[Trade] Wild trade Mikael Granlund to Nashville for Fiala

[Enoch Root]

There are lots of reasons why trades don't get done:

• Nyquist would only go to SJ
• Minny appeared to only talk to Nashville regarding Granlund
• Ottawa was adamant on Valimaki in the Stone deal, but Treliving kept trying.
• The Rangers wanted a 1st for Hayes as a pure rental, and Treliving apparently didn't want to give that up. And he didn't have a 2nd to work with (see also Zuccarello)
• He had a deal in place for Zucker, but something fell through at the last minute

Arguing that he didn't do enough, simply because nothing got done, is ridiculously narrow-minded. He is a work-horse, and was going hard on multiple fronts.

One thing I am sure of is that I don't want a GM who will pay whatever it takes to 'get the deal done'. I want a GM that is tight and firm (phrasing!) in negotiations.

Your complaints sound like self-endulging sour grapes.

[GioforPM]

It's particularly unfair to say "Zuccarello hasn't worked out" when he got hurt in his first game.

I guess my point is - you spend assets on a rental and that rental gets hurt game one - look at what you have done. So many factors with rentals - they don't fit in, they don't produce in the lesser role they're given, they help, but not enough to move the needle overall...

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To Fiala? Bennett is probably close. Less productive / less skill but more useful in a third line role. .

This is where I stopped reading your post so this is the only portion I'll quote.. come on. Jiri wanted comparable pieces so you bring up a piece that even you admit isn't comparable at all. A simple exercise and you tripped heading out the door. A downgrade in production and skill.

Kevin Fiala scored 20 goals and flirted with 50 points as a 21 year old. This season at 22 he's struggled more but should still hit 40 points. If Sam Bennett hits 20 goals and 50 points you bring out the piñata and streamers cause baby it's party time.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't agree with the "this wasn't the year to go for it" talk. This is the best a Flames team has looked in... well, you could argue 30 years, but at least a decade and a half. If now's not the time to go for it, when? And don't give me "next year", because the stars only align for so long sometimes, and there's absolutely no guarantee next year will be nearly as good. The Rangers won the president's trophy in 2016; the next year they were 9th. In 2016, Dallas was 2nd in the NHL; the next year they were 24th. In 2017 Chicago was first in the west; last year they were third worst. Last year MIN and ANA were 8-9 in the league; this year they're 18th and 28th.

I'm not saying that the Flames are those teams or will experience a precipitous decline (although Dallas should perhaps be a bit of a cautionary tale), but they're 2nd in the NHL right now. They're outstanding. There's no guarantee they'll still be that level of contender from year to year even if they're still a good team. Hard to position yourself much better than best in the conference... Take your swing when you're at your peak, is my view.

Except all of the Rangers, Dallas, and Chicago relied on aging cores or players at their absolute peak. Dallas, your "cautionary tale," had exactly 3 players that they drafted or developed in their top 10 scorers, and only 5 of them were under 30. In comparison, the Flames drafted and developed 8 of their top 10 scorers and and 9 are under 30, 6 are under 25. Comparing a team just entering their window of contention, whose problems can be solved with assets retained this deadline at the draft, with veteran teams at their peaks is very strange and wrong. I don't see any angle from which 2017-2018 Anaheim and Minnesota are remotely comparable to this year's Flames, or a 2016 Rangers squad with a 29 year old zuccarello as its leading scorer.

I don't see an argument that this is the peak of the Flames, given how young the roster is and given the additional high-end young assets that they've retained this deadline. There will be other opportunities to improve the roster. There's also no guarantee that the stars would align again next year even if they improved their roster at the deadline.

I'm as disappointed as a lot of other fans with how the deadline shook out, especially missing out on Stone, Zucc, Zucker and Nino, but I would not bet that a second place team with one of the youngest cores in the league and more young assets on the way has reached its peak.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To Fiala? Bennett is probably close. Less productive / less skill but more useful in a third line role.

To Hartman and a Nashville 4th? Maybe Mangiapane and a first, and Philly adds a 3rd? Might not even need Mangiapane there, honestly. Or you make Dube part of a deal that requires Philly to add something else.

But my valuation of various players isn't the point. The point is that you don't need a second round pick to compete with these offers. There are other things you can put together, particularly when later picks can be flipped for earlier ones to adjust the value as the parties see fit.
.

You don't need a second round pick but it sure does help.
More to the point, the Flames had a certain number of valuable assets that they likely, or actually stated they wouldn't move for a rental: including the 1st, but I also suspect Valimaki, Kylington, Andersson and Dube
They then had a bunch of other assets that likely don't get the deal done: basically Eat Bread and the rest of the second tier prospects.

You can argue that they should have coughed up Dube for a guy like Simmonds, but to me it was clear they weren't going to do that.

