Toggle sidebar

Around the League 2022-23 season

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michigan said:
thehockeynews.com

Why Los Angeles Won the Kevin Fiala Trade with Minnesota

Adam Proteau says it's baffling why Minnesota traded Kevin Fiala. Now, Minnesota's struggling while Fiala's thriving in Los Angeles.
thehockeynews.com thehockeynews.com
Click to expand...
This is a bad article and byline.

"Why did the Wild trade Fiala"
"He was an RFA and cap reasons"
"But the Wild's offense has gone down and he's the Kings most productive player. Why would they do that?"
"Well, they already are strapped with previous buyouts"
Conclusion: Kings won the trade because they got a good piece now and have other pieces they can sell off. Wild lost the trade because they may not make the playoffs this season after trading away a player for pieces in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ollie Weeks
King'sPawn said:
This is a bad article and byline.

"Why did the Wild trade Fiala"
"He was an RFA and cap reasons"
"But the Wild's offense has gone down and he's the Kings most productive player. Why would they do that?"
"Well, they already are strapped with previous buyouts"
Conclusion: Kings won the trade because they got a good piece now and have other pieces they can sell off. Wild lost the trade because they may not make the playoffs this season after trading away a player for pieces in the future.
Click to expand...
The Wild didn't have to trade Fiala because of the buyouts. From what I recall, trading Dumba to keep Fiala was a very real option.
 
0JahNjW.gif
 
Chazz Reinhold said:
Yes, but it didn’t have to be Fiala, and the Wild are having a harder time scoring this season.
Click to expand...
And if they traded Dumba instead of Fiala, they would have a harder time defending this season.

That's what happens when you trade a roster player for futures. And the article declares a winner based on this season when one trade was purely for the future. It's sloppy and lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ollie Weeks
It really doesn't matter one way or the other. You can't have $13m of completely dead cap, or $15m in the next two years, and do anything. That's 1 really good, 2 very good, or 3+ nice depth pieces, that you can't have, regardless of what you want.

The smart move, would be to trade Kaprizov, because you're probably not doing much until 2025, Good luck finding the GM to take that chance though.
 
King'sPawn said:
And if they traded Dumba instead of Fiala, they would have a harder time defending this season.

That's what happens when you trade a roster player for futures. And the article declares a winner based on this season when one trade was purely for the future. It's sloppy and lazy.
Click to expand...
How is that an automatic guarantee that they’d struggle defensively without Dumba? He’s not exactly a savant on the defensive side of the puck.
 
Chazz Reinhold said:
How is that an automatic guarantee that they’d struggle defensively without Dumba? He’s not exactly a savant on the defensive side of the puck.
Click to expand...
Because they gave up a roster player for futures, and the player replacing Dumba wouldn't be of his caliber.

And last year was a breakout season for Fiala. His continuing scoring was not a forgone conclusion either.
 
King'sPawn said:
Because they gave up a roster player for futures, and the player replacing Dumba wouldn't be of his caliber.

And last year was a breakout season for Fiala. His continuing scoring was not a forgone conclusion either.
Click to expand...
Dumba is a net negative defensively. Please show me how it was impossible for the wild to trade Dumba and replace him with a more competent defender.

And to say Fiala continuing to score wasn't guaranteed is borderline disingenuous. He was a .82 PPG player the two seasons prior to last season. At a bare minimum it would be safe to pencil him in for 65-70 points even without accounting for his breakout last season.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TruKingFan and Schrute farms
Chazz Reinhold said:
That is shockingly simplistic thinking. Dumba is a net negative defensively. Please show me how it was impossible for the wild to trade Dumba and replace him with a more competent defender.
Click to expand...
No.

Because this entire argument is based on a lazy article saying the Kings won the trade based on how things look now when the Wild made a trade for the future. They had to pick between two assets. The article clearly outlines one made a move for the future but declares a winner based on immediate results.

If the Wild traded Dumba, the Wild would still be trading for the future and thus "lose" the trade as they traded away a roster player.

You can keep patting management on the back if you want, but this is a bad article encompassing what other pundits around the league think to use as evidence.
 
King'sPawn said:
No.

Because this entire argument is based on a lazy article saying the Kings won the trade based on how things look now when the Wild made a trade for the future. They had to pick between two assets. The article clearly outlines one made a move for the future but declares a winner based on immediate results.

If the Wild traded Dumba, the Wild would still be trading for the future and thus "lose" the trade as they traded away a roster player.

You can keep patting management on the back if you want, but this is a bad article encompassing what other pundits around the league think to use as evidence.
Click to expand...
Fiala = offensive player. Fiala leaves; Wild offense has fallen off a little (over half a goal per game prior to today in a higher scoring season). Dumba != competent defender. Dumba leaves; Wild defense does not automatically get worse.

Also, your whole premise is undercut by the fact that Calen Addison--a much cheaper version of Dumba--is already posting much better defensive metrics that Dumba. Turns out maybe they had a good internal replacement, unlike for Fiala?

You obviously cannot stand to see any positive coverage of the Fiala trade. I get it. But to accuse me as being a management shill as cover is pretty hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Chazz Reinhold said:
Let's keep this simple. Fiala = offensive player. Fiala leaves; Wild offense has fallen off a little (over half a goal per game prior to today in a higher scoring season). Dumba != competent defender. Dumba leaves; Wild defense does not automatically get worse.

Also, your whole premise is undercut by the fact that Calen Addison--a much cheaper version of Dumba--is already posting much better defensive metrics that Dumba. Turns out maybe they had a good internal replacement, unlike for Fiala?

You obviously cannot stand to see any positive coverage of the Fiala trade. I get it. But to accuse me as being a management shill as cover is pretty hilarious.
Click to expand...
You're taking this way too personally while also attacking my agenda.

I levied a valid criticism of an article that declares a winner when one move is for the future. I don't like the Fiala trade, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of seeing merits in arguments.

Further, I never said nothing about you being a management shill. I said you could pat management on the back for the trade. How is that accusing you of being a shill? If I wanted to accuse you of that, I'd say some dumb shit like "Did you get your paycheck from Blake yet?" or "Keep licking Blake's boots".

Whether Fiala or Dumba is traded, the Wild knew they were going to be worse off as they traded away a roster player as the move was for the future anyway. Thus, having a verdict based off of results 25 games into a season is stupid.

Is that simple enough for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom