Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Elias Lindholm

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,725
5,958
arttk said:
It’s incredibly irresponsible to project Bluegar to continue to perform at that level considering that he is a career 3rd line 4th line guy. Also depth, you can use Lindholm as a 1/2/3 C if needed but if we need Bluegar to fill the 1/2C hole we are f***ed.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. We're talking about Blueger centering the third line between Garland and Joshua. Why is it irresponsible to project Blueger to continue centering the 3rd line?

I agree with Lindholm being a target because of his ability to play C. I'm just saying that the intention was for Lindholm to fill a top 6 winger spot because Blueger/Garland/Joshua was playing so well as the team's 3rd line. I don't think management's thinking was different from what we were thinking here at the time of the trade.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,500
9,284
Los Angeles
F A N said:
I'm confused. We're talking about Blueger centering the third line between Garland and Joshua. Why is it irresponsible to project Blueger to continue centering the 3rd line?

I agree with Lindholm being a target because of his ability to play C. I'm just saying that the intention was for Lindholm to fill a top 6 winger spot because Blueger/Garland/Joshua was playing so well as the team's 3rd line. I don't think management's thinking was different from what we were thinking here at the time of the trade.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s irresponsible because he wasn’t even good as a 3C/4C last season. You can’t look at a short stretch and then assume that yeah he’ll be fine. What happens if he gets some kind of injury or his play starts to taper off?
 
vadim sharifijanov

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,844
16,334
Wildcarder said:
Remember though, before his injury at the beginning of the year Suter actually centered Garland and Joshua and they were a good line too. Doesn't seem to matter as much who the center is.
Click to expand...

the way i see it, with suter or blueger between garland and joshua, that’s an elite third line. with miller between them, it’s a waste of resources. but with lindholm, that’s potentially a legit high level second line and that’s what we saw tonight. feels like the sweet spot to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanuckleBerry, Wildcarder, F A N and 2 others
Shareefruck

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,956
3,688
Vancouver, BC
They were playing like a high level second line even with Blueger, IMO.

Personally, I do feel like Blueger easily had the most chemistry with them out of anyone and could possibly be the most optimal use of resources (but too late to start experimenting now, and it's also possible that Blueger isn't skilled enough to keep that up). There were shifts between them that were more Sedin-esque in the innate chemistry that they had in sustaining pressure, IMO. Blueger was very underrated as a passer/board support on that line.

I do think Blueger is better as a 4th line C than Lindholm would be, though, but I disagree that their line has shown as much as the Blueger version of it did.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck, pitseleh and F A N

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,725
5,958
arttk said:
Yeah it’s irresponsible because he wasn’t even good as a 3C/4C last season. You can’t look at a short stretch and then assume that yeah he’ll be fine. What happens if he gets some kind of injury or his play starts to taper off?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your take. I think management (like many of us here) were confident in Blueger, Garland, and Joshua continuing to be a good line. I think the sample size is enough. And as others have mentioned, we do have "Pew".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anybody here is saying that having more C depth isn't a good thing. But management clearly weren't looking to upgrade the 3C position between Joshua and Garland at the time of the Lindholm trade. If they were looking more more bottom C depth there were much cheaper options. If they were looking to upgrade the 3C position and push Blueger down there are cheaper options.

Wennberg, for example, was acquired for a 2nd and a 4th. They could have gone after Nosek if they wanted another 4C option. Henrique was available for a more offensive option. Even the Henrique option should preserve the 1st round pick (and Brew) to be used on a top 6 winger target or Tanev.

Again, obviously Lindholm being a RHC with the ability to play both wing and C and in all situations makes him a unique trade target, but there's no doubt that management saw a fit alongside Petey and said as much.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,500
9,284
Los Angeles
F A N said:
I disagree with your take. I think management (like many of us here) were confident in Blueger, Garland, and Joshua continuing to be a good line. I think the sample size is enough. And as others have mentioned, we do have "Pew".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anybody here is saying that having more C depth isn't a good thing. But management clearly weren't looking to upgrade the 3C position between Joshua and Garland at the time of the Lindholm trade. If they were looking more more bottom C depth there were much cheaper options. If they were looking to upgrade the 3C position and push Blueger down there are cheaper options.

Wennberg, for example, was acquired for a 2nd and a 4th. They could have gone after Nosek if they wanted another 4C option. Henrique was available for a more offensive option. Even the Henrique option should preserve the 1st round pick (and Brew) to be used on a top 6 winger target or Tanev.

Again, obviously Lindholm being a RHC with the ability to play both wing and C and in all situations makes him a unique trade target, but there's no doubt that management saw a fit alongside Petey and said as much.
Click to expand...
We have the most active management group in the league. It’s really hard to argue that they are content with what we have currently because it seems like they are always looking for ways to upgrade. Look at JR’s pens, dude is always looking to change things even after winning a cup.

Also we couldn’t have traded for the other guys you mentioned because of cap. We needed to trade away Kuz to make any deal happen. Every deal is money in and money out. I imagine getting rid of Kuz alone might required assets by itself. On top of that, they did this trade earlier than anyone and Lindholm was without a doubt THE target. It was always reported that, center was the priority and then wingers. I mean you can tell what their priorities are, add D, C and then finally wingers. We just couldn’t get the last part done and honestly I have no idea how they could’ve done that considering our cap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19
Bankerguy

Bankerguy

Registered User
Apr 28, 2013
3,824
1,962
Lindy, Garly, Josh - let this be the matchup line against teams top lines.
Good in their own zone, good possession time, and they can score..... perfecto.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,725
5,958
arttk said:
We have the most active management group in the league. It’s really hard to argue that they are content with what we have currently because it seems like they are always looking for ways to upgrade. Look at JR’s pens, dude is always looking to change things even after winning a cup.

