By Robert Brent -
Over the weekend, the Minnesota Wild broke the ice on their trade deadline. They traded for Gustav Nyquist, who they previously acquired at the 2022-23 trade deadline. Bringing Nyquist back is a bit puzzling, given he’s 35 and has 21 points in 57 games this season.
Nyquist probably makes the Wild marginally better, but the issue is how he fits into their roster construction. With Joel Eriksson Ek out, they could have used some help at center.
Michael Russo and Joe Smith broached how the Wild could get reinforcements for Eriksson Ek in The Athletic. After seeing who may be available, Minnesota could better spend its assets elsewhere. Nyquist should be a fine pickup, but this trade leaves the impression that the Wild had much better options to explore at center.
Filling a gap in the lineup
Picking up a center became vital to the Wild when Joel Eriksson Ek went down with another injury. Eriksson Ek is having issues staying in the lineup this season after being one of the team’s more durable players early in his career. Minnesota’s lack of center depth becomes incredibly apparent with Eriksson Ek out.
Marco Rossi, 23, is good but inexperienced. Frederick Gaudreau is having a bounce-back season but isn’t a second-line center. With all due respect to Brendan Gaunce and Devin Shore, they’re replacement-level NHL players.
Bill Guerin said he expects Eriksson Ek and Kirill Kaprizov to return in the regular season. What if Eriksson Ek gets hurt again? What if his recovery takes longer than initially anticipated?
The Wild would have to roll their current center setup in the playoffs. That won’t go well.
Instead of investing in their gap down the middle, Minnesota traded for Nyquist. Who could they have targeted, though? There were options.
Many linked the Wild to New York Islanders center Brock Nelson, but he doesn’t appear available. On Inside Trading, Pierre LeBrun reported that the Islanders are still trying to sign Nelson despite their place in the standings. The Wild could pry him away with significant assets, but this year’s team isn’t worth investing much capital into. Dylan Cozens is another name that gained some traction. However, that also could take significant assets and be a high-risk trade.
Even if the Wild didn’t want to shop for a huge asset, there were options in a similar price range to Nyquist. In their article, Russo and Smith named Scott Laughton and Yanni Gourde as potential candidates to help the Wild’s center depth in Eriksson Ek’s absence.
Philadelphia reportedly wants a first-round pick for Laughton, but the asking price always starts high. Laughton also has another year on his contract and a reasonable cap hit at just $3 million annually. Gourde is coming off an injury, and the Wild could acquire him for a reasonable haul.
Gourde is 5-foot-9, 174 lbs., undersized for a center. Still, he has a winning pedigree after his two Stanley Cup wins in Tampa Bay and is a proven playoff performer with 41 points in 82 career postseason games. He’s tenacious, responsible defensively, and provides a bit of a scoring punch. Is that not exactly what the Wild need?
A move for a center would have helped the Wild with Eriksson Ek’s injury and could also have helped the team during its impending playoff run.
Strength down the middle leads to success
When you look at the roster construction of several of the league’s most successful teams, strength at center is a common theme. However, the most recent Stanley Cup winners have had center play and depth. The Florida Panthers have Aleksander Barkov, Sam Bennett, and Anton Lundell, and the Vegas Golden Knights had Jack Eichel, Chandler Stephenson, and William Karlsson.
The best teams in the league typically have good center depth. The Wild have Rossi and Eriksson Ek, but neither are as good as Vegas or Florida’s centers. Still, it’s a good start. If Minnesota had acquired Yanni Gourde or Scott Laughton, they’d at least have excellent depth.
The Wild must go on a playoff run soon to show Kirill Kaprizov they’re serious about competing. If they have to spend an asset to do that, they would be better off spending it on developing an identity as a team with center depth rather than an aging scoring winger who only marginally helps the team.
Guerin traded for Nyquist because he was familiar with him and because the Preds retained salary and only got a draft pick in exchange. They pulled the trade off well before the deadline, but Nyquist might not make the Wild that much better.
How does Nyquist fit?
It might be unfair to characterize the Nyquist trade as completely negative. In a vacuum, he adds something to the lineup. Nyquist brings some scoring depth the team sorely lacks and has some experience with the team. He’s also a decent playoff producer, scoring nine points in his last 12 postseason games.
The issue with Nyquist isn’t the player he’s been; it’s the player he is now. At 35 years old, the Swedish forward is reaching the age at which a decline might be coming. He had a fantastic season for Nashville last year, scoring 75 points in 81 games. However, he’s been much less productive this year. His 21 points in 57 games is his lowest scoring rate since he broke into the league in 2013-14.
Nyquist’s age and decline make this trade a considerable gamble. Is it possible he’s had a bad year in Nashville, along with everyone else on that team? Maybe a change of scenery could help him regain some of his scoring form from last year. However, it’s also possible that the winger is starting to decline at age 35.
The gamble the Wild are making is particularly concerning, given what they gave up for Nyquist.
A second-round pick is valuable, especially for the Wild’s front office. According to The Athletic, Minnesota has built up the league’s second-best farm system. Perhaps the Wild don’t need any more prospects. However, if Nyquist doesn’t move the needle, the Wild are giving up what could be a valuable asset for a few games of a declining asset.
Are you confident that Gustav Nyquist makes the Wild a bona fide contender? I’m not.
Nyquist might give the team another scoring option. In the best-case scenario, he’s a good contributor in the playoffs. Even if that happens, the team could have spent these resources much better on a center. They need an insurance policy on Eriksson Ek.
Strength down the middle could be an advantage in the playoffs. The Wild had better targets.
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.
-
1
-
2
Recommended Comments
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.