Jump to content
Hockey Wilderness

  • It's Safe To Ignore Any Joel Eriksson Ek Trade Rumors

    Image courtesy of Matt Krohn-USA TODAY Sports
    Tony Abbott

    By Tony Abbott -

    The Minnesota Wild's 5-0 win over the New York Islanders couldn't stop them from entering Tuesday stuck firmly in 13th place in the Western Conference. Forget the fact that they're six points out of a playoff spot; they need to make up a three-point gap to even sit in 12th place. With less than two months to go until the trade deadline, Minnesota is a clear seller, at least to everyone but their GM. 

    Or, they would be, except they're in the unenviable position of having nothing to sell. The Wild roster is, in a word, unmovable. Jared Spurgeon, Jonas Brodin, Marc-Andre Fleury, Marcus Johansson, Alex Goligoski, and Ryan Hartman all have full no-move clauses, meaning the Wild can't trade them or send them to the minors without their permission. Marcus Johansson also has a full no-trade clause, meaning he can veto any trade.

    Beyond that, many other Wild veterans also have a large degree of control over their destinies. Zach Bogosian has a 21-team no-trade list. Patrick Maroon can veto trades to 16 teams, Freddy Gaudreau has 15 teams on his no-trade list, and Mats Zuccarello has a 10-team no-trade list.

    So when the sharks are circling the reeling Wild, it makes sense for them to pursue the big-ticket but movable names. Top centers are also in short supply and high demand. It shouldn't be a surprise, then, to see people throw Joel Eriksson Ek's out there.

    At least it is if you listen to Vancouver-based radio, where any Eriksson Ek rumors have seemed to originate. The Vancouver Canucks are on top of the Western Conference with 61 points and are looking to shore up their center depth. Anyone in Minnesota knows just how much value he'd provide the Canucks.

    If he were for sale, that is. Thankfully, Elliotte Friedman squashed these rumors on Monday's episode of his 32 Thoughts podcast. "Eriksson Ek -- I don't buy that one," Friedman said bluntly about him being a trade target. "I don't see any reason why Minnesota would do that. It would really surprise me."

    Same. 

    There are no untouchable players in the NHL, of course. Connor McDavid's probably getting traded tomorrow if the Chicago Blackhawks offer Connor Bedard's Entry-Level Contract salary straight-up for him. But sometimes you have to look at trade proposals and go, come on, that's not happening. Within the realistic possibilities for an Eriksson Ek trade, such a move would likely go down as a blunder.

    The reasons Eriksson Ek would be an attractive trade candidate are the exact same reasons it would be foolish for Minnesota to trade him. First, there's his play on the ice. Even having cooled down with just one goal and seven points in his last 16 games before Monday's two-goal outburst, Eriksson Ek is still on pace for a 32-goal, 57-point season. He has a very good shot at breaking the 30-goal barrier for the first time in his career and the 60-point mark for the second year in a row.

    Teams covet that kind of offensive punch from a top-six center in general. Still, when you add his defense, you suddenly have a player who is Minnesota's answer to Ryan O'Reilly or Sean Couturier. In terms of Evolving-Hockey's Standings Points Above Replacement, his all-around value makes him a top-25 center in the NHL and a top-50 forward dating back to the 2020-21 season. His 85 goals are also tied with Matt Duchene and Claude Giroux for 54th among forwards over that time, besting the likes of top-line centers Tomas Hertl, Tim Stutzle, Anze Kopitar, and Nick Suzuki.

    You can argue over whether he's a true No. 1 center on a contender or not. But wherever you fall on that, he's a top-six center on a bonafide Stanley Cup contender, especially given how he's shown up in the playoffs lately. (When he isn't putting his body on the line to gut out a broken leg, that is.) 

    Under normal circumstances, even the dire ones the Wild face, there are only three good reasons to trade such a player:

    1. The player is reaching the end of a contract you don't expect to extend.
    2. The player will be far outside their prime by the next time your team can expect to compete.
    3. The player wants out.

    As far as we can tell, Eriksson Ek meets none of these criteria. Eriksson Ek doesn't only have five years remaining on his contract after this season. He has five years remaining that are a miracle to have on the books. Eriksson Ek's cap hit is just $5.25 million for a top-six, borderline top-line center. That's absurd. We live in a world where Mark Scheifele, Bo Horvat, and Pierre-Luc Dubois -- three players at or below Eriksson Ek's level -- make $8.5 million against the cap. Meanwhile, the Wild have Eriksson Ek locked up for less money than the Detroit Red Wings gave Andrew Copp two summers ago.

    Eriksson Ek turns 27 in two weeks, meaning his contract will carry him through age 32. Generally speaking, people believe Minnesota's window to compete starts once they free up the worst of their cap hell in 2025-26, Eriksson Ek's age-29 season. Ek won't be in his absolute prime. But big, strong, two-way centers at Eriksson Ek's level have a decent track record. Kopitar is still a point-per-game player at 36, O'Reilly's still going strong at 32, and even an injury that kept Couturier out for two full seasons can't stop him from having a productive age-31 season. 

    Locally, Eriksson Ek's predecessor, Mikko Koivu, gave Minnesota strong seasons through age 34. It feels safe for a team to take their chances with Eriksson Ek in his late 20s to early 30s, at least at that price point.

    Especially when you remember how hard it is to replace a player like Eriksson Ek. If it were easy, Minnesota likely wouldn't have taken a swing on Charlie Stramel in the 2023 Draft, hoping to uncover the elusive big, strong, two-way center. Even with signs of life lately, Minnesota's not expecting Stramel to hold down that Eriksson Ek spot anytime soon.

    What if the Wild got a prospect back for Eriksson Ek? Say Vancouver's top potential and former teammate of Minnesota first-rounder Liam Öhgren, Jonathan Lekkerimäki. Are they really setting themselves up for more future success?

    It's easy to focus on financial savings with ELCs, but team control is as big a deal as a league-mandated deflated salary for a prospect's first NHL seasons. Any prospect Minnesota would get back would be under team control for seven years. That's just two more years than the Wild have with Eriksson Ek right now. And you have a good idea of what you're getting out of those five years with Eriksson Ek. Someone like Lekkerimäki is a complete wild card by comparison.

    So if you keep seeing Eriksson Ek's name crop up in trade rumors, especially among radio hosts who aren't super-plugged in with teams around the NHL, you can breathe a sigh of relief and move on with your day. The reason you can do it is very simple: It doesn't make any sense for the Wild to move on from Eriksson Ek.

    By Tony Abbott  

    Think you could write a story like this? Hockey Wilderness wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    • Like 3
    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Willy the poor boy
    17 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

    I think I've been pretty consistent. I supported Deano until I found out that after gaining minimal points on an Eastern road trip, Deano gave the players 2 games off and just practice 1 hour on the 3rd day. This while the PK was trending at 60% and the PP didn't look so good either. That is simply wrong.

     

    Just curious of your thoughts on this:

    Up until the Islander game, the Wild had held one practice since Dec. 27'th.This with a new coach likely trying to install a new system with the team.

    One practice through a tremendously rough patch for the tea.

    And I have to say this, not trying to start anything but, you had been on the fire Deano band wagon long before that.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Protec

    It just seems like some guys think ambiguous reports of the GM being mean should get him fired and the 180 degree turnaround from Fenton/Fletcher should be totally ignored. Maybe I'm misunderstanding? 

    Since the team had injuries like never before and the coach got fired in quite predictable fashion, that also should be tacked on to the list of firable offenses because some third option wasn't explored? 

    It just appears to be that GMBG's perceived reactionary responses are being highly criticized by fan's who are responding by saying "fire his ass for being a loose cannon!" While, simultaneously being reactionary and responding to the situation in the very same way they're criticizing Guerin for.

    That's really weird to me and no, I don't buy the unsubstantiated reports or scoring from pundits at the first signs of real adversity for MN since Guerin's arrival. It makes it seem like a bunch of whiney-wimpletons can't take some hard times or that some staffer is more important than the whole organization. 

    I've seen the Wild play some pretty good hockey this year so what exactly is the alternative? Fire the GM, play the rookies, go back in time and shitcan Foligno, Fred, and Hartman? Come on, grow up boys...

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    mnfaninnc
    Just now, Willy the poor boy said:

    And I have to say this, not trying to start anything but, you had been on the fire Deano band wagon long before that.

    My only comment to that was I did not think Deano was our Championship coach, but I firmly stated he earned his extension and there was nothing we could do about that. He overperformed for 3 years, this cannot be argued. 

    But, I've always felt that when it was time to make the jump to a contender, we couldn't do it with Deano. His long history of playoff unsuccess was simply too much. I did speculate that if he did not have a series win this year, he probably wouldn't survive, but that was not calling for his head. 

    I only did that after the practice.

    Now, to your other point, I am very disappointed to learn that Hynes is not practicing these guys either. He should be doing it and doing it often. There's a lot to fix. I don't really care that they're in the middle of a brutal schedule, if you're playing well, then I can see it, but if you're not, you need to be practicing.

    Yes, I also believe that is wrong.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    mnfaninnc

    One last thought on this too, Willy. If the flu was running through the team, I can buy that as a reasonable excuse to keep the players away from each other. There was a hint that it was pretty bad for awhile, but I do not know how bad.

    I do know it bodyslammed me for 3 straight weeks, and I'm still sapped for energy. But, alas, they are far younger than me!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    raithis

    It should also be considered that Dean had completely lost the team.  I remember numerous occasions just before he was let go where players would start shaking their heads or rolling their eyes.  It was obvious that at least some of them had stopped believing in what he was saying.

    Not saying that Guerin doesn't fly off the handle now and then or that it's not occasionally an issue, but it seems a bit weird to be critical Guerin's mistakes and put less emphasis on his successes and laud Evason's successes and put less emphasis on his mistakes.  He was awful at adjusting on the fly and would typically just go back to what worked in the past hoping it would work again.  He would also stick with that far longer than he should before trying something else.  He'd frequently put Gaudreau in top-6 roles.  He outed Kaprizov's injury and threw blame at everyone but himself for his failings.  Yes, Guerin just this too, but thinking one is the worst person for the team and the other is best is ridiculous.

    I don't think Guerin is great, but he's better than other GMs we've had in a lot of ways.  I also don't think Hynes is great, but I think he is a better fit for the team than Evason.  I think he will be a better fit as time goes by.  The problem is that he is an Xs and Os guy and our roster isn't deep enough for him to really be successful.  If they play their cards right, next season will allow him a bit more leeway to be successful by giving him more to work with.

    That all said, there aren't a lot of reasons not to practice, and even less if you are playing poorly.  I get that a lot of the team is (was) banged up, but that's all the more reason to find out how you get through it.  

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willy the poor boy
    2 hours ago, raithis said:

    It should also be considered that Dean had completely lost the team.  I remember numerous occasions just before he was let go where players would start shaking their heads or rolling their eyes.  It was obvious that at least some of them had stopped believing in what he was saying.

    Not saying that Guerin doesn't fly off the handle now and then or that it's not occasionally an issue, but it seems a bit weird to be critical Guerin's mistakes and put less emphasis on his successes and laud Evason's successes and put less emphasis on his mistakes.  He was awful at adjusting on the fly and would typically just go back to what worked in the past hoping it would work again.  He would also stick with that far longer than he should before trying something else.  He'd frequently put Gaudreau in top-6 roles.  He outed Kaprizov's injury and threw blame at everyone but himself for his failings.  Yes, Guerin just this too, but thinking one is the worst person for the team and the other is best is ridiculous.

    I don't think Guerin is great, but he's better than other GMs we've had in a lot of ways.  I also don't think Hynes is great, but I think he is a better fit for the team than Evason.  I think he will be a better fit as time goes by.  The problem is that he is an Xs and Os guy and our roster isn't deep enough for him to really be successful.  If they play their cards right, next season will allow him a bit more leeway to be successful by giving him more to work with.

    That all said, there aren't a lot of reasons not to practice, and even less if you are playing poorly.  I get that a lot of the team is (was) banged up, but that's all the more reason to find out how you get through it.  

    Deano proved his worth over and over and over. I'm not sure what people don't get about taking teams not expected to do much, getting them to overperform year after year. I've said it before I'll say it again, every team goes through slumps in a season, even the best teams, sure, at times there are the exceptions, but it's rare.

    To think Deano was suppose to take these teams, overperform AND avoid a slump here and there is crazy talk.

    Apparently I can't take the position that it was Deano who saved BG's job and got this team to play together and perform but it's OK to say BG has done it right. Deano's firing was premature. He earned more time. It's just G is weak minded and caved to the Press and many fans and bought into one of the stupidest things in hockey which is to fire a good and proven coach for nothing more than GD bump.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willy the poor boy
    21 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

    One last thought on this too, Willy. If the flu was running through the team, I can buy that as a reasonable excuse to keep the players away from each other. There was a hint that it was pretty bad for awhile, but I do not know how bad.

    I do know it bodyslammed me for 3 straight weeks, and I'm still sapped for energy. But, alas, they are far younger than me!

    I would just say this and that is no one, to my memory, was scratched for illness during that stretch. The only one's missing games were the injured.

    I too have had the respatory stuff that's going around and like you I'm on my 3'rd week. I know I wouldn't have been able to skate on back to backs or every other night with this shit. So I'm skeptical of illness being an issue with the team.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willy the poor boy

    I've ALWAYS shook my head throughout the BG era. In a nutshell and predominately, EVERYTHING good with this team has gone on BG's shoulders and EVERYTHING bad was on Deano. To me it was always bass ackwards and obviously so.

    Time will tell and I am confident I will be vindicated, even though it doesn't matter one wit to me or should it to anyone else. Like I've said, I'll still cheer for the team and hope I'm not only wrong but enormously so, and we finally win a Championship for the 'state of hockey'. Until then, at least for me, it's an embarrassing moniker for a state with no professional hockey success...

    Edited by Willy the poor boy
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Protec

    ^^^

    I would boil it down to philosophy 101. If you don't control things like what Guerin, Evason, Hynes, or the players do, then letting it bug you too much becomes a personal blunder.

    Does it really matter the degree of fault to be distributed amongst those involved? It's probably fair to say they all wanna win.

    Would it be the first time injuries, coaches, or GMs have made things better or worse for the results? I don't think so. Only one team can win each year, and MN has struggled for decades. Peaks and valleys, or as many of us have commented like a roller coaster in the Twin Cities. 

    We as fans wanna see the Wild get over the hump but it's not really a simple proposition when every team and many fan bases from across the country are exactly the same. It's quite dependent on things lining up just right. You can approach it different ways and argue the merits of varying strategies but ultimately things have to go right regardless of which path is selected. Not simple 1+1=2 kinda stuff. 

    When it's January and you're 27th of 32 teams, perhaps it's not worth dwelling on how & why but rather which course will help improve on 2023 for 2024. That's my take and less frustrating than hoping the same things achieve different results for today.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    mnfaninnc
    19 hours ago, Willy the poor boy said:

    I too have had the respatory stuff that's going around and like you I'm on my 3'rd week. I know I wouldn't have been able to skate on back to backs or every other night with this shit. So I'm skeptical of illness being an issue with the team.

    I remember one of the broadcast team, might have been LaPanta stating that a 4-5 guys were gutting it out and beaten up pretty bad. But, several others were in the fetal position due to the flu. So, that's what I based my comment off of.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Willy the poor boy
    25 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

    I remember one of the broadcast team, might have been LaPanta stating that a 4-5 guys were gutting it out and beaten up pretty bad. But, several others were in the fetal position due to the flu. So, that's what I based my comment off of.

    Well that could be, I missed 4 games from when the Wall started against Dallas on. I would have thought that would be bigger news with that many players out at the same time. Until BG alluded to illness I hadn't heard anything at all about it effecting the locker room.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×

×
×
  • Create New...