Bill Guerin's Future Is Rooted In the Present

2 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

Dino is playing in Boston right now. and we had a player named Kaprizov who played for us. He was good. 

I know he is playing in Bos. I never said he wasn't, but when he was traded he was in the A for cap (hahaha) reasons. He was basically a figure skater with the Wild. I guess we will see if he or his agent goes sideways if he is ever sent down with Boston or whatever team he resigns with.

Your second part I don't know what you are trying to say. They were good when Kap was playing? No shit he is a star and on this team.

Or are you trying to say Dino was good?

11 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Given OCL statement about no one will out bid us on Kaprizov and knowing his agent Kaprizov will come in at more than $14.  Given the fact he is not even skating yet is quite concerning. I believe it was Yanni Gourde who had the same surgery (sports hernia) and is back playing after five weeks I think. Kaprizov is showing a bit of a tendency to be a injury liability. I understand all players get injured but it is also a fact some players have more of a tendency to get hurt and recover more slowly than others. 

I don't think we will ever see the same Ek his injuries have just taken their toll. Could it be the same with Kaprizov?  

I fear you may be right.

25 minutes ago, SkolWild73 said:

Well, Colorado had McKinnon that entire time, so I would say that is a fair comparison as far as playoff success goes.

i am a bit lost in what we are trying to compare but if we are saying that MacKinnon is as vital to PO success as Kaprizov at the same point in time, taking into account his longevity and contract? then ok maybe.

but there could be other factors like (a) team make up (b) risk of him leaving (c) team success history, etc...

wild have not had a player like Kaprizov. Avs (and Nordiques) have quiet a long list of them, with Avs having won Stanley Cups even before Mac got there. So the urgency is a factor. Yes, every team wants to win, but i think the team like Wild, who has not even been to the final once in 25+ years, would take all the care it can to ensure they don't fumble Kaprizov years. 

And they have done just that - fail. I believe Mac was younger than Kap is now when he won a cup. Kap will be 28 before he'll be asked to resign this July. This is not a young buck age - this age calls for certainty that we did not create. This certainty had to out weigh the cons that were against us (like it or not, East Coast is the preferred place). So besides continuous uncertainty - what is there that'll make him want to stay?

35 minutes ago, punch_cut said:

I know he is playing in Bos. I never said he wasn't, but when he was traded he was in the A for cap (hahaha) reasons. He was basically a figure skater with the Wild. I guess we will see if he or his agent goes sideways if he is ever sent down with Boston or whatever team he resigns with.

Your second part I don't know what you are trying to say. They were good when Kap was playing? No shit he is a star and on this team.

Or are you trying to say Dino was good?

 

you pointed out that we were on top of the standing? yes thats because we had Kaprizov playing like the worlds best player

you said Dino maybe ends up in Russia, but i am not sure why....why would you ay that? I stated he is in Boston playing not Russia. And he played a good game with us, the numbers may not back it, but his skill is there, and may be untapped and covered by a structured defense first game he plays. But if numbers is all you look for - then yes - he is bad. 

Kaprizov is gone this summer. His entire time here Billy couldn't find him a talented blue collar 1c. He played on a soft line, no wonder he's injury prone around here.

12 minutes ago, OldDutchChip said:

i am a bit lost in what we are trying to compare but if we are saying that MacKinnon is as vital to PO success as Kaprizov at the same point in time, taking into account his longevity and contract? then ok maybe.

but there could be other factors like (a) team make up (b) risk of him leaving (c) team success history, etc...

wild have not had a player like Kaprizov. Avs (and Nordiques) have quiet a long list of them, with Avs having won Stanley Cups even before Mac got there. So the urgency is a factor. Yes, every team wants to win, but i think the team like Wild, who has not even been to the final once in 25+ years, would take all the care it can to ensure they don't fumble Kaprizov years. 

And they have done just that - fail. I believe Mac was younger than Kap is now when he won a cup. Kap will be 28 before he'll be asked to resign this July. This is not a young buck age - this age calls for certainty that we did not create. This certainty had to out weigh the cons that were against us (like it or not, East Coast is the preferred place). So besides continuous uncertainty - what is there that'll make him want to stay?

Yes he was younger, but was also in his 9th season.  Only thing I was pointing out is it takes teams and GM’s time to build a winner.  It doesn’t just happen overnight, no matter what the urgencies may be.  It took the Avs 8 years to get to a cup.  

Yes they had Mac signed to 7 years so not the same.  Even the oilers took time for much playoff success with McDavid.  
 

As far as whether he will stay or not, we have had that conversation before.  We don’t know if he will, just like we don’t know if there were certain moves to be made that would have changed that outcome.   
 

It does feel to me that if he does sign, we are in a position to have long lasting success, but again, time will tell.  

17 minutes ago, SkolWild73 said:

Yes he was younger, but was also in his 9th season.  Only thing I was pointing out is it takes teams and GM’s time to build a winner.  It doesn’t just happen overnight, no matter what the urgencies may be.  It took the Avs 8 years to get to a cup.  

Yes they had Mac signed to 7 years so not the same.  Even the oilers took time for much playoff success with McDavid.  
 

As far as whether he will stay or not, we have had that conversation before.  We don’t know if he will, just like we don’t know if there were certain moves to be made that would have changed that outcome.   
 

It does feel to me that if he does sign, we are in a position to have long lasting success, but again, time will tell.  

Sometimes you have a rushed deadline and you have to adjust....focusing just on us and our situation - six years of no PO success and no clear future certainty....i wanted better of Bill, i hope Leo wanted that too.

Time will tell - yes 🍻

let's beat Rangers now

15 minutes ago, OldDutchChip said:

Sometimes you have a rushed deadline and you have to adjust....focusing just on us and our situation - six years of no PO success and no clear future certainty....i wanted better of Bill, i hope Leo wanted that too.

Time will tell - yes 🍻

let's beat Rangers now

Hey now, don’t foreshadow 6 years yet😀  it’s only 5.  

15 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

you pointed out that we were on top of the standing? yes thats because we had Kaprizov playing like the worlds best player

you said Dino maybe ends up in Russia, but i am not sure why....why would you ay that? I stated he is in Boston playing not Russia. And he played a good game with us, the numbers may not back it, but his skill is there, and may be untapped and covered by a structured defense first game he plays. But if numbers is all you look for - then yes - he is bad. 

Yes Dino has skill, but he was the worst forward analytically in the NHL earlier this year. A fast skater that looks good doing everything, but accomplishes nothing is not untapped. It is an AHL player.

My point about Russia is how can you explain the worst NHL player (analytically) never playing even 1 game in the AHL? Maybe his and the agents choice is NHL or KHL. I guess time will tell if Dino ends up with an NHL career or goes back to the K.

Yes Kirill was playing like the world's best and he is part of this team. He hasn't played since '24 (I am sure you can agree he was a shell of himself for the 3 in Jan) and the Wild are two points behind Col and ahead of Edm who have multiple 50 goal scores. This sure seems like a team that has something going right.

1 hour ago, punch_cut said:

Yes Dino has skill, but he was the worst forward analytically in the NHL earlier this year. A fast skater that looks good doing everything, but accomplishes nothing is not untapped. It is an AHL player.

My point about Russia is how can you explain the worst NHL player (analytically) never playing even 1 game in the AHL? Maybe his and the agents choice is NHL or KHL. I guess time will tell if Dino ends up with an NHL career or goes back to the K.

 

Yes Kirill was playing like the world's best and he is part of this team. He hasn't played since '24 (I am sure you can agree he was a shell of himself for the 3 in Jan) and the Wild are two points behind Col and ahead of Edm who have multiple 50 goal scores. This sure seems like a team that has something going right.

Yes Dino has skill, but he was the worst forward analytically in the NHL earlier this year.  A fast skater that looks good doing everything, but accomplishes nothing is not untapped. It is an AHL player.  he played with cast aways and was given a very specific role. he is gone now to boston, so be happy.

My point about Russia is how can you explain the worst NHL player (analytically) never playing even 1 game in the AHL?  Wild needed him because they had no depth or AHL players that could step in and offer what Marat offered. 

Yes Kirill was playing like the world's best and he is part of this team. He hasn't played since '24 (I am sure you can agree he was a shell of himself for the 3 in Jan) and the Wild are two points behind Col and ahead of Edm who have multiple 50 goal scores. This sure seems like a team that has something going right. trade him for brock boeser than and move on!

On 3/14/2025 at 12:22 PM, OldDutchChip said:

Yes Dino has skill, but he was the worst forward analytically in the NHL earlier this year.  A fast skater that looks good doing everything, but accomplishes nothing is not untapped. It is an AHL player.  he played with cast aways and was given a very specific role. he is gone now to boston, so be happy.

My point about Russia is how can you explain the worst NHL player (analytically) never playing even 1 game in the AHL?  Wild needed him because they had no depth or AHL players that could step in and offer what Marat offered. 

Yes Kirill was playing like the world's best and he is part of this team. He hasn't played since '24 (I am sure you can agree he was a shell of himself for the 3 in Jan) and the Wild are two points behind Col and ahead of Edm who have multiple 50 goal scores. This sure seems like a team that has something going right. trade him for brock boeser than and move on!

You are a clown for that last comment. Trade him for Boeser lol! 

I don't even want Boeser as a free agent. 

10 hours ago, punch_cut said:

You are a clown for that last comment. Trade him for Boeser lol! 

I don't even want Boeser as a free agent. 

i was being sarcastic 

On 3/12/2025 at 9:40 PM, Imyourhuckleberry said:

I'm curious why you think the Wild would be tougher to pass than LA.

The Kings have played 2 fewer games than the Wild and have a higher points percentage. The last 8 games that JEE has been out, the Wild are 3-5.

Based upon points percentage, the Wild are already in 7th with the Kings in 5th ahead of the Oilers.

The Kings aren't amazing, but I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to grab points at a higher rate while the Wild are down 3 key players. It's not a bad thing for the Wild to finish in 7th and that very well could be where they end up.

The last I looked was before the Kings went on their 5 game winning streak. They were at 71 points. Now they're at 81. Big win last night for us, we needed it. Their are now people in our rear view mirror. They are distant, but they are now seen. We've got 14 games left and need 7 wins.

On 3/12/2025 at 9:57 PM, OldDutchChip said:

where is the issue?

The issue is that both of these guys were never supposed to perform in these roles late in their careers. It was common when they were signed to have "void" years where they get bought out for peanuts. That is the way their contracts were structured, not for cap penalties which weren't a thing when the contracts were signed. 

When Guerin cut them loose was about the time when they would have naturally been bought out anyway, maybe a year early. However, after the fact, the NHL decided that they were going to punish any team/player that had loopholed their way into these mega deals that the NHL didn't want anymore. Obviously the players and their union representatives did not realize the full impact these penalties would have, or they wouldn't have allowed it. Or, perhaps the union figured they could loophole out of the penalties like has been done with Weber. 

If the original plan was to pack in a 10 year contract and expand it to 13 years, creating void years, then we, as an organization, would be in decent shape. This is what was signed that day. There were no penalties for this type of contract when they were signed. Both players were a great get for the Wild at the time they were signed. Everyone knew they would either retire early or be bought out, but nobody thought they were both playing the length of that deal. 

On 3/12/2025 at 9:57 PM, OldDutchChip said:

You couldn't substitute players (which seems fair) - you either play ZP and RS or you don't. We choose not to. To say that we could have done something MORE is simply wrong - it was NOT allowed.

This was not allowed after the contracts were signed not beforehand. So the understanding of the way it was structured was tossed out the window. Here's the main point: When signed they WERE allowed and the league retroactively made them not allowed. In a court of law, you cannot retroactively make a crime and then prosecute someone for breaking it before it was a law. That's what makes this such a strange thing. Teams weren't even given the option to fix the contracts in question, they were simply penalized for signing them when they didn't do anything wrong to begin with. 

On 3/12/2025 at 9:57 PM, OldDutchChip said:

and it's not about the contract, it's about the PLAYERS. if players were playing up to the level that they were getting paid for, then this wouldn't be so bad....right? can't have it both ways. 

It's not right, because the way the contract was structured the players were paid peanuts at the end of the deal. This would be considered the "void" years. Nobody expected them to play through the entirety of the contracts once they were signed, and it's not just ZP and RS, it's all the players who had deals like this one, I believe 7 in total.

On 3/12/2025 at 9:57 PM, OldDutchChip said:

but no we cry - if only not for cap penalties - but that is completely false - you signed the wrong players and now are using cap penalties as an excuse to prolong loosing.

I won't argue about the money being allocated in the wrong places. Some of the signings have been headscratchers, except we don't have all of the information such as under the table promises. For instance, signing Goligoski I didn't think was great, and signing Fleury this season wasn't good from a competitive standpoint. The cap penalties are an issue that didn't need to be there due to league punishment of legal contracts that they didn't like. As it stands, I believe only Luongo and Parise/Suter have really had to have their teams "pay" for the transgression of legal contracts.

But, if the penalties weren't there, what could Guerin have done instead of always having to find value contracts? We don't know the answer to that question yet.

On 3/12/2025 at 9:57 PM, OldDutchChip said:

There is no cap penalty! the only penalty is a self inflicted one that was made the moment we signed ZP and RS to these idiotic contracts. We cannot re-use their money on a Top 6 player. We can only have ZP and RS or no one and we picked no one. 

And this is where you've made my point for me. Actually, at the time of the signing of those contracts, void years were common practice. There was no penalty. And this is where your argument falls apart, because they should have been able to remedy the situation since it was done retroactively. The league never gave any of the teams a chance. 

In retrospect, though, Suter would have played out the deal at least until the $2m year, but Parise probably could have been LTIR'd for the majority of what was left. That would have given us cap space to sign a replacement. But, did OCL want to have to pay actual money for that? This is the ugly question that remains unanswered. OCL can claim he spends to the cap ceiling while paying salaries close to the minimum for 5 years while packing the stands and lining his pockets. 

On 3/12/2025 at 10:04 PM, OldDutchChip said:

no - Kaprizov was going to come here no matter what. To give this one to Bill seems odd. Then basically give Fletch the A+ for drafting Kaprizov then. 

The best GM was Fletch, like it or not. He got us Kaprizov. The worse is Bill, he will drive him away. 

This seems like revisionist history then. Guerin got him here and showed interest. Kaprizov resigned in the K due to pressure from the Russians & what he saw as a lack of interest from Fletcher. It's not as simple as this as any Russian player carries a lot of complications, but, essentially, neither Fletcher or Fenton could get him here. He also resigned Spurgy as his first course of business when he got here as Fenton was putzing around.

And, with the exception of the Expansion Draft, Fletcher's GMing was the best in the organization up to that point. I think Guerin's has surpassed him because he has sat on his kids and not traded them out for deadline "help." 

7 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

The issue is that both of these guys were never supposed to perform in these roles late in their careers. It was common when they were signed to have "void" years where they get bought out for peanuts. That is the way their contracts were structured, not for cap penalties which weren't a thing when the contracts were signed. 

When Guerin cut them loose was about the time when they would have naturally been bought out anyway, maybe a year early. However, after the fact, the NHL decided that they were going to punish any team/player that had loopholed their way into these mega deals that the NHL didn't want anymore. Obviously the players and their union representatives did not realize the full impact these penalties would have, or they wouldn't have allowed it. Or, perhaps the union figured they could loophole out of the penalties like has been done with Weber. 

If the original plan was to pack in a 10 year contract and expand it to 13 years, creating void years, then we, as an organization, would be in decent shape. This is what was signed that day. There were no penalties for this type of contract when they were signed. Both players were a great get for the Wild at the time they were signed. Everyone knew they would either retire early or be bought out, but nobody thought they were both playing the length of that deal. 

This was not allowed after the contracts were signed not beforehand. So the understanding of the way it was structured was tossed out the window. Here's the main point: When signed they WERE allowed and the league retroactively made them not allowed. In a court of law, you cannot retroactively make a crime and then prosecute someone for breaking it before it was a law. That's what makes this such a strange thing. Teams weren't even given the option to fix the contracts in question, they were simply penalized for signing them when they didn't do anything wrong to begin with. 

It's not right, because the way the contract was structured the players were paid peanuts at the end of the deal. This would be considered the "void" years. Nobody expected them to play through the entirety of the contracts once they were signed, and it's not just ZP and RS, it's all the players who had deals like this one, I believe 7 in total.

I won't argue about the money being allocated in the wrong places. Some of the signings have been headscratchers, except we don't have all of the information such as under the table promises. For instance, signing Goligoski I didn't think was great, and signing Fleury this season wasn't good from a competitive standpoint. The cap penalties are an issue that didn't need to be there due to league punishment of legal contracts that they didn't like. As it stands, I believe only Luongo and Parise/Suter have really had to have their teams "pay" for the transgression of legal contracts.

But, if the penalties weren't there, what could Guerin have done instead of always having to find value contracts? We don't know the answer to that question yet.

And this is where you've made my point for me. Actually, at the time of the signing of those contracts, void years were common practice. There was no penalty. And this is where your argument falls apart, because they should have been able to remedy the situation since it was done retroactively. The league never gave any of the teams a chance. 

In retrospect, though, Suter would have played out the deal at least until the $2m year, but Parise probably could have been LTIR'd for the majority of what was left. That would have given us cap space to sign a replacement. But, did OCL want to have to pay actual money for that? This is the ugly question that remains unanswered. OCL can claim he spends to the cap ceiling while paying salaries close to the minimum for 5 years while packing the stands and lining his pockets. 

The issue is that both of these guys were never supposed to perform in these roles late in their careers. It was common when they were signed to have "void" years where they get bought out for peanuts. That is the way their contracts were structured, not for cap penalties which weren't a thing when the contracts were signed. the league said enough and i agree, those contracts were not good. rule chnaged, we can either cry about it or deal with them. 

When Guerin cut them loose was about the time when they would have naturally been bought out anyway, maybe a year early. However, after the fact, the NHL decided that they were going to punish any team/player that had loopholed their way into these mega deals that the NHL didn't want anymore. again, these are the rules that are in play. to give teams a get out of jail card to say - this player is now trash, let's cut them off and re-use their money is not allowed now, and i agree with that. to say - but what about this team 10 years ago is another excuse - just deal with reality. the contract was created to circumvent the cap and got dinged. 

this change is for the better of the league, so we should have been smart enough not to run towards that pit. instead we rushed there and signed players who cratered half way thru. that's on us. 

I won't argue about the money being allocated in the wrong places. that is my point - take out all the what-ifs and excuses and tears - we are left with allocation of money / term to the players who do not deserve that. we are not paying 14 million for two top players, we are tied to ZP and RS. and that is the right way of doing it i believe. 

But, if the penalties weren't there, what could Guerin have done instead of always having to find value contracts? We don't know the answer to that question yet. Billy could have reconciled with RS and only bought out ZP. none of us know the truth - but this is not pre-school - these players can handle a strong character. did he pinch their butts to many times or what? 

And this is where you've made my point for me. Actually, at the time of the signing of those contracts, void years were common practice. There was no penalty. And this is where your argument falls apart, because they should have been able to remedy the situation since it was done retroactively. The league never gave any of the teams a chance.  the league made the right call, we should have been smart and saw that tying up funds in deteriorating assets is not smart. there are forecast and planning - evidently not for wild 🙂 

16 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

This seems like revisionist history then. Guerin got him here and showed interest. Kaprizov resigned in the K due to pressure from the Russians & what he saw as a lack of interest from Fletcher. It's not as simple as this as any Russian player carries a lot of complications, but, essentially, neither Fletcher or Fenton could get him here. He also resigned Spurgy as his first course of business when he got here as Fenton was putzing around.

of course he showed interest....kaprizov was the best player not playing in the league. to give guerin credit and not to fletch is flat our wrong (if one deserves credit for getting him over, then the other at least gets the same for picking him).

also - fletch drafted the kid, and kap was not ready to immediately come over and he had still admirations back home to win. after fletch, bill inherited a good situation of knowing that Kap HAS to come thru Wild or not be in the NHL and Kap wanted to go to NHL as his next step. Very tough problem to have....🤔 

Kaprizov resigned in the K due to pressure from the Russians & what he saw as a lack of interest from Fletcher. It's not as simple as this as any Russian player carries a lot of complications, but, essentially, neither Fletcher or Fenton could get him here. where is the statement from Kaprizov saying what you have said that Fletcher did not show interest? there was pressure from KHL and likely Kap himself wanted to stay but i don't recall such definitive statements on fletcher.

1 hour ago, mnfaninnc said:

Big win last night for us, we needed it. Their are now people in our rear view mirror. They are distant, but they are now seen. We've got 14 games left and need 7 wins.

For sure on the big win. 14 points does seem like it should be easily out of reach for the teams behind the Wild. 5 wins 3 OT losses, and 6 regulation losses might be plenty as well. The teams behind the Wild would need to grab over 73% of available points to reach 95 points in the standings, which seems highly unlikely for teams currently below 55% of their possible standings points.

If the teams behind the Wild win only 60% of available standings points(18 points in 15 games), the Wild would need only 5 wins and 9 regulation losses to retain the 7th spot after last night's game.

I like to sort standings on NHL.com by points% as that seems more reflective of the overall record than current points when teams have played a different number of games. That win over the Kings put the Wild close to them(even in current points), but Kings have 2 games in hand and likely will finish ahead of the Wild.

The Wild finishing in 7th seems optimal given the current standings. I'd highly prefer that to the possibility of 8th and a trip to Winnipeg in round 1.

3 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

the league said enough and i agree, those contracts were not good. rule chnaged, we can either cry about it or deal with them. 

I'm not just crying about this now, I protested this when it was written into the CBA. It's just that in the past 5 years we have fully realized the full implications of it. Doing something retroactively is never a good idea in rules or law. 

3 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

Billy could have reconciled with RS and only bought out ZP. none of us know the truth - but this is not pre-school - these players can handle a strong character.

IIRC, Guerin did this because of the NMCs and the upcoming Expansion Draft. He didn't even consult them so that was the timing of the whole thing. At that point it was less about reconciling and more of a business decision. If this was the only reason, then asking each to waive their NMCs for the Expansion Draft was probably the more grown up way to handle it, but as we've come to know there was more there than this.

3 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

where is the statement from Kaprizov saying what you have said that Fletcher did not show interest? there was pressure from KHL and likely Kap himself wanted to stay but i don't recall such definitive statements on fletcher.

This was reported right after he signed. He felt like we didn't really want him. He didn't feel like he was a priority for the Wild. I think a lot of this was a misunderstanding and the lack of attention he saw from us was more from Russian protectionism. But it was widely reported at the time around here, and likely via Russo. Now, behind the scenes, the Russians may not have let Fletcher get close to him.

Yes, Fletcher deserves the credit for the 2015 draft, his best with the Wild where he drafted both Kaprizov and Ek. Greenway was also in that draft as well as Kahkonen. I've never shied away from giving Fletcher credit for this. Up until the Expansion Draft, I was happy with Fletcher, he tried, but he didn't have one main thing Guerin had and that was a clue about locker room fits. Yes, it was frustrating never having a 2nd round pick, but except for Greenway, he mainly whiffed on those anyway.

3 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

I'm not just crying about this now, I protested this when it was written into the CBA. It's just that in the past 5 years we have fully realized the full implications of it. Doing something retroactively is never a good idea in rules or law. 

IIRC, Guerin did this because of the NMCs and the upcoming Expansion Draft. He didn't even consult them so that was the timing of the whole thing. At that point it was less about reconciling and more of a business decision. If this was the only reason, then asking each to waive their NMCs for the Expansion Draft was probably the more grown up way to handle it, but as we've come to know there was more there than this.

 

This was reported right after he signed. He felt like we didn't really want him. He didn't feel like he was a priority for the Wild. I think a lot of this was a misunderstanding and the lack of attention he saw from us was more from Russian protectionism. But it was widely reported at the time around here, and likely via Russo. Now, behind the scenes, the Russians may not have let Fletcher get close to him.

Yes, Fletcher deserves the credit for the 2015 draft, his best with the Wild where he drafted both Kaprizov and Ek. Greenway was also in that draft as well as Kahkonen. I've never shied away from giving Fletcher credit for this. Up until the Expansion Draft, I was happy with Fletcher, he tried, but he didn't have one main thing Guerin had and that was a clue about locker room fits. Yes, it was frustrating never having a 2nd round pick, but except for Greenway, he mainly whiffed on those anyway.

protesting and getting upset is not going to change the fact that it was the right call for the league and wild should have been more careful at handing out these kind of deals

as for expansion impact, i think we still had Dumba and we could have lost him and still be fine. i think it was pitches as more of a culture shift and that they were not what Wild culture was going to be like, so Billy decided to cut them loose

as for Kap - he was still developing when Fletch drafted him so the urgency from the team and Kap himself wasn't there. And with no proof - let's just leave it be.

but back to ZP and RS buyouts - the headlines immediately read that we were handcuffed by these buyouts. and they were repeated at every chance possible without so much of a mention that at the core - these penalties are aiming to connect this players to the team. so that the team cannot cheat it's way out of it and use the money on other players. this to me is completely fair. and our team had plenty of time to adjust or to handle them differently. instead we keep hearing excuses and delaying the product/results by another 5 years when Kap is 33. Right. 

Looks like were bringing Ohgren back up. Hope he plays tomorrow. Let's go OGz, earn that spot 

I wonder if Foligno is injured.

12 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

but back to ZP and RS buyouts - the headlines immediately read that we were handcuffed by these buyouts. and they were repeated at every chance possible without so much of a mention that at the core - these penalties are aiming to connect this players to the team. so that the team cannot cheat it's way out of it and use the money on other players. this to me is completely fair. and our team had plenty of time to adjust or to handle them differently. instead we keep hearing excuses and delaying the product/results by another 5 years when Kap is 33. Right. 

The reason that this is not fair is because it was done retroactively. Had the rules been in place at the signing of these contracts along with the other 5 that were looming out there, then I'd have no problem with it. But because these were legal contracts to begin with, you cannot go back and punish someone for something that was legal at the time, that is completely not fair. 

As for the concept that they used, was it circumventing the salary cap? Yeah, it probably was via loophole, just like today when others are circumventing the cap using LTIR money. Is it cheating? This is in the dark gray area where it's not cheating but is being used to completely go against the spirit of the rule and get around the cap. Some owners have plenty of money to throw at their teams, others do not. I do not know what category OCL falls into here, probably the mushy middle. So, he's probably fine with spending to the cap ceiling while really paying the salary minimum and filling the seats + making the playoffs and turning a profit. 

So, with the rules as they are, as unfair as it is, we still had to play with less salary than everyone else and still were mandated to have a competitive team and make the playoffs in that span. Doing it in likely 4/5 years is a pretty good record. Should we have used that time to better use the draft picks? This is the key question. 

For fans, having a team ready to go next year is very important. This would have required, at least for 1st round picks, them being ready in 2-3 seasons despite the lost Covid season of development. That would mean that every 1st rounder we drafted should be in St. Paul from the '22 draft and before. Probably 2nd rounders get an extra year. The goal would be getting better, not necessarily great on ice results. The coach would be a great teacher and that would be his calling card. 

However, for the owner, this was not the case. He demanded a competitive squad where the definition was and invitation to the dance, or at the very least, playing competitive games with 10 remaining. We're doing that now. But to do that, you would need to have some very value oriented contracts from veterans, guys who believed they were better in the lineup than they were currently being used, and tremendous injury luck. This happened in the 1st 3 seasons + we found a superstar in a late round draft pick. The last 2 seasons have not been kind on the injury front as those value deals have aged. 

So, let's just say that our GM took our side and did that paragraph. Since the owner is his boss, he would not be happy. We would be like Chicago and out of the playoff picture by February. The fans would be looking forward to baseball, and not attending games, at least at current prices. The team would not be making a profit, and would be losing money. And, you risk the spirit of those young kids being broken and believing they are losers (see Buffalo for an example). 

I think we've chosen the better path, and while it looks like we're a long way from being contenders, I do not think so. It's a process and much of the development we cannot see as it is in lower leagues. Many of the "value" vets can be traded after this season pretty easily. But, this has turned out to be a very bad UFA year. I'm hoping for a real youth movement next season.

20 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

The reason that this is not fair is because it was done retroactively. Had the rules been in place at the signing of these contracts along with the other 5 that were looming out there, then I'd have no problem with it. But because these were legal contracts to begin with, you cannot go back and punish someone for something that was legal at the time, that is completely not fair. 

As for the concept that they used, was it circumventing the salary cap? Yeah, it probably was via loophole, just like today when others are circumventing the cap using LTIR money. Is it cheating? This is in the dark gray area where it's not cheating but is being used to completely go against the spirit of the rule and get around the cap. Some owners have plenty of money to throw at their teams, others do not. I do not know what category OCL falls into here, probably the mushy middle. So, he's probably fine with spending to the cap ceiling while really paying the salary minimum and filling the seats + making the playoffs and turning a profit. 

So, with the rules as they are, as unfair as it is, we still had to play with less salary than everyone else and still were mandated to have a competitive team and make the playoffs in that span. Doing it in likely 4/5 years is a pretty good record. Should we have used that time to better use the draft picks? This is the key question. 

For fans, having a team ready to go next year is very important. This would have required, at least for 1st round picks, them being ready in 2-3 seasons despite the lost Covid season of development. That would mean that every 1st rounder we drafted should be in St. Paul from the '22 draft and before. Probably 2nd rounders get an extra year. The goal would be getting better, not necessarily great on ice results. The coach would be a great teacher and that would be his calling card. 

However, for the owner, this was not the case. He demanded a competitive squad where the definition was and invitation to the dance, or at the very least, playing competitive games with 10 remaining. We're doing that now. But to do that, you would need to have some very value oriented contracts from veterans, guys who believed they were better in the lineup than they were currently being used, and tremendous injury luck. This happened in the 1st 3 seasons + we found a superstar in a late round draft pick. The last 2 seasons have not been kind on the injury front as those value deals have aged. 

So, let's just say that our GM took our side and did that paragraph. Since the owner is his boss, he would not be happy. We would be like Chicago and out of the playoff picture by February. The fans would be looking forward to baseball, and not attending games, at least at current prices. The team would not be making a profit, and would be losing money. And, you risk the spirit of those young kids being broken and believing they are losers (see Buffalo for an example). 

I think we've chosen the better path, and while it looks like we're a long way from being contenders, I do not think so. It's a process and much of the development we cannot see as it is in lower leagues. Many of the "value" vets can be traded after this season pretty easily. But, this has turned out to be a very bad UFA year. I'm hoping for a real youth movement next season.

There had to be an end to these crazy contracts and they were definitely done to circumvent the cap, and I’m fine that we were dinged, as we were very much guilty of it. 

I understand there were more teams at fault, but let’s keep focus on us and let others be. Did Wild deserve it? Yes. So having them take ownership for the contracts and players makes perfect sense. The league needed the rule and needed to apply it to most egregious offenders - wild.

if ZP and RS play equaled to their pay then this is not an issue. We made it so after their skill and/or attitude tanked. Well - forecast and plan better Wild!

As for the LTIR loophole, totally agree! I’m for making an immediate rule to amend the process to require a player sit out round 1. Fair? Yes 

🍻

6 hours ago, OldDutchChip said:

There had to be an end to these crazy contracts and they were definitely done to circumvent the cap, and I’m fine that we were dinged, as we were very much guilty of it. 

