Nope it's not especially for wild. Wild aren't going to trade a good young player like greenway to vegas for 4th round prospect who hasn't played 1 game in AHL .

That 2nd round pick doesn't mean much. Nope, wild rather keep greenway

Your title should be changed to unrealistic because wild can do better

thanks for the feedback. considering they might lose him for nothing I view it as a fair trade.

Well, they might doesn't mean they will. this type of reasoning is a faulty reasoning. Every team will lose one player, not just wild

So which is it? Are wild only team losing dumba, greenway, etc??? Because according to people on here, wild are only team losing someone

I'm so confused by this comment lol. the point of the trade was because they rather get something for him rather than losing him for nothing.

Yeah, & I am telling you wild aren't going to give him up just because they could lose him especially to vegas

Wild can also lose dumba, or soucy

So respectfully, no. Wild rather lose 1 player than make a trade for reasoning that maybe something can happen

fair enough, agree to disagree. what would make the trade fair?

Cody glass

no

Wild say no also

So you’re saying they learned their lesson from the last expansion?

Teams will 1000% make deals with guys that might be lost in expansion. This isn’t as far fetched as you’re making it

It's. Because again wild aren't trading a player just because something could happen. Seattle could take dumba also. So respectfully, wild won't

well, they did last time we had an expansion draft and we all know how that went.

well no something WILL happen, it either Greenway or Dumba and it would be dumb to not trade one of them for roster management purposes.

No, it would not be dumb. Just because something could happen doesn't mean wild should essentially trade 1 player,,& still lose another in expansion

See you aren’t catching the point of it. It enables you to protect that other person, so you don’t lose one for NOTHING