I honestly can’t think of one benefit for the player gained from higher taxes that is better than the United States. The only plausible reason I can see wanting to play in Canada is being closer to family and playing in front of hardcore fans.
Tidbits: Around the League: NHL News - 2022-23
- Thread starter Wabit
- Start date
-
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
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
I'm still curious what our actual trade would've been. If I remember correctly, the draft behind-the-scenes said that they had it written on the board, but obviously was never released.
It was really a meh kind of Finals though. Folks I've talked with just didn't care when it got down to the final two. Not a lot of fanfare, which is unusual for the final round. Don't know if it's a mixture of issues or if it was simply about the last two clubs standing.
After a run of meh series before it, with a bunch that were never close, this one just followed the trend. I watched about half a game before watching about 10 minutes last night. Pretty boring playoff year altogether. I don't think it was just the teams left standing.
BagHead
Registered User
I remember Rossi's name being a mainstay in those discussions, at least on this board (no idea about real life). I imagine two 1sts would have been in the deal as well, in an effort to beat the Knights deal. Got to think that means the Wild wouldn't have drafted Yurov.
The Knights gave up Tuch, Krebs, a top 10 protected 1st, and a 2nd. Does Rossi, two 1sts (top 10 protected), and Foligno get it done? I have my doubts, even keeping in mind that this was the recent 26 points in 39 games Foligno. Maybe they'd have wanted Greenway instead. I just don't see a roster player on the Wild that matches up at all with Tuch besides Boldy or Fiala, who I think were TOO much to offer in addition to the rest.
I think the Wild could have beaten it, but it would mean they wouldn't have Rossi, Yurov, their 1st this year, and one of Boldy or Faber. Expensive as heck, but potentially worth it. It certainly beats the Knight's offer.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 41,241
- 19,414
I think it was both Rossi and Boldy + more. You're probably right that the Yurov pick would have gone the other way, but that could mean Ohgren too. Recall that we had Yurov ranked higher but took Ohgren first because they thought it was less likely that Ohgren falls.
I don't think Faber comes into play here because he was still a Kings prospect at the time.
Looking at each piece 1:1, it would probably look similar to:
Tuch=Boldy
Krebs=Rossi
1st=Yurov or Ohgren
2nd=our 2nd this summer
Obviously we'd have to send cap back (or somewhere else), so I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the value. The only sizeable contracts we had to send back were Dumba and Zuccarello
Last edited:
BagHead
Registered User
So Suter still considers himself a top 4 defenseman. That article hints that Suter once again has a bit of an attitude problem when it comes to reducing his minutes. I know we always have to take things with a grain of salt, but when you start to hear the same thing over and over no matter what team he's playing for.....well....there has to be some truth there.
Still glad we bought him out.
Still glad we bought him out.
I find it fascinating how much I got raked over the coals about dumping Suter and then when we actually do it was a great decision.
Tbh, I don’t think buying out Suter mattered all that much. He is certainly better than Goligoski, and cheaper once you factor everything in, but I don’t think he would be a difference maker in the playoffs, though he was pretty good against us. I ignore the other stuff… our wonderful dressing room made zero difference on the ice. If anything, we were worse. Bunch of disappearing acts on ice, but hey, if they have a “good room”, who am I to criticize?
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 9,006
- 3,141
We were? How do you quantify that?Tbh, I don’t think buying out Suter mattered all that much. He is certainly better than Goligoski, and cheaper once you factor everything in, but I don’t think he would be a difference maker in the playoffs, though he was pretty good against us. I ignore the other stuff… our wonderful dressing room made zero difference on the ice. If anything, we were worse. Bunch of disappearing acts on ice, but hey, if they have a “good room”, who am I to criticize?
Once Parise and Suter were gone we put up more points in both seasons, but we were worse? Seems like solid logic there.
Saga of the Elk
Honoured Person
- May 31, 2008
- 3,302
- 1,123
Parise led those playoff wins. Suter was his typical below-average playoff performer. He's a calming presence that sucks the energy out of shifts, including those of his own team. This season, a greatly-diminished Parise actually did show some life, while Suter was arguably one of the worst players for any team.
I would attribute those two minor, symbolic wins as much to the "class of 2010" -- Zucker, Granlund, Nino, Coyle -- being in their prime and bringing some actual energy to games.
Suter may have been better than Goli, but he's not a top-4 guy anymore. And that's the problem. He thinks he is, and seems to have a problem with being treated otherwise. His reasons for the decline is lack of opportunities and rotating partners. While some of that can be a factor, he needs to realize that his game isn't as sharp as it was 10 years ago.
In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference for us these past two years in the postseason. He wouldn't have gotten us any further.
It's just interesting to me that there is an actual possibility of him being bought out twice in such a short amount of time.
In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference for us these past two years in the postseason. He wouldn't have gotten us any further.
It's just interesting to me that there is an actual possibility of him being bought out twice in such a short amount of time.
BagHead
Registered User
Sounds more like they were the same rather than worse, but I think his point about the regular season still holds some weight. The regular season doesn't matter if you're looking at it from the viewpoint of "if they didn't get past the first round, they're the same" but it does matter if you're trying to actually measure the team's potential to do so (better regular season teams tend to win more in the playoffs than their counterparts). That doesn't mean they'll live up to that potential, but the potential is still real.
TaLoN
Red 5 standing by
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 9,006
- 3,141
K. Well we made it past the first round 2/10 seasons ('14 and '15) they were here. We missed the playoffs 2/10 years they were here.
Hard to quantify being worse when there's only been 2 seasons since they were bought out. We haven't made it past the first round without them, but it had been 5 years since we advanced while they were here. We haven't missed the playoffs since they left so....
Not worse.
TaLoN
Red 5 standing by
I agree with the same or worse statement though. At best we've been the same in some cases worse.
In the end, it's semantics and we certainly weren't better without them in the post season and at best we were just the same, so no real difference.
This^. Not only that, but we showed a lack of fight and competitiveness … our past two playoff whiffs have been pretty uninspiring. Don’t know how you can argue otherwise.
Minnewildsota
He who laughs last thinks slowest
- Jun 7, 2010
- 9,006
- 3,141
So pretty much the same with every other year we were bounced in the first round.
Not necessarily.
We got demolished by a team of AHL defensemen last year in St. Louis and we played pretty sloppy from the notes I saw in Dallas this year.
- Status