I understand there were more teams at fault, but let’s keep focus on us and let others be. Did Wild deserve it? Yes. So having them take ownership for the contracts and players makes perfect sense. The league needed the rule and needed to apply it to most egregious offenders - wild.

I just can't buy into this. How do you get rid of the contracts? You let them play themselves out. You install a 7 year limit on contracts, 8 if it's a resigning by the team that owns the contract. You grandfather in the other contracts and move on. We agree that the contracts needed to be stopped, but for other teams to use Shea Weber as LTIR fodder and also Carey Price, this is the exact same thing in a different format. But, none of these deals were ever meant to get to the end with the player still playing. 

So, yes, I feel that the Wild got singled out in this, and they were really the only one's punished to such a degree. To make the playoffs in 4/5 of those years (likely) is an FU to the NHL for the penalties. Other franchises shouldn't have gotten a get out of jail free card by placing these guys on LTIR, which is completely unfair. 

So, who would it have hurt if the NHL said no more to the contracts, grandfathered them in or allowed the teams to remedy the contracts? Nobody. We're talking about 5-7 contracts out of 690. But, that also means that the players are penalized too as $15m in actual money doesn't get spent on them for 5 years (which should have been higher but LTIR swallowed it up). I think even Phoenix took on one of these deals and didn't use LTIR so they could hit the cap floor. 

The players got smoked in this negotiation and shouldn't have allowed it. But, there is still the reality that Guerin did know what the interpretation of the rules would be and bought out RS and ZP anyway. And, had he wanted to, instead of resigning the value guys he had, he could have let them walk and backfilled with ELC players to fit through the penalties. I think that would have been a better use of the resources, but Guerin likes his steaks well done to almost shoe leather. To me, I think we would have gotten more value out of a few prospects learning in the N instead of staying in lower leagues. 

10 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

I just can't buy into this. How do you get rid of the contracts? You let them play themselves out. You install a 7 year limit on contracts, 8 if it's a resigning by the team that owns the contract. You grandfather in the other contracts and move on. We agree that the contracts needed to be stopped, but for other teams to use Shea Weber as LTIR fodder and also Carey Price, this is the exact same thing in a different format. But, none of these deals were ever meant to get to the end with the player still playing. 

So, yes, I feel that the Wild got singled out in this, and they were really the only one's punished to such a degree. To make the playoffs in 4/5 of those years (likely) is an FU to the NHL for the penalties. Other franchises shouldn't have gotten a get out of jail free card by placing these guys on LTIR, which is completely unfair. 

So, who would it have hurt if the NHL said no more to the contracts, grandfathered them in or allowed the teams to remedy the contracts? Nobody. We're talking about 5-7 contracts out of 690. But, that also means that the players are penalized too as $15m in actual money doesn't get spent on them for 5 years (which should have been higher but LTIR swallowed it up). I think even Phoenix took on one of these deals and didn't use LTIR so they could hit the cap floor. 

The players got smoked in this negotiation and shouldn't have allowed it. But, there is still the reality that Guerin did know what the interpretation of the rules would be and bought out RS and ZP anyway. And, had he wanted to, instead of resigning the value guys he had, he could have let them walk and backfilled with ELC players to fit through the penalties. I think that would have been a better use of the resources, but Guerin likes his steaks well done to almost shoe leather. To me, I think we would have gotten more value out of a few prospects learning in the N instead of staying in lower leagues. 

i get the frustration and unfairness to some degree, but to me it all boils down to who you gave the contract to and how it aged (really showing the lack of forecasting for Wild). if ovi or crosby became as unplayable as parise had become, then WAS and PIT would have a conundrum similar to ours - to consider a buy out and pay or let them play it out (good for them that both clubs knew what they were doing). but both Sid and Ovi are still playing at a high level that the money call for. other teams have used insurance to get out of it, like with CHI and DET. seems to me that MIN could have worked that out for ZP (insurance, as he had a ton of injuries that we can point to) and just kept RS. RS still plays OK enough to be partnering up with Spurge on third pair....and ZPs money could have been re-used. 

wild were initially dumb enough to throw so much money and term on these players without doing any due diligence of future league plans or forecasting on player value over time. combined, these were the most egregious examples of cap circumvention. billy continued the dumb tradition and bought them out, likely an impulsive decision rather than rational and here we are. 

there was warning that this will be dealt with by the league. and it was. but the league did not take away a get out of jail card (LTI) - it's just too bad we have never learn to use it. and still haven't - as evident by our lack of impactful moves during current TD. 🙂