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

ThatGuy22

Registered User
Oct 11, 2011
10,517
4,192
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.



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.



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 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.
This is what you seem to do. Find a shred of truth, and craft a huge narrative around it that you take as end all be all truth.

You admit it wasn't waivers, but his contract? What about his contract? That he was an upcoming RFA with zero leverage?

You say they shouldn't have been trying for the playoffs. Ok. Thats your opinion, but they were as you admit and the Pommer trade proves. And made it. They wouldn't have have kept Hackett down "to play" and had Kuemper up if they were still on the Hackett train.

Yes, Kuemper was the only option after they traded Hackett...on April 4th... After they'd had Kuemper up for half the season...

You can disagree with their choice. But they made it, and it was Kuemper.

You can't take a string of truth (Hackett exists and was in their system) and weave it into a complex narrative on how the wild messed up because they didn't have your "forecasting and projection" skills....
 

Poacher

Registered User
Oct 15, 2011
132
25
in the woods
The low expectations made every win sweeter. The long playoff run was a special mix of overwhelming odds vs a hungry, over performing team. A rare example of hockey at it's very best, much like the 1980 Olympic team. We didn't end up winning in the end in this case, but being a part of it as it was unfolding was an incredible treat we may never experience again.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad