CreaseAndAssist

I should have put that in with one of my updates. The contract also gives him a 10-team no trade in year 4-5 of the deal too.

Russo reported on both of those situations. Nelson didn't have to re-sign with the Islanders, but he obviously did...so doesn't his actions speak for themselves? You'd think if he REALLY wanted to be here...he could've done so.

Yes and no. Brock Nelson WAS interested in the Wild at one point in time, then took a look at the roster and decided to stay with the Islanders. The Wild wanted him, but Brock didn't like what he saw. Just like Kessel didn't like what he saw...

Wild Sign Mats Zuccarello, Ryan Hartman and Luke Johnson (sigh) Not exactly a surprise after what was reported yesterday but for Zuccarello, too much $$$ and term given to a guy who will be 32 by the time he reports to camp this fall. Hartman's deal is pretty reasonable in my opinion. Johnson gives Iowa some seasoned depth. It will be interesting to see if that #5/#6 defenseman gets signed that Russo hinted at on his podcast. Enjoy and discuss...

I agree...we were a highly compensated never was...

Gordeev had a wicked toe drag move in that game. Looked like a forward in how smooth he pulled it off. They had less players in camp. The camp was shorter and more focused according to Brad Bombardir.

I agree 100%

Wild Free Agency Conundrum: to Spend or Not to Spend I wrote this up, considering the latest Russo rumors including some information I recently learned myself. Check it out.

Although Mileski made a good point in the latest Beyond the Pod episode. As much as the team would like to rebuild, it can't because of the deals it signed with #11 and #20. Those contracts are virtually impossible to get out of. Both because of the length, the current age of these players and the fact they were given NMC's too. Yet, and this has been stated in other threads I believe...any player who could be given that kind of financial security would probably take it. If you were told in your present working career, that you would, 1) have your job no matter what for what was left of your career, 2.) the company was going to pay you very well for the rest of your career, and 3) your company would not be able to change your work situation unless YOU approve it. Of course you'd probably take it. It means stability in a very exclusive way that few players are ever offered. Plus, at the time you probably feel you're going to really be loving the new company you're going to work for and its in a fairly nice place to live and raise a family which you are about to start or have only recently started to grow. But now...a little over halfway through, one of those players is having some regrets about it. Because, of how those deals have shaped the team's decision making and limited its flexibility...its at a point where it desperately needs a rebuild and the organization's deal they made with you is preventing that from taking place and you still want to win the big prize. You want to win that prize, so you suggest you might entertain a transition to a new company. The problem is, your present deal is guaranteed and that would have to be figured out to make it happen. The Wild would no doubt have to retain money to whomever we traded him for and we'd likely just sort of dump him off and be happy with the cap space and flexibility it would give us. But if that player retires before his deal is done the team gets crushed with the cap recapture penalties. Meanwhile, the other worker that was given that exact same deal as the previously mention employee has no regrets. In fact, he is very very comfortable and uses his relationship with the owner to continue to demand and do whatever he pleases. He knows he can't be moved, and one call or text to the owner and any obstacle in his way will be removed no matter if that person is allegedly an authority figure or not. This player dictates his own work situation and thus it dictates what other players work situations are. So it becomes more important for other players to have this players' approval than that of the boss (coach) and a warped power dynamic is created. Soon, workers in other companies that may have been interested in joining that company hear about the strange and toxic environment and want nothing to do with this company. So the only way that company can try to bring in talent from the outside is to grossly overpay it or lean heavily on personal / regional connections and hope they hadn't heard about that toxic environment to be scared off too much. Sound familiar?

No doubt. But Fenton has shown little regard for the players that were here besides the older vets. He probably already got told those guys can do as they wish. But the rest...who cares. As @IllaZilla has stated on other threads. Granlund didn't need to be moved at the deadline. We easily could've waited and kept him and then traded him before the draft if we thought he was going to ask for $8 million plus which he probably will unless he has a crappy season this year. Fenton was bound and determined to get Fiala and he probably didn't care who he had to move to get him. Russo even reported that initially it was Granlund AND another asset straight up for Fiala. So as bad and lopsided as the trade was, it nearly was even worse.

As @IllaZilla said, if what you say is correct then that is awful return for Granlund. In fact, if all he's going to be is a 3rd liner (which to be honest I think his ceiling is higher than that) we would've been more than justified in asking for a 2nd or even an 1st round pick PLUS Granlund considering the deal took place at the trade deadline. It is precisely why the 'hockey trade' 1-for-1 was such a lame cop out by Fenton in the first place. 'Hockey trade's don't happen when you're trading away a top 6 forward at the deadline when you are the team selling on the proven commodity. It is also why so many GM's / league people called on Russo asking about Granlund to see if there was some other part to the story considering the Wild sold so low; but all Russo could say was that Fenton REALLY liked Fiala. To quote the Common Man...sad, really... I think with time Fiala might be a solid 2nd liner. But he has to eliminate his strange penchant for his blind passes of the puck when pressured to the middle of the ice. Those are simply recipes for disaster. That isn't as much about a skill as its simply being smarter. One would hope more experience would help fix that part of his game. Will he be a game breaker...no. And that comment certainly didn't help. It just became another Wild punchline, just like the Our Ice campaign.

Its probably just an attempt to create a 'race' like finish to create more buzz about the playoffs.

On a greedy perspective, since there is a good chance I'm coaching football during that time. I don't mind it, because it works well for writing. Yet it seems stupid to have such large gaps and then be compressing a 1/4th of the NHL season into the last month and a half.

I have that roster in the article.

Suter / Parise Video EJ, someone made this a while ago...about that very subject.

Double post

I get it, but he's a leader and a good example for young players to follow. He and Mayhew and to a lesser extent Rau were the workhorses on that team. More youngsters will have that chance to carry the mail, but I'd still want O'Reilly for culture / character reasons alone.

Indeed...

Did anyone notice that Matt Hendricks is now a player development coach for the Minnesota Wild?

I would agree about the ice time for the younger players. But I think as a group Donata, Fiala and Sturm could be had for $4-$5 million collectively as you likely will put them on 'prove it' type of deals.

No Cal O'Reilly in Iowa, that will be tough for them to replace.

Interesting. First off I'm a tiny bit surprised Adam Sandler would know who Jack Hughes is.

Road-tober for the Wild. March has more home games than I think we normally see given that's tournament time.

Not that I really care since this is the Flyers forum, but it seems to me like Fletcher is still "feeling Minnesota" as he adds Minnesotans Justin Braun and Tyler Pitlick to the roster. The Wild didn't have either of them, but perhaps he coveted them from afar in his time with the team.

All in all I feel pretty good about my selections. The Wild did end up taking a forward. They could've had Peyton Krebs...they took Matthew Boldy instead. As for the Ottawa Senators, I took right shot blueliner Moritz Seider here and he was off the board far earlier than anyone expected but the Senators still took another right shot defenseman in Lassi Thomson so that seemed to be a decent pick to me. The Flames didn't take a goaltender (Mads Sogaard) with their pick and instead opted for a smallish scoring winger in Pelletier. Tad bit surprised maybe they felt uncomfortable drafting a goalie in the 1st round, albeit late in the 1st round.