I've tried to do My homework on this... As it stands today, I would project Minnesota to finish last in the Central this upcoming season. I strongly believe that they would benefit from a rebuild, sooner rather than later. However, I've worked on two potential scenarios for fun: One being a rebuild, the other being one way of pushing for the playoffs (if the fictive management continues to put more faith in their current roster than I do).
This is the rebuild version, and I will try to motivate the trades made. I've signed Fiala, Eriksson Ek and Belpedio to extensions in both scenarios, which of course could look completely different in reality.
1) Edmonton would seem to be in desperate need for some veteran presence, some relief in terms of goals scored, and a way to maximize the role of Draisaitl. If they traded for Staal, it would be to keep Draisaitl at one wing. I think Staal would fit as a 2nd line C, giving RNH a chance to anchor the 3rd line were he's suited best. Brodin would be the D-man to trade, as he would add security to the Oilers blueline, which has been injury prone and lacked depth. Also, the contracts of Pateryn and Spurgeon are soon to be up, giving Minnesota more flexibily in terms of future cap space (as well as the choice of letting Spurgeon leave as a rental this season).
I think Yamamoto would be the guy with most upside in terms of playing 2nd line minutes and hopefully evolving in Minnesota, and the most reasonable to strive for while also recieving some draft picks. Gagner would provide some veteran presence at center, as well as giving the Oilers enough cap space to keep both Staal and Brodin. Bear is a solid prospect, you cannot have to many of them at D, and could be an acceptable long term replacement for Brodin.
2) If this was a proper, all-in rebuild, I would let Zucker leave. With 4 years left, and a reasonable cap hit for his solid 20+ goal production, he is one piece the Sharks currently lacks in terms of being a team for the playoffs. Sörensen would be seen as a way of helping Sharks with cap space, while also providing a solid alternative for the Wild and their young roster for 2 years. Blichfeld and his potential would be the real price the Sharks had to pay to aquire Zucker.
3) A rebuild would reduce the need to get rid of the Rask contract. However, having depleted their prospect pool, as well as having cap space, Columbus might be a good fit for Rask to bounce back in a 3rd line role if Minnesota would like to try to lose him. The price for Minnesota would be the picks, that Columbus would most likely want badly at this state.
Milano's time in Columbus would seem to be over, but he could benefit from a change of scenery and has got the talent. Gavrikov is a dark horse, and would further add to a rather deep prospect pool at the Minnesota defense. With the contracts of Pateryn and Spurgeon up in two/One years, having numbers in terms of young d-men could be key going forward in a rebuild.
All in all, I think this would result in a rather deep roster nevertheless, altough with future potential. If Kunin and Schultz were to backfire when given time on the 3rd line, Milano and Hartman would be waiting in the wings together with Greenway and JT Brown.
What do you think, Internet? ;) I'll publish the second version, the playoffs version, soon.
If they're rebuilding, giving up 2nd round picks isn't a good idea. A rebuild would take a few years minimum (more depending on what happens with Suter and Parise), so just riding out Rask's contract makes the most sense.
Would you do Kieffer Bellows and a 1st rd pick for Zucker?
That's a tough one. I'm leaning towards no for two reasons. I think Bellows might have to settle into a 3rd/4th line NHL role, tough it's of course early to say. But given his skillset, I believe so. Also, I think NYI might end up at the top of the standings next season (thanks to their excellent defense), which would lower the value of their 1st round pick.
BUT! The 2020 draft is considered a deep one, and Bellows might prove me one give him a year or two at AHL level. For me though, it's a maybe but no. Tough one though.
If they're rebuilding, giving up 2nd round picks isn't a good idea. A rebuild would take a few years minimum (more depending on what happens with Suter and Parise), so just riding out Rask's contract makes the most sense.
I agree 100 %. I put that trade there simply as an alternative way of moving forward, though I agree that the necessity of trading Rask would be way lower if they choose to rebuild. I briefly mentioned it in the (lenghty) description as well
SociallyHawkward and Roffi223 liked this.
Reply
Khovanov,
CapFriendly
CapFriendly