What would you want Wild to do trade wise this year?

lolwat wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

And considering we haven't had many GOOD D-men to begin with... that isn't saying much.

Oh you mean you aren't someone who believes Brent Burns is a superstar? Sorry, unless stated otherwise I tend to think every Wild fan thinks he is.
Bobby Clarke was so mad when the Wild signed him that he offered Kesler a lucrative(at that time) RFA offer-sheet just to prove a point. He only had 2 40 point seasons in his career, so the 50 point expectations to begin with were a mistake by most Wild fans.

No I don't think Burns is a superstar. I think you're taking what I am saying to an extreme. I'm not saying that Johnnson would be a total scrub on any other team. But I don't agree that he's one of the top 20 D-men in the league. Knock off about a million (from the cap,) and I think he's where he should be. Sure it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but having that extra million a year could have made the difference between signing a bigger UFA or them going some where else.

zamboni14 wrote:

No I don't think Burns is a superstar. I think you're taking what I am saying to an extreme. I'm not saying that Johnnson would be a total scrub on any other team. But I don't agree that he's one of the top 20 D-men in the league. Knock off about a million (from the cap,) and I think he's where he should be. Sure it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but having that extra million a year could have made the difference between signing a bigger UFA or them going some where else.

Had we traded Backstrom, we'd have even more room for an actual ELITE NHL forward! Johnsson's $1mil is not anywhere near that impactful of bad contracts on this team. Both Backstrom and Bouchard's contracts are the worst of the worst.

Butch during the season, being on LTI is ok, but he can't be on LTI in the offseason... meaning come summer time, you have to assume he'll be healthy, thus strapping us with his $4+mil cap hit yet again.

Johnsson's deal is one of the least of our cap woes!

zamboni14 wrote:

lolwat wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

And considering we haven't had many GOOD D-men to begin with... that isn't saying much.

Oh you mean you aren't someone who believes Brent Burns is a superstar? Sorry, unless stated otherwise I tend to think every Wild fan thinks he is.
Bobby Clarke was so mad when the Wild signed him that he offered Kesler a lucrative(at that time) RFA offer-sheet just to prove a point. He only had 2 40 point seasons in his career, so the 50 point expectations to begin with were a mistake by most Wild fans.

No I don't think Burns is a superstar. I think you're taking what I am saying to an extreme. I'm not saying that Johnnson would be a total scrub on any other team. But I don't agree that he's one of the top 20 D-men in the league. Knock off about a million (from the cap,) and I think he's where he should be. Sure it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but having that extra million a year could have made the difference between signing a bigger UFA or them going some where else.

And I don't think you understand that to get the best UFAs, you have to pay them extremely well. Kim Johnsson may not be a top-20 d-man, but how many of the current top-20, or top-30 d-men have actually went to unrestricted free agency?

TaLoN wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

No I don't think Burns is a superstar. I think you're taking what I am saying to an extreme. I'm not saying that Johnnson would be a total scrub on any other team. But I don't agree that he's one of the top 20 D-men in the league. Knock off about a million (from the cap,) and I think he's where he should be. Sure it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but having that extra million a year could have made the difference between signing a bigger UFA or them going some where else.

Had we traded Backstrom, we'd have even more room for an actual ELITE NHL forward! Johnsson's $1mil is not anywhere near that impactful of bad contracts on this team. Both Backstrom and Bouchard's contracts are the worst of the worst.

Butch during the season, being on LTI is ok, but he can't be on LTI in the offseason... meaning come summer time, you have to assume he'll be healthy, thus strapping us with his $4+mil cap hit yet again.

Johnsson's deal is one of the least of our cap woes!

I'm not really upset at keeping Backs @ $6 a year. I do think he's one of the top 5 goalies in the league (and to keep him here we'd have to pay him.) But then I also believe that you need to start with the goalie when building a team.

PMB... I think he's also about a million a year over paid

lolwat wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

lolwat wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

And considering we haven't had many GOOD D-men to begin with... that isn't saying much.

Oh you mean you aren't someone who believes Brent Burns is a superstar? Sorry, unless stated otherwise I tend to think every Wild fan thinks he is.
Bobby Clarke was so mad when the Wild signed him that he offered Kesler a lucrative(at that time) RFA offer-sheet just to prove a point. He only had 2 40 point seasons in his career, so the 50 point expectations to begin with were a mistake by most Wild fans.

No I don't think Burns is a superstar. I think you're taking what I am saying to an extreme. I'm not saying that Johnnson would be a total scrub on any other team. But I don't agree that he's one of the top 20 D-men in the league. Knock off about a million (from the cap,) and I think he's where he should be. Sure it doesn't sound like a whole lot, but having that extra million a year could have made the difference between signing a bigger UFA or them going some where else.

And I don't think you understand that to get the best UFAs, you have to pay them extremely well. Kim Johnsson may not be a top-20 d-man, but how many of the current top-20, or top-30 d-men have actually went to unrestricted free agency?

depends... is DR the GM?

zamboni14 wrote:

I'm not really upset at keeping Backs @ $6 a year. I do think he's one of the top 5 goalies in the league (and to keep him here we'd have to pay him.) But then I also believe that you need to start with the goalie when building a team.

PMB... I think he's also about a million a year over paid

You and I differ on goaltending philosphy in the cap era then. I do agree that you build from the goaltender out, but that you do that via youth STARTING at the goaltender out. A young goalie gets paid a lot less than an older proven one in most cases. IMO Harding is the more capable goalie, if he'd just get his shot. I'd be perfectly fine with Harding as our goalie and Backstrom being long gone. Thus we'd be saving a TON of cap space!

As for Butch, you seriously believe he's worth even $3+mil/yr?!?!!? NO WAY! He's never proven to be worth anything more than a $2mil/yr player at best! Dump him completely! Spend his $4+mil on someone who plays like they are worth $4+mil!

The reason why Backs's contract is considered bad is because he signed it on Trade Deadline when his value was really high, had DR inked him in July of 08 when HE FUCKING SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO HIM he could have been the same goalie for 4ish.

Johnnson is the most valuable, but we can't lose him for nothing, i'm ok with either keeping him or trading him for assets to the team, yes it be nice to have him for 4mil/year.

PMB is going to fleece the Wild this year we can only hope to trade him next year if he plays some, i really do think she's lying about her injury its no concision its pregnancy, butch is a she and she has a baby, maybe the baby will have some skill...

forthewild wrote:

The reason why Backs's contract is considered bad is because he signed it on Trade Deadline when his value was really high, had DR inked him in July of 08 when HE FUCKING SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO HIM he could have been the same goalie for 4ish.

That is also true. When it was clear Backstrom was going to get $5-6mil... to me it was a nobrainer, save the cap space and trade Backstrom scenario! This team could not afford to pay Backs what he's getting and also improve the skaters infront of him. As we've seen, that is exactly what happened. We're a much worse skating team now.

TaLoN wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

I'm not really upset at keeping Backs @ $6 a year. I do think he's one of the top 5 goalies in the league (and to keep him here we'd have to pay him.) But then I also believe that you need to start with the goalie when building a team.

PMB... I think he's also about a million a year over paid

You and I differ on goaltending philosphy in the cap era then. I do agree that you build from the goaltender out, but that you do that via youth STARTING at the goaltender out. A young goalie gets paid a lot less than an older proven one in most cases. IMO Harding is the more capable goalie, if he'd just get his shot. I'd be perfectly fine with Harding as our goalie and Backstrom being long gone. Thus we'd be saving a TON of cap space!

As for Butch, you seriously believe he's worth even $3+mil/yr?!?!!? NO WAY! He's never proven to be worth anything more than a $2mil/yr player at best! Dump him completely! Spend his $4+mil on someone who plays like they are worth $4+mil!

well I'm not saying start with a 35 year old stud in net, but yes I think we do disagree a bit. Now had the Wild moved Backstrom rather then signing him, I would have been fine with it as well (because I agree that Harding is ready to lead a team.) Now with both of those said, what would fetch us more.. Backstrom before the end of his contract (so he would be good for a "run" but may not re-sign with the team) OR a younger goalie that is still a RFA that looks like he's ready to take the lead? It all depends on who's calling. As for the cap hit, yeah we do disagree on where to spend the money (and I'll freely admit to being "goalie" biased since I am a goalie.)

Actually I do think he's a $3mil/yr player (that would be the TOP end though.. I'm thinking maybe more like 2.5-3.0)

In the hands of DR neither would have gotten more then a 2 4th line grinders, DR loves those who needs skills when you have 4th liners. In the hands of anyone with a brain Backs could have fetched a ton last year, prospects roster players, 1st round pick, he was top 3 i think or top 5 in all categories on a team that had no business winning.

zamboni14 wrote:

Now with both of those said, what would fetch us more.. Backstrom before the end of his contract (so he would be good for a "run" but may not re-sign with the team) OR a younger goalie that is still a RFA that looks like he's ready to take the lead?

Here's the thing, with Harding instead of Backs, we would have had the cap space PLUS whatever Backs got in return, which to me... for a building team is a much more appealing combo than anything we can get for Harding MINUS the cap space by paying Backs so fricking much.

And yes, Backs would have fetched more in a trade anyway since he was an all-star last season. Did you forget what the Pens paid to get Hossa just 2 yrs ago?

I gotta disagree on this one Talon. Mainly because I do not think Harding is ready to play 60-65 games per season. Yet. And while Backstrom's $6M contract is a big pill to shallow, he is a Vezina finalist and overall has earned his payday. He's had his soft games, but every goalie has those. If Harding can string together a few quality starts then I will re-think my view. But when it comes to bad contracts I'm not sweating Backs as much as PMB or Zid(at least it's his contract yr). What is the terms on Backstrom's NTC, as I am still hoping Harding will be ready to be our #1 next season or even sooner?

TaLoN wrote:

zamboni14 wrote:

Now with both of those said, what would fetch us more.. Backstrom before the end of his contract (so he would be good for a "run" but may not re-sign with the team) OR a younger goalie that is still a RFA that looks like he's ready to take the lead?

Here's the thing, with Harding instead of Backs, we would have had the cap space PLUS whatever Backs got in return, which to me... for a building team is a much more appealing combo than anything we can get for Harding MINUS the cap space by paying Backs so fricking much.

And yes, Backs would have fetched more in a trade anyway since he was an all-star last season. Did you forget what the Pens paid to get Hossa just 2 yrs ago?

The luxury you have though is knowing that DR wouldn't have been the one drafting this past draft, so those picks (based on what Fletch has done so far) would have been nice. Also you are forgetting that although Harding LOOKS like he's ready to be a starter, that doesn't mean that he IS a starter. Look at all those goalies that came out of Dallas... Turek, Fernandez, Turco... only 1 has proven to be a true starting goalie even though they all "looked" good and ready. So, that said, Harding falls apart and suddenly we have everything but the biggest key to the puzzle and by the time we get that key... it's too late. Now, with that "stud" already in place, you are more likely (IMO) to be able to fill out the rest of the team to make a run before that goalie's time is over.

BUT, is Backs a "cup caliber" goalie? As good as he is... that is still a looming question.

Not sure if Backs would have fetched more... or did you forget that DR ran the team last year?

Backs has a no trade clause for the first 3 years of the deal if I'm not mistaken, so no room to keep Harding.

As for whether Hards is ready or not... most Wild fans thought the same about Backs before Manny got injured and Backs got his shot.

You won't know "for sure" if a goalie can handle it until you give him that shot. IMO I think Harding is more than ready to get the chance. It's because of that, that I would have rather traded Backs. I think Hards is ready.

Marlowe Syn wrote:

I gotta disagree on this one Talon. Mainly because I do not think Harding is ready to play 60-65 games per season. Yet. And while Backstrom's $6M contract is a big pill to shallow, he is a Vezina finalist and overall has earned his payday. He's had his soft games, but every goalie has those. If Harding can string together a few quality starts then I will re-think my view. But when it comes to bad contracts I'm not sweating Backs as much as PMB or Zid(at least it's his contract yr). What is the terms on Backstrom's NTC, as I am still hoping Harding will be ready to be our #1 next season or even sooner?

I think it's in effect for 3 of the 4 years. His last one said he couldn't be traded till at least 30 days prior to the trade deadline (if I remember correctly.)

zamboni14 wrote:

So, that said, Harding falls apart and suddenly we have everything but the biggest key to the puzzle and by the time we get that key... it's too late. Now, with that "stud" already in place, you are more likely (IMO) to be able to fill out the rest of the team to make a run before that goalie's time is over.

Completely disagree, Backs time will be over right when the team is getting ready to make a REAL run. We're talking about a goalie who will be 31 before this season is over. He's not exactly YOUNG here!

It will take 2 years just to get this team back to the playoffs, let alone another 2-3 to become a real TRUE contender. Backstrom may well be done by then!

