Quoting: glarson17
How exactly does a team get Meier for a year when he’s and RFA and they could sign him for 8 years plus have a playoff run with him? You are just wrong here, and biased.
If that team was any other team besides Minnesota, you might've had a leg to stand on.
Because it's the
exact same scenario as Fiala was as a RFA and signed a long-term contract with a team that wasn't the Wild this past offseason.
Same thing.
I am neither wrong or biased. I am looking at what Minnesota got for Fiala, and what the trade market winds have shown what players of Fiala’s caliber are getting in terms of value. Fiala, Reinhart, Buchnevich, specifically as far as comps go. This would include players like Nylander, Boeser, Bratt, and
Meier if they were traded.
A B-level prospect and a 1st is the going rate the last three years for this level of player.
Furthermore, in Minnesota Meier is a one year rental. Period. He cannot be signed beyond this year, so would either be delt at the draft or before FA for the exact same reasons we dealt Fiala. Sure, it's possible to have kept Fiala. Just like it's possible we could keep Meier if acquired, but either of them staying comes at the expense of our depth.
Use your head.
The number of teams who would want Meier is limited to those either contending or looking to contend. Right now those teams
cannot afford him, aside from Minnesota. And rebuilding teams won't be interested because he doesn't fit their timelines. That drops Meier's value in the same way it dropped Fiala's. And again, Fiala is the better player, so is worth more.
Next year the only teams that would have the cap space needed to sign him longterm is either Detroit or possibly Buffalo. San Jose shouldn't, as the Sharks need a rebuild more, over keeping a player that doesn't fit your timeline. Frankly, it's not just Meier... but Hertl too. You should've moved Hertl when you could have and not signed him longterm. Extending Meier only compounds the issue.