Minnesota Wild General Discussion - 2023-24

[Spurgeon]

Just don’t see how the math works on a guentzel type

If there going to shell out big time money on a player, given where our current roster and prospect pools are, it may be prudent to get another d man. Spurgeon is an aging ? And Middleton while solid is probably more of a 5 that can play 4 or 3 if injuries happen (on a contender)

Agreed, our defense is our biggest hole right now. Our defensive prospect pool just doesn’t seem to be developing anywhere near the level that our forwards have.

Sticking to the Minnesota theme, I’d be very interested in targeting somebody like Skjei if they can figure out a way to make the money work. Would have rather just not re-signed Fleury and rolled with Gus/Wallstedt this upcoming season. Beyond that, I could see Merrill being waived/traded & think it’d be a wise decision to trade Middleton if there’s a market for him. Especially if Skjei is willing to sign here at a decent price.

I’d be very excited going into next season with a top 4 of:

Skjei - Faber
Brodin - Spurgeon

 

[BagHead]

Not be a wet blanket but Guentzel is 30. Great player but not my preferred direction. Especially if he gets 8-9M longer term like I think he should.

Aaaaand I'm old.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I don't feel like this team is going to compete until Leipold is gone - he's okay treading water because he gets the playoff revenue and doesn't have to lose money in order to rebuild.

 

[Minnewildsota]

I don't feel like this team is going to compete until Leipold is gone - he's okay treading water because he gets the playoff revenue and doesn't have to lose money in order to rebuild.

Because it definitely wouldn’t behoove any businessman to increase the team’s worth by winning the Cup. That would just be silly.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

"Rebuilding" is essentially declaring bankruptcy. It's not an easy decision to make when you have actual skin in the game. Very, very easy for us to talk about.

 

[keppel146]

"Rebuilding" is essentially declaring bankruptcy. It's not an easy decision to make when you have actual skin in the game. Very, very easy for us to talk about.

If we’re tank proof, we could just trade our 1st next year unprotected to speed up the “retool”? Assuming we’d have 2 top-15 picks this year.

 

[BagHead]

"Rebuilding" is essentially declaring bankruptcy. It's not an easy decision to make when you have actual skin in the game. Very, very easy for us to talk about.

So much this. In that Athletic article today where league execs talked about prospects, there was a guy who said he'd leave talent on the board if it was from Russia in order to take a Canadian kid due to the safety of it with his job on the line. It's hard to find an owner or GM who doesn't have that mentality. How many of us would risk our jobs on a riskier thing than we need to?

 

[Minnewildsota]

So much this. In that Athletic article today where league execs talked about prospects, there was a guy who said he'd leave talent on the board if it was from Russia in order to take a Canadian kid due to the safety of it with his job on the line. It's hard to find an owner or GM who doesn't have that mentality. How many of us would risk our jobs on a riskier thing than we need to?

Right?

GM: Ok, I know this sounds risky but we're going to purposely suck. We may never get out of it and it might not work even if we do but it'll be well worth the decrease in ticket sales.

Owner: That sounds like a great idea! Sign me up!

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

If we’re tank proof, we could just trade our 1st next year unprotected to speed up the “retool”? Assuming we’d have 2 top-15 picks this year.

Nothing is "tank proof" in a physical sport.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

Right?

GM: Ok, I know this sounds risky but we're going to purposely suck. We may never get out of it and it might not work even if we do but it'll be well worth the decrease in ticket sales.

Owner: That sounds like a great idea! Sign me up!

Leipold to Guerin: You know all those statements I made about never tanking and how our goal is the cup? Well, according to Joe Schmo on the internet, we actually are supposed to do the opposite of that. The real Stanley Cup is awarded on draft lottery night and we should put all our hopes into a 17 year old kid. So all those trades and moves that I signed off on over the years were actually big mistakes and we should have been trying to lose those games instead. I’m going to need you to sell off everyone without an NMC, you are going to also need to jump on Kaprizov’s back a few times until he breaks again.

 

[BagHead]

Tanking requires one of two things to happen. 1) the business is in such a shambles already that there is almost no risk in leaning into it further and aiming for a lottery jackpot or 2) the owner does not view the team as a business and cares about winning a lot more than he does about the money he sinks into the team. Neither of those is true of the Wild at the moment.

I would say the Wild are in a position where they're as close to being good as being bad, and that Leipold cares about winning... but not enough to overcome the vast loss of money that would likely occur.

