HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Minnesota Wild (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   Speculation: Why not Clutterbuck??? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=785863)

North Metro Peewees 06-11-2010 11:02 PM

Why not Clutterbuck???
 
If the Wild are truly interested in improving for next season why not use Cal Clutterbuck as a chip in addition to Sheppard, Cuma, Schultz and Burns? I mean he brings an element that is valuable and I believe he can develop into a 20 goal scorer.

The reason I believe you look at dealing him if you can get a top flite center (Patrick Sharp); mostly because Richards used him as a 4th liner with Shep and Boogie late last season. I proposed Clutterbuck and pick #56 for Sharp on one of the threads tonight.

BigT2002 06-12-2010 07:21 AM

unwritten rule you don't trade someone you just signed

mnwildgophers 06-12-2010 10:13 AM

And Clutter at $1.4M for the next 3 years is a pretty good deal for us. I don't like the idea of giving him up either, he's been a great player.

saywut 06-12-2010 12:27 PM

If he was the main piece in a deal, we're obviously going to pull the trigger. He hasn't shown much skill in his 3 years of pro hockey, which is why he played on our 4th line. Sure hes a fan favorite and plays a nice bottom-6 game, but it is replaceable.

Just don't see another team viewing him as a potential top-6 guy, which makes his value unimpressive.

BigT2002 06-12-2010 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywut (Post 26258059)
If he was the main piece in a deal, we're obviously going to pull the trigger. He hasn't shown much skill in his 3 years of pro hockey, which is why he played on our 4th line. Sure hes a fan favorite and plays a nice bottom-6 game, but it is replaceable.

Just don't see another team viewing him as a potential top-6 guy, which makes his value unimpressive.

For a team lacking hitting power *cough* Detroit *cough* he is a perfect pickup for an aging team

North Metro Peewees 06-12-2010 02:12 PM

I view him as a 2nd/3rd line winger depending upon who he is with. If you had him with Tavares or Crosby to me he's a 25-30 goal guy who would be invaluable because of his hitting ability. I think he has value around the league because he's willing to hit and create opportunity by his aggressiveness.

Even without a top flite center I believe he will be a consistant 20 goal scorer in the league. Remember he just turned 22 which means his best days are likely a few years down the road and he already has 25 goals in two seasons.

I just believe if you could get a Patrick Sharp for Clutterbuck + you would be foolish not to consider it.

bozak911 06-12-2010 02:16 PM

Jarick and I got into it over Clutterbuck's "shot" on the WMBs.

While I like the kid, it's nowhere near as accurate as a lot of fans think. :laugh:

North Metro Peewees 06-12-2010 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26259394)
Jarick and I got into it over Clutterbuck's "shot" on the WMBs.

While I like the kid, it's nowhere near as accurate as a lot of fans think. :laugh:

He has a very good release but needs to work on accuracy.

Vashanesh 06-13-2010 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26259394)
Jarick and I got into it over Clutterbuck's "shot" on the WMBs.

While I like the kid, it's nowhere near as accurate as a lot of fans think. :laugh:

I know I've gotten into it with someone here on that one too. If he played as much as Miettinen, those two would fight for the missed shots lead...

In regard to the thread... I kind of doubt that Fletch would move him. I think we're still betting on him becoming a second/third liner who makes room for softer playmakers *cough* Butch *cough*. If he can become a steady 20 goal skater, and still keep up his physical game... We really can't lose.

Off topic, but man, I'm seeing a LOT of familiar names here. I've been lurking for a little bit, but with all these folks I'm already familiar with, I may need to start posting a bit more. The official boards are dive-bombing (even more, yes Talon :laugh:) in a HURRY...

GopherState 06-13-2010 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26259394)
Jarick and I got into it over Clutterbuck's "shot" on the WMBs.

While I like the kid, it's nowhere near as accurate as a lot of fans think. :laugh:

I blame Mittens on this one.

bozak911 06-13-2010 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NM Squirts (Post 26259618)
He has a very good release but needs to work on accuracy.

Yes, and his "shots" that go 20' wide aren't counted as shots, either.

:laugh:

I like Cal.

bozak911 06-13-2010 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vashanesh (Post 26265991)
Off topic, but man, I'm seeing a LOT of familiar names here. I've been lurking for a little bit, but with all these folks I'm already familiar with, I may need to start posting a bit more. The official boards are dive-bombing (even more, yes Talon :laugh:) in a HURRY...

The WMBs are broken. There is also a lot larger of a fan base here from other teams and quite frankly, the Trade Rumors are effin hilarious.

TaLoN 06-13-2010 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vashanesh (Post 26265991)
IThe official boards are dive-bombing (even more, yes Talon :laugh:) in a HURRY...

For some reason that doesn't surprise me at all... ;)

As for Clutterbuck's shot... you aren't kidding on how inaccurate it is. That's really the only part of his game I've ever complained about.

BigT2002 06-13-2010 08:28 AM

Clutterbuck plays a crapload out of position to make those hits bare in mind. He is a force and can easily make the other team change up lines when he hits the ice, but the fact that he will go for the hit typically can lead to some other bad outcomes. Saw it a few times with his numbnut ass

Kari Takko 06-13-2010 08:52 AM

Trading Clutterbuck is a mistake.

Clutterbuck's shot is innaccurate? Stop nitpicking. He'll never be Joe Sakic, but his shot is hard and his release is quick. For 1.5mil, he's a bargain. Now talk about something realistic.

nickschultzfan 06-13-2010 12:33 PM

The problem with Clutterbuck is that his style is very rough on his body. He's young now, but three more seasons like he goes, and who know how much damage he's going to do.

So, yeah, he's awesome now. But his value is currently higher than it's ever going to be.

GopherState 06-13-2010 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26266419)
The WMBs are broken. There is also a lot larger of a fan base here from other teams and quite frankly, the Trade Rumors are effin hilarious.

It's my favorite form of entertainment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickschultzfan (Post 26269608)
The problem with Clutterbuck is that his style is very rough on his body. He's young now, but three more seasons like he goes, and who know how much damage he's going to do.

So, yeah, he's awesome now. But his value is currently higher than it's ever going to be.

That's something which can be said for the majority of the NHL. However, given Clutterbuck's contract, the Wild will either be making a killing over the next three years or will suffer a small loss given the size of the deal and fact that it isn't a cap killer. So even if Clutterbuck has peaked at the old age of 23, I believe things are fine.

saywut 06-13-2010 04:09 PM

Since when is 1.4M for a sub-30 point player who will always be a bottom-6 forward a bargain?

Kari Takko 06-13-2010 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywut (Post 26272378)
Since when is 1.4M for a sub-30 point player who will always be a bottom-6 forward a bargain?

Since Jeff Finger got 3.5/yr.

Saywut... what would make you happy? You make it seem as if no one on the team is good enough and is paid too much money.

saywut 06-13-2010 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kari Takko (Post 26272651)
Since Jeff Finger got 3.5/yr.

Saywut... what would make you happy? You make it seem as if no one on the team is good enough and is paid too much money.

Actually not everyone. Koivu outperforms his contract(for one more year), as does Brunette. Miettinen(dislike the player), Kobasew, Clutterbuck, and Zanon are market value deals IMO.

Burns' contract was based on potential, and hasn't really lived up to it due to injuries. Barker's deal is based on potential which IMO he'll never reach. Nick Schultz was signed for too many years, as teams were making mistakes then, 3.5M was the going rate for a player of his caliber but 6 years was too many.

Backstrom's contract was terrible, as it was clear his stats were because of the Lemaire system in front of him. Bouchard's contract was a panic move because DR didn't expect to lose Rolston, and turned out to be terrible.

Brodziak's deal is a bit of a weird one when you consider we gave him 3 years, despite the fact that he'd shown nothing other than 4th line ability in his career. Zidlicky, well I guess Todd Richards must really like him, as they feel he is a top-4 guy. I'd prefer to have gone in a different direction there as well.

