Article: Marco Rossi Is Quietly Becoming the Wild’s Brightest Spot

[goenzoy]

57 minutes ago, Pewterschmidt said:

no one will accept the trade offer

True but that's not applicable to Rossi .Only BG lives in the fantasy world of upgrade. Rossi or any talented young player does have a miles easier job.In case of Rossi REPEAT 60 point's . The rest will come alone

[1Brotherbill]

9 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

I’ll respectfully disagree that Rossi is right there with them.  Rossi is proving to be a legit nhl regular season forward, especially when paired with elite talents like 97 & 12.  If this season he proves he can consistently drive a line without 97 & 12 he becomes a legit top 6’r in my opinion

Rossi is the opposite of Foglino and Hartman.  Rossi get's you to the playoffs with scoring during the season.  Foglino and Hartman get you to advance in the playoffs because they play playoff hockey well.

The problem with the Wild is those two guys are the only playoff performers that are on the roster.  Boldy showed a bit last season that he could be a playoff perform.  Kirill has shown it in the past.  But the rest of the team has a gigantic question mark when it comes to the playoffs. 

[1Brotherbill]

People act like Ek is the reincarnation of Gretzky.  Scored over 60 points twice.  Has a career FO% of 47.7.  And he is considered our top center.  If you can improve that spot by trading him why not trade him.  

But as a fanbase who likes to hold on to players that they consider as one of them.  Ek fits the bill as a Minnesota one of us guy.  So he will retire as a Wild player and be put to rest at Fort Snelling.  Reality is he is a middle six center and should be on the third line with two other centers on the team who are better than he is.  

This status quo of adding players that set the identity of the team means your team coming out of training camp sucks.  How about we try something that all the elite franchises have done over the last... well forever.  Tank get good players and then play for a cup.  

People will say what about Kirill and his contract.  Well that contract starts next year.  If you can get a top five pick this year you can draft a center that will center Kirill for the next eight years.  If you can tank and still have Ek and Rossi on this roster with a top five pick in this draft you might have a shot at actually playing for a Stanley Cup. 

[mnfaninnc]

22 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

I’ll respectfully disagree that Rossi is right there with them.  Rossi is proving to be a legit nhl regular season forward, especially when paired with elite talents like 97 & 12.  If this season he proves he can consistently drive a line without 97 & 12 he becomes a legit top 6’r in my opinion

What exactly "drives" a line? I think that is where we may have a disagreement with the writer. He's on successful lines, but does he really drive the line? If he's teamed up with 97 & 12, I'd suggest he doesn't drive it. 

Up top, with 20 minutes with Johansson and Tarasenko, I would suggest that this line he has to drive, but on the line above, both of those wings love to carry the puck, so he's a passenger, maybe an invested passenger. Whatever we want to call it doesn't matter, what matters is he's not dead weight. 

So, in this instance, I think I favor Pewter's opinion over Robert's on the driving part, but that doesn't mean Rossi isn't a bright spot in the season. Improving on his faceoffs, and putting up points is a good sign. But remember, the last 2 years he has put up points in the 1st half and not in the 2nd half. I would suggest that with the Olympic break this year, Rossi might, actually, get enough rest to have a good 2nd half. I'm not sure if Austria qualified, but I sure would expect them to be knocked out early.

[mnfaninnc]

12 hours ago, 1Brotherbill said:

But the rest of the team has a gigantic question mark when it comes to the playoffs. 

This is why we need to play the kids heavily this season. The rest of the team in this sentence are the player's that will need to be replaced. It's not the full rest of the team, but it is a significant portion.

[mnfaninnc]

12 hours ago, 1Brotherbill said:

This status quo of adding players that set the identity of the team means your team coming out of training camp sucks.  How about we try something that all the elite franchises have done over the last... well forever.  Tank get good players and then play for a cup.  

I just can't agree with this line of thinking. And, no, elite franchises have not done this forever. Again, there's a difference between tanking and actually just being bad. Tanking looks a lot like what the Twins did at the trade deadline this year. Chicago tanked, Buffalo tanked, Edmonton did not, they were just bad. Same thing with AZ/Utah, they were just poorly run. 

The teams that tank are not the teams that end up getting good players and heading to the cup finals, there's a lot of pain involved with that, and it's a 50/50 shot at getting good. 

It's more important to hit on a cluster of picks in a 3 year period to build a core. The research I did only looked at the draft picks hitting and didn't consider trading into those drafts to accumulate more players. For some reason, this group tends to gel together, and if you get the right mix, you get success. For us, that group would be focused around '20-22. The players involved merely need to make significant contributions, they don't need to be the elite superstars. It really helps if a team can hit on a couple of mid round picks too. 

This is the best way to build the team. We had several high draft picks in those drafts. Now we've got to have hit on them. 

Now, to 1BB's sub point, if we can play these kids, acclimate them and use this as a developmental year, a year or 2 that has to happen as they get experience, then, along the way you might pick up a couple of high draft picks during those developmental years that will add value and be cheap contracts for at least 3 seasons. 

[Mateo3xm]

23 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

JFC, so this is where we are with Rossi?

The majority of people are there on Rossi. From the very beginning you were basically calling him a bust and even now you still have an issue acknowledging his accomplishments and how he’s turned himself into a very good player. Pride is very hard to swallow. You keep doubling down on the very little ammunition you have and it’s very telling. 

[Pewterschmidt]

33 minutes ago, Mateo3xm said:

The majority of people are there on Rossi. From the very beginning you were basically calling him a bust and even now you still have an issue acknowledging his accomplishments and how he’s turned himself into a very good player. Pride is very hard to swallow. You keep doubling down on the very little ammunition you have and it’s very telling. 

I’ve admitted that I thought Rossi was a bust.  I’m also pleased with his 60 pt season.  I think he’s on the block mainly because Guerin doesn’t like him. 
why is it “telling”?

[1Brotherbill]

On 11/5/2025 at 9:02 AM, mnfaninnc said:

I just can't agree with this line of thinking. And, no, elite franchises have not done this forever. Again, there's a difference between tanking and actually just being bad. Tanking looks a lot like what the Twins did at the trade deadline this year. Chicago tanked, Buffalo tanked, Edmonton did not, they were just bad. Same thing with AZ/Utah, they were just poorly run. 

The teams that tank are not the teams that end up getting good players and heading to the cup finals, there's a lot of pain involved with that, and it's a 50/50 shot at getting good. 

It's more important to hit on a cluster of picks in a 3 year period to build a core. The research I did only looked at the draft picks hitting and didn't consider trading into those drafts to accumulate more players. For some reason, this group tends to gel together, and if you get the right mix, you get success. For us, that group would be focused around '20-22. The players involved merely need to make significant contributions, they don't need to be the elite superstars. It really helps if a team can hit on a couple of mid round picks too. 

This is the best way to build the team. We had several high draft picks in those drafts. Now we've got to have hit on them. 

Now, to 1BB's sub point, if we can play these kids, acclimate them and use this as a developmental year, a year or 2 that has to happen as they get experience, then, along the way you might pick up a couple of high draft picks during those developmental years that will add value and be cheap contracts for at least 3 seasons. 

Look at the draft history of the Wild.  Players drafted in the top 15 of the draft have all been really good.  This is pretty much the standard for the league.  Drafting in the mid to late 20's produces a player that is bottom six or career AHL player.  Usually if you draft in the top 5 that player is an elite player.  Often that player in the top 5 plays their draft year.  

This team is average with what they have on the active roster and the "deep prospect pool" has a bunch of players that may play solid middle six rolls but more like bottom six maybe or press box veterans.  Everyone says well they are young they need to get experience.  Funny these other teams have players that are in their teens and early 20's that seem to have everything figured out.  Why is that? Because they were drafted highly and are very good.   

[mnfaninnc]

12 hours ago, 1Brotherbill said:

Look at the draft history of the Wild.  Players drafted in the top 15 of the draft have all been really good.  This is pretty much the standard for the league.  Drafting in the mid to late 20's produces a player that is bottom six or career AHL player.  Usually if you draft in the top 5 that player is an elite player.  Often that player in the top 5 plays their draft year.  

