I would like to think so, but I wonder if the Wild braintrust would allow that to happen? Would Haula have gotten any PP time like he has in LV? How would they justify re-upping Koivu at 5.5M, paying Haula 2.75M, then have Haula playing further up the line up?
Awkward.
There is no doubt that Koivu has had the better career, but it's also pretty clear that Koivu's is ending, while Haula's is just starting to peak. Why did Fletcher and Co. miss this?
For the same reason Columbus missed it with William Karlsson: he got paid less; played in the bottom six which meant that there was less opportunity both for him, the player, to succeed offensively and for the management to evaluate the true extent of his ability; and in Haula's case he was due a pay increase at a time we could ill afford it.
He also developed fine, but was a bit of a late bloomer. It was 4 years after his draft before he saw any NHL ice, and then he was relegated to being a bottom 6 center for most of the time he was on the Wild. Late bloomer's usually help their second teams a lot more than they helped their first. In the case of Haula, it was the perfect storm, as he got an extended look at the 2nd line center role, and had also finally developed completely into one. He benefited maximally in his new surroundings in that he gets to be a 2nd line center, and the Wild were forced to lose him for reasons outside of their immediate control.
I mean, we knew the same things the Wild knew, right? Haula was a great shutdown center with tons of speed and still had 2nd line center upside in the right situation, but he hadn't stolen the #2 job here. The problem was that we didn't have the cap space to re-sign him, Nino, and Granlund at the time. Most of us didn't see him blowing up to this extent, either.