What is your unpopular opinion or hot take about the Wild?

HotDish

Win it for Hynes
Aug 17, 2020
2,478
1,424
The State of Hockey
I also think Bjugstad might surprise fans and get at least a look at a top 6 center role. The back surgery he had was the same that Parise got and Parise has said that after that surgery he has felt the healthiest since being with the Wild.

If he can look like Bjugstad from Florida remain healthy and get some PP2 time (only because he is a RHS) he might exceed our expectations.

If it was a full 82 season and he remains healthy I think 40-50 points could be had. I think if players stumble in front of him or injuries happen I think he might be one of the first to move up and at that point if he produces it would be hard to justify moving him down the lineup.
 

GuerinUp

Registered User
Aug 1, 2009
4,067
1,199
Columbia Heights, MN
I also think Bjugstad might surprise fans and get at least a look at a top 6 center role. The back surgery he had was the same that Parise got and Parise has said that after that surgery he has felt the healthiest since being with the Wild.

If he can look like Bjugstad from Florida remain healthy and get some PP2 time (only because he is a RHS) he might exceed our expectations.

If it was a full 82 season and he remains healthy I think 40-50 points could be had. I think if players stumble in front of him or injuries happen I think he might be one of the first to move up and at that point if he produces it would be hard to justify moving him down the lineup.

i agree with this, I also think part of why he was brought in was to show greenway how to play as a big man, and maybe theres a slight chance that if greenway fails to make strides and is traded away bjugstad may fill that role in his departure.
 

57special

Posting the right way since 2012.
Sep 5, 2012
47,622
19,461
MN
Bjugstad is the last person Greenway should be looking to as a model. Foligno, maybe, Parise, maybe. Bjugstad does not use his size at all at the NHL level.
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,343
5,485
My hot take (and probably unpopular opinion) is that Nick Bonino will become a fan favorite centering the 2nd or 3rd line and will sign a 1 or 2 year extension to stick around.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
My hot take (and probably unpopular opinion) is that Nick Bonino will become a fan favorite centering the 2nd or 3rd line and will sign a 1 or 2 year extension to stick around.

I honestly hope that Minnesota trades Bonino at the deadline, so they have a lot more flexibility going into the 2021 draft. And then re-sign Bonino in the offseason.
 

GuerinUp

Registered User
Aug 1, 2009
4,067
1,199
Columbia Heights, MN
Bjugstad is the last person Greenway should be looking to as a model. Foligno, maybe, Parise, maybe. Bjugstad does not use his size at all at the NHL level.

i wasnt aware of that. ive never really watched him play. But i guess thats what i get for assuming an NHL big guy would use their size typically :laugh:
I dont understand whats up with this big players playing like they are 5'8
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Loyalty means nothing in the NHL; neither player nor organization should be 'loyal' to one another. The 1,000 games that Koivu played for Minnesota in the long run isn't anything special. There wasn't anything special he accomplished with the team. Minnesota was too afraid to drop Koivu, and Koivu was too comfortable to leave. Fletcher should have let him walk years ago, or at least tried to trade him.

Fletcher was a mediocre GM. Risebrough's final years doesn't justify how bungled Fletcher handled the Wild in his tenure. He could never solve the 3rd line/4th line issues and his drafting was pretty poor outside a few good defensemen.

Minnesota goalies are overrated. They were never able to develop a starter internally.

Minnesota completely mishandled the Harding situation, which again is on Fletcher and is what led to their issues.

The Pominville trade was a disaster and probably one of the worst trades that Minnesota has made in its history.

Fenton wasn't a bad GM, but a terrible boss. Fenton did what no GM had the guts to do and that was to overhaul the Wild. He didn't get great value for his trades, and who knows what went on in the 2018 draft. But he started a process that was long overdue for this team. His 2019 draft compared to his 2018 was a lot better and I have a feeling that the outgoing team made more decisions in 2018 than what was led on.

Russo needs to go. The fact that this team has only had one strong reporter since the inception of the team that has any inside scoop, just shows how insignificant the team really is. Russo is getting worse and getting smug about the fact that he's the only competent writer for Minnesota. His 'rumors' and 'feelings' aka podcasting really diminish his reporting.