Going to disagree with your disagreement. Goalies don't hit their peak till 30-32 (usually) and some goalies can sustain that higher peak longer then others. With Backs being the more "fashionable" position goalie (rather then a flopper or even true butterfly goalie) I think his peak will last longer and he'll be able to play in the NHL for about 10 more years.

And I think we could be going for a cup in 4 years time (but that all depends on our draft and FA periods.) We have a nice foundation going for us at the moment, we just need those "top" guys now. (yeah, easier said then done)

Now in that time, if Fletcher can stock up on prospects (with smart drafting) by the time Backs is ready to hang it up, we could be knee deep in talent so that we could pull a "Red Wings" and be able to get "rent-a-wreck" goalies and still have a shot at the cup.

We also did draft the top NA rated goalie for what ever that is worth (thanks to Fletcher moving us down in the draft rather then picking someone for the fuck of it) so in 4 years he could be getting ready for his NHL shot, also look at Brodeur i know he's more skilled then backs but even with JL gone backs is doing good.

Talon like you I'm pissed he signed for 6 per year, way to much and it was stupid because DR refused to talk to him he was like i gotta get Gabby (thankfully we didn't immagine 7.5mil/year)

but i disagree with Backs, he and Koivu are the foundation for this team to move forward.

Niko Hovinen. Our next Finnish goalie. 6'7", 220 pounds. Agile.

How many starting goalies in the NHL right now are over the age of 36?

Out of 30, I count 4 at 36 or older...

Brodeur
Khabibulin
Roloson
Osgood

Goalies don't last very often past that ripe age. I do NOT expect Backstrom to be playing until he's 41 like you just suggested either.

Look at Kipper, he's only in his 5th season as a true starting tender himself, he's 33yrso, like Backs - he is a positional goalie and started playing as a starting tender at age 28, yet people are already saying he's on the decline!

TaLoN wrote:

How many starting goalies in the NHL right now are over the age of 36?

Out of 30, I count 4 at 36 or older...

Brodeur
Khabibulin
Roloson
Osgood

Goalies don't last very often past that ripe age. I do NOT expect Backstrom to be playing until he's 41 like you just suggested either.

Look at Kipper, he's only in his 5th season as a true starting tender himself, he's 33yrso, like Backs - he is a positional goalie and started playing as a starting tender at age 28, yet people are already saying he's on the decline!

Yeah but kippers has worked almost more then any other goalie in the past 4 years the guy's played 70+ games where as Backs just got over that last year. It would be nice to have backs for less but he's a great goalie and will be for at least the 3 years he has the NTC, in the 4th year i expect him to have his biggest year as he will be looking for $ thats when we rent him out. Also Osgood did play damn well in the SCF last year, and Roloson played his ass off for the oilers team who had nothing going for them, and continues to play hiss ass off, Khabi did well too, and lets not forget Brodeur is 1 SO away from the record, and is all time Minutes played leader and all time Wins leader. not exactly bad company to be in.

TaLoN wrote:

How many starting goalies in the NHL right now are over the age of 36?

Out of 30, I count 4 at 36 or older...

Brodeur
Khabibulin
Roloson
Osgood

Goalies don't last very often past that ripe age. I do NOT expect Backstrom to be playing until he's 41 like you just suggested either.

Look at Kipper, he's only in his 5th season as a true starting tender himself, he's 33yrso, like Backs - he is a positional goalie and started playing as a starting tender at age 28, yet people are already saying he's on the decline!

but like you said with the whole "contract" thing... you have to look at more then just THIS year. Hasek played into his late 30's and early 40's, Belfour did it, Cujo did it, Mike Vernon retired at 39, Roy was 38... and all of them did it in the last 10-15 years.

Kipper currently has his 2nd lowest GAA and 2nd highest SAV% since becoming a starter (yes the season is young still,) so if some one wants to say that HE'S slowing down, I'd question them. Not to mention that yes, after some one peaks.. they slow down. That's why it's called a PEAK and not a "leveled off." Will Kipper (or any goalie) be as good when they are 38/39 as they are at their peak? Of course not. But them at age 38/39 could still be better then a lot of goalies pre and post peak.

Boogie for Parros straight up.

mplspug wrote:

Boogie for Parros straight up.

Parros >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boogie

You fucking moron, why the hell did I post that if that wasn't what I was implying. Fucking Canadians.