Tell me how many players in Chicago outperformed their cap-hits this year. Players on ELCs are key to success in this league, and that comes from good drafting or extremely high picks, which this organization has not had.

bozak911 06-13-2010 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywut (Post 26273574)
Brodziak's deal is a bit of a weird one



Here's some more of my negativity regarding Chuck Fletcher...

Trading a 4th and a 5th for Brodziak and a 6th. Going one for one, would you really consider Brodziak and Darcy Keumper to be of greater value than Olivier Roy and Toni Rajala? I know Edmonton drafted Kyle Bigos with that pick, however, the next best forward was the Fin, Toni Rajala. I know there are few 4th rounders that make a huge impact in the NHL, but for a rookie GM that was stating publicly that his intent was to "replenish the prospects", it's my opinion that two higher round picks were better than Brodziak.


This also led to the beginning of the season "center controversy", but it still left a major gap in our roster of a top-2 center. Without Brodziak, we had Koivu, Belanger, Sheppard and Pouliot. Granted, Pouliot did a lot better at wing in Montreal, but why trade the picks for a forward, who "could play wing" when there were several available on the market? Hell, if we wanted depth at center, I'm sure Kolanos would have been more than willing to re-sign for league minimum on a two-way contract. Of all the DR re-treads, this one made the most sense to me for the "new system" because of his speed and grit.

It baffled me a bit, because of all of the inconsistency. Were we going to try Bouchard at center? If so, then that makes that trade even more of a head scratcher. We then had Koivu, Bouchard, Belanger, Sheppard, and Pouliot at center. Yes, Bouchard went down to injury and we had to pick up Ebbett because Pouliot was being the floater that he is known for being.

saywut 06-13-2010 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26274578)
Here's some more of my negativity regarding Chuck Fletcher...

Trading a 4th and a 5th for Brodziak and a 6th. Going one for one, would you really consider Brodziak and Darcy Keumper to be of greater value than Olivier Roy and Toni Rajala? I know Edmonton drafted Kyle Bigos with that pick, however, the next best forward was the Fin, Toni Rajala. I know there are few 4th rounders that make a huge impact in the NHL, but for a rookie GM that was stating publicly that his intent was to "replenish the prospects", it's my opinion that two higher round picks were better than Brodziak.


This also led to the beginning of the season "center controversy", but it still left a major gap in our roster of a top-2 center. Without Brodziak, we had Koivu, Belanger, Sheppard and Pouliot. Granted, Pouliot did a lot better at wing in Montreal, but why trade the picks for a forward, who "could play wing" when there were several available on the market? Hell, if we wanted depth at center, I'm sure Kolanos would have been more than willing to re-sign for league minimum on a two-way contract. Of all the DR re-treads, this one made the most sense to me for the "new system" because of his speed and grit.

It baffled me a bit, because of all of the inconsistency. Were we going to try Bouchard at center? If so, then that makes that trade even more of a head scratcher. We then had Koivu, Bouchard, Belanger, Sheppard, and Pouliot at center. Yes, Bouchard went down to injury and we had to pick up Ebbett because Pouliot was being the floater that he is known for being.

To add on top of that, GMCF declined qualifying offers on both Peter Olvecky and Dan Fritsche, players who in 08-09 appeared to be competent 4th liners for our team.

I understood the Brodziak trade, as Todd Richards did coach him and Chuck Fletcher watched him play for a year in Wilkes-Barrie, but to give a 4th line player 3 years is a large investment IMO.

Kari Takko 06-13-2010 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26274578)
Here's some more of my negativity regarding Chuck Fletcher...

Trading a 4th and a 5th for Brodziak and a 6th. Going one for one, would you really consider Brodziak and Darcy Keumper to be of greater value than Olivier Roy and Toni Rajala? I know Edmonton drafted Kyle Bigos with that pick, however, the next best forward was the Fin, Toni Rajala. I know there are few 4th rounders that make a huge impact in the NHL, but for a rookie GM that was stating publicly that his intent was to "replenish the prospects", it's my opinion that two higher round picks were better than Brodziak.


This also led to the beginning of the season "center controversy", but it still left a major gap in our roster of a top-2 center. Without Brodziak, we had Koivu, Belanger, Sheppard and Pouliot. Granted, Pouliot did a lot better at wing in Montreal, but why trade the picks for a forward, who "could play wing" when there were several available on the market? Hell, if we wanted depth at center, I'm sure Kolanos would have been more than willing to re-sign for league minimum on a two-way contract. Of all the DR re-treads, this one made the most sense to me for the "new system" because of his speed and grit.

It baffled me a bit, because of all of the inconsistency. Were we going to try Bouchard at center? If so, then that makes that trade even more of a head scratcher. We then had Koivu, Bouchard, Belanger, Sheppard, and Pouliot at center. Yes, Bouchard went down to injury and we had to pick up Ebbett because Pouliot was being the floater that he is known for being.

I'd much rather have Brodziak and Kuemper. Brodziak is in the NHL, and there's no guarantee that the 5th or 6th rounder will make the show.

How did adding Brodziak create a gap? Wouldn't we have had more of a gap if we didn't pick him up?

mnwildgophers 06-13-2010 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozak911 (Post 26274578)
Here's some more of my negativity regarding Chuck Fletcher...

Trading a 4th and a 5th for Brodziak and a 6th. Going one for one, would you really consider Brodziak and Darcy Keumper to be of greater value than Olivier Roy and Toni Rajala? I know Edmonton drafted Kyle Bigos with that pick, however, the next best forward was the Fin, Toni Rajala. I know there are few 4th rounders that make a huge impact in the NHL, but for a rookie GM that was stating publicly that his intent was to "replenish the prospects", it's my opinion that two higher round picks were better than Brodziak.


This also led to the beginning of the season "center controversy", but it still left a major gap in our roster of a top-2 center. Without Brodziak, we had Koivu, Belanger, Sheppard and Pouliot. Granted, Pouliot did a lot better at wing in Montreal, but why trade the picks for a forward, who "could play wing" when there were several available on the market? Hell, if we wanted depth at center, I'm sure Kolanos would have been more than willing to re-sign for league minimum on a two-way contract. Of all the DR re-treads, this one made the most sense to me for the "new system" because of his speed and grit.

It baffled me a bit, because of all of the inconsistency. Were we going to try Bouchard at center? If so, then that makes that trade even more of a head scratcher. We then had Koivu, Bouchard, Belanger, Sheppard, and Pouliot at center. Yes, Bouchard went down to injury and we had to pick up Ebbett because Pouliot was being the floater that he is known for being.

Brodziak is a center, and I'm sure GMCF and HCTR wanted to have a center that they trusted at the NHL level. Brodziak wasn't that great on faceoffs going just 48.4%, but for some reason he got a lot of minutes. I don't think anything was a sure thing for them at the center position (as it played out during the season and the end here) I wasn't thrilled with the pick-up, but I don't think that it was that bad of a value for Brodziak.

He could be a serviceable 3rd liner as he can take faceoffs, but will have to better next year. I'm fine with the trade and we don't know how these prospects will end up. Maybe Kuemper is amazing at the AHL level and we can trade him away for good pieces or something? We just don't know yet. While some of Fletch's moves have been questionable, I think that he will turn this team around.

Kari Takko 06-13-2010 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywut (Post 26275103)
To add on top of that, GMCF declined qualifying offers on both Peter Olvecky and Dan Fritsche, players who in 08-09 appeared to be competent 4th liners for our team.

I understood the Brodziak trade, as Todd Richards did coach him and Chuck Fletcher watched him play for a year in Wilkes-Barrie, but to give a 4th line player 3 years is a large investment IMO.

And who did Olvecky and Fritsche play for last year? I'll save you the trouble... they played for the Milwaukee Admirals and the Syracuse Crunch, respectively.

Boy, that was a bad decision. :sarcasm:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.