Most fans struggle with forecasting and projection.

---
I probably have more, but don't have the time.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
Loyalty means nothing in the NHL; neither player nor organization should be 'loyal' to one another. The 1,000 games that Koivu played for Minnesota in the long run isn't anything special. There wasn't anything special he accomplished with the team. Minnesota was too afraid to drop Koivu, and Koivu was too comfortable to leave. Fletcher should have let him walk years ago, or at least tried to trade him.

Fletcher was a mediocre GM. Risebrough's final years doesn't justify how bungled Fletcher handled the Wild in his tenure. He could never solve the 3rd line/4th line issues and his drafting was pretty poor outside a few good defensemen.

Minnesota goalies are overrated. They were never able to develop a starter internally.

Minnesota completely mishandled the Harding situation, which again is on Fletcher and is what led to their issues.

The Pominville trade was a disaster and probably one of the worst trades that Minnesota has made in its history.

Fenton wasn't a bad GM, but a terrible boss. Fenton did what no GM had the guts to do and that was to overhaul the Wild. He didn't get great value for his trades, and who knows what went on in the 2018 draft. But he started a process that was long overdue for this team. His 2019 draft compared to his 2018 was a lot better and I have a feeling that the outgoing team made more decisions in 2018 than what was led on.

Russo needs to go. The fact that this team has only had one strong reporter since the inception of the team that has any inside scoop, just shows how insignificant the team really is. Russo is getting worse and getting smug about the fact that he's the only competent writer for Minnesota. His 'rumors' and 'feelings' aka podcasting really diminish his reporting.

Most fans struggle with forecasting and projection.

---
I probably have more, but don't have the time.

Not even addressing the rest of this rant, how the heck did they bungle Harding? Not a whole heck of a lot you can do when your goalie gets MS...
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Not even addressing the rest of this rant, how the heck did they bungle Harding? Not a whole heck of a lot you can do when your goalie gets MS...

There is a ton you can do; Harding should have gone on the LTIR at the very least. This goes back to loyalty. Entertaining the thought that Harding could continue to play just ended in a disaster for Minnesota.

But they should have had a plan B for Harding and should have kept Hackett. Who knows if Hackett would have had the same injury he did that ended his career in Buffalo? He played well enough in Minnesota and was considered a top rated goalie.

Harding's diagnosis in 2012 and Backstrom's pending contract should have kept Minnesota from trading their goaltender.

2012 - Harding gets diagnosed with MS
2012-2013 - Backstrom shows some decline with his save % dropping .1 and his GAA going up .05. He was also coming up on a contract extension at the end of the season. He was going to be 35.
2013 - Traded Hackett.

They should have put Harding on the LTIR or IR, kept Hackett as backup for Backstrom.
 

GuerinUp

Registered User
Aug 1, 2009
4,067
1,199
Columbia Heights, MN
There is a ton you can do; Harding should have gone on the LTIR at the very least. This goes back to loyalty. Entertaining the thought that Harding could continue to play just ended in a disaster for Minnesota.

But they should have had a plan B for Harding and should have kept Hackett. Who knows if Hackett would have had the same injury he did that ended his career in Buffalo? He played well enough in Minnesota and was considered a top rated goalie.

Harding's diagnosis in 2012 and Backstrom's pending contract should have kept Minnesota from trading their goaltender.

2012 - Harding gets diagnosed with MS
2012-2013 - Backstrom shows some decline with his save % dropping .1 and his GAA going up .05. He was also coming up on a contract extension at the end of the season. He was going to be 35.
2013 - Traded Hackett.

They should have put Harding on the LTIR or IR, kept Hackett as backup for Backstrom.

You spelled Kuemper wrong :naughty:
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
You spelled Kuemper wrong :naughty:

Kuemper is an after thought and really didn't want to be in Minnesota. Because they traded Hackett, they had to rush Kuemper. Kuemper played 21 games as the most in his career at the AHL level. He had 66 games total in the AHL.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
There is a ton you can do; Harding should have gone on the LTIR at the very least. This goes back to loyalty. Entertaining the thought that Harding could continue to play just ended in a disaster for Minnesota.

But they should have had a plan B for Harding and should have kept Hackett. Who knows if Hackett would have had the same injury he did that ended his career in Buffalo? He played well enough in Minnesota and was considered a top rated goalie.

Harding's diagnosis in 2012 and Backstrom's pending contract should have kept Minnesota from trading their goaltender.

2012 - Harding gets diagnosed with MS
2012-2013 - Backstrom shows some decline with his save % dropping .1 and his GAA going up .05. He was also coming up on a contract extension at the end of the season. He was going to be 35.
2013 - Traded Hackett.

They should have put Harding on the LTIR or IR, kept Hackett as backup for Backstrom.

Hackett was the saviour. Got it.

They did basically exactly what you said accept chose Kuemper instead of Hackett.

Hackett had lost his job to Kuemper, and had shown well in his NHL time.
 

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Hackett was the saviour. Got it.

Might not have been the savior, but may have helped.

They did basically exactly what you said accept chose Kuemper instead of Hackett.

No, they didn't. The reasons why they decided to move Hackett was that he was no longer waiver eligible, but he was more NHL ready which is what Buffalo was looking for.

Hackett had lost his job to Kuemper, and had shown well in his NHL time.

Kuemper didn't show well. He also tried every way to leave the franchise.

Somebody found a way to make Matt freaking Hackett somehow important to our franchise's history. Kudos on that one.

I mean, history is made in little moments, not big ones. Be interesting to see what would have happened at that point, because once they made a move for Pominville, this team was going to the playoffs.

This is what I mean by fans have difficulties forecasting and projecting.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
Kuemper is an after thought and really didn't want to be in Minnesota. Because they traded Hackett, they had to rush Kuemper. Kuemper played 21 games as the most in his career at the AHL level. He had 66 games total in the AHL.

Here is the main flaw in your argument.

They didn't have to rush Kuemper. They made a choice, and that choice was Kuemper over Hackett.

You fail to mention that the day Hackett was traded, Kuemper had been where he was much of that season. In the NHL backing up Backstrom.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
Might not have been the savior, but may have helped.



No, they didn't. The reasons why they decided to move Hackett was that he was no longer waiver eligible, but he was more NHL ready which is what Buffalo was looking for.



Kuemper didn't show well. He also tried every way to leave the franchise.



I mean, history is made in little moments, not big ones. Be interesting to see what would have happened at that point, because once they made a move for Pominville, this team was going to the playoffs.

This is what I mean by fans have difficulties forecasting and projecting.

First bolded. You're just wrong. If you're going to be a revisionist history superstar, atleast know the rules. Goalies that sign at 20 (like Hackett did) are Waiver exempt for 4 years, or 80 NHL games played. Hackett had another full year of waiver eligibility (or like 65 NHL games). He was still on his ELC when we traded. He wasn't more NHL ready, which is why Kuemper kept getting the callups that season. Kuemper literally started in the NHL the night after Hackett was traded. They had made their decision.

2nd Bolded. Which of the many ways did he "try" to leave the franchise? Here is a newsflash. He could have. He was days away from our rights expiring post draft, just because he used his post draft success to get better possible bonuses, doesn't mean he tried to "leave" the franchise. His agent was a tough negotiator when he had leverage. Like he did, twice (his RFA contract/Hardings MS). That doesn't mean he wants to leave.

3rd Bolded, just because we don't take you're revisionist history fever dreams as fact, doesn't mean we have trouble forecasting and projecting. It means some of us can understand context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 57special

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
They didn't have to rush Kuemper. They made a choice, and that choice was Kuemper over Hackett.

Except they rushed Kuemper. Why else would he have had 66 games in the AHL? Harding went down a lot quicker than they expected (the broken foot was just icing on the cake) and you could follow the moves that they didn't have a second option. They traded for Brygalov, they signed back Backstrom when he was clearly declining.

You fail to mention that the day Hackett was traded, Kuemper had been where he was much of that season. In the NHL backing up Backstrom.