This team is average with what they have on the active roster and the "deep prospect pool" has a bunch of players that may play solid middle six rolls but more like bottom six maybe or press box veterans.  Everyone says well they are young they need to get experience.  Funny these other teams have players that are in their teens and early 20's that seem to have everything figured out.  Why is that? Because they were drafted highly and are very good. 

This guarantees nothing. Other teams have gotten players who are performing, while it's an abject failure for some. It's a 50/50 bet. Tanking is a terrible process to do this. If you happen to be bad, that's one thing, but tanking and throwing away the next 5 years is bad strategy. 

There's a difference in just being terrible and purposefully being terrible. I think it is more risky for the teams who do this on purpose. The thing I especially don't trust is the NHL's draft lottery procedure. Watch this year, my bet is that Gavin McKenna goes to a large market team that somehow finds its way into a lottery pick. Yes, I'm saying it's rigged. 

[Mateo3xm]

On 11/5/2025 at 9:02 AM, mnfaninnc said:

I just can't agree with this line of thinking. And, no, elite franchises have not done this forever. Again, there's a difference between tanking and actually just being bad. Tanking looks a lot like what the Twins did at the trade deadline this year. Chicago tanked, Buffalo tanked, Edmonton did not, they were just bad. Same thing with AZ/Utah, they were just poorly run. 

The teams that tank are not the teams that end up getting good players and heading to the cup finals, there's a lot of pain involved with that, and it's a 50/50 shot at getting good. 

It's more important to hit on a cluster of picks in a 3 year period to build a core. The research I did only looked at the draft picks hitting and didn't consider trading into those drafts to accumulate more players. For some reason, this group tends to gel together, and if you get the right mix, you get success. For us, that group would be focused around '20-22. The players involved merely need to make significant contributions, they don't need to be the elite superstars. It really helps if a team can hit on a couple of mid round picks too. 

This is the best way to build the team. We had several high draft picks in those drafts. Now we've got to have hit on them. 

Now, to 1BB's sub point, if we can play these kids, acclimate them and use this as a developmental year, a year or 2 that has to happen as they get experience, then, along the way you might pick up a couple of high draft picks during those developmental years that will add value and be cheap contracts for at least 3 seasons. 

 

I think it’s hilarious how you’re so caught up in two ways of putting the exact same thing(tank and rebuild). They literally lead to the exact same thing, which is drafting in the top 5..

“And, no, elite franchises have not done this forever.”

You literally just admitted that Chicago tanked. They had a dynasty and won 3 cups. If Edmonton didn’t tank, idk what tanking is. 

“The teams that tank are not the teams that end up getting good players and heading to the cup finals, there's a lot of pain involved with that, and it's a 50/50 shot at getting good.”

This is just an astounding comment. I still haven’t seen you give a definitive difference between the two. What is the difference? Look at SJ, Ana, CHI, CBJ, UTH. They’re far better off than we are in the long term.

“For some reason, this group tends to gel together, and if you get the right mix, you get success.” I actually completely agree with this.

“The players involved merely need to make significant contributions, they don't need to be the elite superstars.” What team do you know that’s won a cup that doesn’t have elite superstars? How did they get them? By early in the draft? If you think we can bank on trading for superstars or getting elite players later in the draft when that percentage goes down exponentially, you’re mistaken. It’s so incredibly competitive to get those players and they don’t want to come to MN.

 

[mnfaninnc]

1 hour ago, Mateo3xm said:

You literally just admitted that Chicago tanked. They had a dynasty and won 3 cups. If Edmonton didn’t tank, idk what tanking is. 

Chicago is in the middle of their tank. They didn't tank before that, they were just bad. Edmonton didn't tank either, they were just very poorly run.

 

1 hour ago, Mateo3xm said:

Look at SJ, Ana, CHI, CBJ, UTH. They’re far better off than we are in the long term.

SJ tanked sort of. They saw they were at the end of their run and just cleaned house. Anaheim ran into the end of their run, they did not tank. Chicago won the Bedard sweepstakes but they very publicly tanked. CBJ did not tank, they could not resign their team. This is a problem for them because most players do not want to play there. AZ/UT did not tank, they were just really bad for a long time, though, I might edit this to they may have tanked (it was too long ago to remember) and then stayed really bad for a long time. The AZ issue may have been an owner thing because as soon as they changed to Utah, suddenly they are an exciting young team. 

1 hour ago, Mateo3xm said:

“The players involved merely need to make significant contributions, they don't need to be the elite superstars.” What team do you know that’s won a cup that doesn’t have elite superstars? How did they get them? By early in the draft? If you think we can bank on trading for superstars or getting elite players later in the draft when that percentage goes down exponentially, you’re mistaken. It’s so incredibly competitive to get those players and they don’t want to come to MN

You are taking this statement out of context, or not understanding the meaning. The group of guys that come in with hits on 3 drafts do not have to be superstars, they need to be significant contributors. That would mean the club is built around them. In our case, Kaprizov and Boldy would be the stars, Rossi and Faber are also stars within that group. The key is getting 8-10 guys from that age group that put forth considerable contributions as far as TOI and games, not a fringe guy.

From what I saw when I looked into this, getting that kind of a group together in the right spots was the key to dynasties. I did not look into trading into that group, but I think that also works with Faber in '20 and Jiricek in '22. When this group comes together, the results usually lag a bit like NYI did in the '70s, or like Edmonton did in the '80s, but when they did they were tough to beat.

The draft hits I'm talking about were more than 1st rounders, they were a very lucky, above normal hit that isn't counted on. These would be guys like Kaprizov, or Benn or, I think Stone who just willed it. Guys like these generally make good captains. Tampa was full of them. 

The team without superstars that won is low hanging fruit: St. Louis. I consider them an outlier in this exercise as this had more to do with Binnington being hot in goal than anything else. 

The difference between tanking and just being bad is intention. Completely dismantling a team before it just naturally ages out mainly to obtain a bevy of draft picks is the difference. For instance, I believe Buffalo has done this twice and may do it again, which puts them in the just being bad for a long time area. But their intention has been tank for picks. Doing this intentionally tends to send the message that we will be bad for a long time and don't mind losing. And, it is common for this long time to include decades. Trying to be a doormat brings a loser's mentality and that detracts vets from wanting to be there.

[1Brotherbill]

12 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

This guarantees nothing. Other teams have gotten players who are performing, while it's an abject failure for some. It's a 50/50 bet. Tanking is a terrible process to do this. If you happen to be bad, that's one thing, but tanking and throwing away the next 5 years is bad strategy. 

There's a difference in just being terrible and purposefully being terrible. I think it is more risky for the teams who do this on purpose. The thing I especially don't trust is the NHL's draft lottery procedure. Watch this year, my bet is that Gavin McKenna goes to a large market team that somehow finds its way into a lottery pick. Yes, I'm saying it's rigged. 

Drafting at the bottom of the draft for 25 years has not produced anything that resembles a Cup contender.  So your suggestion is to keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again.  There is a term for that but I can't quite put my finger on it. 

[mnfaninnc]

11 hours ago, 1Brotherbill said:

Drafting at the bottom of the draft for 25 years has not produced anything that resembles a Cup contender.  So your suggestion is to keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over again.  There is a term for that but I can't quite put my finger on it.

That was not my plan, nor was it Guerin's. What Guerin did was trade out certain assets to get 1st round picks within the '20-22 window. Fiala was traded out as was Zucker. He didn't sign a player Fenton took and got an extra 2nd. He picked up another extra 2nd along the way, maybe 2. He clustered picks and traded for a couple of defenders within those drafts.

Where he got either fortunate or unfortunate was with the Covid years + the Ukraine war. The Covid lost year altered every prospect's development. The hope was that we were smarter than the other teams in this era, so, taking droppers in these drafts was maybe a good bet. However, these guys would also need an extra developmental year. How did we do?