The lack of a second, or equivalent prospect meant they were either going to have to give up something they didn't want to, or not get a deal done.

They chose the latter.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jore

Except all of the Rangers, Dallas, and Chicago relied on aging cores or players at their absolute peak. Dallas, your "cautionary tale," had exactly 3 players that they drafted or developed in their top 10 scorers

Irrelevant. The point is that a team can click on all cylinders one year, and the next year, the spark just isn't there. Usually, it doesn't happen like Dallas (going from 2nd to 24th). But often, you do see a team that's near the top of the league fade into "also-ran" status the following year, despite still being a playoff lock.

I don't see an argument that this is the peak of the Flames, given how young the roster is and given the additional high-end young assets that they've retained this deadline.

That's a pretty crazy thing to say. They're first in the West and 2nd in the NHL, and the only team ahead of them right now is on pace for 130 points, which would be the best season in about 20 years and in the conversation for the best ever. And you think there's no argument that this is as good as things are likely to get? Where, from here, is up, according to you? This is like Eugene Melnyk prophesying a "5 year run of unparalleled success" when the record for most cups won in a 5 year run is 5... Good luck topping that one, Eugene.

There's very little realistic room for improvement here. Sure, maybe they'll win the President's trophy, but I'd say it's more likely that they're a good team for a few years. And I don't think losing a 1st and / or Dillon Dube is going to change that.

You can argue that they should have coughed up Dube for a guy like Simmonds, but to me it was clear they weren't going to do that.

Clearly, because they didn't. I'm just saying I think that if you're going to add a few pieces to go for it, this was a good year to do it, and it's very possible that this chance doesn't come around again next year or in the foreseeable future. It hasn't in a long time.

[Geeoff]

I think it's just a difference in philosophy. Brad does everything long-term.

He'd rather have a good team for 10 years than a great team for 1. I don't know if there's an objective right way to go about it. Teams have bought at the deadline and won and teams have done nothing at the deadline and won. Teams have repeatedly bought at the deadline and maintained long-term success and teams have bought at the deadline and had it blow up in their face.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Irrelevant. The point is that a team can click on all cylinders one year, and the next year, the spark just isn't there. Usually, it doesn't happen like Dallas (going from 2nd to 24th). But often, you do see a team that's near the top of the league fade into "also-ran" status the following year, despite still being a playoff lock.

Yes, and a team can also become better as its core gets more experience and become good perennially, like Nashville, Tampa bay, Toronto, Washington, and countless others. A team could also fade into mediocrity. These things all happen all the time and every year, and no evidence you’ve provided shows that the flames are fated to fall to 24th place and that this is the only chance they have. I have attempted to show how, given their relative youth and already excellent performance, it’s more likely they trend toward Nashville than Dallas. Even if they become a worse playoff team next year, so what? Improve at the deadline then.

That's a pretty crazy thing to say. They're first in the West and 2nd in the NHL, and the only team ahead of them right now is on pace for 130 points, which would be the best season in about 20 years and in the conversation for the best ever. And you think there's no argument that this is as good as things are likely to get? Where, from here, is up, according to you? This is like Eugene Melnyk prophesying a "5 year run of unparalleled success" when the record for most cups won in a 5 year run is 5... Good luck topping that one, Eugene.

Ok, there is an argument for their being worse but I’m not seeing one from you outside ‘it happened to some other teams completely unlike the current flames in their development cycle.’ Of course there are no guarantees and they could go the way of the senators, there are no guarantees that stocking up this year would win them the cup either.

There's very little realistic room for improvement here. Sure, maybe they'll win the President's trophy, but I'd say it's more likely that they're a good team for a few years. And I don't think losing a 1st and / or Dillon Dube is going to change that.

And I’d say being a good team for a few years and building up more assets is better than going all in your first year, agree to disagree I guess

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Jore

no evidence you’ve provided shows that the flames are fated to fall to 24th place and that this is the only chance they have.

Good thing I never said anything like that.

Even if they become a worse playoff team next year, so what? Improve at the deadline then.

That's the point. If this is their best year, their best shot at a cup, then this is the year you should improve at the deadline rather than holding on to assets for later.

Ok, there is an argument but I’m not seeing one from you outside ‘it happened to other teams completely unlike the current flames in their development cycle.’

That's not the argument. The argument is whether this is the peak of the mountain. My support for that is that... look at the team and how good they are. There's not much more room for better, and there's plenty of room for worse. Even if they only get a little worse, it's still worse. Go for it when you're at your best.

Of course there are no guarantees and they could go the way of the senators, who had the worst possession stats in the playoffs and a horrible owner

Again, good thing I never said this would happen.

And I’d say being a good team for a few years and building up more assets is better than going all in your first year, agree to disagree I guess

I'd say giving up some assets to take your shot when you've got a really good shot isn't going to prevent the Flames from still being a good team for a few years. But yes, obviously it's a difference in philosophy.