Also we couldn’t have traded for the other guys you mentioned because of cap. We needed to trade away Kuz to make any deal happen. Every deal is money in and money out. I imagine getting rid of Kuz alone might required assets by itself. On top of that, they did this trade earlier than anyone and Lindholm was without a doubt THE target. It was always reported that, center was the priority and then wingers. I mean you can tell what their priorities are, add D, C and then finally wingers. We just couldn’t get the last part done and honestly I have no idea how they could’ve done that considering our cap.
Click to expand...

At the time of the Lindholm trade we were looking for C rather than top 6 wing? Other than wanting to reunite the Lotto Line, where are you getting that? That's not what I recall. Regardless, the "upgrade" sought was in the top 6.

I don't know why this is even an argument. Allvin was pretty clear about what he was looking for in the Lindholm trade and that is to improve the Top 6 not improve on Blueger.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,322
14,551
Bankerguy said:
Lindy, Garly, Josh - let this be the matchup line against teams top lines.
Good in their own zone, good possession time, and they can score..... perfecto.
Click to expand...
That line will prove a 'matchup nightmare' for the Preds and a lot of teams, if the Canucks advance.

With Pettersson and Miller anchoring the first two lines, Lindholm, Garland and Joshua should be able to feast on a lot of team's third lines. In fact they've been so good, Tocchet actually matched them up against Forsberg and the Preds first line at times. What a luxury to have.
 
Misko

Misko

Registered User
Sep 30, 2020
290
458
Lindholm had a great Game 1, will have to see how the rest of the playoffs unfolds. If he can play like he did in Game 1 moving forward, he is a player we should definitely take a hard look at re-signing.

That said, the team has to take in consideration what kind of role they see Lindholm filling in the long-term. If they view him as an elite 3C shutdown center like he has shown he could be and has been utilized recently, then he isn't worth anything north of like, 4.5-5M. If Lindholm sees himself as a 1-2C in his future, then he will price himself out if the Canucks don't see him the same way. This could definitely be a situation where Lindholm plays well for us in a role he thinks he is worth more than, in which case we gotta hope we have a deep run to make the best of our time with him in the lineup. But if Lindholm lowers his ask and accepts his role as a 3C who can frequently flex into a Top-6 and PP role, I think he could be worth signing for the right term and cap hit depending on how the rest of the playoffs unfold.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,500
9,284
Los Angeles
F A N said:
At the time of the Lindholm trade we were looking for C rather than top 6 wing? Other than wanting to reunite the Lotto Line, where are you getting that? That's not what I recall. Regardless, the "upgrade" sought was in the top 6.

I don't know why this is even an argument. Allvin was pretty clear about what he was looking for in the Lindholm trade and that is to improve the Top 6 not improve on Blueger.
Click to expand...
I think they wanted to upgrade the top6 but do it in a way that offer them more flexibility and depth. Having an extra top6 center means they can put him on the wing or use as 1/2/3C in case of injury.
If they acquire like a Henrique and some shit goes wrong, having him play 2C or 1C doesn't really help you. Having a Lindholm gives you at least that option of oh, some shit happen, plug him in at the 1C or 2C and we can play through it fine.

This was also never meant to be the only acquisition, they were working on getting a winger after (even though i have no f***ing clue how they were going to work out the cap) and you can tell by the order of how they did things, getting another top6 center > top6 winger.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,725
5,958
arttk said:
I think they wanted to upgrade the top6 but do it in a way that offer them more flexibility and depth. Having an extra top6 center means they can put him on the wing or use as 1/2/3C in case of injury.
If they acquire like a Henrique and some shit goes wrong, having him play 2C or 1C doesn't really help you. Having a Lindholm gives you at least that option of oh, some shit happen, plug him in at the 1C or 2C and we can play through it fine.

This was also never meant to be the only acquisition, they were working on getting a winger after (even though i have no f***ing clue how they were going to work out the cap) and you can tell by the order of how they did things, getting another top6 center > top6 winger.
Click to expand...

I think you're conflating things a bit here. Like I said, Lindholm was a unique target on paper. But none of this takes away from the fact that the Canucks acquired Lindholm to upgrade the top 6, whether that meant playing beside Petey or allowing the Canucks to upgrade the Lotto Line. What they DIDN'T do is to acquire Lindholm with the intention of upgrading from Blueger on the 3rd line.

Again, Allvin explained his thought process. Rutherford spoke of what they were looking to upgrade. The message was the same: Top 6.

The fact that the Canucks were still looking for a top 6 winger after acquiring Lindholm (whether it was due to Lindholm not proving to be an immediate fit or in addition to) also doesn't take away my arguments in favour of yours.

Even if management was confident in Hoglander being a top 6 fit alongside Petey, look at what the Canucks dressed in Game 1. Miller, Boeser, Petey, Hoglander, Lafferty, Suter in the top 6? I don't think anyone would disagree with management if they thought the Top 6 could use an upgrade even with Lindholm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom