Oh I forgot, offering to trade Wild prospect means that we are trading away another Nick Leddy and getting another Cam Barker.
Wild prospects in general are not untouchable. Coyle, Brodin, and Granlund, however are basically untouchable. Brodin and Granlund for obvious reasons, but Coyle because of how highly valued he was in the Burns trade, and he's only impressed since. Throw Phillips, Zucker, Larsson, and Bulmer into all the trades you want, but Coyle will be part of this team in the future.
Wild prospects in general are not untouchable. Coyle, Brodin, and Granlund, however are basically untouchable. Brodin and Granlund for obvious reasons, but Coyle because of how highly valued he was in the Burns trade, and he's only impressed since. Throw Phillips, Zucker, Larsson, and Bulmer into all the trades you want, but Coyle will be part of this team in the future.
We need to hang onto Zucker too. He looked good during his short stint here. He has some wheels which is something this team needs.
We need to hang onto Zucker too. He looked good during his short stint here. He has some wheels which is something this team needs.
I think we should hang on to Zucker, but I can imagine a variety of plausible deals where I'd be willing to let him go. I wouldn't lump him up with Granlund and Brodin for need to hold on to yet.
Wild prospects in general are not untouchable. Coyle, Brodin, and Granlund, however are basically untouchable. Brodin and Granlund for obvious reasons, but Coyle because of how highly valued he was in the Burns trade, and he's only impressed since. Throw Phillips, Zucker, Larsson, and Bulmer into all the trades you want, but Coyle will be part of this team in the future.
Until the "rebuild from within" has been completed, I'd be hesitant to trade any of our top prospects.
Trading prospects is for winning teams, playoff teams, teams that have a top 6 set in stone.
Until we know how this current group fares at the NHL level, trading prospects is VERY RISKY business. You don't want to trade Larsson and have him become a star, and keep Zucker, and have him become a plug, or vice versa.
IMO, the Wild need to complete their rebuild by making the playoffs, and seeing what we have at the NHL level in our prospect pool. Keep drafting well, and build up a surplus, then I'd be all for trading futures for needs.
So let's just say by some miracle we do land Parise. What if our entire top 6 is healthy? There's only room for six players, not seven. Heatley, Koivu, Parise, Seto, Lats, Butch and Granlund. Do we move Lats down to 3rd line left wing then? I'm also assuming that Lats is re-signed but I'm fairly confident he will be.
So let's just say by some miracle we do land Parise. What if our entire top 6 is healthy? There's only room for six players, not seven. Heatley, Koivu, Parise, Seto, Lats, Butch and Granlund. Do we move Lats down to 3rd line left wing then? I'm also assuming that Lats is re-signed but I'm fairly confident he will be.
Assuming Granlund proves he should be in that top 6, we get to do what Yeo wants happening anyway and players have to earn their spot. Whoever isn't currently earning the ice time is bumped to the third or fourth line. I don't think Fletcher will be afraid to send Granlund to Houston if he's not earning a spot and we're fully healthy.
I'm not worried about us not having any injuries though. Maybe it'll happen for a couple games, but someone is always going to be banged up a little.
Until the "rebuild from within" has been completed, I'd be hesitant to trade any of our top prospects.
Trading prospects is for winning teams, playoff teams, teams that have a top 6 set in stone.
Until we know how this current group fares at the NHL level, trading prospects is VERY RISKY business. You don't want to trade Larsson and have him become a star, and keep Zucker, and have him become a plug, or vice versa.
IMO, the Wild need to complete their rebuild by making the playoffs, and seeing what we have at the NHL level in our prospect pool. Keep drafting well, and build up a surplus, then I'd be all for trading futures for needs.
Yeah, that logic cuts both ways.
That prospect you trade away could be Mr. Bust 2 years after you trade him.
How would you guys feel about signing Parenteau if we strike out on Parise? He seems like a solid forward with offensive upside. He shoots right handed (something no one in our top six does except Seto) and he's coming off a career best year in which he got 67 points including 49 assists. He's 29 but that's not really too old for us imo. I think a 4 year deal centered around $20 million would work.
That prospect you trade away could be Mr. Bust 2 years after you trade him.
No doubt - like I said, it's risky business. You hate to ice a team of ex-Wild that could beat your current team though, kind of like the Twins could do now.
-He'd slot in on the 2nd line, giving the Wild a big size advantage at center over almost any team in the NHL. Koivu. Staal. Brodziak. We would take it to the other teams every single night and more importantly, in the playoffs.
-Staal is is more of a goal scorer, less of a playmaker. That's good because our other long-term center options, Granlund, Coyle, and Phillips are more of set-up guys.
-Our time-line would be push up, as Granlund/Coyle/Larsson/Phillips could jump to wing and make more of an impact.
-Trading for J.Staal at the draft sends a signal to Parise and Suter: We mean business.
-J.Staal might actually re-sign here. Top-6 center role on an up and coming team, with a chance to become the 1st line center. Plus, Wild are the closest NHL team to Thunder Bay.
I'd offer Coyle, 7th overall, Bouchard, Cullen, and Gustafsson/Kuemper for J.Staal and the Pens 1st this year. Pens get a short and long-term replacement for Staal, a good goalie for when Fleury sucks, and a big move up in the draft to grab a star forward or Dman. Bouchard is more just a gamble for the Pens. If he ends up healthy, he'd be a good player for them.
No and i bet you my bottom dollar Staal goes to Carolina if traded.
In a year or two, when we see the development of our kids, we should be in a lot better position to maybe make bigger trades," Fletcher said. "How do you trade some of these young players when you don't know what they're fully going to be?
Quote:
I don't think it'll take forever to see how these kids are going to play at the pro level. I just don't want to do something silly here and blow up some of the depth we've finally been able to accumulate until we fully know what we have.
I mean, the Leddy trade was freaking terrible, because Cam Barker was known to suck BEFORE the trade. Ask any Hawk fan at the time. They knew that trade was highway robbery. It was only Wild fans who were like "Well, Barker is still young and developing." Fletcher traded for a guy based on potential. He gave up assets assuming Barker could be a top-4 Dman, when in reality he was never more than a #6 PP specialist. A younger version of Kurtis Foster.
That's different than trading a prospect for a guy like Jordan Staal. If Fletcher was assuming Jordan Staal could be a #1 center, and gave up that much assets, then it would be a re-creating the Barker trade. But if Fletcher values Jordan Staal as a guy who could be a #2 center, and gives up assets accordingly, then that's a different story.
I mean, the Leddy trade was freaking terrible, because Cam Barker was known to suck BEFORE the trade. Ask any Hawk fan at the time. They knew that trade was highway robbery. It was only Wild fans who were like "Well, Barker is still young and developing." Fletcher traded for a guy based on potential. He gave up assets assuming Barker could be a top-4 Dman, when in reality he was never more than a #6 PP specialist. A younger version of Kurtis Foster.
That's different than trading a prospect for a guy like Jordan Staal. If Fletcher was assuming Jordan Staal could be a #1 center, and gave up that much assets, then it would be a re-creating the Barker trade. But if Fletcher values Jordan Staal as a guy who could be a #2 center, and gives up assets accordingly, then that's a different story.
Yes, but to continue beating a dead horse, Leddy is not a top 4 defenseman. Maybe he still has the potential to do that in the future, but at the moment the only reason he's in the NHL at all is because Chicago's defensive depth is worse than ours (although they actually have a top end to play above the depth).
The difference with the draft as opposed to other times in the year is everybody's in the same city, so you can have face-to-face dialogue," Fletcher said. "It's harder to be evasive in face-to-face meetings unless you run for the door.
Lol wonder if its just GMCF going like this for the past few weeks "Man Tambellini again, I really can't even bother to undercut for the 1st overall anymore" *hangs up*
Last edited by Foxlockbox: 06-18-2012 at 12:05 PM.
