Minnesota Wild General Discussion - 2023-24

[AKL]

It is a beautiful helmet.
What´s the controversy?
It´s so stupid.

The controversy this time I think is that the NHL "tried" enforcing their rule that would ban the helmet, and then suddenly decided not to enforce it. But the crux of it all is residual from the pride stuff last year.

 

[Sweetnut]

The controversy this time I think is that the NHL "tried" enforcing their rule that would ban the helmet, and then suddenly decided not to enforce it. But the crux of it all is residual from the pride stuff last year.

I know.
Still stupid.

 

[BagHead]

The controversy this time I think is that the NHL "tried" enforcing their rule that would ban the helmet, and then suddenly decided not to enforce it. But the crux of it all is residual from the pride stuff last year.

It was such a stupid rule for them to even make. If a player breaks it by supporting a group that is considered downtrodden, and the NHL fines that player, it makes it look like the NHL is punching down and could become a PR nightmare. It was unenforceable from the start.

 

[AKL]

It was such a stupid rule for them to even make. If a player breaks it by supporting a group that is considered downtrodden, and the NHL fines that player, it makes it look like the NHL is punching down and could become a PR nightmare. It was unenforceable from the start.

Trying my absolute hardest to avoid continuing the discussion here, the rule itself isn't that stupid. Call it uniform standards and guidelines, whatever. @ThatGuy22 said it in the other thread, but if you have the rule, there's still going to be backlash, but when people realize they can't change the NHL's mind by typing on a keyboard, they'll give up. Very few of them are actually going to speak with their money over it.

The problem is making the rule in the first place, but not enduring the initial backlash, and instead completely reversing course and choosing not to enforce it.

They could have gone one of two ways, 1) not make the rule, but stop making this stuff mandatory, or 2) make the rule, and actually stick to it. There's going to be some backlash either way initially, and then eventually people stop caring. The NHL is trying its damnedest to avoid any backlash whatsoever, and in doing so, it comes out looking weak, while avoiding none of the backlash.

Maybe an analogy would be like Guerin trying to both compete now and rebuild through the draft, but in reality, the way he's done it has resulted in not much of either.

 

[BagHead]

Trying my absolute hardest to avoid continuing the discussion here, the rule itself isn't that stupid. Call it uniform standards and guidelines, whatever. @ThatGuy22 said it in the other thread, but if you have the rule, there's still going to be backlash, but when people realize they can't change the NHL's mind by typing on a keyboard, they'll give up. Very few of them are actually going to speak with their money over it.

The problem is making the rule in the first place, but not enduring the initial backlash, and instead completely reversing course and choosing not to enforce it.

They could have gone one of two ways, 1) not make the rule, but stop making this stuff mandatory, or 2) make the rule, and actually stick to it. There's going to be some backlash either way initially, and then eventually people stop caring. The NHL is trying its damnedest to avoid any backlash whatsoever, and in doing so, it comes out looking weak, while avoiding none of the backlash.

Maybe an analogy would be like Guerin trying to both compete now and rebuild through the draft, but in reality, the way he's done it has resulted in not much of either.

I understand not wanting to talk about it further, so I'll try to make this short but sweet.
I see your point there, and I think it's a good one. I would say the NHL would probably have to cut out ALL theme nights for it to work, including the ones they currently are ok with (like military appreciation night). If they made it a blanket rule, official everyday uniforms only, there'd be no clear argument that the NHL is punching down, but the way they've done it, they've been trying to pick and choose their politics. Just allow none of it, or all of it. I mean, I don't even care which, I just want to see equal treatment and consistency. I understand that's not the NHL's strong suit, though.

 

[AKL]

I understand not wanting to talk about it further, so I'll try to make this short but sweet.
I see your point there, and I think it's a good one. I would say the NHL would probably have to cut out ALL theme nights for it to work, including the ones they currently are ok with (like military appreciation night). If they made it a blanket rule, official everyday uniforms only, there'd be no clear argument that the NHL is punching down, but the way they've done it, they've been trying to pick and choosing their politics. Just allow none of it, or all of it. I mean, I don't even care which, I just want to see equal treatment and consistency. I understand that's not the NHL's strong suit, though.

Well the blanket rule wasn't against theme nights, it was against players wearing the themed jerseys and other accessories during warmups. You can still do the theme nights, and they should, just keep the players gear out of it. I don't think they were intending for the players to still wear military themed gear during warmups. I don't think they had players do any "hockey fights cancer" themed gear? But they still had the nights.

And actually Arizona just did their military night (because I get the texts about the auctions for the jerseys), but I don't think the players ever wore them.

 

[BagHead]

Well the blanket rule wasn't against theme nights, it was against players wearing the themed jerseys and other accessories during warmups. You can still do the theme nights, and they should, just keep the players gear out of it. I don't think they were intending for the players to still wear military themed gear during warmups. I don't think they had players do any "hockey fights cancer" themed gear? But they still had the nights.

And actually Arizona just did their military night (because I get the texts about the auctions for the jerseys), but I don't think the players ever wore them.

Wait, they don't wear the jerseys? I guess they're just a fundraiser piece then. I did not know that. Well, that makes sense in light of their rule.

 

[AKL]

Wait, they don't wear the jerseys? I guess they're just a fundraiser piece then. I did not know that. Well, that makes sense in light of their rule.

Yeah that's the idea. They were always a fundraiser piece, but they had the players wear them for warmups because it made it more authentic, people were more willing to buy them if they were worn. The NHL's rule was that the players won't wear them in warmups anymore. The rule never banned theme nights of any kind, and the jerseys are still being made, and signed, and sold. The only difference with the ban is that players weren't wearing any of the jerseys in warmups.

And now what we have is a situation where people are trying to push the limits of the ban with pride tape or themed goalie helmets, because they aren't the jerseys, and I think they should allow all of that stuff for any cause, as long as it's purely optional. And they've set the precedent that players can do that stuff and won't get punished, so now they just need to stay consistent with that, and not pick and choose which players can sport which causes. But my hunch is they won't stay consistent, and we'll keep having issues.

But if they are going to keep picking and choosing and "trying" to enforce it sometimes but not others, that's when they'll need to implement some type of standard uniform guidelines that allows for none of it, no non-team colors, no other trademarks or logos besides the team and the NHL, etc.

 

[BagHead]

Yeah that's the idea. They were always a fundraiser piece, but they had the players wear them for warmups because it made it more authentic, people were more willing to buy them if they were worn. The NHL's rule was that the players won't wear them in warmups anymore. The rule never banned theme nights of any kind, and the jerseys are still being made, and signed, and sold. The only difference with the ban is that players weren't wearing any of the jerseys in warmups.

And now what we have is a situation where people are trying to push the limits of the ban with pride tape or themed goalie helmets, because they aren't the jerseys, and I think they should allow all of that stuff for any cause, as long as it's purely optional. And they've set the precedent that players can do that stuff and won't get punished, so now they just need to stay consistent with that, and not pick and choose which players can sport which causes. But my hunch is they won't stay consistent, and we'll keep having issues.

But if they are going to keep picking and choosing and "trying" to enforce it sometimes but not others, that's when they'll need to implement some type of standard uniform guidelines that allows for none of it, no non-team colors, no other trademarks or logos besides the team and the NHL, etc.

Yeah, ok. I fully agree.

 

[NHL1674]

The Oilers now have a better record.

 

[BagHead]

The Oilers now have a better record.

Now that the game is over I can start cheering for the tank again, so I like this.

 

[rt]

Do you all really think Guerin might sell off veteran pieces? Just reading through this thread and it seems like some of you think it might actually happen. I’m not sure if that’s frustration talking or you’re all truly expecting it?

 

[AKL]

Do you all really think Guerin might sell off veteran pieces? Just reading through this thread and it seems like some of you think it might actually happen. I’m not sure if that’s frustration talking or you’re all truly expecting it?

None of us think he will because he gave them all NMC's, that's why we're all frustrated, he couldn't even if he wanted to

 

[57special]

Do you all really think Guerin might sell off veteran pieces? Just reading through this thread and it seems like some of you think it might actually happen. I’m not sure if that’s frustration talking or you’re all truly expecting it?