Much of the season? He played 6 games that season and they probably didn't want to waste a waiver callup on a guy they were going to trade.

First bolded. You're just wrong. If you're going to be a revisionist history superstar, atleast know the rules. Goalies that sign at 20 (like Hackett did) are Waiver exempt for 4 years, or 80 NHL games played. Hackett had another full year of waiver eligibility (or like 65 NHL games).

I remember specifically there was a waiver issue with Hackett, but it may have been using the old waiver wire rules as they changed during the 12-13 season and it was misreported as Hackett may have needed to pass through waivers due to how long he was up in the NHL.

He was still on his ELC when we traded. He wasn't more NHL ready, which is why Kuemper kept getting the callups that season. Kuemper literally started in the NHL the night after Hackett was traded. They had made their decision.

Or they wanted to give the workload to Hackett in the minors. He was absolutely more ready than Hackett and was considered to be one of the up coming goaltenders. I don't know if you recall, but Hackett was a pretty big named goaltending prospect.

2nd Bolded. Which of the many ways did he "try" to leave the franchise? Here is a newsflash. He could have. He was days away from our rights expiring post draft, just because he used his post draft success to get better possible bonuses, doesn't mean he tried to "leave" the franchise.

He was trying to not sign with the Wild and thought he could sign with another team until someone told him (or his agent) that he would have go to through the draft again.

His agent was a tough negotiator when he had leverage. Like he did, twice (his RFA contract/Hardings MS). That doesn't mean he wants to leave.

He straight up said he was going to go to Russia if he didn't get a one way contract and was going to use that as leverage to get out of his contract with Minnesota.
3rd Bolded, just because we don't take you're revisionist history fever dreams as fact, doesn't mean we have trouble forecasting and projecting. It means some of us can understand context.

Context? This team basically has gone through one mediocre goaltender to another flash in the pan. The biggest issue was that 2012-2013 year. Does no one remember that Hackett actually set a few records for Minnesota when he was up here? I don't think fans remember how big of a name Hackett was.

What context do you have? Minnesota gave up a 1st, a decent prospect in Larsson (who has carved out a decent career in the NHL), an upcoming goaltender in Hackett and a 2nd round pick for a guy that really didn't move the needle for Minnesota and took up a good chunk of cap space. The fact they tried rushing the process shows.
 

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
Except they rushed Kuemper. Why else would he have had 66 games in the AHL? Harding went down a lot quicker than they expected (the broken foot was just icing on the cake) and you could follow the moves that they didn't have a second option. They traded for Brygalov, they signed back Backstrom when he was clearly declining.



Much of the season? He played 6 games that season and they probably didn't want to waste a waiver callup on a guy they were going to trade.



I remember specifically there was a waiver issue with Hackett, but it may have been using the old waiver wire rules as they changed during the 12-13 season and it was misreported as Hackett may have needed to pass through waivers due to how long he was up in the NHL.



Or they wanted to give the workload to Hackett in the minors. He was absolutely more ready than Hackett and was considered to be one of the up coming goaltenders. I don't know if you recall, but Hackett was a pretty big named goaltending prospect.



He was trying to not sign with the Wild and thought he could sign with another team until someone told him (or his agent) that he would have go to through the draft again.



He straight up said he was going to go to Russia if he didn't get a one way contract and was going to use that as leverage to get out of his contract with Minnesota.


Context? This team basically has gone through one mediocre goaltender to another flash in the pan. The biggest issue was that 2012-2013 year. Does no one remember that Hackett actually set a few records for Minnesota when he was up here? I don't think fans remember how big of a name Hackett was.

What context do you have? Minnesota gave up a 1st, a decent prospect in Larsson (who has carved out a decent career in the NHL), an upcoming goaltender in Hackett and a 2nd round pick for a guy that really didn't move the needle for Minnesota and took up a good chunk of cap space. The fact they tried rushing the process shows.

There was no waiver issue. Its non existent. It didnt change in the 12/13 cba. The only change to waivers in that CBA was eliminating reentry waivers. Goalies get longer waiver exemption than skaters in the first place, and there has never been a CBA that would allow waiver exemption to expire to expire.

As far as Kuemper only playing 6 games, that's true. Because he was backup for the other 23 he was rostered for. He was on the NHL roster for roughly 30 games during that 48 game season.

A players agent threatening KHL during a contract negotiation is just using what little leverage they have in an RFA negotiation. Not indicative they want to leave the team, given he ended up signing. He wasn't under contract when that was said. If he wanted to to to Russia he would have.

Hackett was a nice prospect, who had a decent prior 2 seasons in the AHL. But he spent the NHL lockout losing his job to Kuemper who spent most of the NHL season in the NHL.
 
Last edited:

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
There was no waiver issue. Its non existent. It didnt change in the 12/13 cba. The only change to waivers in that CBA was eliminating reentry waivers. Goalies get longer waiver exemption than skaters in the first place, and there has never been a CBA that would allow waiver exemption to expire to expire.

The only real controversies for next season is we currently have nothing guaranteed for either NHL spot and that Hackett is subject to waivers, so if we're still high on him we shouldn't expose him, though goalies do tend to clear quite a bit since normally teams have their 2 before training camp opens.

No idea what saywut was quoting, but apparently there was a rule about Hackett (and maybe other players) regarding waivers. Who knows?

As far as Kuemper only playing 6 games, that's true. Because he was backup for the other 23 he was rostered for. He was on the NHL roster for roughly 30 games during that 48 game season.

Because Harding was injured. Hackett and him alternated as Kuemper came up 13 games into the season. And then Hackett was traded, so Kuemper was the only option.

A players agent threatening KHL during a contract negotiation is just using what little leverage they have in an RFA negotiation. Not indicative they want to leave the team, given he ended up signing. He wasn't under contract when that was said. If he wanted to to to Russia he would have.

Minnesota had to give more to Kuemper, who was looking for an NHL contract, when he hadn't earned a spot yet.

Hackett was a nice prospect, who had a decent prior 2 seasons in the AHL. But he spent the NHL lockout losing his job to Kuemper who spent most of the NHL season in the NHL.

A) Hackett had 43 games during the lockout vs Kuemper's 21 and Kuemper spent some of it in the ECHL Kuemper only spent most of the time in the NHL because a) they alternated between Hackett and Kuemper and b) Hackett was traded and so they didn't have a capable backup.
 

MNRube

Registered User
Oct 20, 2013
5,974
2,834
Wild will be a lot better this year. Obviously our goaltending can’t really get worse and I agree with others that Koivu & Staal’s departure helps this team.

I prefer Bonino to Staal & Sturm to Koivu at this point and I think the added speed up the middle will be noticeable right away and our blueline, especially Suter & Spurgeon, will use it to create more chances off the rush.

This is a playoff team right now I think. JEE seems poised for a breakout year and if he makes the jump to a 50-60 pt C we will be a lot better than most expect. Seems like he is the key player this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Ox

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,511
4,178
No idea what saywut was quoting, but apparently there was a rule about Hackett (and maybe other players) regarding waivers. Who knows?



Because Harding was injured. Hackett and him alternated as Kuemper came up 13 games into the season. And then Hackett was traded, so Kuemper was the only option.



Minnesota had to give more to Kuemper, who was looking for an NHL contract, when he hadn't earned a spot yet.



A) Hackett had 43 games during the lockout vs Kuemper's 21 and Kuemper spent some of it in the ECHL Kuemper only spent most of the time in the NHL because a) they alternated between Hackett and Kuemper and b) Hackett was traded and so they didn't have a capable backup.

Who knows? I know.

Just because a poster was misinformed, doesn't mean it was true. 12/13 CBA is posted. As is the 2005 one in an archive. Hackett was not going to be eligable for waivers.

He was sent up and down a half dozen times between buffalo and rochester the next year without touching waivers. He first hit waivers Dec of 2014. His 5th NHL season. All public information.

Waivers had nothing to do with it.


Minnesota had to give more because Kuemper had the leverage. Harding had MS, and broke his foot. Your worth what they are willing to pay you. I don't begrudge Kuemper having an agent willing to play hardball.

Hmmm. Do you think Hackett may have possibly racked up AHL starts while Kuemper was in the NHL?

