HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Here's a crazy idea: Trade Backstrom and Schultz together

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-21-2010, 02:27 AM
  #1
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Here's a crazy idea: Trade Backstrom and Schultz together

Ok, before I start, it's been a while so I thought I'd throw this out there. Second, I realize the Backstrom has a NMC. This is a hypothetical. Here goes...

Suppose we could convince Backstrom to waive his NMC. Then suppose that either Tampa or Columbus were willing to trade the 4th or 6th overall pick respectively for a package of Backstrom and Schultz. Should we do it? Would you do it?

I would and here's why:

1) It alows Harding to finally have a real shot at being a starting goalie in this league. We're not going to win the Cup in the next 3 years so why not move Backstrom while he's still valuable and before he starts to decline. Plus, as long as we're not going to win it all, why not see what Harding is really worth? If he sucks, so what. There are other goalies in the world. If he plays like Backstrom, it's genious.

2) By moving Schultz, we give Stoner and one of Cuma/Scandella/UFA a roster spot with playing time. Cuma challenged for a spot last year and I think that if you dangle the carrot in front of the mule, the mule will work for it. Or, Fletcher could pick up a couple bottom pairing guys like he did last summer. Also, we can't have 4 defensemen making $3+ million per year, especially when we don't have pairings like Keith and Seabrook, Suter and Weber, Pronger and Timonen, etc.

3) Holy cap space Batman! That trade would free up $9.5 million in cap space immediately. Even if we had to take a contract back we could still give somebody like Kovalchuck a legitimate offer this summer. So by moving Schultz and Backstrom we can balance our money out from front to back a little more than it is right now.

4) We would have 2 picks in the top 10, and 2 more in the 2nd round. Fletcher can do some work with that. How nice would it be to come out of this draft with a Granlund or El Nino AND a Skinner or Johansen? Hell, he could probably even move the 2 seconds and either Miettinen or Kobasew for a real top 6 winger or center, depending on what he does in FA with the hypothetical cap space created by the trade.

In closing, I really think that we are wasting Backstrom's value. I would rather see him traded for pieces for the future than see him keep this team in mediocrity. Harding can do that already. Again, I realize Backstrom has a NMC. I also realize that Columbus and Tampa may not be interested in a deal like this. This is all hypothetical.

So what do you think? I'm prepared for the worst.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 07:50 AM
  #2
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
I don't think a package of Backstrom and Schultz would garner a top 10 selection. I'd certainly be in favor of such a deal, though.

Really, anything to get Nick Schultz out of town I'm in favor of.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 08:50 AM
  #3
shleeban
Registered User
 
shleeban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Burnsville, MN
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
I don't think a package of Backstrom and Schultz would garner a top 10 selection. I'd certainly be in favor of such a deal, though.

Really, anything to get Nick Schultz out of town I'm in favor of.
in my mock draft i traded schultz for lupul straight up... not too bad eh

shleeban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 10:55 AM
  #4
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
So there are teams just jumping at the bit to acquire 2 scrubs for almost 10M per year? The only teams with that kind of cap space are the ones that won't spend the cap. You have to take on salary to give up salary, especially with the term left on those deals.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 11:10 AM
  #5
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
I don't think a package of Backstrom and Schultz would garner a top 10 selection. I'd certainly be in favor of such a deal, though.

Really, anything to get Nick Schultz out of town I'm in favor of.
In theory, those two players better be worth a top ten selection given what they have accomplished and years left. Those are two good players. However, in the real world, we'd be taking back someone's large unwanted cap hit (Commodore) because no one is giving up $7-8 million in salary in this day and age.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 11:13 AM
  #6
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Some of you didn't read. I said IF Columbus or Tampa would take the deal would you be in favor of it. I also added the caveat of having to take a contract back in return. Aparently hypothetical doesn't mean hypothetical anymore.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 12:11 PM
  #7
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
That trade would never happen, but "if", I would at least consider it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Really, anything to get Nick Schultz out of town I'm in favor of.
That's crazier than the trade proposal.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 01:11 PM
  #8
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifer View Post
Some of you didn't read. I said IF Columbus or Tampa would take the deal would you be in favor of it. I also added the caveat of having to take a contract back in return. Aparently hypothetical doesn't mean hypothetical anymore.
No I read it. I just chose to respond to This Providence's post.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 01:43 PM
  #9
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifer View Post


2) By moving Schultz, we give Stoner and one of Cuma/Scandella/UFA a roster spot with playing time. Cuma challenged for a spot last year and I think that if you dangle the carrot in front of the mule, the mule will work for it. Or, Fletcher could pick up a couple bottom pairing guys like he did last summer. Also, we can't have 4 defensemen making $3+ million per year, especially when we don't have pairings like Keith and Seabrook, Suter and Weber, Pronger and Timonen, etc.
Stoner has never, ever finished a season healthy. Also Cuma and Scandella probably need a year to refine their skills and the AHL would be the best place for them instead of rushing them.

See: Sheppard, James

And if we move Schultz, we move one of the only defensive-defensemen we have. Unless we're willing to rope in Burns and Barker. We would only have one in Hnidy.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 01:51 PM
  #10
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,783
vCash: 500
That's assuming Hnidy is re-signed.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 02:35 PM
  #11
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
I don't mind the idea that Schultz is shipped out, getting rid of his cap hit would be worth it if you ask me, as we could find a solid 3rd pairing guy to pick up his minutes as we already have a top 4 pretty much set in Burns, Barker, Zidlicky, and Zanon. However, as inevitable as the injury bug is, what happens when one of those 4 goes down?

mnwildgophers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 03:43 PM
  #12
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
I don't mind the idea that Schultz is shipped out, getting rid of his cap hit would be worth it if you ask me, as we could find a solid 3rd pairing guy to pick up his minutes as we already have a top 4 pretty much set in Burns, Barker, Zidlicky, and Zanon. However, as inevitable as the injury bug is, what happens when one of those 4 goes down?
Sorry correction, Zanon.

And what if Barker doesn't progress?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 06:15 PM
  #13
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
I don't mind the idea that Schultz is shipped out, getting rid of his cap hit would be worth it if you ask me, as we could find a solid 3rd pairing guy to pick up his minutes as we already have a top 4 pretty much set in Burns, Barker, Zidlicky, and Zanon. However, as inevitable as the injury bug is, what happens when one of those 4 goes down?
The issue is that Schultz is the #1 defensemen when it comes to defensive ability. Zidlicky or Barker should be the one shipped out, but Fletcher already laid down his hand. We're likely stuck with them for now.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 08:49 PM
  #14
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
The issue is that Schultz is the #1 defensemen when it comes to defensive ability. Zidlicky or Barker should be the one shipped out, but Fletcher already laid down his hand. We're likely stuck with them for now.
Zanon's the #1 shutdown guy.

There's a reason as to why Schultz was playing third pairing against the second and third opposing options. He hasn't earned the respect from this regime that he had under the last. And given his play last year, it's very understandable.

The contract Schultz is playing under in relation to his role on this team makes him one of the most desirable players to move. Perhaps if we seen any sort of maturation or development in his game of late the situation would be different, but it is what it is. Schultz has played himself into this situation.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 09:20 PM
  #15
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 50
lets dish zid to someone, sign foster, and keep schultz. already we've upgraded our defense, kept the same level or better in offense and saved $3.something million.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 10:11 PM
  #16
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Zanon's the #1 shutdown guy.

There's a reason as to why Schultz was playing third pairing against the second and third opposing options. He hasn't earned the respect from this regime that he had under the last. And given his play last year, it's very understandable.

The contract Schultz is playing under in relation to his role on this team makes him one of the most desirable players to move. Perhaps if we seen any sort of maturation or development in his game of late the situation would be different, but it is what it is. Schultz has played himself into this situation.
Believe me, Zanon's not it. If your #1 defensive guy is slow and can't move the puck very well, you're not making the playoffs. Schultz had better defensive numbers across the board, while playing with inferior linemates, and he's by far the better puck mover. He's the reason Shane Hnidy was not abused last season. Schultz is the best suited to be our shutdown guy as it stands right now.

The main reason why Schultz was playing as the #5 guy (when everybody was here and healthy) was because of the coach. Richards for some reason thinks Schultz can't play a top shutdown role, the role Lemaire had Schultz play with Johnsson. Well, I trust Lemaire over Richards when it comes to defensemen. After Schultz's slow start (and Zanon's fast one), it was all reversed after that and Schultz won the race. Zanon and Zidlicky were overused as matchup defensemen and fizzled out.

So in essence trading Schultz just to dump him is like trading one of the few future building blocks you have just for the sake of doing it. In other words, it's taking two steps back for the hope of three steps forward. I don't like those chances.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2010, 10:55 PM
  #17
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Believe me, Zanon's not it. If your #1 defensive guy is slow and can't move the puck very well, you're not making the playoffs. Schultz had better defensive numbers across the board, while playing with inferior linemates, and he's by far the better puck mover. He's the reason Shane Hnidy was not abused last season. Schultz is the best suited to be our shutdown guy as it stands right now.

The main reason why Schultz was playing as the #5 guy (when everybody was here and healthy) was because of the coach. Richards for some reason thinks Schultz can't play a top shutdown role, the role Lemaire had Schultz play with Johnsson. Well, I trust Lemaire over Richards when it comes to defensemen. After Schultz's slow start (and Zanon's fast one), it was all reversed after that and Schultz won the race. Zanon and Zidlicky were overused as matchup defensemen and fizzled out.

So in essence trading Schultz just to dump him is like trading one of the few future building blocks you have just for the sake of doing it. In other words, it's taking two steps back for the hope of three steps forward. I don't like those chances.
Schultz is a terrible puck mover, which is why Lemaire played him with KJ, an excellent puck mover. Not saying Zanon is better or worse, as both clearly lack in that department. Zanon is far more physical while Schultz is the superior skater, both are at their best without the puck on their stick.

However, as you eluded to, Richards clearly prefers Greg Zanon, and Richards was hand-picked by GMCF, so he isn't going anywhere. GMCF/HCTR also added Cam Barker, so its quite clear they were in agreement that they needed help back there. Schultz is the odd man out if you look at what this regime has done back there, whether or not people like it thats how it is. Personally, I prefer the old KJ/Schultz pair to anything we can make with our current bodies back there.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2010, 08:41 AM
  #18
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Believe me, Zanon's not it. If your #1 defensive guy is slow and can't move the puck very well, you're not making the playoffs. Schultz had better defensive numbers across the board, while playing with inferior linemates, and he's by far the better puck mover. He's the reason Shane Hnidy was not abused last season. Schultz is the best suited to be our shutdown guy as it stands right now.
Zanon was clearly the #1 last year and the proof was being used in all the important situations. Where was Schultz going against the opposing top lines? Where was Schultz on all the big kills? Buried on the bench. Like it or not, this regime has a lot more faith in Greg Zanon to play a shutdown role than it does Nick Schultz.

As for the not making the playoff comment under Zanon, quite frankly you're not making the playoffs under this current roster anyway. Nothing Nick Schultz has shown over the coarse of his career can lead me to believe he's anything to build around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
The main reason why Schultz was playing as the #5 guy (when everybody was here and healthy) was because of the coach. Richards for some reason thinks Schultz can't play a top shutdown role, the role Lemaire had Schultz play with Johnsson. Well, I trust Lemaire over Richards when it comes to defensemen. After Schultz's slow start (and Zanon's fast one), it was all reversed after that and Schultz won the race. Zanon and Zidlicky were overused as matchup defensemen and fizzled out.
Yes, the main reason why Schultz was the #5 was because of the coach. But guess what? Nick Schultz played his way into that situation. It's pretty hard to gain the respect of a new regime when you're making poor decisions on and away from the puck and not holding your own in the defensive zone. If you want to rip someone for Nick Schultz's slide on the depth chart, you don't need to look further than Schultz himself.

Kim Johnsson was the real shutdown guy on that pairing. Johnsson was the Wild's best defenseman over his tenure with the organization. I think the more likely scenario was that Schultz was paired with Johnsson so Kim could hide Schultz's deficiencies. Nick Schultz is a decent defenseman but he is not to be confused as a shutdown guy. What we seen last year is how much Johnsson really carried Schultz.

Also, what race did Schultz win last year? As the year went on, he was buried further and further down. If the Wild wouldn't have had the numerous injuries to the core and filling out the defense with call ups and John Scott, Schultz wouldn't have been getting much time at all. Not to mention, Zanon played, what, the last few weeks with a broken ankle? Seems like revisionist history to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
So in essence trading Schultz just to dump him is like trading one of the few future building blocks you have just for the sake of doing it. In other words, it's taking two steps back for the hope of three steps forward. I don't like those chances.
This would sound all well and good in theory, if Nick Schultz really has proven himself to be one of those building blocks. But the truth of the matter is that he's done anything but that. What he has done is not gained the confidence of this regime and has proven himself very much expendable. And in a cap world, the money Schultz is making looks very attractive to get off the books. Especially with the role Nick has relegated himself to.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2010, 09:11 AM
  #19
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 50
I'm not comfortable with Zanon being the #1 guy--he has a tonne of heart, hustles his butt off everynight and sets a great example for everyone else; people rightly appreciate all this but too many times it's mistaken for ability.

Johnsson had about 1/10th the heart that zanon had but he was also 10x better at defense. Schultz may actually be better than Zanon ability-wise, but he clearly doesn't have the confidence of this coach, to play this system. I don't know if it's even possible to get out of that rut once your in it--certainly wasn't with Jacques. So I figure all arguments as to who is better are moot: Zanon will see more ice. Effectively he is above Schultz on the depth chart simply because the coach feels he fits better. I guess if you're not jumping up in the play like a spastic retard 3/4ths of the game you had better be laying in front of the net.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2010, 11:08 AM
  #20
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
here's why this is a crazy idea:

you want to move 9 million in salary in a salary cap world.

firstroundbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-22-2010, 11:30 AM
  #21
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,317
vCash: 50
that too.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2010, 04:25 PM
  #22
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
I never asked if any of you thought other teams would be interested. I wanted to know IF they were, would/should we do it. I realize it's a crazy idea. That's why I put it in the title. But again, only a few have actually contributed to what I asked...

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2010, 05:08 PM
  #23
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifer View Post
I never asked if any of you thought other teams would be interested. I wanted to know IF they were, would/should we do it. I realize it's a crazy idea. That's why I put it in the title. But again, only a few have actually contributed to what I asked...

If there was a team that would be interested in a such a package, you'd have to determine what a fair return would be, especially since the amount of money that would be moving, so there's a decent chance that we'd be getting a scummy contract in return as well. To me, if we're gonna move our starting goaltender and our most reliable and durable defenseman, then it better be a nice return.

So yes, I'd investigate it.

firstroundbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2010, 08:49 PM
  #24
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifer View Post
I never asked if any of you thought other teams would be interested. I wanted to know IF they were, would/should we do it. I realize it's a crazy idea. That's why I put it in the title. But again, only a few have actually contributed to what I asked...
Okay, Columbus has no use for either player. Schultz is redundant and Backstrom is at best a minor upgrade to Mason/Garon, while Mason is the future and Garon is a solid goalie.

Tampa, if Riser went there. may have interest, but not in moving their top-10 pick. Maybe Schultz for Matt Walker +, or Backstrom for Meszaros +, as they would need to move salary back.

Teams just can't afford to take on 10M of salary without sending significant salary back. Especially in Schultz case, where you could likely sign a UFA who is a better player for a better contract.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2010, 04:24 PM
  #25
Lifer
 
Lifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Okay, Columbus has no use for either player. Schultz is redundant and Backstrom is at best a minor upgrade to Mason/Garon, while Mason is the future and Garon is a solid goalie.

Tampa, if Riser went there. may have interest, but not in moving their top-10 pick. Maybe Schultz for Matt Walker +, or Backstrom for Meszaros +, as they would need to move salary back.

Teams just can't afford to take on 10M of salary without sending significant salary back. Especially in Schultz case, where you could likely sign a UFA who is a better player for a better contract.
You still didn't answer my question.

Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.