It's not a dick move at all. Especially since the ducks likely just paid for his last surgery/ medical expenses even though Rakell isn't under contract.
That's the risk Rakell took by waiting so long to get something done.
Rumor: Ducks trying to unload a contract in order to re-sign Rakell/Lindholm
- Thread starter caley
- Start date
- Status
It's not a dick move at all. Especially since the ducks likely just paid for his last surgery/ medical expenses even though Rakell isn't under contract.
That's the risk Rakell took by waiting so long to get something done.
the reason he isn't signed is this. he believed he could get both his holdout rfa's to sign bridge contracts. so like a bad gm he didn't leave enough room in cap space to do this. that is why now he is scrambling to move contracts out unsuccessfully now.
Paul4587
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2006
- 31,163
- 13,179
Do you know for sure the ducks paid?
Yes it is a risk and I don't know if my scenario is the case but if it is I still think it's a dick move.
True. And players are not obligated to play through minor injuries, but they do, and if they don't we skewer them for it. Loyalty is a two-way street.
However, I don't think the injury has anything to do with Rackell not being signed. You sign Rackell, and Lindholm gets an OS, the Ducks are SCREWED. I think that has more to do with it.
Magnus the Duck
Registered User
Skinnyjimmy08
WorldTraveler
- Mar 30, 2012
- 22,499
- 11,969
impossible to know... if reports are true that he wants Ekblad money but Ducks are offering Risto/Jones type money ish, they will be at a standstill for an extremely long time.
That's like 2 mill per year apart cap hit(and I believe his 1st season of deal his salary is actually 9 mill)
Get ready to wait IF the reports are true
DaNaultinus
The Human Fund Donor
- Mar 25, 2013
- 641
- 109
s7ark
RIP
- Jul 3, 2003
- 27,579
- 174
He can sign anytime. But as to when he can play, add some time. BobM said he would need to sort out his visa and that takes time.
Do I know for sure? No.. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case though. Either way, that's the risk he took on by not signing a contract. Its not a dick move by the GM if all of a sudden curcumstances change for the player and he loses leverage.
clownshoes
Registered User
I agree, right now and moving forward, the team needs rakell more than Lindholm, the scoring depth is non-existant with noone in the pipeline. I don't want to lose Lindholm but the Ducks have superb talent at D on the roster AND in the pipeline. It's a tough call, but who does the team need more in the coming years during what I consider is shaping up to be a mini-rebuild. Also, if Lindholm wants crazy $ and won't budge, screw him, he's not worth 6-7 million on a cap suppressed team.
Okay trade him to NJ please. I would easily be willing to pay him $7 million. Top 10 Dman in the league. The team's financial constraints should not limit the player's salary.
MichaelJ
Registered User
- May 20, 2013
- 7,874
- 766
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Except he isn't a top 10 defenseman. Trust me. We saw him all season. He's good, and with a promising future, but this top 10 talk is not based on the way he plays on the ice.
CanuckGame39
Registered User
Lmfao. Bro. Yes he is. I would gladly pay him 6.5 mill and be done with it. It's not his fault your team didn't handle the cap they way they should have.
Magnus the Duck
Registered User
I saw him too all season, and he is great, not just good. Not top 10 yet, I would class that as elite.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Debatable, and he's also shown signs that he can be worse too.
I don't mind paying some for potential, but Lindholm's consistency leaves something to be desired. In his current form, he's not worth that kind of price tag.
You are likely right that he is not worth the money. Funny how posters say that they would pay 6.5 to 7 million per year in a heart beat when it is not their money they are offering up.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Ugh. I wasn't trying to label him just as good with that statement. You don't need to come to his defense there. He's a very talented young player, with a lot of upside. But paying for potential should only add so much to a contract. We should also be paying for what he currently is, and he is absolutely not a $6.5m defenseman.
The simple fact he was neck and neck at times with Fowler, and was even outplayed by Fowler at times, should reinforce that. They were both the best defensemen for the team at different times. I wouldn't pay that for Fowler. I wouldn't pay it for Lindholm.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
I'd be all for trading him to Toronto(or NJ) if the value was right. Assuming lindholm's ask was and continues to be 6.5-7.5 mil aav. Screw that.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
“They’ll blow it in the playoffs. “ Edmonton Oilers 2 vs LA Kings 3. Part Twa!!!!- Latest: Peter James Bond II
