Gaborik?

ducky
10-26-2003, 06:38 AM
This is pure speculation (maybe more dreaming than speculation)!

With Gaborik holding out - refusing to sign for less than he averaged the past two years - could the Yotes put together a package for him?

The first two players I think of are Taffe and Westrum. Both Minnesota products. Both with potential.

I know that would not be enough...

Who would you be willing to offer for a realistic proposal to get Gaborik?

I will offer Hrdina, Taffe, and Ference to start.

Dancing Chicken
10-26-2003, 06:42 AM
Mine would be Doan, Taffe and Boosh with us eatting a mill of his contract.. I belive this would get it done too..

PhoPhan
10-26-2003, 06:51 AM
Mine would be Doan, Taffe and Boosh with us eatting a mill of his contract.. I belive this would get it done too..

I don't think Minnesota would have any interest in Boucher, they are happy with their goalie tandem.

My package would be:
Taffe (to make up for Gaborik's scoring somewhat)
Johnson (They love the hardworking, two way type)
Schutte (Either a two-way forward or a decent defenseman)
Brad Ference (Why not?)

Johnson is nearing 30, but the other 3 are all very young.

That being said, I don't think it is feasible. I would love to have Gaborik, but there are other teams that could probably put together more desireable packages. Also, with Dupuis recently signing, I think a Gaborik signing is close.

hbk
10-26-2003, 07:14 AM
I'd trade almost anyone for Gaborik. Nobody should be untouchable although I would try to avoid dealing anyone from our already weak blueline.

Johnson, Eager, Spiller, Sjostrom might be a starting point. The speed of Sjostrom and Eager would be attractive to a Jacques Lemaire coached team. Seriously, we would have to give up a package that was better than what we received for Keith Tkachuk. This means at least one of Doan, Nagy, or Langkow would likely have to be going back the other way.

Guest
10-26-2003, 07:24 AM
I generallly hate the trade proposals but I will comment on this.

I don't like the idea of bundling what depth we do have for a marquee player just yet, because it would leave us with the same problem that plagued the team for years, lack of depth. We are just starting to develop and build a team, losing 4 or so valuable players, which it would require to acquire a player of Gaborik's calibre, would just hinder that whole process we've begun.

Let's face it, this team isn't a Cup contender with Gaborik, and the assets we'd have to move would just make it longer until we were a Cup contender.

In the big picture, it's not worth it. Now if I was a contender who was close to rebuilding like Philly, Detroit, or Colorado, I'd do it. They'd be able to adjust to the demand for Gaborik easier as well.

hbk
10-26-2003, 07:26 AM
I generallly hate the trade proposals but I will comment on this.

I don't like the idea of bundling what depth we do have for a marquee player just yet, because it would leave us with the same problem that plagued the team for years, lack of depth. We are just starting to develop and build a team, losing 4 or so valuable players, which it would require to acquire a player of Gaborik's calibre, would just hinder that whole process we've begun.

Let's face it, this team isn't a Cup contender with Gaborik, and the assets we'd have to move would just make it longer until we were a Cup contender.

In the big picture, it's not worth it. Now if I was a contender who was close to rebuilding like Philly, Detroit, or Colorado, I'd do it. They'd be able to adjust to the demand for Gaborik easier as well.

agreed. fun to speculate though.

PhoPhan
10-26-2003, 08:41 AM
I generallly hate the trade proposals but I will comment on this.

I don't like the idea of bundling what depth we do have for a marquee player just yet, because it would leave us with the same problem that plagued the team for years, lack of depth. We are just starting to develop and build a team, losing 4 or so valuable players, which it would require to acquire a player of Gaborik's calibre, would just hinder that whole process we've begun.

Let's face it, this team isn't a Cup contender with Gaborik, and the assets we'd have to move would just make it longer until we were a Cup contender.

In the big picture, it's not worth it. Now if I was a contender who was close to rebuilding like Philly, Detroit, or Colorado, I'd do it. They'd be able to adjust to the demand for Gaborik easier as well.


I think that if we were to trade a few roster players for Gaborik, it would be worth it because the spots that open up could be filled by the huge number of prospects we have.

LT
10-26-2003, 10:50 AM
You don't trade Doan that would be very stupid and I agree, the team is just starting to get some depth so don't screw it up now. Fun to speculate but I really can't see Minnesota giving up on a talent like Gaborik. I say lay low, pile up some depth and go after Crosby with all you've got in 1-1/2 years.

_Del_
10-26-2003, 10:56 AM
I generallly hate the trade proposals but I will comment on this.

I don't like the idea of bundling what depth we do have for a marquee player just yet, because it would leave us with the same problem that plagued the team for years, lack of depth. We are just starting to develop and build a team, losing 4 or so valuable players, which it would require to acquire a player of Gaborik's calibre, would just hinder that whole process we've begun.

Let's face it, this team isn't a Cup contender with Gaborik, and the assets we'd have to move would just make it longer until we were a Cup contender.

In the big picture, it's not worth it. Now if I was a contender who was close to rebuilding like Philly, Detroit, or Colorado, I'd do it. They'd be able to adjust to the demand for Gaborik easier as well.

Not that I think we'd have a chance of getting him, but you'd have to offer Doan, Taffe, plus etc... and I'd do it in a heartbeat. Gaborik may be a marquis player, but he's also young enough to be the cornerstone in a rebuilding effort. We might not be contenders, but neither was MIN considered and they got past the first round, thanks in part to Gaborik's outstanding play in the postseason. If we had to move Doan, Taffe, Westrom and a first, we wouldn't be hurting our current roster( Gaborik>Doan), and the hole left by Taffe, Westrom and the first in the "Future" category would be easily offset by Gaboriks longevity, IMO.

As a side note, I think the money Gaborik is rumoured to be asking for is obscene, and wouldn't pay it in the first place...

hbk
10-26-2003, 11:17 AM
Not that I think we'd have a chance of getting him, but you'd have to offer Doan, Taffe, plus etc... and I'd do it in a heartbeat. Gaborik may be a marquis player, but he's also young enough to be the cornerstone in a rebuilding effort. We might not be contenders, but neither was MIN considered and they got past the first round, thanks in part to Gaborik's outstanding play in the postseason. If we had to move Doan, Taffe, Westrom and a first, we wouldn't be hurting our current roster( Gaborik>Doan), and the hole left by Taffe, Westrom and the first in the "Future" category would be easily offset by Gaboriks longevity, IMO.

As a side note, I think the money Gaborik is rumoured to be asking for is obscene, and wouldn't pay it in the first place...


depends on your point of view. Technically, Gaborik is asking for the same amount of money he received last year. Ironically it was Mike Barnett that set the bar on these entry level easy to achieve bonus contracts. Gaborik point of view is he shouldn't have to take a pay cut after the season he had last year. Keep in mind the Wild earned 15-30 million from their playoff dates last year so they made money last year. However, bonuses are one shot deals and management is under no obligation to give that money as base salary; especially because Gaborik has no options that would pay him even a tenth of what Minnesota is offering. This is where the breakdown is between Minnesota and Gaborik. Both sides have a legitimate arguement.

winnipegjets4life
10-27-2003, 12:49 AM
I would say the only untouchable would be Doan, as he was JUST named our captain, it would look extremely bad if we traded him at this point. Other than that i'd prolly give up Johnson, Ference (tho i like him) and a couple prospects. Taffe would definitly be considered.

CoyoteBaloney
10-27-2003, 04:59 AM
I don't like the idea of bundling what depth we do have for a marquee player just yet, because it would leave us with the same problem that plagued the team for years, lack of depth. We are just starting to develop and build a team, losing 4 or so valuable players, which it would require to acquire a player of Gaborik's calibre, would just hinder that whole process we've begun.
I was just about to post something similar. I think the Coyotes are doing as well as they are because of their depth. They can send out 4 lines every game, keeping players fresh throughout the game and for those back-to-back games and we can still take away points from the games.

Furthermore, why on earth would Minnesota with Fernandez and Roloson want or even do with Boucher? That's the problem when putting together 3 or 4 players for one. It always involves some sort of player dump going to the team giving up the better player. Very unrealistic.

MN_Gopher
10-27-2003, 07:10 AM
GAB wants 19.5 for three yrs. Have fun with that contract. And i like Taffe and Westrum but the fact that they are minnesotians has no impact. Taffe is lacking in D but if he can play the wing i'd like him. we have to many centers for Westrum a good strong D man is what we need.