You've got pieces of correct info. Kuemper spent time in the ECHL to get starts which he slaughtered, with Hackett starting the year as clear starter. Kuemper had taken over as 1A by new year.

Hackett spent a total of 2 weeks in the NHL in 12/13, not rotating.
A week of that was Kuemper injured and they were both on the roster. Then they sent Kuemper to the AHL for a weekend of games to get his feet were post injury, recalling Kuemper and demoting Hackett a week right after.

Kuemper wasnt the only option. It was the Option they chose.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,736
24,446
Farmington, MN
Well, that was certainly an unpopular opinion or hot take.. but let's get back to the current edition of the Wild. I think that was what the intent of this thread was for actually. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 57special

thestonedkoala

Going Dark
Aug 27, 2004
28,169
1,600
Who knows? I know.

Just because a poster was misinformed, doesn't mean it was true. 12/13 CBA is posted. As is the 2005 one in an archive. Hackett was not going to be eligable for waivers.

He was sent up and down a half dozen times between buffalo and rochester the next year without touching waivers. He first hit waivers Dec of 2014. His 5th NHL season. All public information.

Waivers had nothing to do with it.

I found it; it had to do with his contract, you're right. Not waivers, though again I think I was remembering the quote above.

Minnesota had to give more because Kuemper had the leverage. Harding had MS, and broke his foot. Your worth what they are willing to pay you. I don't begrudge Kuemper having an agent willing to play hardball.

Except Kuemper didn't prove anything for a big contract. And that's why partly Minnesota made a huge mistake in trading Hackett as they had zero leverage.

Hmmm. Do you think Hackett may have possibly racked up AHL starts while Kuemper was in the NHL?

They wanted to give Hackett more starting time. Kuemper sparsely played in the NHL that season. You possibly think they wanted to give Hackett more reps as they were thinking he was going to be backup the next season? What's the point of having a goalie that doesn't play? They need reps.

Kuemper wasnt the only option. It was the Option they chose.

Kuemper was the only option after the trade deadline. They didn't have another capable goaltenders. Who did they have after Kuemper? JDD?

Also goalies get hot and cold a lot of times. Even if Hackett struggled for a season, it happens. Kuemper fizzled here big time though.

But the fact remains trading Hackett was a mistake, because they either had to bring up a goalie that wasn't really ready or scramble to find a goalie. They mishandled the Harding situation big time and signed Backstrom to a ridiculous deal. They got lucky with Dubnyk...

Ultimately, when Harding was diagnosed with MS, they should have moved on. Kept him on LTIR and in the organization (maybe use the compliance buyout), but had Hackett as the backup and Kuemper developing as a full time starter in the AHL.

In 2012-2013, Minnesota shouldn't have been aiming for the playoffs. They should have let their prospects develop and revisit any trades in the offseason. The seller's market was hot at the time and the prices were extraordinarily high. It wasn't also enough time to evaluate Harding and his MS diagnosis nor any of the rookies they brought in the previous years. The goaltending was kind of a mess as they had a four headed monster with Backstrom, Harding, Hackett and Kuemper. No one really distinguish themselves as starters. Backstrom was declining, Harding was an unknown entity and Hackett and Kuemper didn't have enough time in the NHL to say they were even capable backups.

The following year they had Harding, Kuemper, Backstrom and Bryzgalov all playing no more than 30 games as none of them distinguish them as starters. The following year because Harding never really recovered, they brought in Dubnyk (which by some miracle became a pretty good starter) as Kuemper and Backstrom didn't even look like starters.

One of the biggest what ifs, is what if Minnesota decided not to move for Pominville at the deadline.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,736
24,446
Farmington, MN
Ultimately, when Harding was diagnosed with MS, they should have moved on. Kept him on LTIR
You realize this isn't a team only decision right? If the player is cleared to play, they can't just keep him on LTIR.

qGhiEIe.gif


As long as Harding was intent on trying to play, he got clearance to play, he cannot be left there.

That said, let's drop the historical drama and get back on topic please. Unpopular opinions or hot takes on the current iteration of the Wild.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->