[The Cobra]

Granlund has 49 points to Fiala's 32, is older and makes a ton more money.

Granlund scores because he gets premium ice time, but he doesn't score all that much actually. A soft overrated player.

Minny gets younger, cheaper and likely has a player that will quite easily replace Granlund's offence with increased ice time and PP time.

In a cap world, Granlund wasn't pulling his salary Plus he's got 1 more year until UFA, where it would take an unwanted contract to pay him during his regressing years.

Looks like a smart move by the new GM.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Granlund has 49 points to Fiala's 32, is older and makes a ton more money.

Granlund scores because he gets premium ice time, but he doesn't score all that much actually. A soft overrated player.

Minny gets younger, cheaper and likely has a player that will quite easily replace Granlund's offence with increased ice time and PP time.

In a cap world, Granlund wasn't pulling his salary Plus he's got 1 more year until UFA, where it would take an unwanted contract to pay him during his regressing years.

Looks like a smart move by the new GM.

I've always been pretty underwhelmed by Granlund. He shows signs from time to time of being a really good player, but not anything like elite.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've always been pretty underwhelmed by Granlund. He shows signs from time to time of being a really good player, but not anything like elite.

Nashville doesn't need Granlund to be elite and he certainly is not being paid to be elite either. They need him to be a solid second unit PP guy that can provide above average offense. This was something Fiala has been unable to do since getting injured in the playoffs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Nashville doesn't need Granlund to be elite and he certainly is not being paid to be elite either. They need him to be a solid second unit PP guy that can provide above average offense. This was something Fiala has been unable to do since getting injured in the playoffs.

That's great for Nashville. Has nothing to do with my assessment of him though. I will say I don't think he fits there, and if he is only providing "above average" offence now with first line/first PP minutes, I think they will be unhappy with his production pretty quickly given lower line minutes.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Granlund has 49 points to Fiala's 32, is older and makes a ton more money.

Granlund scores because he gets premium ice time, but he doesn't score all that much actually. A soft overrated player.

Minny gets younger, cheaper and likely has a player that will quite easily replace Granlund's offence with increased ice time and PP time.

In a cap world, Granlund wasn't pulling his salary Plus he's got 1 more year until UFA, where it would take an unwanted contract to pay him during his regressing years.

Looks like a smart move by the new GM.

There is certainly a road to Fiala being able to take the role, and equal it for a longer period of time at a reduced rate, but I'm not sure about "quite easily", and Granlund being overrated (except by Shaun).

Granlund is ranked 35th in the NHL in scoring the last 3 years, and is both a real driver during even strength situations and fairly dynamic on the powerplay. He's not an elite player by any stretch, but he's certainly in that next grouping... one that you can comfortably build a line around. Fiala has shown signs of being able to do that, although in more favourable match-ups.. time will tell if he can convert that in his new role.

I think this was more about Granlund having his contract expiring at age 28, where he will be in a position to command a 6-7 year contract at $7-8M, which doesn't feel like a particularly appealing bet to me for his 28-34 seasons where he should start seeing a dip in production for a re-tooling team. He was a future trade candidate based on where the Wild were at, and if they waited until next year, I think they were more likely to obtain some futures (like a 1st round pick and some fringy prospects). Getting a ready made offensive talent in Fiala, that has strong underlying numbers is a better get now by being proactive.

I think the trade was less about Granlund being a flawed player (because he's not) as much as it was re-tooling the team towards a window that better fits the cap structure and age projected for their next competitive window.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's great for Nashville. Has nothing to do with my assessment of him though. I will say I don't think he fits there, and if he is only providing "above average" offence now with first line/first PP minutes, I think they will be unhappy with his production pretty quickly given lower line minutes.

I just can't buy many people being unhappy with a guy who is on pace for his third straight 20g/40a season, who kills penalties and plays multiple positions with a ridiculously low cap hit by today's standards.

Even if his production trends downward due to usage, it would be hard to imagine him not flirting with 60 points for the next two years given the tenancy for Nashville to put the lines in a blender when things aren't working and his pure offensive skill level. I'm certainly not going to question the fit of a player that was brought in to help the Nashville PP and secondary scoring when all he's done in his career is produce on the PP.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead

I think the trade was less about Granlund being a flawed player (because he's not) as much as it was re-tooling the team towards a window that better fits the cap structure and age projected for their next competitive window.

To add to that, I think the Wild have decided that parts of this current core have not been able to get the team past it's current tier in the Standings. They've been good enough to be a playoff team, but not a team that gets home ice, and they have not been able to get past the second round.

Looks like they want to start clearing the deck a bit, and move out some of those guys and either bring in some younger cheaper guys, but not necessarily draft picks.