Most of the veteran pieces of consequence have NMC's, or NTC's. Even some of the guys of no consequence.

Guys like Dewar or Merrill, sure.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

Do you all really think Guerin might sell off veteran pieces? Just reading through this thread and it seems like some of you think it might actually happen. I’m not sure if that’s frustration talking or you’re all truly expecting it?

Doubt it.

 

[57special]

It pisses me off that Foligno is wearing the "A", instead of JEE. Just shows how out of touch BG/Dean are.

He might be great in the dressing room, whatever the hell that means, but JEE is the leader on the ice that I want the other players to emulate, not Mr. BumblePuck.

 

[rt]

Oh I see. Makes sense. If they traded a couple pieces that don’t, like say Middleton, wouldn’t it encourage others to waive their clauses?

Would they trade Middleton?

 

[AKL]

Oh I see. Makes sense. If they traded a couple pieces that don’t, like say Middleton, wouldn’t it encourage others to waive their clauses?

Would they trade Middleton?

The impression I get is that Guerin doesn't like selling, and Middleton does have another year, so I'd be inclined to say no, but you never know.

 

[NHL1674]

It pisses me off that Foligno is wearing the "A", instead of JEE. Just shows how out of touch BG/Dean are.

He might be great in the dressing room, whatever the hell that means, but JEE is the leader on the ice that I want the other players to emulate, not Mr. BumblePuck.

Wish I could hit the "like" button 100 times for this post. Absolutely agree!

And knowing Billy, he'd trade Ek before Foligno.

 

[AKL]

And knowing Billy, he'd trade Ek before Foligno.

Great now I'll have nightmares about this

 

[57special]

Oh I see. Makes sense. If they traded a couple pieces that don’t, like say Middleton, wouldn’t it encourage others to waive their clauses?

Would they trade Middleton?

I would think a team like NJ or TOR would love to get a guy like Middleton who has a low cap hit, is strong and tough, and can play reasonably good defense, in his plodding way, but I don't see BG moving him unless;

- we are way out of it at the TDL

- he gets an overpayment(i.e. late 1st)

I don't see a lot of the NMC guys waiving, as they are older, settled, family men who will have to move the family, which is never popular on the home front. These are not young, hungry guys who live in apartments. Hartman's wife is from Minnesota, Foligno is pretty settled. Zuccarello has made it clear he will take less to stay, and Goligoski/Fleury have also made it clear they won't waive(not that anyone cares). Johansson has a NTC... he's an ok depth player with a reasonable cap hit.

Brodin and Spurgeon both have NMC's, and have never played anywhere else, so i don't think they'd waive. They are also pretty damn good players, so they aren't the type of players you look to move.

It's kind of funny that Kaprizov, Boldy, and JEE don't have NMC's/NTC's, but guys like Foligno, Hartman, Goligoski, and Gaudreau do(along with many others).

 

[AKL]

It's kind of funny that Kaprizov, Boldy, and JEE don't have NMC's/NTC's, but guys like Foligno, Hartman, Goligoski, and Gaudreau do(along with many others).

They're actually not eligible yet because they're still RFA age, but Boldy has a 10 team no trade clause his last two years, Kaprizov has the NMC starting next year, and Eriksson Ek has a 10 team no trade list+NMC next year.

The only guys who are eligible and don't have trade protection are Merrill and Middleton.

 

[Sweetnut]

Oh I see. Makes sense. If they traded a couple pieces that don’t, like say Middleton, wouldn’t it encourage others to waive their clauses?

Would they trade Middleton?

Who would want Midds, and why? I don´t think GMBG would do it anyway.

 

[rt]

Who would want Midds, and why? I don´t think GMBG would do it anyway.

Well, I’m an Arizona fan. Our team is having an absolute crisis on defense. Middleton isn’t old yet and isn’t a UFA yet. And the Coyotes have 10 2nd round picks in the next the three drafts. I could see them offering a pair of them for him. But I didn’t expect him to be available. I thought maybe because Minny hasn’t started the season as well as hoped. But I didn’t really think Guerin would actually be selling.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

I would move Middleton in a heart beat if we had a reasonable replacement ready to play. But we don't right now.