Wild GM

[Hall of Faber]

why? what else do you call it? 45 points a year with his brutal defense is not what they were paying for. And just because a bunch of knuckleheads on a message board thought it was a steal didn't mean NHL teams did. I don't recall anyone else beating his door down. Apparently the first thing the Wild need to invest in is a tv because they obviously didn't watch any tape of him in Montreal or they wouldn't have signed him. Positive player so far in Detroit so I guess he just came here to relax for a couple years?

Yes, NYI offered 7.5x7.

 

[keppel146]

Not that I disagree but Kunin is also a sophomore, the best player on a middling team in a poor conference. Bellows is a true freshman on a stacked team in a good conference. Have to look at context as well as boxscores.

As for this thread, there is a long discussion of Fletch already in a dedicated topic that goes into some good detail on his tenure. Wild fans don't know how good they have it for the most part. Every GM makes mistakes (e.g. trading Leddy for Barker, extending Backstrom), not every GM can also offset them (e.g. signing Jared Spurgeon, trading for Dubnyk).

This is an all-in season, thus loaded with risk, but they have a contending team.

Kunin also played a year early, so only 6 months separate their birthdays (Dec. vs June). They would be in the same year at school, hence the same draft.

So far fletcher has done alright to pretty good.

pros- dubnyk, spurgeon, and nino are probably his best moves. They happened to pan out, and now they look like dynamite. Also drafting haula and possible graovac late. (maybe a couple late round pick prospects such as kaprizov and sokolov.)

cons-leddy trade, bad draft picks (2nd rounders? and questionable 3rds/4ths), anything else I'm missing? vanek and pominville were good/alright at the time and just didn't work out the best (for long).

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Yes, NYI offered 7.5x7.

His current team at the time offered that to retain him, when he actually hit the market he didn't get even a sniff near this. And Vanek ended up looking even dumber for turning it down than Snow did by offering it.

 

[ThatGuy22]

why? what else do you call it? 45 points a year with his brutal defense is not what they were paying for. And just because a bunch of knuckleheads on a message board thought it was a steal didn't mean NHL teams did. I don't recall anyone else beating his door down. Apparently the first thing the Wild need to invest in is a tv because they obviously didn't watch any tape of him in Montreal or they wouldn't have signed him. Positive player so far in Detroit so I guess he just came here to relax for a couple years?

If you had your expectations much higher than that, it's on you. I expected around 50-55. Averaged 46.5. It was short term, and he produced close to his expected output. At worst, it was slightly below average output.

I'm just saying let's not act like this is signing Clarkson for 7 years and 36 million, or Weiss for 5 x 25million. It's a minute blip on the league wide bad contract scale.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Remember, multiple Cup winner CHI also moved Leddy on after we had him, and benched him at times during their PO run. Maybe he just developed late, and maybe he is overrated by NYI? Maybe a little of both.

This board was almost completely in accord with signing Vanek, and Fletcher was applauded on the main boards for signing a deal for such a short term. It was thought he would command a 7 year deal at that time.

Bottom line is that having Leddy right now wouldn't have improved us much, if at all. We had to try Vanek, I guess, as it was thought we needed scoring and there was a lot of bleating about acquiring "skill". We got,out from under his contract w/o paying a major price, and have replaced him with someone better at half the price.

Why you haff to be mad?

Oh, and to,the OP, if the Wild knew that Brodziak was going to sign for less than a 1M, they never would've let him go. We basically will be looking for a Brodz clone at the TDL.

However you want to spin it, his decisions with Leddy were a brutal misuse of assets....the first of a few.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

why? what else do you call it? 45 points a year with his brutal defense is not what they were paying for. And just because a bunch of knuckleheads on a message board thought it was a steal didn't mean NHL teams did. I don't recall anyone else beating his door down. Apparently the first thing the Wild need to invest in is a tv because they obviously didn't watch any tape of him in Montreal or they wouldn't have signed him. Positive player so far in Detroit so I guess he just came here to relax for a couple years?

It was actually 52 points and what probably would've been 45 points had he played a full 2nd season. He was probably 7-10 points off of my offensive expectations.

The "brutal defense" shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. Didn't play defense in Montreal, Long Island, Buffalo or the U. Probably isn't playing much if it in Detroit right now.

 

[keppel146]

However you want to spin it, his decisions with Leddy were a brutal misuse of assets....the first of a few.

he probably has learned from that, it's not like he hastily traded brodin or dumba this summer.

I think getting dubnyk and spurgeon (and to an extent nino) for free (essentially), has made up a lot for that.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

If you had your expectations much higher than that, it's on you. I expected around 50-55. Averaged 46.5. It was short term, and he produced close to his expected output. At worst, it was slightly below average output.

I'm just saying let's not act like this is signing Clarkson for 7 years and 36 million, or Weiss for 5 x 25million. It's a minute blip on the league wide bad contract scale.

on me? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Fletcher risked tampering for more than 39 goals in 2 years.....and then realized how bad a fit it was and bought him out.

Brutal, brutal move by any measure.

ETA: everyone highlighting the defense is proving the point. What on earth were they thinking bringing that kind of player onto a defensive oriented team. Awful

 

[ThatGuy22]

His current team at the time offered that to retain him, when he actually hit the market he didn't get even a sniff near this. And Vanek ended up looking even dumber for turning it down than Snow did by offering it.

Signing thread has a tweet from Russo that Vanek turned down more money and term, and i'm pretty sure if my recollection is correct the offer from NYI was on the table at Free Agency as well. Or atleast something close to it.

 

[ThatGuy22]

on me? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Fletcher risked tampering for more than 39 goals in 2 years.....and then realized how bad a fit it was and bought him out.

Brutal, brutal move by any measure.

ETA: everyone highlighting the defense is proving the point. What on earth were they thinking bringing that kind of player onto a defensive oriented team. Awful

Vanek was 3rd on the team in points, 3rd in goals and 3rd in P/60 (all situations) while playing the 6th most minutes he was in a Wild sweater. Would Fletcher have liked more? Sure, absolutely. But he largely got the scoring forward he paid for.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Vanek was 3rd on the team in points, 3rd in goals and 3rd in P/60 (all situations) while playing the 6th most minutes he was in a Wild sweater. Would Fletcher have liked more? Sure, absolutely. But he largely got the scoring forward he paid for.

Agree to disagree I guess. You say "3rd" like it's a good thing. To me, it was a disaster and a 20-25% reduction of what he could be counted on in Buffalo.

 

[Wabit]

Agree to disagree I guess. You say "3rd" like it's a good thing. To me, it was a disaster and a 20-25% reduction of what he could be counted on in Buffalo.

Going from Lindy Ruff to Mike Yoe as coaches had nothing to do in the decline is scoring?

 

[ThatGuy22]

Agree to disagree I guess. You say "3rd" like it's a good thing. To me, it was a disaster and a 20-25% reduction of what he could be counted on in Buffalo.

In Buffalo he was in his prime, and the number 1 option at all times. He wasn't that here, and was never expected to be that. Wild were/are built on depth and he was brought into provide more skill and scoring. If he was expected to put up his Buffalo numbers, he would have got a hell of a lot more than 3 x 6.5m.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Agree to disagree I guess. You say "3rd" like it's a good thing. To me, it was a disaster and a 20-25% reduction of what he could be counted on in Buffalo.

So you expected him to be #1 in everything? He was the 3rd highest paid forward on the team and pretty much produced as such.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Me? No....I wouldn't have signed him in the first place. My point is that I do not believe he came anywhere near the expectations that GMCF had when he made signing Vanek such a priority.

Ruff to Yeo.......yet another reason why it was clearly going to be a bad fit.

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

It was actually 52 points and what probably would've been 45 points had he played a full 2nd season. He was probably 7-10 points off of my offensive expectations.

The "brutal defense" shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. Didn't play defense in Montreal, Long Island, Buffalo or the U. Probably isn't playing much if it in Detroit right now.

The defense wasn't even that bad. People scapegoated Vanek's D so that every time he would make a mistake they would use it to confirm their bias's while all of the times he was fine they forget about. If you focus that closely on any player they will make defensive mistakes and get beaten defensively every game.


Vanek was on the 3rd line and he was able to from the 3rd line be 3rd on the team in scoring without PP time really. Further, I'm pretty sure he led the team in primary assists and might have been top 10 in the league or very high in the league in primary assists.

When Vanek was on that 3rd line with Haula and Fontaine...either Vanek was scoring goals or bouncing the puck off of their stick/body/whatever for goals...so essentially Vanek was single handedly creating goals.

All for below market value of what he would have signed from other teams playing 3rd line minutes without the PP time he got on Buffalo/NYI playing with less talented linemates offensively and on a more defensive minded team.

Saying the Vanek signing was a disaster is one of the indicators that I see the game very differently than those people.

Vanek was much more of a positive than a negative. I get why it was time to move on from Vanek but he was the scapegoat and received way too much hate. His defense wasn't even as bad as people wanted to make it out to be.

 

[Al Lagoon]

Vanek was much more of a positive than a negative. I get why it was time to move on from Vanek but he was the scapegoat and received way too much hate. His defense wasn't even as bad as people wanted to make it out to be.

Yes, too much hate - in a non-cap NHL, he'd still be welcome, by me at least.

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

Yes, too much hate - in a non-cap NHL, he'd still be welcome, by me at least.

His contract was below his market value in both cap hit and years. Further, the Wild when Vanek was on the team was one of the better defensive teams in the leagues. Hint to other Wild fans, that means it was not the defense holding the Wild back...they struggled to consistently score. The Wild were not losing games because of bad defense.

Vanek's signing allowed the Wild to single handedly stick one player on their 3rd line and have 3 scoring lines and a player who could create offense for himself (or his linemates) single handedly out of thin air and have 3 different lines that could score any time on the ice. That 3rd line was not scoring any points unless Vanek was on it creating offense.

The sheer amount of value that he created by being able to do that was well well well well well worth his cap hit. It's not even arguable.

People will either say Vanek was crap because he didn't score a point per game which shows a lack of understanding or they will say he's crap because he wasn't great defensively which also shows a lack of understanding of hockey and the impact of turnovers as well as the impact of guys that can create points.

 

[57special]

Vanek was crap.

 

[DANOZ28]

why are we having this debate? when gmcf decided to add offense by signing vanek he was the only 40-50 point free agent player available if i recall. i was 50/50 on the signing because i felt it would take away a roster spot for a young gun. i dont count this a cf mistake , vanek just didnt fit well here. i think he should have been on a line with pommer. all the vanek haters please state what you would have done different if you were gm.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

why are we having this debate? when gmcf decided to add offense by signing vanek he was the only 40-50 point free agent player available if i recall. i was 50/50 on the signing because i felt it would take away a roster spot for a young gun. i dont count this a cf mistake , vanek just didnt fit well here. i think he should have been on a line with pommer. all the vanek haters please state what you would have done different if you were gm.

Provide me the information that GMCF had access too at the time and I'd be happy to state my opinion.

My issue with the signing was then and is now that there was a long standing agreement and plan in place to sign Vanek regardless of other options. And despite lots of reasons why it was a bad idea, GMCF did it anyway. His 14-15 was a little scary in that his ppg and shots dropped quite a bit but there is no defending his 15-16 season. He was awful.

I'm ok being the lone dissenting opinion on this.

Again, the Nino move was brilliant and the Staal move is starting to look brilliant too so wtf if Vanek sucked, right?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Provide me the information that GMCF had access too at the time and I'd be happy to state my opinion.

My issue with the signing was then and is now that there was a long standing agreement and plan in place to sign Vanek regardless of other options. And despite lots of reasons why it was a bad idea, GMCF did it anyway. His 14-15 was a little scary in that his ppg and shots dropped quite a bit but there is no defending his 15-16 season. He was awful.

I'm ok being the lone dissenting opinion on this.

Again, the Nino move was brilliant and the Staal move is starting to look brilliant too so wtf if Vanek sucked, right?

Was there? Damn. Where are all those tampering penalties that we were never assessed?

 

[DANOZ28]

not that im a cf fan because im not, but would you rather have a gm play it safe & did / tried nothing ?

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Was there? Damn. Where are all those tampering penalties that we were never assessed?

I haven't been here long but you're smarter than this.

 

[ThatGuy22]

I haven't been here long but you're smarter than this.

So you think Fletcher or an intermediary had verbal/written communication and an agreement in place to sign Vanek day 1 of free agency?

Did Fletcher know Vanek was interested? Probably, it was widely known he wanted to come home.

Did Fletcher use that knowledge to plan his offseason around signing a good point producer for less than market. Likely, he'd be stupid not to.

Was an agreement in place? God no. No GM is stupid enough to risk direction communcation with another player under contract. ****, Benning got fined for talking about a player on the radio.