Speculation: Trade Ideas and Free Agency

[TaLoN]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1518697&page=10

Umm.... YES!

EDIT: had to update the link due to merging of threads...

Click to read more...

 

[thestonedkoala]

No. No trades. When Fletcher panics, it's bad. Really bad. We don't need any mid-season trades or deadline trades this year. Keep the team we have and roll with it until the offseason. NO TRADES

 

[TaLoN]

I don't fear trades. I think his last deadline deal was damn good!

 

[Billy Mays Here*]

No. No trades. When Fletcher panics, it's bad. Really bad. We don't need any mid-season trades or deadline trades this year. Keep the team we have and roll with it until the offseason. NO TRADES

Which is why you want to trade Koivu right?

 

[thestonedkoala]

I don't fear trades. I think his last deadline deal was damn good!

Yeah because getting blown out of the playoffs and this remarkable start is damn good. I'm tired of these trades. Unless Fletcher has the balls to reshape the team, then no. A) we don't have really any players we can afford to trade. and B) we can't keep giving up youth. We'll be in the same situation as Riser.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Which is why you want to trade Koivu right?

If we trade Koivu, then yes. But we know it and the team knows it. Fletcher doesn't have the balls to do that at the start of the season. Who does he trade? Poms? Parise? Granlund? Coyle? Yeah thought so.

 

[mezcal]

Fletcher isn't great at trades, and his drafting record is great because of Flahr. Don't get me wrong, I think Fletcher is a pretty damn good GM but his record with trades is just horendous. The Burns trade has turned out to be Burns for Coyle. That trade that involved the guy with the last name that started with a b that shall not be named is known to be terrible. I think Clutter for Nino has worked out pretty good, I hope its a upward trend for GMCF.

 

[mezcal]

On a side note.. I wouldn't mind Ryan Miller wearing a Wild sweater :p

 

[TaLoN]

Yeah because getting blown out of the playoffs and this remarkable start is damn good. I'm tired of these trades. Unless Fletcher has the balls to reshape the team, then no. A) we don't have really any players we can afford to trade. and B) we can't keep giving up youth. We'll be in the same situation as Riser.

Yeah, because it was Pominville's fault the Wild were blown out of the playoffs.

Seriously, we don't even MAKE the playoffs without him last season. He's played well this season too and now he's locked up for another 5 after. It was a good deal. Period.

 

[TaLoN]

Fletcher isn't great at trades, and his drafting record is great because of Flahr. Don't get me wrong, I think Fletcher is a pretty damn good GM but his record with trades is just horendous. The Burns trade has turned out to be Burns for Coyle. That trade that involved the guy with the last name that started with a b that shall not be named is known to be terrible. I think Clutter for Nino has worked out pretty good, I hope its a upward trend for GMCF.

The Burns trade was always going to boil down to Burns for Coyle in the long run. That's why the Wild insisted Coyle be part of the deal or no deal.

The Nino trade was brilliant and the Pominville trade was great as well. He's had ONE bad trade of note.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Seriously, we don't even MAKE the playoffs without him last season. He's played well this season too and now he's locked up for another 5 after. It was a good deal. Period.

We almost didn't make the playoffs! We backed into it. We were lucky there weren't more games and the season ended when it ended. He's done okay this season but we're kind of stuck moving him around. He's not the problem but we way overpaid for him. Especially as we're kind of stuck with zero depth at goaltender and zero depth at center.

Right now, Minnesota doesn't really have the assets to make a big trade. Furthermore, the problem isn't the players. It's the team. We've added so many players in the years that haven't done squat because it's the team mentality.

 

[TaLoN]

We almost didn't make the playoffs! We backed into it. We were lucky there weren't more games and the season ended when it ended. He's done okay this season but we're kind of stuck moving him around. He's not the problem but we way overpaid for him. Especially as we're kind of stuck with zero depth at goaltender and zero depth at center.

He's not even close to overpaid! As for the playoffs... again, we miss them completely if that trade wasn't made.

 

[mezcal]

The Burns trade was always going to boil down to Burns for Coyle in the long run. That's why the Wild insisted Coyle be part of the deal or no deal.

The Nino trade was brilliant and the Pominville trade was great as well. He's had ONE bad trade of note.

Wow, I totally forgot about Pominville. Im ashamed. But I guess your kinda right.

 

[thestonedkoala]

He's not even close to overpaid! As for the playoffs... again, we miss them completely if that trade wasn't made.

Now, but in a few years? We'll see. And how is that a bad thing? And do we really know that for certain?

 

[NHL1674]

Now, but in a few years? We'll see. And how is that a bad thing? And do we really know that for certain?

If a GM was always worried about what a trade might look like 3-5 years down the road, he'd NEVER make a trade. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for careful planning when trading, but you can't keep still the entire time.

And since this is a possible trade thread, no....we are NOT going to trade for Vanek. Now that would be worse than the "L" trade we made with the Hawks. You don't give up the farm for a guy who isn't guaranteed to re-sign with the team.

 

[thestonedkoala]

He's had ONE bad trade of note.

I don't know, Darroll Powe for a 3rd round pick was pretty bad. Anton Khudobin for Jeff Penner and Mikko Lehtonen is another bad one. A 5th round pick for Brad Staubitz was bad. Cam Barker for Kim Johnsson and Nick Leddy (guessing this was the one you're hinting at). Craig Weller + 2nd round pick + and Alexander Fallstrom for Kobasew was terrible. Mike Rupp for Darroll Powe and Nick Palmieri is mediocre as well...

 

[TaLoN]

Now, but in a few years? We'll see. And how is that a bad thing? And do we really know that for certain?

Do we know for certain? Did you see how the end of the year played out? Seto went ice cold when Cullen got injured. Pominville was the only offense the Wild had. Yes, we do know for certain.

As for a few years down the road... the cap goes up, his percentage of the cap will go down... so no, he is on a cap friendly deal by ALL cap projections... even the extremely conservative ones.

 

[TaLoN]

I don't know, Darroll Powe for a 3rd round pick was pretty bad. Anton Khudobin for Jeff Penner and Mikko Lehtonen is another bad one. A 5th round pick for Brad Staubitz was bad. Cam Barker for Kim Johnsson and Nick Leddy (guessing this was the one you're hinting at). Craig Weller + 2nd round pick + and Alexander Fallstrom for Kobasew was terrible. Mike Rupp for Darroll Powe and Nick Palmieri is mediocre as well...

Seto for a 2nd was great... and other than the 2nd we gave in the Kobesew deal... all the rest of what you mentioned doesn't count as a trade of NOTE (except for the one I referred to earlier). They were middling deals that did little to nothing either way.

You may twist yourself into a knot about giving up a 5th for a 4th line player... most people don't care. 5th rounders rarely if ever turn into an actual player otherwise.

 

[thestonedkoala]

If a GM was always worried about what a trade might look like 3-5 years down the road, he'd NEVER make a trade.

Depending on the age of the player. You don't give up the assets we did for a one and done type of player. That's how you become Winnipeg. You don't think Fletcher was thinking long term with Poms, that he was going to try and sign him to an extension? You don't think Fletcher was thinking down the road with Nino and how he was going to develop? I get what your saying OTH but you got to map out the team or else you're going to have a Vikings situation.

And since this is a possible trade thread, no....we are NOT going to trade for Vanek. Now that would be worse than the "L" trade we made with the Hawks. You don't give up the farm for a guy who isn't guaranteed to re-sign with the team.

WE HAVE NO ASSETS TO TRADE. Zucker + 1st for what? The problem is with the team, not the players individually. We could bring in Vanek and for all we know, he would struggle with this team. We've brought in Setoguchi, Kobasew, Havlat, Heatley, and they've all pretty much sucked. Poms has looked okay and Parise has too but they aren't replicating the type of dangerous offense they were in Buffalo and in New Jersey. When do we look at the team, look at the history of this team and realize, it's how this team is built that is the problem and not the players' we're bringing in?

 

[NHL1674]

Depending on the age of the player. You don't give up the assets we did for a one and done type of player. That's how you become Winnipeg. You don't think Fletcher was thinking long term with Poms, that he was going to try and sign him to an extension? You don't think Fletcher was thinking down the road with Nino and how he was going to develop? I get what your saying OTH but you got to map out the team or else you're going to have a Vikings situation.



WE HAVE NO ASSETS TO TRADE. Zucker + 1st for what? The problem is with the team, not the players individually. We could bring in Vanek and for all we know, he would struggle with this team. We've brought in Setoguchi, Kobasew, Havlat, Heatley, and they've all pretty much sucked. Poms has looked okay and Parise has too but they aren't replicating the type of dangerous offense they were in Buffalo and in New Jersey. When do we look at the team, look at the history of this team and realize, it's how this team is built that is the problem and not the players' we're bringing in?

I was referring to some who put Zucker/Granlund along with Koivu or whatever package. I don't care what scenario people come up with. We do NOT make that move.

 

[TaLoN]

Depending on the age of the player. You don't give up the assets we did for a one and done type of player. That's how you become Winnipeg. You don't think Fletcher was thinking long term with Poms, that he was going to try and sign him to an extension? You don't think Fletcher was thinking down the road with Nino and how he was going to develop? I get what your saying OTH but you got to map out the team or else you're going to have a Vikings situation.



WE HAVE NO ASSETS TO TRADE. Zucker + 1st for what? The problem is with the team, not the players individually. We could bring in Vanek and for all we know, he would struggle with this team. We've brought in Setoguchi, Kobasew, Havlat, Heatley, and they've all pretty much sucked. Poms has looked okay and Parise has too but they aren't replicating the type of dangerous offense they were in Buffalo and in New Jersey. When do we look at the team, look at the history of this team and realize, it's how this team is built that is the problem and not the players' we're bringing in?

You don't fear making a deal because players that slumped (in many cases before they even got here) while here and continued slumping when they moved on.

MOST of those deals were made to help a team in transition from a very bad place. Not saying we trade for Vanek... I think we can get him without a trade next offseason. Zucker + for a D-man though... we gotta go for it. If we can try to move Backstrom, we have to go for it IMO.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Do we know for certain? Did you see how the end of the year played out? Seto went ice cold when Cullen got injured. Pominville was the only offense the Wild had. Yes, we do know for certain.

No, we don't. And it wouldn't have been the end of the world if Minnesota missed the playoffs last year. It was a growing season for the rookies and half a season with new players at new positions. Things get wacky when you have only 42 games played in a small time frame. Not a great time to judge the overall makeup of the team.

As for a few years down the road... the cap goes up, his percentage of the cap will go down... so no, he is on a cap friendly deal by ALL cap projections... even the extremely conservative ones.

Except then you got a Heatley situation where when he hits 32-33, he is pretty much a third line grinder that brings nothing to the table offensively. And IF the cap goes up. That's never a guarantee. It should but the NHL has a history of lockouts. His deal looks cap friendly now but in a few years? If he stops producing? Yeah.

Seto for a 2nd was great... and other than the 2nd we gave in the Kobesew deal... all the rest of what you mentioned doesn't count as a trade of NOTE (except for the one I referred to earlier). They were middling deals that did little to nothing either way.

Uh. No, they weren't middling deals. Staubitz and Powe were both attempts at making Minnesota tougher and they failed. The Kobasew one was bad because we really didn't need to make that trade. It did nothing for Minnesota.

You may twist yourself into a knot about giving up a 5th for a 4th line player... most people don't care. 5th rounders rarely if ever turn into an actual player otherwise.

Freddie Hamilton is actually suppose to be one of San Jose's top prospects. If you have quality scouts, you can make the picks count. By that count, we should trade away all of our lower draft picks because they don't matter. I mean, Haula, Gustafsson, Kuemper, don't really matter? Here's the thing, Fletcher cares or else he wouldn't be making those unnecessary trades.

 

[NHL1674]

Depending on the age of the player. You don't give up the assets we did for a one and done type of player. That's how you become Winnipeg. You don't think Fletcher was thinking long term with Poms, that he was going to try and sign him to an extension? You don't think Fletcher was thinking down the road with Nino and how he was going to develop? I get what your saying OTH but you got to map out the team or else you're going to have a Vikings situation.



WE HAVE NO ASSETS TO TRADE. Zucker + 1st for what? The problem is with the team, not the players individually. We could bring in Vanek and for all we know, he would struggle with this team. We've brought in Setoguchi, Kobasew, Havlat, Heatley, and they've all pretty much sucked. Poms has looked okay and Parise has too but they aren't replicating the type of dangerous offense they were in Buffalo and in New Jersey. When do we look at the team, look at the history of this team and realize, it's how this team is built that is the problem and not the players' we're bringing in?

So we blow it all up again? Didn't work with Riser. Apparently not working with Fletch. So what direction do we go? We've had many changes from top to bottom AND styles, yet no success.

 

[TaLoN]

Sorry TSK... ANY deal to bring in a 4th line player is middling AT BEST.

As for the Heatley reference to Pominville... the two players don't compare. Heatley is failing due to injury and lack of work ethic off the ice. Not an issue with Pominville. RARELY does a player of that caliber fall off SO MUCH at that age.

You can cherry pick a player or two from every draft that made it in the 5th round. What you CAN'T do is find 5th round success as a common thing on ANY TEAM.

That doesn't mean you throw them ALL away, what it means is, if you turn a 5th round pick into a 4th line player once in a great while... it's not a bad thing.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I was referring to some who put Zucker/Granlund along with Koivu or whatever package. I don't care what scenario people come up with. We do NOT make that move.

The bottom line is, Minnesota really don't have the assets to make any big trades right now.

You don't fear making a deal because players that slumped (in many cases before they even got here) while here and continued slumping when they moved on.

It's unnecessary. It doesn't do anything for the health of the organization. It's like trying to swap out the pattern of curtains on your house when it's on fire. Minnesota has been historically bad offensively for a while. And they aren't getting better? Why? We've changed coaches, changed most of the wingers, centers, everything. Why are they still bad? Answer that and fix it.

Not saying we trade for Vanek... I think we can get him without a trade next offseason. Zucker + for a D-man though... we gotta go for it. If we can try to move Backstrom, we have to go for it IMO.

Zucker is a) our only prospect that has some speed and b) shoots often. Moving Zucker would be a bad move because we don't have a lot of guys like him in our organization. We also have very little room for Vanek unless we want to have a top heavy roster. As for Backstrom, we're not moving Backstrom unless we buy him out. Everyone knows he's lost a step. Unless some team like Edmonton takes him for a song and a dance, we won't get much value out of a guy that has had a season like he's having now and has been injury prone lately.