Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ pumpf said:
They're blowing the team up. Might as well. This current group isn't going to get it done. Sadly, the ones who OUGHT to be traded away are too expensive (overpaid); no one else wants them.
Who would that be? The three they just dealt were the most overpaid vs what they are producing. I guess I would throw Koivu in there too but he’s injured.
I am thinking this is about Parise and Suter but their contracts are absolutely ridiculous. Parise and Suter will be a free agents in 2025. Koivu will be a free agent in 2020. They are in rebuild mode now.
The Wild could go through 2 rebuilds by the time Parise and Suter's accounts end..
Suter and Parise are still playing at a high level.
Quote: @Purplewhizz said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ pumpf said:
They're blowing the team up. Might as well. This current group isn't going to get it done. Sadly, the ones who OUGHT to be traded away are too expensive (overpaid); no one else wants them.
Who would that be? The three they just dealt were the most overpaid vs what they are producing. I guess I would throw Koivu in there too but he’s injured.
I am thinking this is about Parise and Suter but their contracts are absolutely ridiculous. Parise and Suter will be a free agents in 2025. Koivu will be a free agent in 2020. They are in rebuild mode now.
The Wild could go through 2 rebuilds by the time Parise and Suter's accounts end..
Suter and Parise are still playing at a high level.
But their contracts are brutal. Boudreau wasn't in the room when the trade was made either. Fuck! Ok I am still pissed.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ pumpf said:
They're blowing the team up. Might as well. This current group isn't going to get it done. Sadly, the ones who OUGHT to be traded away are too expensive (overpaid); no one else wants them.
Who would that be? The three they just dealt were the most overpaid vs what they are producing. I guess I would throw Koivu in there too but he’s injured.
I am thinking this is about Parise and Suter but their contracts are absolutely ridiculous. Parise and Suter will be a free agents in 2025. Koivu will be a free agent in 2020. They are in rebuild mode now.
The Wild could go through 2 rebuilds by the time Parise and Suter's accounts end..
Suter and Parise are still playing at a high level.
But their contracts are brutal. Boudreau wasn't in the room when the trade was made either. Fuck! Ok I am still pissed.
The last three years are reasonable $2M, $1M, $1M. I don’t think its unreasonable to think they will continue to play well for the next three years, then they can be cut with very little implication.
Quote: @Purplewhizz said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ pumpf said:
They're blowing the team up. Might as well. This current group isn't going to get it done. Sadly, the ones who OUGHT to be traded away are too expensive (overpaid); no one else wants them.
Who would that be? The three they just dealt were the most overpaid vs what they are producing. I guess I would throw Koivu in there too but he’s injured.
I am thinking this is about Parise and Suter but their contracts are absolutely ridiculous. Parise and Suter will be a free agents in 2025. Koivu will be a free agent in 2020. They are in rebuild mode now.
The Wild could go through 2 rebuilds by the time Parise and Suter's accounts end..
Suter and Parise are still playing at a high level.
But their contracts are brutal. Boudreau wasn't in the room when the trade was made either. Fuck! Ok I am still pissed.
The last three years are reasonable $2M, $1M, $1M. I don’t think its unreasonable to think they will continue to play well for the next three years, then they can be cut with very little implication.
I meant overall. That's why it's hard to sign anyone because there was no money. And why they had to get rid of guys to get something because they wouldn't be able to resign them.
Great win tonight to make it four in a row.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
I have to agree here. The Wild have been consistently average to above at least. The Wolves haven't even aspired to be average other then the brief KG era.
Neither team was in existence when I lived in Minnesota so I've never been a real fan of either. Makes me glad really. I've had enough disappointment with the teams I've carried with me since childhood. The Twins and the Vikings. Don't think I need to add a couple more.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
I have to agree here. The Wild have been consistently average to above at least. The Wolves haven't even aspired to be average other then the brief KG era.
Neither team was in existence when I lived in Minnesota so I've never been a real fan of either. Makes me glad really. I've had enough disappointment with the teams I've carried with me since childhood. The Twins and the Vikings. Don't think I need to add a couple more.
again...not comparing how the seasons go... just the fact that both franchises ultimately are under performers and IMO it went back to not having the clutch performers that can lift a team and be a leader when the chips are down... there are always the rah rah guys when they are kicking ass, but when the team needs a lift they dont seem to have that player/players that can be counted on to rally the team. yes the wild have made the playoffs, but typically make very little noise after that even when they are expected to be serious contenders.... and its the hoceky playoffs, over half the teams make the post season so its not like they are consistently a top contender.
I may end up eating my feelings on the 2 trades as they are netting some quick returns, but I still think the reason that the Twins, Wild, and Twolves have failed to really make much noise is the lack of player leadership in the past.
Quote: @Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ suncoastvike said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
I have to agree here. The Wild have been consistently average to above at least. The Wolves haven't even aspired to be average other then the brief KG era.
Neither team was in existence when I lived in Minnesota so I've never been a real fan of either. Makes me glad really. I've had enough disappointment with the teams I've carried with me since childhood. The Twins and the Vikings. Don't think I need to add a couple more.
again...not comparing how the seasons go... just the fact that both franchises ultimately are under performers and IMO it went back to not having the clutch performers that can lift a team and be a leader when the chips are down... there are always the rah rah guys when they are kicking ass, but when the team needs a lift they dont seem to have that player/players that can be counted on to rally the team. yes the wild have made the playoffs, but typically make very little noise after that even when they are expected to be serious contenders.... and its the hoceky playoffs, over half the teams make the post season so its not like they are consistently a top contender.
I may end up eating my feelings on the 2 trades as they are netting some quick returns, but I still think the reason that the Twins, Wild, and Twolves have failed to really make much noise is the lack of player leadership in the past.
I'm hoping Rocco will be able to change the locker room chemistry with the Twins. I don't know about his managerial skills but I followed him down here and know his a good looker room presence and a very decent community guy. The other two teams I really have no feeling for. You're right leadership is important regardless. Especially in MLB where the salary structure is so uneven team to team. Rocco has played in a small market that has had success. He was managed a few years by a pure genius, in my book, Joe Maddon. Hope some of that rubbed off on him.
|