I should note, even in the case of #2, an owner won't just blow it up for no reason. A good team isn't going to suddenly tank out of the blue. Even a mediocre team isn't going to tank out the blue. They have to be closer to bad than good.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Leipold to Guerin: You know all those statements I made about never tanking and how our goal is the cup? Well, according to Joe Schmo on the internet, we actually are supposed to do the opposite of that. The real Stanley Cup is awarded on draft lottery night and we should put all our hopes into a 17 year old kid. So all those trades and moves that I signed off on over the years were actually big mistakes and we should have been trying to lose those games instead. I’m going to need you to sell off everyone without an NMC, you are going to also need to jump on Kaprizov’s back a few times until he breaks again.

Yes, because Edmonton and Florida have 0 top 5 draft picks leading their teams. Unfortunately, talent is at the top. The rare exception is Dallas, but even they have Miro Heiskanen and Tyler Seguin. When was the last time a team didn't have a top 5 pick end up in the Stanley Cup finals, much less win it?

Those moves and and trades were to keep the team afloat, a life vest, instead of letting the ship sink and rebuild it.

More so, how many fans here are willing to move prospects like Yurov, Wallstedt and Rossi (yes, Rossi) to get immediate help now? I know so many fans that would squirm at moving Yurov + the 13th for Konecky. Or maybe Wallstedt for Chychrun. Why not, because it would open up the window right now. It would be in the time frame.

Maybe Rossi + 2025 1st + Heidt and Yurov for Tkachuk.

The issue has always been that Leipold is interested in treading water. 1st round exits are good enough for the organization . Bringing guys back like Hartman, Foligno, Johansson, Gaudreau is because you know what they are capable of, and that's getting into the playoffs and maybe, maybe if everything lines up right, a first round win...

"Rebuilding" is essentially declaring bankruptcy. It's not an easy decision to make when you have actual skin in the game. Very, very easy for us to talk about.

I get that, which is why I don't see the organization doing much but spinning their wheels. Leipold isn't going to hire a GM that is going to make waves. Guerin's moves mainly have been little paddle boat waves. The biggest one is moving Fiala before he walked.

Guerin had the perfect opportunity to retool on the fly last season by moving Foligno and possibly Zuccs or Hartman, but decided to bring them back. That'd open up more flexibility for the team to pursue a free agent and/or slot in a rookie.

The truth is if you want to rebuild on the fly aka retool, you need a strong minor league team, which I would argue heavily Minnesota doesn't have at all and hasn't had.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

Having top 5 picks on your team means nothing, we have a first overall pick on our team right now if that is some sort of qualifier for you.

An owner that is interested in treading water wouldn’t have flown out to sign Parise and Suter and then spend to the cap limit for a decade straight.

Constant negative projections of things that haven’t and never would happen are annoying as hell to read.

 

[AKL]

Tanking requires one of two things to happen. 1) the business is in such a shambles already that there is almost no risk in leaning into it further and aiming for a lottery jackpot or 2) the owner does not view the team as a business and cares about winning a lot more than he does about the money he sinks into the team. Neither of those is true of the Wild at the moment.

I would say the Wild are in a position where they're as close to being good as being bad, and that Leipold cares about winning... but not enough to overcome the vast loss of money that would likely occur.

I should note, even in the case of #2, an owner won't just blow it up for no reason. A good team isn't going to suddenly tank out of the blue. Even a mediocre team isn't going to tank out the blue. They have to be closer to bad than good.

Establishing a definition here...

When I say tanking, I'm not referring to players and coaches trying to lose games. I'm referring to a GM and owner putting together a team that has no chance of being truly competitive.

I understand why an owner wouldn't want to tank, and how that would trickle down to a GM whose owner doesn't want to tank. Of course there are teams that try to tank every year so it's not like it doesn't happen. It's not like the people here who advocate for some form of a tank are fringe conspiracy theorists who everyone should point and laugh at (not to say they're always correct either).

Putting that aside for a second, if you look at most successful teams (maybe conference finalists) over a period of time, chances are that some of their best players were acquired with top five picks. That's not a coincidence. These are forces we know at work here. Good teams have good players, and most of the time the easiest way to get good players is by drafting them, and most of the time the easiest place to draft good players is towards the top of the draft. I don't think anyone should disagree with those statements?

I think the point you said and would agree with is that teams aren't going to purposely try to make their roster worse if they feel they have a chance at making the playoffs. But I still think @thestonedkoala is 100% correct in that Leipold values having a high floor over pretty much anything else. In that, he's okay with making the playoffs and losing in round one because it's better to him than going through a period of high draft picks and low attendance for a better shot at a longer playoff run. And the GM's he hires and the moves they make reflect that. If we weren't sure before, Guerin's tenure makes that super clear now.