Well, that's a different question. Judd thought he had grabbed 3 top 20 prospects in Wallstedt, Lambos, and Peart. To date, only Wallstedt appears to live up to that prediction, and Peart was a wasted pick. What I do not understand about this draft is how Matthew Knies was overlooked? He went about 5 slots down from Peart. He was in our own backyard, he should definitely have been scouted.

'22 saw Liam Ohgren and Danila Yurov come in the 1st. We're still waiting on Haight and Lorenz, if they even make it. I thought this was their best draft, as they also picked up Spacek and Milne. Milne has had injury problems, but now looks more like a callup fringe player. Spacek, I think, can plug in the 3rd pairing, but many don't see that. 

The 2 trades were obtaining Faber '20 and Jiricek '22. Faber looks like a big hit, Jiricek still looks like a work in progress. Bankier is another guy in this cluster that could make it, likely as a wing, though. 

It was always going to take developmental time with these guys. Did we pick the right guys? I don't know. Did we fumble the development area? I think this is an overwhelming yes! Was the plan solid? I think it was. Was the execution of the plan solid? This is where I think we see the failure. I think Iowa has been a wasteland of development, especially with the things that can be controlled. I specifically site the lack of physical development in the strength area. Bottom 6ers have to be bulky to be effective. Ours aren't. There has been no defensive coach worth siting here, and the bulk of these drafts had early defensive picks. That had to be a priority. 

Defenders take a little longer to develop, typically, so drafting the goalie and defenders first is the best plan. However, you also have to look at your list and see if a forward (like Knies) is worth taking, especially after the 1st round. We needed everything at that time. We should have a 75% hit rate on the 1sts. Right now, Rossi, Wallstedt, and Yurov look like hits in that area. Ohgren and Lambos are questionable. What has Judd brought us in the mid to late picks? 0! We continue to draft these guys who are undersized, great skaters, good hockey IQ, but lack size and strength. The defenders look the same guy over and over again and then we can't develop them to trade them for what we need. 

In '23, I still believe that Guerin hijacked the draft table for 2 picks and picked Stramel and Kumpulainen. Then Judd had the rest of the draft. 

What needs to happen? I think a significant investment is needed in Iowa. To this year, the coaching has been subpar. The strength has been a total F. I'm not sure about the condition of the facilities but they could probably use an investment. The development has been way too slow and with no urgency. 

Judd has to pick better or be replaced, and at this point, I am probably more on the side of replacement because he is unwilling or unable to pick what this team needs. So, that means that Guerin has got to really start hiring people in the scouting department which is too lean, and finding another guy who can run the draft table. 

To me, this is where the train has run off the tracks: Execution of the draft, even though nobody is going to get it right all the time, and execution of Iowa which I would call a disaster up to this year. 

[Pewterschmidt]

1 hour ago, mnfaninnc said:

He didn't sign a player Fenton took

Boldy

[Tony Abbott]

On 11/4/2025 at 7:59 PM, 1Brotherbill said:

Rossi is the opposite of Foglino and Hartman.  Rossi get's you to the playoffs with scoring during the season.  Foglino and Hartman get you to advance in the playoffs because they play playoff hockey well.

The problem with the Wild is those two guys are the only playoff performers that are on the roster.  Boldy showed a bit last season that he could be a playoff perform.  Kirill has shown it in the past.  But the rest of the team has a gigantic question mark when it comes to the playoffs. 

Marcus Foligno: 34 playoff games, 5 goals, 11 points

Ryan Hartman: 41 playoff games, 8 goals, 21 points

[NoJoSux]

On 11/4/2025 at 11:10 AM, Citizen Strife said:

Keep him on the team, and they will succeed.  He has an innate knack to be clutch when a lot of the team isn't.  Kap and Boldy are great, but Rossi is right there with them.

Rossi has at least 3X the finishing ability Zucker ever did. He's not a noticeably dynamic player like 2015-16 Zucker or a center like Barzal, Point, etc., smallish guys. He does have good scoring and playmaking talents above average. 

The biggest problem I have is the overall makeup of the Wild. It's not a Cup winning formula like the last 8-10 winners other than Pittsburgh when they got Sullivan and played extremely fast with a less than large roster. Tampa had some years where they had some smaller guys but also got huge contributions from young players and had some top three picks in their group.(Hedman, Stamkos)

The Wild don't even nearly resemble the Colorado, Vegas, Florida, and other various winners from the past decade. No top picks, lots of journeymen, slow prospect development, average coach and goaltending. I think Gus was better when he thought MAF could take his spot. Now he's just okay by comparison. Hynes is questionable by comparison to Cooper, Deboer, Sullivan, Maurice, and guys who are there every year. The Wild are viewed as the red-headed stepchild or snot-nosed little brother cause that's kinda what they are. Even if we like em...

[1Brotherbill]

7 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

That was not my plan, nor was it Guerin's. What Guerin did was trade out certain assets to get 1st round picks within the '20-22 window. Fiala was traded out as was Zucker. He didn't sign a player Fenton took and got an extra 2nd. He picked up another extra 2nd along the way, maybe 2. He clustered picks and traded for a couple of defenders within those drafts.

Where he got either fortunate or unfortunate was with the Covid years + the Ukraine war. The Covid lost year altered every prospect's development. The hope was that we were smarter than the other teams in this era, so, taking droppers in these drafts was maybe a good bet. However, these guys would also need an extra developmental year. How did we do?

Well, that's a different question. Judd thought he had grabbed 3 top 20 prospects in Wallstedt, Lambos, and Peart. To date, only Wallstedt appears to live up to that prediction, and Peart was a wasted pick. What I do not understand about this draft is how Matthew Knies was overlooked? He went about 5 slots down from Peart. He was in our own backyard, he should definitely have been scouted.

'22 saw Liam Ohgren and Danila Yurov come in the 1st. We're still waiting on Haight and Lorenz, if they even make it. I thought this was their best draft, as they also picked up Spacek and Milne. Milne has had injury problems, but now looks more like a callup fringe player. Spacek, I think, can plug in the 3rd pairing, but many don't see that. 

The 2 trades were obtaining Faber '20 and Jiricek '22. Faber looks like a big hit, Jiricek still looks like a work in progress. Bankier is another guy in this cluster that could make it, likely as a wing, though. 

It was always going to take developmental time with these guys. Did we pick the right guys? I don't know. Did we fumble the development area? I think this is an overwhelming yes! Was the plan solid? I think it was. Was the execution of the plan solid? This is where I think we see the failure. I think Iowa has been a wasteland of development, especially with the things that can be controlled. I specifically site the lack of physical development in the strength area. Bottom 6ers have to be bulky to be effective. Ours aren't. There has been no defensive coach worth siting here, and the bulk of these drafts had early defensive picks. That had to be a priority. 

Defenders take a little longer to develop, typically, so drafting the goalie and defenders first is the best plan. However, you also have to look at your list and see if a forward (like Knies) is worth taking, especially after the 1st round. We needed everything at that time. We should have a 75% hit rate on the 1sts. Right now, Rossi, Wallstedt, and Yurov look like hits in that area. Ohgren and Lambos are questionable. What has Judd brought us in the mid to late picks? 0! We continue to draft these guys who are undersized, great skaters, good hockey IQ, but lack size and strength. The defenders look the same guy over and over again and then we can't develop them to trade them for what we need. 

In '23, I still believe that Guerin hijacked the draft table for 2 picks and picked Stramel and Kumpulainen. Then Judd had the rest of the draft. 

What needs to happen? I think a significant investment is needed in Iowa. To this year, the coaching has been subpar. The strength has been a total F. I'm not sure about the condition of the facilities but they could probably use an investment. The development has been way too slow and with no urgency. 

Judd has to pick better or be replaced, and at this point, I am probably more on the side of replacement because he is unwilling or unable to pick what this team needs. So, that means that Guerin has got to really start hiring people in the scouting department which is too lean, and finding another guy who can run the draft table. 

To me, this is where the train has run off the tracks: Execution of the draft, even though nobody is going to get it right all the time, and execution of Iowa which I would call a disaster up to this year. 

