Jump to content
Hockey Wilderness
  • The Wild's "Five-Year Plan" Has A Core Contradiction


    Image courtesy of Matt Blewett - Imagn Images
    Tony Abbott

    On Monday, Minnesota Wild fans got a big peek behind the curtain at the franchise's long-term plans. In an extended interview with Joe Smith and Michael Russo on The Athletic, Wild owner Craig Leipold confidently laid out his vision for the team's future. Mr. Leipold announced that the 2024-25 season is Year 2 of general manager Bill Guerin's five-year plan to win a Stanley Cup in Minnesota.

    It's a bold declaration, partly because revealing such timelines tends to put a clock on a team's progress. The media and fanbase now can judge Minnesota's progress based on standards they have set for themselves. "Five-year plan" is a snappy, grabby phrase to hold onto if things don't work out.

    An example of this almost backfiring in this market was the heat Minnesota Vikings GM Kwesi Adofo-Mensah took after a disappointing season last year. His famous "competitive rebuild" became a punchline when a 7-10 record didn't look particularly competitive.

    So, yes, the "five-year plan" might live on in infamy one day. But for now, it's easy to see why Mr. Leipold would find it necessary to put it into the world. He must ensure Wild fans stay on board with the team heading into a year of unknowns. His plan also appears to be part of an all-out effort to keep Kaprizov, their superstar player, bought into the long-term vision enough to sign an extension next offseason.

    "He's the most important part of our five-year plan," said Mr. Leipold, "I think I can say that."

    The plan buys a significant amount of time for Guerin, who's entering his sixth year as GM with "no heat" on his seat, according to ownership. That's good for the franchise's outlook. Having a hot seat usually inspires GMs to make moves geared toward keeping their job rather than creating a sustainable winner.

    However, a crucial contradiction is at the core of Guerin's plan. In Smith and Russo's article, the GM is quoted as saying that the end of the five-year plan is when the real competition will begin for Minnesota. "It's about becoming a true contender," Guerin told The Athletic about his plan. "I don't want to try to fool anybody. I don't think we've been serious contenders in the past. I just don't. And we're trying to get there." (Emphasis mine.)

    No one can argue that Minnesota has dealt with unique financial hardships over the past few years. The ongoing weight of the Zach Parise and Ryan Suter buyouts has been the story in St. Paul for the past three seasons and will be again in 2024-25. Having around $15 million less in cap space to play with than most other teams is a legitimate handicap, and Guerin's front office has done well to stay competitive in two of those three seasons.

    Guerin often speaks openly and honestly, eschewing GM-speak more than most of his peers. That's admirable at times. But "I don't think we've been serious contenders in the past" is a red flag when much of his five-year plan relies on that core of players.

    We're not talking about Joel Eriksson EkMatt BoldyBrock Faber, or Jonas Brodin, who will still be under contract by Year 5 of the plan. Those players are franchise cornerstones who will be necessary to complement and elevate on a team alongside Kaprizov. But those aren't the only names slated to be in Minnesota by Year 5.

    In that pivotal 2027-28 season, 31-year-old Jake Middleton ($4.35 million), 36-year-old Marcus Foligno ($4 million), and 34-year-old Freddy Gaudreau ($2.1 million) will still be under contract. Smith and Russo correctly point out that long-term contracts to those veteran players must be viewed in a new light with the revelation of Mr. Leipold and Guerin's plan, as was this offseason's signing of Yakov Trenin, which also extends to Year 5.

    If Kaprizov re-signs according to plan, that gives the Wild nine players who currently form the core of a team that Guerin doesn't consider "true contenders." Good management fosters stability, and the idea is that free-agent signings and prospects will complement these players. Still, seven members of this group (all but Faber and Trenin) have had multiple postseasons together and were unable to advance, even with good players like Kevin Fiala, Mats Zuccarello, Jared Spurgeon, Matt Dumba, and Ryan Hartman in the fold.

    It's reasonable to keep the franchise cornerstones around for the plan's duration. Still, is prioritizing aging role players like Middleton, Foligno, and Gaudreau keeping too much of the non-contender version of the Wild DNA around? That's a worry.

    Another huge concern is that the plan is five years long, starting with last season. The plan feels like it started about two seasons too late. Granted, Minnesota's done a good job of getting in premium young talent before hatching "the plan," giving them a head start with Boldy, Faber, Marco Rossi, Jesper Wallstedt, Marat Khusnutdinov, Liam Öhgren, Danila Yurov, and more. That somewhat helps their timetable.

    Still, the Wild don't have three more years to convince Kaprizov to stay. Next fall is the conservative deadline, and it may be much closer to July 1. Mr. Leipold is prepared to make a big splash then. "Next July 1 is going to be like Christmas," he promised on October 1. "We're going to have money available. We're going to have the resources available to do what we need to do to get back to Wild hockey."

    The extensions mentioned above, in addition to contracts the Wild gave Zuccarello ($4.13 million) and Hartman ($4 million) as part of their plan, somewhat constrict Minnesota's flexibility. They're still projected to have around $20 million in cap space, but they must spread that money around eight roster spots. It's an open question as to how big of a splash they can make.

    Unless The Plan involves jumping to "True Contender" status in Year 3, that might be a tough sell to Kaprizov. The Wild can offer him the most money, but will they offer him the best chance to win? Telling him next offseason, We're in Year 3 of a five-year plan is a significantly different message than telling him on July 3, Sign now, we're ready to contend.

    Can you convince Kaprizov to stay while implicitly telling him he must wait two more years until Minnesota's ready to compete?

    The hope is that they can. The State of Hockey has waited so long to see a talent like Kaprizov come along. It's desperate to see him stay and for the team to give him the tools he needs to compete in St. Paul. Mr. Leipold and Guerin are taking this seriously, but it remains to be seen if their plan can withstand its core conflict.

    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.

    • Thanks 1

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    I think this goes back to OCL's refusal to rebuild. We had the cap hit years to do it he just didn't have the stomach to see his box seat and club seat sales go down. 

    It tells me despite the bullshit we have been fed about staying competitive, they really knew that wasn't an option and decided to go after the first round exit anyway. They took that same group and extended the role players to contracts well into their thirties and even into our NEW "contention" zone. 

    At the start of the buyouts in 2021 we had four good years to rebuild and pile picks. Judd has done well (when Billy didn't interfere) to get us the prospects we have but imagine what could have been had they tried selling the farm at TDL in 2021. Even well into last year it doesn't feel like this "plan" was in place. 

    Looking at who we have signed there are some hits and some clear misses. Freddy @ 35, Foligno @ 36, Brodin @ 35, Middleton @ 31, Trenin @ 31 are likely to be misses. Boldy, Ek and Faber contracts will look very good but that is 6 guys over 30 and 3 above 35. EEK and Kap will both be 31 if they stay but i could see both being still very valuable at that. My fear is some of the best players start to fall off at 35, when we consider every one of the misses I listed above do we really think they are going to beat the odds to maintain performance? We got Freddy who only made it to the NHL fulltime at 30, Foligno who struggles to play 60 games at 32, Middleton who falls apart when he doesn't have an elite partner at 28, Brodin who uses his speed and skating technique to defend amazingly right now but is bound to lose a step by 36, and Trenin who is a roleplayer and PK specialist but doesn't offer much more value.   

    I can understand some skepticism from Kap looking at who they have signed long term. Boldy, EEK and Faber are a great core but when you need walkers and Depends for over a quarter of the team, that wasn't elite to begin with, it doesn't scream contender to me.

    Edited by TheGoosesAreLooses
    • Confused 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I still think next year (if not this year) must be the year to take a big step forward. They don't have oodles of space, but they do have some still: 7 open roster spots with $17.3M in cap space. Buium and Yurov are hopefully locks to make the roster next year on ELCs ($1.9M combined). 2 of Lauko/Merrill/Fleury can be replaced cheaply on league minimum deals, $1.6M combined. Rossi and Khusnutdinov are TBD, I'll guess around $5M combined. That leaves us with close to $9M to spend on a forward or defender with a full roster, a bit more with 21 or 22 on the team. That puts us in range of almost all of the top guys currently set to become UFAs; for reference, the highest AAV of the 2024 free agent class was $8M (Stamkos).

    The thing that we can't predict are trades. If Rossi and/or Gustavsson are traded, that could create more financial flexibility to add someone at the trade deadline with term. 

    The important drafts are done now. They look pretty good. Now hitting on trades and free agents should be the priority. 

    As for the Foligno, Gaudreau, Middleton, and Trenin deals: none of them have NMCs after next season, and none of their contracts are front-loaded so they can be bought out if absolutely needed. I don't think they are make-or-break for a potential Cup window.

    Hopefully more glimmers of hope this year, just like Faber and Rossi last year. We are in good shape if any of these things happen: 1) Rossi sticks and produces at 1C; 2) Ohgren outplays Johansson; 3) Khusnutdinov shows some more offense; 4) Wallstedt looks solid. Bonus if the veterans have bounce-back years, especially Spurgeon.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    At year 5, the guys we drafted from '20-'23 should be ready to go. They will have experience and should be acclimated. Some of the vets should be gone by then.

    Quote

     "I don't think we've been serious contenders in the past" is a red flag when much of his five-year plan relies on that core of players.

    Relying on core players who were here during the 1 and dones is not a red flag. Shooter did what he could with the cap space that he had. But, let's face it, did anyone think we were truly contenders during any of those seasons? 

    To Shooter's credit, he did not trade out 1st and 2nd rounders. Instead, during that time he added to those high picks. The '21 & '22 drafts were a crapshoot for prospects due to Covid. Hopefully, we're one of the teams that comes out really well in our scouting. Nobody got really good up to date scouting reports on these guys, it was all huge guesswork. 

    What I'm saying here is that you could get a 2nd rounder who shines as a top pick more easily than in other years. You could also whiff on a top pick more frequently. 

    I take it back to when Shooter did the buyouts. He promised the owner and fans a "competitive" team. The definition of this is playing meaningful games with 10 to go, being in a solid spot to claim a WC invitation. A team somewhere around 13-17 in the overall standings. Shooter delivered just that.

    Now, how do we define a contender? To me, a contender is getting to the conference finals. If this is the case then in year 3, we should be able to get out of the 1st round. What's coming? Buium and Yurov, possibly Lambos and Hunt too. To me, Bankier looked good in preseason. I didn't get to see Heidt. Hopefully a couple of players like Milne, Lorenz, Haight pan out. But, these guys could also be trade bait for someone further along. 

    1 hour ago, TheGoosesAreLooses said:

    Freddy @ 35, Foligno @ 36, Brodin @ 35, Middleton @ 31, Trenin @ 31 are likely to be misses.

    Freddy can be waived. Foligno can be traded or might be an LTIR candidate. I think Brodin will still have value, as will Middleton and Trenin. That value does not necessarily come across on scoresheets, but you need these types of contributions to win. 

    I'm seeing us getting younger and quickly. There will be some growing pains, but that's all baked in the cake of the 5 year plan. I do think that our growth will be far more seeable each year. As Pewter said on a different thread, what have we been doing for 4 years? From the looks of things, treading water. But just like with the whitewalkers that took 7 seasons, Winter Is Coming. Some people acted like it really was, some didn't. I guess that's kind of like being a fan of this team right now, can you see it coming?

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, TheGoosesAreLooses said:

    Even well into last year it doesn't feel like this "plan" was in place. 

    Agree.  This is why Leo's statements feel like preventative damage control (97's potential departure) and managing expectations because most fans were looking forward to positive upside surprises beginning next off-season.  

    Future is now Leo.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, TheGoosesAreLooses said:

    Freddy @ 35, Foligno @ 36, Brodin @ 35, Middleton @ 31, Trenin @ 31 are likely to be misses. Boldy, Ek and Faber contracts will look very good but that is 6 guys over 30 and 3 above 35.

    ugh that journeyman core is tough to look at in text.  and for those who say BG signed Boldy and Ek to great extensions, I agree.  But signing all that old dead wood to NMC extensions at least offsets the smart extensions.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, TheGoosesAreLooses said:

    At the start of the buyouts in 2021 we had four good years to rebuild and pile picks.

    Then answer me this:  Has any team that rebuilt their team in 2021 become a contender yet?  Has any of those rebuilt teams that tore themselves down to the floorboards to ensure high picks even made the playoffs yet?

    It takes a lot longer to rebound after a rebuild.  Those drafted players take time and it takes time for the team to come together.  Trying to pick up a whole team out of free agency generally isn't a recipe for success either given that those players tend to cost more than the ones you've developed.  Teams that last and are contenders for multiple seasons are grown mostly from within and rebuilt teams take a while to become anything.  Tampa Bay wasn't good right away.  Florida floundered for years.

    I think everyone sees Vegas and thinks that a team can be built from nothing quickly.  With a generous expansion draft and mortgaging much of your draft picks, bending the rules of LTIR a bit with players who consistently, magically get better just in time for the playoffs, and being a large market, yeah, it's a little easier there, but the bottom will fall out on that team in a couple years.  Towards the end of last season, they almost didn't even make the playoffs. 

    If Kaprizov is questioning his desire to stay on a team that is soon to be a contender (whether that is or isn't is not part of my point), why would he want to stay on a team that is still well into a rebuild.  We are much more likely to win a playoff round before a team like Chicago even makes the playoffs.

    If we had rebuilt and winning the cup is Kaprizov's main goal, Kaprizov wouldn't have even signed a 5 year deal in the first place.  He'd likely already be playing for someone else.

    I'd rather have a team built to have multiple chances at a cup and be a contender for years.  Hopefully Kaprizov wants that too.

    I feel like we are moving in that direction more so than at any time in the past and am really looking forward to this season as we start to transition into what we can become.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, Pewterschmidt said:

    But signing all that old dead wood to NMC extensions at least offsets the smart extensions.

    Those are mostly solid players that could be traded if the Wild need to make a move. Hopefully they can stay healthy this year and deliver the type of production that Guerin was hoping for with those contracts.

    Limiting the teams you can trade with to 1/2 the league reduces options, but certainly doesn't eliminate them.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, raithis said:

    If we had rebuilt and winning the cup is Kaprizov's main goal, Kaprizov wouldn't have even signed a 5 year deal in the first place.

    This is the first thing i've read that IMO creates a counter argument for 97 leaving.  

    Thank you for this raithis

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    one of the main excuses from the management team is the cap penalties. that gives them an out to reset or extend this window to 5 or 7 years, depending on when the count started.

    yes, we all heard that Parise and Suter are costing us, but is that the issue? is the issue resolved? have we learned our lesson? i feel like that is not being discussed enough or stressed in the media. here me out comrades - 

    look if parise and suter were playing like the money suggests, then they would be as valuable as kaprizov and makar. both they are not. i don't think i am too off saying that parise and suter best bet is to play on 4th line or 3rd pair this year (should they have stayed on).  so we could have kept them on, played them, and no one could have used cap penalty as an excuse! we would have been at the same position as now! 🤔 same results, but using cap to the max!

    so here is our main issue - misallocation of resources

    we paid for top product and were stuck with near replacement level junk.

    it always bugged me that cap penalties were used as an excuse without questioning the root cause. you want to complain about parise and suter dollars that you can't spend??? fine - here have an equivalent value -

    Parise -> Walker and Suter -> Merrill

    Issue solved! Cap Penalties are no longer in place. You get the same piece of shit players and product. Do better. No? why not? is it because you have f#cked up and overpaid for two players? but now you learned your lesson? how? did you not just locked up the same (cumulatively speaking and term matche up too somewhat) money on collection of shitty players -  freddy, mj, harty, foligno, zuccy (i love you zuccy but you are starting to smell), trenin, midds and a f#ckin 50 year old horrible goalie. 

    That is not learning from your mistakes. that is repeating them. So the message from management is this  - remember Parise and Suter predicament that we had? well we have or about to enter the same with this fun group (if needed - we can extend Zuccy and MJ for couple more years) and would like you to spend a few more of those prime years wasted here babysitting our prospects and dragging our old geezers to contention. if you want to win a cup, we have beauty league cup that is likely your best bet.... 

    Sorry this is probably not the right article to post this, but i always wanted to chime in on this cap topic. Thoughts? 

     

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, raithis said:

    Then answer me this:  Has any team that rebuilt their team in 2021 become a contender yet?  Has any of those rebuilt teams that tore themselves down to the floorboards to ensure high picks even made the playoffs yet?

    2018 NYR had 'the letter' then were in the conference finals in '21-22 and '23-24.  Granted, I don't know how much Kakko (2OA) or Laffy (1OA) has had to do with their success...

    But yeah, I agree, there are far more examples of the rebuilds being disappointing (TRUST THE YZERPLAN) than success stories.

     

    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...