Article: The Wild Had Better Trade Targets Than Nyquist

[Robert Brent]

View full article

[Citizen Strife]

If the Wild traded tons for Laughton (30-40 pt player ceiling), it would have been railed on way harder than even Nyquist is.  At least with Nyquist, you know if it doesn't work, he's gone after the season.  Gourde might have been an option, but he's only played 35 games.  

There were risks regardless if the team was able to aim high or low.

[Citizen Strife]

*forgot to edit*

The less players the Wild have for next year's roster, the better chance Yurov (if healthy) solves that center problem anyway.  They seem utterly allergic to putting Rossi or Yurov at wing to make either situation work, so the idea might be to stick with the Nelson plan and start Yurov at 3C and see if he can blossom into a a better top 6 scoring option the same way Rossi took to things pretty quickly.  Taking a Laughton would have put another person in front of Yurov or Khusnutdinov yet again.  I bet you'd THAT'D go over well...

If the Isles sign Nelson, they sign Nelson.  Hardly any different than the situation the Wild find themselves in now.

Edited 6 hours ago by Citizen Strife

[Enforceror]

For a short term bump to a lineup that desperately needed a little offense without sacrificing two-way ability (plus another PK option), I'll position myself on the side that thinks this is a decent move. I know, this isn't going to rocket us into another atmosphere but with cap issues, I just don't see too many possibilities for playoff contention without sacrificing some key players (yes I think Spurgeon is still a key player). 

I'm not too worried about the 2nd round pick given our contention window. The salary retention was a must. This gives us the following lines for playoffs, contingent on injuries.

Some mix of Ohgren ($887), Trenin ($3.5), Khus ($925), Lauko ($788), Vinnie ($775), Johannson (2m)

Next year, we should be adding Yurov to the mix ($900k?)

We'll be carrying 3-4 too many roster spots with potential fall-off/trade or retirement of Zucc, Nyquist, Lauko, Vinnie, Nojo. 

I like Khus but Vinnie has out-scored him in 6 games and is even LESS money. Some AHL time might not be bad for the 22 year old.

Ohgren is in a similar place. Probably too good for AHL but not quite an impact in the N yet. 

Lauko has great energy, grit and speed but has not showcased much in the skill dept apart from some nice breakaways. 

Big questions:

Is Zucc planning to stick around? He'll be 38 at the start of next season. Is Nyquist the contingency plan?

Can Yurov immediately slot into line 2?

Do we continue on with Trenin's 3.5m?

Does management still have a thing for Nojo?

All-in-all, I think we have some cleanup to do which could save us 3-5mil in cap space and after signing KK and Rossi, leave us with a bit to make an off-season change to beef up the lineup where needed based on the answers to the questions above. 

Ok, done rambling 😉

[RedLake]

NoNo to Nojo!

[FredJohnson]

The Wild Had Better Trade Targets Than Nyquist

Good writing Robert. You got all the pertinent facts and called out the 'what ifs' with the situation. A subheading to your heading (I pasted above) could be "But Could They Afford It?" Thanks for generating this!

[SkolWild73]

Yes, we had other targets, but I wouldn’t say they were any better.  Pretty much anyone we could have gotten for a draft pick only was going to have some warts. 

[1Brotherbill]

They really don't have many options available.  Am I happy with Nyquist?  No.  But there was no improvement in the roster available that they could afford.

Brock Nelson is not an improvement, either is Brock Boeser. 

[Burnt Toast]

Well I sure liked what I saw in Nyquist’s first game. Dare I say without him we lose? He was a difference maker 100%. If you look at what the Wild have done with this trade, made the team better, IMMEDIATELY,  at reasonable cost. What’s not to like? He’s fast, smart, tough. I hope he gets extended. He fits the team’s play style quite nicely. I think all these small moves are adding up to make a low cost difference.