Out of all those players you mentioned not one of them outside of Wallstedt would be considered a instant add to the lineup.  Rossi should have been but Covid and his near death experience effected that.  Lambos would never have been a first round pick if he actually played his final year in juniors.  But I'm not talking about who the Wild picked and how they developed.  I'm talking about where they picked and what was available.  Because we can all say they should have picked this player over that player.  Seldom in the top five to ten picks in the draft is the player considered a bust.  Any player drafted after that point is a gamble.  People are going to say that Kirill was a fifth round pick, so what.  80% of the top five picks are playing significant minutes at a high level for their teams in their draft year or the year after.

This concept of drafting someone and hoping that five or six year later they might contribute as a middle six player is ridiculous. 

[1Brotherbill]

2 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

Marcus Foligno: 34 playoff games, 5 goals, 11 points

Ryan Hartman: 41 playoff games, 8 goals, 21 points

Marcus Foligno 890 regular season games 140 G 184 A  .36 PPG

 

[Tony Abbott]

4 minutes ago, 1Brotherbill said:

Marcus Foligno 890 regular season games 140 G 184 A  .36 PPG

 

OK, so he's better in the regular season than the playoffs. 

[1Brotherbill]

2 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

Marcus Foligno: 34 playoff games, 5 goals, 11 points

Ryan Hartman: 41 playoff games, 8 goals, 21 points

Marcus Foligno: 890 Gamses 140G 184A .36PPG  Regular season

                              34 games 5G 6A  .32 PPG Playoffs

Joel Erickson Ek: 560 Games 138G 170A .55PPG Regular Season

                                32 Games 6G 7A .40PPG Playoffs

Ryan Hartman:  665 Games 143G 167A .46 PPG

                             41 Games 8G 13A .51PPG

People act like Ek is the straw that stirs the drink and that Hartman and Foglino cost the team every playoff series.  Fact is all three are the same player basically.  However, come playoff time the players like Hartman and Foglino are the players that are highly visible.

[mnfaninnc]

7 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

Boldy

I was talking about his 1st draft. The defenseman from Sweden.

[mnfaninnc]

47 minutes ago, 1Brotherbill said:

People act like Ek is the straw that stirs the drink and that Hartman and Foglino cost the team every playoff series.  Fact is all three are the same player basically.  However, come playoff time the players like Hartman and Foglino are the players that are highly visible.

I feel like both Hartman and Foligno, and last year Trenin saved their bodies for the playoffs. They were highly visible because they amped it up. 

In the case of Ek, I think he came into the playoffs hurt in many of those series. He probably wasn't fully healed last year, tried to play on a broken leg during Dallas, and I think missed some time during the first Vegas series. He didn't look much different in style of play or anything, just not as healthy.

Of course, Foligno and Hartman may have come into the playoffs with some injuries too IIRC.

Edited November 9 by mnfaninnc

[TheGoosesAreLooses]

On 11/4/2025 at 7:59 PM, 1Brotherbill said:

Rossi is the opposite of Foglino and Hartman.  Rossi get's you to the playoffs with scoring during the season.  Foglino and Hartman get you to advance in the playoffs because they play playoff hockey well.

The problem with the Wild is those two guys are the only playoff performers that are on the roster.  Boldy showed a bit last season that he could be a playoff perform.  Kirill has shown it in the past.  But the rest of the team has a gigantic question mark when it comes to the playoffs. 

Yes, we love to bring in Grit. The last 5 years we have brought in grit at the deadline. Playoff performers they said. In five years we have never got past the first round and without Rossi last year, they wouldn't have made playoffs.

They said Rossi was soft, then he put up 2 goals playing 10 mins a night with the forth line in playoffs. His GF/60 was 4th on the team, his P/60 were 4th on the team, his goals above expected were 3rd and it was his first playoff series.

Take a look at Boldy's first round of playoffs; in double the mins he has 3 assists, all riding on the back of Kap. He ended a -4, the second worst on the team in goals above expected, 8th on the team for pts/60 and a 0.0 shooting rate. 

I think it is far too early to say Rossi isn't a playoff performer, most guys in this league don't do well their first PS.