Player Discussion Elias Lindholm
- Thread starter Nucker101
- Start date
yeah, kind of. In my view, with JT, it's more the way he plays than just the volume of hits. He plays angry. Tavares doesn't have that. Forsberg doesn't have that. the only other guy on that list who had it was Getzlaf. he was right on the edge at his peak.
Wildcarder
Registered User
Still think we need to try Lindholm and Petey again especially since Lindholm is playing well. The current Hoglander- EP - Mik line is not working.
Pettersson - Lindholm - Hoglander
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Both can be matchup lines as needed.
Pettersson - Lindholm - Hoglander
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Both can be matchup lines as needed.
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 3,914
- 4,009
StickShift
In a pickle 🥒
This isn't even news.
Of course the team is going to make a 'decent run' at re-signing him.
Look at what they paid for him. What team pays that much for a player like him and then doesn't make *any* attempt at re-signing him?
Well, Jim Benning, but we don't have a front office operating at an eighth grade level anymore.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
Just a side note...
If Peteys ~2 month struggles make people here go bat shit crazy, Vancouver fan base would have driven Getzlaf to the air port every other year.
Except Dreger says the Canucks tried to trade him after acquiring him and therefore were not going to sign him but whatever.
Before the wheels fell off in his D+16 season, Getzlaf was incredibly consistent. there was one iffy season, when he and the rest of the team had finally had enough of the Randy Carlyle show and checked out. if you split the most productive part of his career (ignore the last 3 years) into 2 x 7 year stretches (each of which include 1crappy year) his numbers look like this:
05/06-11/12 .92ppg +67 (period included Carlyle firing year)
12/13-18/19 .96ppg +79 (period included 1st season of fully cooked Getzlaf)
I think peoples' frustration with Pettersson comes from him looking completely indifferent and disengaged, combined with a lack of production at a time when most guys are in "i'm going to run through a wall with my hair on fire if it helps my line win a shift/team win a game because it's the MF NHL playoffs" mode.
I think you have it kind of backwards. Benning would have almost surely fallen victim to the sunk cost fallacy and immediately signed him to a max term deal at an inflated AAV.
I really don't think the price we paid to get out of year 2 of the Kuzmenko deal and upgrade the C depth for a (hopefully deep) playoff run was massive. A late 1st round pick and a boom/bust prospect - who is more likely to bust than boom - is hardly a kings ransom. We took a chance on Lindholm being more than a short term fix and it doesn't look (IMO) like that'll end up being the case.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
2007-08 he had 58 in 82 games
2011-12 he had 57 points in 82 games
2015-16 he had 63 in 77 games
Can you imagine the posts here if Petey had a 57 point season next year
2018-> he just could not stay healthy anymore.
in 07/08 he 82 points in 77 games. you're looking at 06/07, which was his first full season in the nhl. he scored 25 goals and was a +17. They also happened to win the cup that year and he was the team's scoring leader in the playoffs. i'd pretty confidently put all of my shit on Ducks fans being pretty happy with his performance.2007-08 he had 58 in 82 games
2011-12 he had 57 points in 82 games
2015-16 he had 63 in 77 games
Can you imagine the posts here if Petey had a 57 point season next year
2018-> he just could not stay healthy anymore.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Like I said elsewhere, buying out Mikheyev has to be a complete non-starter. We'd be carrying 7M in dead cap the season after next. With Chicago handing out overpaid contracts like candy to veteran players, I can't imagine they wouldn't take most if not his whole salary for a pick. San Jose's another team that would likely take the free pick.
Mik is a perfect reclamation project for teams like that as if he bounces back, they can retain and get even more assets back.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,124
- 6,806
Interestingly enough, Dhaliwal hears (yesterday's podcast) that management has now prioritized re-signing Lindholm. They really want him back.
All comes down to cost.
most of what he hears comes from agents. I don't doubt for a second that management is going to keep an active dialogue with Lindholm's agent, if for no other reason than to keep the player motivated/engaged. I'd be awfully surprised if this player is viewed as a long term fixture in our top 6 (unless they have a deal to send EP40 to Carolina on the back burner).
Ya I don't think it should come as a surprise. There's always a balance between constantly evaluating the team and sticking with long term plans. Presumably, management doesn't acquire/sign a player to a long term $$$ deal based on a small sample size and quickly change their plans unless there is some glaring new information to consider.
IF we are to take management at their word, they had acquiring Lindholm with the intention of re-signing him. So if they no longer want to do that the question would be what changed? The fit/chemistry? The player's performance?
I've said from the beginning that I think they will offer Lindholm what they had allocated for Horvat. Based on reports, management offered $5.125M AAV initially then went up to $7.5M AAV to Horvat. Somewhere in between still makes sense for the Canucks.
Adding to the trivia is that Rutherford was the one who drafted and immediately signed Lindholm to his ELC.
The concern is his offensive production going forward but what Lindholm continues to offer an enticing all around package. He certainly shores up the team's depth down the middle and being a RHC faceoff ace to boot.
Cancuks
Former Exalted Ruler
He's not worth re-signing as he is starting to decline. Will be an albatross Loui Eriksson type contract. Rather sign Ryan Johansen to a one year league minimum deal after he gets bought out and see if he's motivated to play in his hometown.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,124
- 6,806
I guess it's all irrelevant until we see a number, but if we estimate his cap hit at $7MM, we're probably paying him almost twice what he's worth. that $$ could be spent on bringing back Blueger, offering Kevin Stenlund (big right shooting C that kills penalties and wins lots of faceoffs) a multi year deal AND resigning Joshua. Allocating a bunch of money (and likely massive term) to a player that put up big numbers in 2021/2, while playing with 2 play driving wingers but has faded massively since would be a mistake IMO. He's neither a top 6 forward, nor a selke caliber defensive stalwart.
Lindholm moving forward is probably a 60pt 2 way center that is 6M+. I think if we give him a 7 year term then yeah it's reasonable to argue that towards like the last 2 years, he will probably decline to a 30-40 point guy that plays on the 3rd line but the cap is going to be at 100M at that point and those guys are probably going to cost 4M+ anyway.
To argue that paying him 7M would mean we are paying double what he is worth is ridiculous.
Has he shown you anything that leads you to believe he is a long term plug to our top 6 holes? He's been decent on the PK, but had no chemistry with Pettersson, Miller or Boeser. has done nothing to improve our PP. has been fine with Garland and Joshua (but no better than Blueger was).
he had 29 ESP (44 points total!) and was a dash 14 in 75 games this season. what on earth gives you the confidence he's going to be a 60 point 2 way C going forward? I think what you probably get out of Lindholm going forward is what we've seen out of him this year.
strattonius
Registered User
It was a down year for him. He was playing on a lifeless Flames squad then came over and had to adjust to a new team.
His high production years are over I think we can all agree on that but describing Lindholm as a 60 pt 2 way C sounds pretty accurate to me. I mean if he has a 56 pt season I would still consider that the same thing.
