HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

10/9 - Which is more frustrating?

View Poll Results: Which is more frustrating?
Josh Harding's Injury 0 0%
Todd Richards Behind The Bench 21 58.33%
Craig Leipold's Ownership 0 0%
Chuck Fletcher's Management 3 8.33%
Clayton Stoner's Defensive Play 1 2.78%
Gui Latendresse's Fitness 1 2.78%
≥ Team of 18,000 0 0%
Other (please explain) 10 27.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2010, 01:57 PM
  #1
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
10/9 - Which is more frustrating?

Let's be honest, there's a lot of haterade being passed around right now after going winless through the regular season and trip to Finland. Between personnel issues, coaching, injuries, management, ownership and even the fans, which is the most frustrating issue bothering the Wild?

__________________
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
10-09-2010, 02:13 PM
  #2
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
I'd say; other.

For me, the lack of emotion and intensity is startling for the season just beginning. It looks like we're watching a team with just a few days left to go on a disappointing season (read: last 10 games of last year). There's just way too much standing around. Not enough "compete level" (see what i did there?) whether driving to the net, taking the opposition off the puck, mixing stuff up after whistles, battling for position, etc.

That's my biggest problem watching this team right now.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 02:16 PM
  #3
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 3,733
vCash: 2551
My biggest gripe is we never have sustained pressure (the closest thing we have is Koivu's line behind the net holding the puck), especially with out faceoff domination we just never control the puck. I don't know if that is on the coach or if we just don't have the players.

I voted for Richards cause I think the problem rests with him more than the other choices.

melinko is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 02:20 PM
  #4
Dominus
Believe to see!
 
Dominus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Moosetown
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Other: Non-existent ability to score goals, which of course has a lot to do with Fletcher's management and Richards behind the bench. But I want to be patient. I'm not gonna get frustrated very easily. That's my theme of the year with Ilves in SM-liiga and with Wild in the NHL; 'Don't get frustrated, enjoy every goal and point'.

Dominus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 02:39 PM
  #5
WildisLaw
Just win, baby
 
WildisLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Napa Valley, Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 50
From Russo, "Cam Ward was on his A game and when he is on, there's not a better goalie in the NHL"...

Get used to the Wild making opponents goaltenders look like Vezina trophy winners every game.

WildisLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 03:03 PM
  #6
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
I'm going to apologize for the poll choices because they don't do a great job of summing up the frustration and apathy.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 03:05 PM
  #7
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
I'd say; other.

For me, the lack of emotion and intensity is startling for the season just beginning. It looks like we're watching a team with just a few days left to go on a disappointing season (read: last 10 games of last year). There's just way too much standing around. Not enough "compete level" (see what i did there?) whether driving to the net, taking the opposition off the puck, mixing stuff up after whistles, battling for position, etc.

That's my biggest problem watching this team right now.
To me, it's up to the coach to get this stuff sorted out, so I voted for Richards.

The whole Latendresse's fitness thing is ridiculous to me. I mean maybe he just showed up as a totally fatty or something, but I think putting him on the 3rd line is counterproductive unless absolutely necessary. What we learned last year is that when coaches show confidence in him, give him minutes, and put him on lines with top talent, he'll produce. Otherwise it's just Montreal all over again.

llamapalooza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 04:12 PM
  #8
Orava
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 330
vCash: 812
Other: Miettinen is on our 1st line.

Orava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 04:21 PM
  #9
Casper
30 goal grinder
 
Casper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNWildFan View Post
Other: Miettinen is on our 1st line.
Mitts on the first line = todd's richards decision.

His lack of ability to adapt the system to our player's skills is killing this team right now.

Casper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 05:05 PM
  #10
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Other: i want to say the lack of drive most of the players show and the general inconsistency of the effort out there. I suppose you could pin that on Richards, but players should be able to motivate themselves. If i had to point out one single player where this is especially frustrating I would give the nod to Havlat. Stop floating around out there! You aren't Gaborik, who could skate around and stay away from physical play and still put up over a point per game playing with crappier linemates and being the main focus for the other team. Havlat, you can't get away with that, because you are obviously not effective when you're put-putting around 1/2 speed.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 05:21 PM
  #11
usernam*
#TeamSuccess
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominus View Post
Other: Non-existent ability to score goals, which of course has a lot to do with Fletcher's management and Richards behind the bench. But I want to be patient. I'm not gonna get frustrated very easily. That's my theme of the year with Ilves in SM-liiga and with Wild in the NHL; 'Don't get frustrated, enjoy every goal and point'.
This.

Also, being a Wild fan in general. Not enough win. Too much lose.

usernam* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 08:18 PM
  #12
Blakkmantis
Old Time Hockey EH!
 
Blakkmantis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Duluth, Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,054
vCash: 500
It was sort of a toss-up for me on this poll. Richards getting fired like yesterday isn't soon enuf for me. But Gui being a professional athlete and coming to camp so out of shape is very troubling. As much as I loved what Gui did for us last season, I can just as fast get on his ass for being a bum during the offseason, and not taking his job seriously here with the Wild. He will get back in game shape soon enuf. I just hope this isn't a sign of troubles to come.

Blakkmantis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 11:27 PM
  #13
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 50
I say: Other

Looking at Backstom and his $6mil/yr deal, and Bouchard and his $4mil/yr deal... if we had neither, we could have spent $10mil on a proven scorer or two!

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 11:33 PM
  #14
Kari Takko
Registered User
 
Kari Takko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Metro, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
To be honest, I'm not really frustrated yet. Sure I'd love for the team to be 2-0 right now, but it's a long season. If the Wild puts forth the effort we saw Friday, we'll be just fine.

Kari Takko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 11:50 PM
  #15
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
I say: Other

Looking at Backstom and his $6mil/yr deal, and Bouchard and his $4mil/yr deal... if we had neither, we could have spent $10mil on a proven scorer or two!
beating the horse here, but who/how? were there $10 million worth of goal scorers available?

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 11:58 PM
  #16
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
As much as I'd like to jump on the Richards bandwagon, I'm going to go with the man who hired him in the first place. Only blaming Richards doesn't account for the mediocre, expensive, committed roster that he has to work with. It's everything, not just Richards. Shoot, on second thought I should have voted for Leipold.


Last edited by State of Hockey: 10-10-2010 at 12:06 AM.
State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 12:02 AM
  #17
Digitalbooya
Harding is Superman!
 
Digitalbooya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indiana
Country: United States
Posts: 2,537
vCash: 3385
Quote:
Originally Posted by melinko View Post
My biggest gripe is we never have sustained pressure (the closest thing we have is Koivu's line behind the net holding the puck), especially with out faceoff domination we just never control the puck. I don't know if that is on the coach or if we just don't have the players.

I voted for Richards cause I think the problem rests with him more than the other choices.
this

Digitalbooya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 12:25 AM
  #18
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
beating the horse here, but who/how? were there $10 million worth of goal scorers available?
You're ASSuming it would have been this past offseason... why couldn't it have been the offseason prior also? Had DR never re-signed Backstrom and Butch to those deals, Fletcher now would have had 2 offseasons with this extra money to try to find someone. Who's to say the Wild wouldn't be the team with Kovalchuk or Hossa... or maybe they could've added a couple guys like Cammalleri and Afinogenov...

There have been options that the extra $10mil could have helped scoring with.

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 01:07 AM
  #19
grN1g
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Other: I watched the whole SJ game tonght, and i can see what richards wants us to be like. The problem is we don't have the speed, and skill to control in the zone like they can for a whole game.

I hate richards as our coach for many reasons, and we just aren't built for this system without stars like Thorton, Heatley, and Marleau. Either way, alot of our failure falls in our players lap's and not being on the same page and having a good 60 minute team effort.

grN1g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:12 AM
  #20
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Other.

This team perpetually fails to play a complete 60 minutes. I can handle a loss if its like Friday's game- Cam Ward deserves props for his play...but if its crap like we saw in the preseason then I'm ornery.

firstroundbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:37 AM
  #21
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
You're ASSuming it would have been this past offseason... why couldn't it have been the offseason prior also? Had DR never re-signed Backstrom and Butch to those deals, Fletcher now would have had 2 offseasons with this extra money to try to find someone. Who's to say the Wild wouldn't be the team with Kovalchuk or Hossa... or maybe they could've added a couple guys like Cammalleri and Afinogenov...

There have been options that the extra $10mil could have helped scoring with.
yeah, i'm the one ASSuming something. no doubt having extra pocket change available COULD benefit you but there are no guarantees and I doubt the liklihood of having one of these opportunities pop up outweighs the potential benefits of signing what you can, when you can for most GMs. There's huge pressure to spend up to the cap here in case you didn't notice, and if you're doing that chances are a good chunk of that money will be tied up in longer-termed more expensive contracts because those players tend to want more than one or two year deals. Spending for spending's sake--a little, but you'd get far less **** for that than sitting on $10 million in case something attractive popped up the next season.

sounds like you're ASSuming that we could have landed any of those names for the price they got elsewhere. if we were in the market for them, sitting on that kind of money, i'm sure their final contract price would have gone up and they wouldn't have looked as attractive at the higher price, either.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:48 AM
  #22
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 13,065
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
yeah, i'm the one ASSuming something. no doubt having extra pocket change available COULD benefit you but there are no guarantees and I doubt the liklihood of having one of these opportunities pop up outweighs the potential benefits of signing what you can, when you can for most GMs. There's huge pressure to spend up to the cap here in case you didn't notice, and if you're doing that chances are a good chunk of that money will be tied up in longer-termed more expensive contracts because those players tend to want more than one or two year deals. Spending for spending's sake--a little, but you'd get far less **** for that than sitting on $10 million in case something attractive popped up the next season.

sounds like you're ASSuming that we could have landed any of those names for the price they got elsewhere. if we were in the market for them, sitting on that kind of money, i'm sure their final contract price would have gone up and they wouldn't have looked as attractive at the higher price, either.
BTW - in case you never noticed... when typing the word ASSume/ASSuming, there is nothing intended about the caps at the front, I have typed it like that going back on the original boards for YEARS, so nothing additional intended...

As for the money being spent... sure... I absolutely agree, but my point is, there have been several options that could increase scoring, and many of them would fit well within the $10mil even on a pay increase from what they get now. I just gave a few examples... but notice of the few examples only one player was mentioned from THIS offseason. I agree that it likely would have been spent last offseason and that's why the scorers that were available then (and there were a lot more of them) likely would have addressed the issue.

ASSuming they couldn't get any of those players, I don't think Fletcher would have then just blindly locked the cash up long term either, as he's signed most players to shorter deals since he's come in thus far. I ASSume that trend wouldn't change.

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:54 AM
  #23
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
I've never liked the idea of offering up that type of term and money to goaltenders. And given Backs' age when he signed that deal, it was doomed from the start really.

As for Bouchard, it is what it is now given a few factors. Namely his concussion issues and having no true shooter on the team even if he was healthy. Not saying that it'd be a great deal if he was healthy and the team had a true sniper. But at the very least it'd be an alright contract if he had some chance of living up to it.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 01:05 PM
  #24
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
BTW - in case you never noticed... when typing the word ASSume/ASSuming, there is nothing intended about the caps at the front, I have typed it like that going back on the original boards for YEARS, so nothing additional intended...

As for the money being spent... sure... I absolutely agree, but my point is, there have been several options that could increase scoring, and many of them would fit well within the $10mil even on a pay increase from what they get now. I just gave a few examples... but notice of the few examples only one player was mentioned from THIS offseason. I agree that it likely would have been spent last offseason and that's why the scorers that were available then (and there were a lot more of them) likely would have addressed the issue.

ASSuming they couldn't get any of those players, I don't think Fletcher would have then just blindly locked the cash up long term either, as he's signed most players to shorter deals since he's come in thus far. I ASSume that trend wouldn't change.
apologies, good sir. i did take it the wrong way. lets say bouchard comes back, gets bonked again, and put on LTIR with very very little chance of ever coming off of it. who is coming up this season that you would target with that $4.5 million? Would you be in favor of waiting to see what shakes out in the offseason or would you bite on a team shedding a quality player (with a longer contract) for cap space around the trade deadline? Generally speaking--i know it's impossible to say unless you know what player is available. I just don't know how we can float with that much open space for even a half-year and reconcile it with leipolds determination to win in the short term. er...try to win in the short term.

edit: i'll freely admit i was wrong about backstrom's contract. at the time i thought it was ~ fair value but it hasn't been panning out that way with the lack of defense in front of him...anyone back there would look just as good (bad) but for far less.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 02:40 PM
  #25
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Poor management in general. Yes, Doug Risebrough was not a good general manager, but you have to start questioning Chuck Fletcher as well. In reality, the 2010-11 Wild have 6 players who I'd still consider Doug Risebrough players. 5 of those make-up what would be a part of our starting 6(Brunette, Miettinen, Schultz, Burns, Backstrom), and the other is on IR(Bouchard). All the other players on this team are on this team because of Chuck Fletcher, whether through trade, free agency, extensions, or simply handing them spots on the team.

What have we seen from Chuck Fletcher? We've seen him trade a 2nd round pick for a 2M bottom-6 player in Chuck Kobasew when we were one of the worst teams in the league. We've seen him hand-out over 1M per season to Eric Nystrom, a 4th liner, whos a marginal upgrade at best on what we could have had from our system. We've seen him trade a pick for Brad Staubitz and Kyle Brodziak, both 4th liners where once again, we could have went internal considering our team. We've seen him give Matt Cullen 3 years at a significant price-tag for a 33 year old who had never hit 50 points in a season. Last I checked we could have had Todd White for nothing, and he's had over 50 pts multiple times, with 1 year left on his deal.

What is Chuck Fletcher's master plan? We're seeing so many teams go cheap in their bottom-6 to improve their top-6 and defense, but here we are with a bunch of bottom-6ers making 1M+. That space adds up quite quickly, especially when paired with a 6M goalie, 4M IR player, and 3M #5 d-man.

Yes, alot of the fault is on Doug Risebrough for giving out those deals to Backstrom and Bouchard(Schultz if he drops to that 3rd pairing as well), but where have we seen a shrewd salary cap move from Fletcher? Koivu's deal was OK, Clutterbuck and Latendresse hard to say at this point. Havlat and Zanon were, well we'll find out over the entire length of those deals. Zidlicky, Barker, Nystrom, Cullen, Kobasew, can't really say I understand why any of those players are on our team given what we had to give up to get them. Brodziak and Staubitz, I can live with them I guess. Madden's 1 year deal was unneeded but 1-year, don't care.

You can say Chuck Fletcher is planning for the 2013 off-season, but if this team isn't going places in 2010-11 or 2011-12, he's gone.

We're not going to have the cap-space to make a move next offseason, aside from bringing up Granlund and perhaps others. That is on Chuck Fletcher, not Doug Risebrough.

saywut 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 02:43 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.