And make no mistake, no one thinks tanking or high picks lead to a 100% success rate. You always see the counter to the tank argument being "what about Buffalo or Edmonton" (well you used to see Edmonton used as an example, you won't anymore now that they made the finals, it is funny how that works). It's not a good argument because no one that suggests it thinks it's a bulletproof plan to win a Cup. It simply gives a better chance, and there's more evidence to support that notion than to discredit it.

I understand why owners and GM's wouldn't tank in a lot of cases, but from a fan perspective, the Wild's shtick is getting incredibly old. They're literally known for being mediocre and treading water around the league. It's not a good place to be either. At least tanking would be something new. And again, there are several teams every year that tank for top picks at the draft in an attempt to rebuild, so it's not an idea that's worth being mocked like some seem to think.

(I also understand why the Wild wouldn't begin a tank now even if they had an owner and GM who were on board, because I can already feel someone typing out a sarcastic "well why don't we just trade Kaprizov, Boldy and Faber for mystery box draft picks" comment.)

 

[AKL]

An owner that is interested in treading water wouldn’t have flown out to sign Parise and Suter and then spend to the cap limit for a decade straight.

That's exactly what signing Parise and Suter was meant to do. This team had missed the playoffs for four straight years and was largely trending down. Did some of us really think signing Suter and Parise would make us a true Cup contender? I hope not. It was meant to get us back into competing for a playoff spot and that's it. And it did that. And then 10 years later we were in the same spot, missing the playoffs again, trending downward, and Leipold brings in Guerin who makes moves to try to keep the team treading water around where they had been for that decade.

 

[AKL]

Guerin had the perfect opportunity to retool on the fly last season by moving Foligno and possibly Zuccs or Hartman, but decided to bring them back. That'd open up more flexibility for the team to pursue a free agent and/or slot in a rookie.

And tsk is 100% right here too. Moving Foligno or Zuccarello or even Hartman when they were expiring and had value would have been a shrewd move that, if done correctly, could have caused a dip for a year, but netted several assets that would have been better for the long term health of this team. Instead they went with the aging veterans they know because their goal is to stay afloat in the playoff race every year at all costs, not necessarily to build a long term contending roster. If they happen to get one or two longer runs out of it, that's the cherry on top.

There's a reason that risk taking is seen as critical to growth in nearly every facet of life. And risk inherently means it can go bad, but it's still considered essential to success. Tanking/retooling/whatever is a risk that many teams take on because of what it could do for them. Leipold is simply averse to taking that risk. I understand that. It doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean I have to agree.

But if you're a financial advisor and you tell people to only take on safe investments, their portfolio is going to grow at a below average rate and you're also not a very good financial advisor.

 

[AKL]

Something fun to consider here:

In 2012-13, the Wild barely squeaked into the playoffs and lost to Chicago in the first round in 5 games
The bottom 5 teams that year, from 26th to 30th, were Carolina, Nashville, Tampa, Colorado, Florida

Food for thought?

 

[BagHead]

Establishing a definition here...

When I say tanking, I'm not referring to players and coaches trying to lose games. I'm referring to a GM and owner putting together a team that has no chance of being truly competitive.

I understand why an owner wouldn't want to tank, and how that would trickle down to a GM whose owner doesn't want to tank. Of course there are teams that try to tank every year so it's not like it doesn't happen. It's not like the people here who advocate for some form of a tank are fringe conspiracy theorists who everyone should point and laugh at (not to say they're always correct either).

Putting that aside for a second, if you look at most successful teams (maybe conference finalists) over a period of time, chances are that some of their best players were acquired with top five picks. That's not a coincidence. These are forces we know at work here. Good teams have good players, and most of the time the easiest way to get good players is by drafting them, and most of the time the easiest place to draft good players is towards the top of the draft. I don't think anyone should disagree with those statements?

I think the point you said and would agree with is that teams aren't going to purposely try to make their roster worse if they feel they have a chance at making the playoffs. But I still think @thestonedkoala is 100% correct in that Leipold values having a high floor over pretty much anything else. In that, he's okay with making the playoffs and losing in round one because it's better to him than going through a period of high draft picks and low attendance for a better shot at a longer playoff run. And the GM's he hires and the moves they make reflect that. If we weren't sure before, Guerin's tenure makes that super clear now.

And make no mistake, no one thinks tanking or high picks lead to a 100% success rate. You always see the counter to the tank argument being "what about Buffalo or Edmonton" (well you used to see Edmonton used as an example, you won't anymore now that they made the finals, it is funny how that works). It's not a good argument because no one that suggests it thinks it's a bulletproof plan to win a Cup. It simply gives a better chance, and there's more evidence to support that notion than to discredit it.

I understand why owners and GM's wouldn't tank in a lot of cases, but from a fan perspective, the Wild's shtick is getting incredibly old. They're literally known for being mediocre and treading water around the league. It's not a good place to be either. At least tanking would be something new. And again, there are several teams every year that tank for top picks at the draft in an attempt to rebuild, so it's not an idea that's worth being mocked like some seem to think.

(I also understand why the Wild wouldn't begin a tank now even if they had an owner and GM who were on board, because I can already feel someone typing out a sarcastic "well why don't we just trade Kaprizov, Boldy and Faber for mystery box draft picks" comment.)

I think I agree with everything you said here. I wasn't making an argument against tanking, just more reasoning out (to myself, but also to any others who want it) why teams do or don't tank, and where the Wild fit into that framework.

I'm unwilling to say Leipold won't ever tank, at some point it becomes the most rational thing to do even for the money-centric, but I feel comfortable with saying that I think his threshold for doing so is pretty dang deep down. Mine is not so far down, but that may be because I'm a stakeholder, not a shareholder.

Personally, I think it's worth trying something different when the same old thing keeps not working. That doesn't have to be tanking, but tanking is definitely a new direction and a shake up of one variety or another is needed. I'm open to other plans that result in a meaningful shakeup, if anyone has one.

 

[thestonedkoala]

And tsk is 100% right here too. Moving Foligno or Zuccarello or even Hartman when they were expiring and had value would have been a shrewd move that, if done correctly, could have caused a dip for a year, but netted several assets that would have been better for the long term health of this team. Instead they went with the aging veterans they know because their goal is to stay afloat in the playoff race every year at all costs, not necessarily to build a long term contending roster. If they happen to get one or two longer runs out of it, that's the cherry on top.

There's a reason that risk taking is seen as critical to growth in nearly every facet of life. And risk inherently means it can go bad, but it's still considered essential to success. Tanking/retooling/whatever is a risk that many teams take on because of what it could do for them. Leipold is simply averse to taking that risk. I understand that. It doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean I have to agree.

But if you're a financial advisor and you tell people to only take on safe investments, their portfolio is going to grow at a below average rate and you're also not a very good financial advisor.

I think this gets at the heart of the argument; Leipold is risk-adverse. He goes with what he knows well and doesn't take huge risks. Another good analogy is the Timberwolves. They finally got a GM that took some major risks and it paid off handsomely.

 

[AKL]

I think I agree with everything you said here. I wasn't making an argument against tanking, just more reasoning out (to myself, but also to any others who want it) why teams do or don't tank, and where the Wild fit into that framework.

I'm unwilling to say Leipold won't ever tank, at some point it becomes the most rational thing to do even for the money-centric, but I feel comfortable with saying that I think his threshold for doing so is pretty dang deep down. Mine is not so far down, but that may be because I'm a stakeholder, not a shareholder.

Personally, I think it's worth trying something different when the same old thing keeps not working. That doesn't have to be tanking, but tanking is definitely a new direction and a shake up of one variety or another is needed. I'm open to other plans that result in a meaningful shakeup, if anyone has one.

Yes, and I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to become pro-tank if they're not already, it just needed to be said that it actually can be a very viable strategy to long term success.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Personally, I think it's worth trying something different when the same old thing keeps not working. That doesn't have to be tanking, but tanking is definitely a new direction and a shake up of one variety or another is needed. I'm open to other plans that result in a meaningful shakeup, if anyone has one.

That's what bothers me right now about Guerin; he also seems a bit risk adverse. Look at his recent changes to the organization. No one is really being brought in that doesn't have some ties with Guerin in one way or another. Hendrick's promotion. Murray's promotion.

We poke fun at it in a tongue and cheek manner, but there is some...really ol boy's club and country club atmosphere that is being created and I think Leipold not only doesn't care, but encourages it because it keeps the organization at a status quo.

 

[DigitalBoldy]

Trying to dip in the standings is literally what Guerin did by buying out Suter/Parise and hamstringing the team with huge dead cap. Except, it’s just not possible for us. This team would need something catastrophic to happen in order to get a top 5 pick.

 

[keppel146]

Nothing is "tank proof" in a physical sport.

Pretty sure we just proved that we are after last year

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Trying to dip in the standings is literally what Guerin did by buying out Suter/Parise and hamstringing the team with huge dead cap. Except, it’s just not possible for us. This team would need something catastrophic to happen in order to get a top 5 pick.

We finished with 87 points and 75 points would've been a top 5 pick. So, 6 fewer wins. Kaprizov missing more games probably does the trick depending on which ones they are.

 

[Minnewildsota]

I think this gets at the heart of the argument; Leipold is risk-adverse. He goes with what he knows well and doesn't take huge risks. Another good analogy is the Timberwolves. They finally got a GM that took some major risks and it paid off handsomely.

It did? When did they win the championship? I must have missed that.