win a cup.

I see. Yes, it is sort of a move them all, or don't move any and let them take the best one.

 

[DANOZ28]

people ripped me in the past when i proposed trading away when we were in the playoff hunt. my guess we run what we brung (stay with current group) and just accept were going to lose a player in expansion. my fear is gmcf will bet the farm at trade deadline AGAIN! meaning we lose more important / valuable draft picks.