That's way too much for Nick Schmaltz

What a horrible proposal. My gosh probably trolling

Nick doesn't get dumba


Both proposals are the most unrealistic proposal ever on here

Know what you are talking about. Nick doesn't get dumba

Nick & 2nd don't get dumba much less to think wikd add 1st round pick, top prospect matt boldy, Dumba is the worst trolling on here


@mod needs to delete this


Get real @OldNYIFan

I'd be fine with a 1 for 1 but if Arizona wants anything more I'd pass personally. I like Schmaltz but ultimately he's a 2C on a contender and this is a high price to pay for a 2C in my opinion.

In general, I agree with you, Arizona is a great trading partner for Dumba.

I mean, Dumba isn’t worth Schmaltz so this has to be close? MIN has 2 1st round picks so they’re willing to use them, they’re just lotto tickets anyways.

Dumba+2nd/3rd I could see from MN, not a 1st though. It would probably take something like your proposal to get AZ to trade Schmaltz.

Schmaltz isn't a c. Christian d is better c than him

Sean Monahan is better than him

I don’t mind Schmaltz on the face of it but I think people get a bit dazzled by his speed that is probably best utilized on the wing. Couple that with the fact that we actually extend our salary commitment on him and I really need more convincing.

I’d probably do Hayton and a 1st from ARI, but that’s probably a non starter since their farm system is so bad they need the pick and I don’t know any other assets they’d be willing to part with.

I'd rather have Dvorak, but I don't see anyway to pry him out of AZ.

Remember this is MN, where if you're a wing you play center and if you're a center you play wing; so he'd fit right in.

Thanks as usual for the usual rational input. My thinking here is that:

(1) like the dog chasing the cat, the dog would LIKE to catch the cat but the feline NEEDS to get away. Similarly, Minnesota has the twin incentives of needing to improve at the center position and (arguably) needing to move Dumba in order to guarantee retaining Greenway, who looks to me like he is having the long-hoped-for breakout year, and one of Foligno or Hartman, while Arizona would have to be persuaded to part with their current #1 center.

(2) Arizona moves into the Central Division with Minnesota next season, so an intra-division trade is always difficult. Once again, because Minnesota benefits more from having a player who solidifies their center position for FIVE more years whereas Arizona benefits from filling one of their three holes at RD and empty protection slot (i.e., lesser benefits), I think that the Wild ought to pay the premium. Now you can quite sensibly argue that I should include the Columbus second even without Boldy, but I think that Dumba and the first is what would be required as a framework for a trade with the Coyotes.

(3) Schmaltz has 86 points in 131 games with Arizona (almost 0.66 ppg), and 27 points this year. I think that with Kaprizov and Fiala as his wingmen, he'd do better. In contrast, your four centers have 20 (Eriksson Ek), 16 (Rask) and 14 points (Bonino), while Johansson has 11 points in 24 games, which works out to 21 points over the 3/4 of the season we've played so far. So aside from the purported difference in value between centers and defensemen, Schmaltz is better than what you've got now and, again, is signed for five more years, whereas MoJo and Bonino expire this year and Rask the year after. As Rossi and Khusnutdinov develop, he can still be a useful center right through his entire contract. So I don't think that this exchange is that far off the mark.

If Guerin is able to persuade Armstrong to do Dumba for Schmaltz straight up, I think that would be a huge win for Minnesota. But you know that I'm rooting for you.

Yeah, I was torn between what I thought was theoretical value (your deal) and what I think Arizona would take (my deal, maybe with something more coming back to the Wild). Thanks as usual for your typically thoughtful reaction.

Sorry @OldNYIfan I can't get behind this. I dislike Schmaltz as a player, to streaky for me, so I absolutely hate this trade. If I do take my bias out of the equation as much as I can I still don't like it I think you have the Wild way over paying. I'll agree with @TanSor it's probably better as a one for one but I think I would rather Wild just lose Dumba in expansion and keep the Cap space, but that's probably because I dislike Schmaltz that much.

I think that’s horrible value for schmaltz. I’d do dumba and a 4th for schmaltz but definitely no firsts or boldy. He’s not that great a c all in all. Your value wild for for someone far better.

Thanks for the input. You know how much value I place on it.

I can't argue with you guys, but I do think that you're overlooking the value of that 5-year contract term a little bit. Think about how Schmaltz would fill out the centerline while Eriksson Ek and Rossi develop.

I think @wabit's idea of Dumba and a second is the best value. Letting Dumba walk for free strikes me as really bad asset management.

I went back and read some of your logic on the trade and I guess I understand it more now. So I can now agree with @wabit s valuation. I still don't like Schmaltz.
As far as Eks development I think he is blossoming but everytime he gets going Evason messes with his line. Ek and Kaprizov play different games but they work together. I like Foligno and I like where Greenway is going with his game but neither is a scorer and so he once again turns Ek into a checking center. Sorry I'm frustrated by it and I could rant for a number of pages.
I've also come to terms with the fact that Wild will not be getting full value for Dumba if and when they do trade him. I wonder if he won't go the Brian Burke route where he will just lose the player rather than lose the trade. Burke believes that if you allow teams to find leverage in trades and use it to win trades with you, that they will never meet your asking price in future trades, so he would rather lose the assets for nothing before giving other GMs a win.

it's a silly proposal on a silly website
why are you so mad

I think it’s quite the overpay on Schmaltz. I do see how it benefits MIN more than Arizona so there is that. But Schmaltz and Dumba 1 for 1 was discussed in the Athletics “Who says no” article for the Wild and it was a clear no from both executives they asked.

How ever I wouldn’t mind doing it 1 for 1. He’s a right handed center and the Wild could use both of those things. Adding the 4th wouldn’t bother me much either. But anything more than that I would hate the trade.

Thanks for the input. You'll note that I borrowed your idea for a Philly trade in my contemporaneous post but mistakenly accused you of being a Flyers fan in a comment. Hope that you weren't too offended.

He always is and comments on every post that includes the wild. I think this is his 3rd or 4th account on capfriendly in the last year.

Haha no it’s all good

I definitely agree with you, Schmaltz could be huge with Fiala and/or Kaprizov. He plays a fast game and I think he'd mesh very well with those two. As others have implied, Arizona doesn't really have a rush to move him, so we'd likely have to overpay to get him. It would sting but I'd rather just expose Dumba in expansion and if Seattle takes him, we free up a ton of cap; if they opt for one of our goalies, our incredible blue line is still in tact. I guess I'm looking at it this way: Dumba for $6M cap space to possibly sign or trade for a better C than Schmaltz or overpaying with Dumba, a 1st and a 3rd for Schmaltz.

Thanks for the analysis. I guess we come down to two diametrically opposed strategies: (1) expose Dumba to Seattle, or (2) trade Dumba to avoid losing him to Seattle. (I think that you and I agree that the third strategy -- 8 and 1 -- is now off the table due to the Foligno signing and Greenway's bloom.) I have no idea which is best for Minnesota and it will be fascinating to see which strategy Guerin adopts!

Dumba for Schmaltz 1 x 1 isn't the value I'd hope for in a trade with AZ but if that's the best value BG could get so be it. MN would get a serviceable top 6 C while alleviating the expansion draft issues.



Maybe I missed it but, what was the rational for the 8-1 being off the table? If there is no Dumba trade to be had I'd rather have Seattle take Greenway than Dumba. Both are playing well this year. The getting cap space relief for Dumba is only a 1 year fix as Greenway would need a new contract with, I assume, a big raise.

GMBG has indicated that he wants to keep both first round picks.

I agree that 8-1 is off the table. I'd prefer to trade Dumba if possible even if the return isn't ideal. But I can't see GMBG adding picks to our side of that trade unless it's our 4th for their 5th or something like that.

That being said, I like Schmalz. I like Arizona as a trading partner. If there was a lower asking price for him, I'd be very interested. But I wouldn't give up a first, Rossi, or Boldy.