Proposal: Minnesota's plan for D with the expansion

[Kanneda]

They are forced to protect Suter therefore they have only two spots for the rest of their Ds unless they go for the 8 players options which would mean to only be able to protect one of Coyle, Granlund, Nino, Zucker or Staal (unless they find a way to dump Pominville).

I'd protect:
G: Dubnyk
D: Suter, Brodin, Dumba
F: Pominville, Parise, Koivu, Coyle, Granlund, Nino, Zucker.

So this makes Scandella and Spurgeon extremely tradeable no? (not saying that they have less value, only that they'll probably try to trade one of them). What would you expect for them? It is hard since both make for than 4 millions and you'd want only picks and ELC players right?

Maybe the team that would end up more hurt after the expansion as they could easily lose Staal and Scandella for example.

EDIT: Sorry, the post should be "speculation", if a mod could please change it.

Click to read more...

 

[nickschultzfan]

Anybody those doesn't realize that Pominville will be 100% bought out to save another player is on acid.

 

[rynryn]

As of now I believe we have to expose Dubnyk. Most Wild fans believe we're going to have to expose two of our young D if everything stays as is...No consensus on who they would be.the thing is trading one isn't going to do much when the other one will surely get picked off. I say trade two for something really worthwhile or neither and just treat it as a UFA situation headed into the playoffs. One of your guys is going to leave the team, but you need him for the playoffs so why trade him for a rental like return.

 

[northendninja]

Anybody those doesn't realize that Pominville will be 100% bought out to save another player is on acid.

Hasnt the buy-out period come and gone? Or will they be opening before the Expansion Draft next year?

 

[Mr Misty]

They're going to have the best defenseman available for Vegas, they don't need to worry about anything. Protect 8 skaters, pick your 4 best defensemen, nothing else needs to be done.

 

[Bazeek]

As of now I believe we have to expose Dubnyk. Most Wild fans believe we're going to have to expose two of our young D if everything stays as is...No consensus on who they would be.the thing is trading one isn't going to do much when the other one will surely get picked off. I say trade two for something really worthwhile or neither and just treat it as a UFA situation headed into the playoffs. One of your guys is going to leave the team, but you need him for the playoffs so why trade him for a rental like return.

This is exactly correct. Having 1 of them exposed is absolutely no better than having 2 of them exposed. And taking the 8-skater route to try to protect 4 defensemen instead of 3 just means you're exposing more forwards (who the Wild probably have a greater need for).

 

[Curufinwe]

Hasnt the buy-out period come and gone? Or will they be opening before the Expansion Draft next year?

Yes.

June 15th or two days after the last Cup Finals game.

 

[nickschultzfan]

They're going to have the best defenseman available for Vegas, they don't need to worry about anything. Protect 8 skaters, pick your 4 best defensemen, nothing else needs to be done.

This.

They can trade 1 Dman for high-end forward, and then just expose forwards including Zucker, who will be very attractive to Vegas.

 

[mattef]

Hasnt the buy-out period come and gone? Or will they be opening before the Expansion Draft next year?

Ususally the window is between the end of the Stanley Cup Final, and June 30. The expansion draft being June 21st, they would be fine.

 

[NotYou]

This is exactly correct. Having 1 of them exposed is absolutely no better than having 2 of them exposed. And taking the 8-skater route to try to protect 4 defensemen instead of 3 just means you're exposing more forwards (who the Wild probably have a greater need for).

This with the caveat that the wild are reportedly going the 7f 3d approach. In that case having 2 exposed dmen vs 1 is pretty much the same. Probably would be smart to take the 8 skater option the control who stays though

 

[Dr Quincy]

They are forced to protect Suter therefore they have only two spots for the rest of their Ds unless they go for the 8 players options which would mean to only be able to protect one of Coyle, Granlund, Nino, Zucker or Staal (unless they find a way to dump Pominville).

I'd protect:
G: Dubnyk
D: Suter, Brodin, Dumba
F: Pominville, Parise, Koivu, Coyle, Granlund, Nino, Zucker.

So this makes Scandella and Spurgeon extremely tradeable no? (not saying that they have less value, only that they'll probably try to trade one of them). What would you expect for them? It is hard since both make for than 4 millions and you'd want only picks and ELC players right?

Maybe the team that would end up more hurt after the expansion as they could easily lose Staal and Scandella for example.

EDIT: Sorry, the post should be "speculation", if a mod could please change it.

Ok, let's take everything you've said as absolutely certain.

Under your scheme they'd end up losing BOTH Scandella and Spurgeon. 1 by trade and 1 by expansion draft. Sure, they are getting something back from the 1 they traded, but that deal would have to be for a future asset not exposed in the draft.

But if they DON'T trade either guy and expose both, then they do lose 1 (they would have lost 1 anyway) but keep the other. This makes them a better team in the immediate.

So.... there really is no reason to trade either guy, if their goal is to try and compete in 16-17 and 17-18.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Anybody those doesn't realize that Pominville will be 100% bought out to save another player is on acid.

Completely depends on how he plays this upcoming season. If he plays anything like he did that last 1/4th of a season, they probably suck it up and protect him if they can't get him to waive.

3 years is a long time to extend his caphit, especially when there is very little immediate cap savings (~1 million) due to a bonus he's set to receive next yet. They'd probably suck it up expose someone else. Especially given that the D we expose, Zucker and probably even Staal are likely to be attractive to Vegas.

 

[Mr Misty]

Ok, let's take everything you've said as absolutely certain.

Under your scheme they'd end up losing BOTH Scandella and Spurgeon. 1 by trade and 1 by expansion draft. Sure, they are getting something back from the 1 they traded, but that deal would have to be for a future asset not exposed in the draft.

But if they DON'T trade either guy and expose both, then they do lose 1 (they would have lost 1 anyway) but keep the other. This makes them a better team in the immediate.

So.... there really is no reason to trade either guy, if their goal is to try and compete in 16-17 and 17-18.

100%. What's fascinating about all this is how much people lose their heads when they hear "lose (player x) for nothing." Tampa fans are having kittens about adding another forward they can't protect as though having 5 good players in that situation isn't miles better than 4.

Just game it out people, it isn't that hard.

 

[Goose312]

The big question is the type of year Zucker has. He's the best pick for the franchise though maybe not the team and if he has a solid year could be traded for the pick.

Anybody those doesn't realize that Pominville will be 100% bought out to save another player is on acid.

Really depends on the year everyone has, including Poms. Maybe he has a resurgent year under Bruce and hits 30+60 again. Maybe the young guys don't show anything and there's no one worth giving the spot to. Hell, maybe Pominville waives and allows himself to be exposed in order to prevent the buyout.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Expose both Scandella and Brodin, accept whichever one is picked, and roll with a Suter, Spurgeon, Dumba, Scandella/Brodin top 4 for the next 4+ years.

Zucker scoring 20-30 goals is the best case scenario if we want to hold onto all of our D. It might still take a bit of a bribe, like trading somebody like Olofsson for a 3rd or 4th round pick or whatever.

 

[Maukkis]

A simple solution: don't trade any of your defensemen, otherwise you'll be left with three top 4 guys after the expansion draft. I don't believe Minnesota is willing to leave someone like Granlund exposed to "attract" LV to leave their defensemen alone, so they'll lose one of the five regardless. If they start trading, there's a good chance of losing two of the five.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Do 8 skaters
Protect
Suter s candela Spurgeon and Dumba

Have Brodin be odd man

 

[Vashanesh]

A simple solution: don't trade any of your defensemen, otherwise you'll be left with three top 4 guys after the expansion draft. I don't believe Minnesota is willing to leave someone like Granlund exposed to "attract" LV to leave their defensemen alone, so they'll lose one of the five regardless. If they start trading, there's a good chance of losing two of the five.

This is what we've largely been saying (by implication) since the expansion talk started. We aren't going to trade one of our defensemen unless it's an overpayment.

With Stevens coming in, and working with Dumba reportedly being one of the things he was most excited about, it made no sense to pull off a Dumba for Stepan (with pluses added, blah blah) trade when it wasn't going to help both our cap situation AND help our team.

Yes, we'll likely lose one for nothing. But almost every team in the league is going to lose a useful player for nothing. Until we know for sure what we have with Oloffson, we'd be making our D worse right now, and markedly worse in a year to trade them away.

 

[saywut]

It appears we'll just see how the season goes before deciding on anything. Nothing is really set in stone aside from Parise/Suter, some other guys with NMCs have the option but they might waive and wouldn't get claimed. At this point Spurgeon is miles ahead of Scandella/Brodin/Dumba so he would be a pretty obvious choice for protection but perhaps players will close the gap. And if forwards find their games we will probably want to protect them too, as the best we've seen from the likes of Coyle/Niederreiter/Granlund/Haula/Zucker have all been pretty impressive, the problem is the lack of consistency.

There's not really any rationale to trade a d-man if we're going to lose one anyways, because I'd argue Coyle/Nino are more valuable assets to our team right now than Scandella/Dumba/Brodin. So if we've got to protect Koivu and Pominville, that puts us in the 7 + 3 category.

See how the season goes knowing Suter + Parise will be protected, decide after if its worth asking the NMC players to waive, and protect the players who perform the best. Doesn't matter if its 3 + 5 or 4 + 4 or 7+ 3, you lose one player.

 

[rynryn]

If we have to expose Dubnyk though, he might be the best goalie in the expansion draft so that might actually be enticing. or maybe another team makes a deal with them saying "if you take Brodin, we'll give you ______ for him". can they do that? swipe a player and trade him for something from another team?

 

[Golden Gophers 4649]

My guess is the Wild go to Pominville before the expansion draft and ask him to waive his no-trade (which I believe they can do). If he refuses they buy him out. Chances of Las Vegas passing on a guy like Zucker or Dumba to select a 34 year old RW are laughable.

Would the Wild like to deal a defenseman before the end of next year? Depends upon the return. My guess is still they go to Las Vegas and have a handshake deal to take Zucker. The only chance of that changing would be a huge season from Zucker then the Wild protect 3 d-men and risk losing someone like Brodin or Dumba. They could also leave Granlund unprotected depending upon what kind of season he has.

 

[Golden Gophers 4649]

A simple solution: don't trade any of your defensemen, otherwise you'll be left with three top 4 guys after the expansion draft. I don't believe Minnesota is willing to leave someone like Granlund exposed to "attract" LV to leave their defensemen alone, so they'll lose one of the five regardless. If they start trading, there's a good chance of losing two of the five.

Have you seen Granlund play? He's about as inconsistent as any forward in the NHL not named Yakupov.

 

[Canada4Gold]

The 1 thing they absolutely shouldn't do is trade 1 of the 4 and only protect 3 others.

The situation they're in if they leave 1 of the 5 exposed they'll lose 1. So why both trade 1 if they're going to lose 1 anyway? If they decide to trade 1 they'd be stupid not to protect the other 4, otherwise they'd lose 1 anyway so no reason to trade another.

They should either protect 7+3+1, leave 2 exposed and just put up with losing 1. Or they should trade 1 protect 4+4+1 and lose probably a forward. Or they should trade nobody protect 3+5+1 and lose their 4th best forward instead, keeping all 5 D protected.

Now I'm not really sure what they'd prefer their 5th forward v. their 4th D(choosing 7+3+1 v. 4+4+1), or maybe their 5th D v. their 4th forward(choosing 3+5+1 v. 4+4+1).

Some team with 4 great D and a much less valuable 5th D/8th forward it might make sense to trade a 4th D get a solid return and in turn lose a much much less valuable player in expansion. A team in a situation like Minnesota should trade 1 D, because they'd be in a position where they'd lose a equivalent player by doing so, so they'd be trading a player for a lateral perhaps backwards purpose.

 

[rynryn]

Do 8 skaters
Protect
Suter s candela Spurgeon and Dumba

Have Brodin be odd man

Brodin is more valueable to the team. Everyone is talking about our "window" closing with the age of our core. We need our early-20's D. Dumba and Brodin must stay so we don't have to crumple up the entire team when this window slams shut and we can concentrate on replacing our aging forward scorers (Poms, Parise, Koivu, Staal) if the Nino's Coyles, granlunds, and Zuckers never take a step up.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

I'd think Minnesota would protect 8 skaters and protect 4 defenceman. Brodin likely the odd man out