Value of: Virtanen Markstrom for Lindholm Darling

lanceuppercut75

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
2,878
1,128
Toronto area
Who has to add here to make the value work? I'm leaning towards "neither" or maybe Vancouver, but I'd like to hear other opinions.


E. Lindholm - C/RW - (RFA)
S. Darling - GK - 2021 UFA

for

J. Virtanen - RW - (RFA)
J. Markstrom - GK - 2020 UFA
 

Canuck Luck

Registered User
Jun 15, 2008
5,568
1,966
Vancouver
Canucks would add. Personally wouldn’t do it even as is though as a Canucks fan. I want to give Virtanen 1 more year. He seems to have gotten his head on straight since the 2nd half of last season. I think he could breakout this season. If he does, I would not trade him. His size and speed are extremely rare
 
  • Like
Reactions: gianni

gianni

Registered User
Apr 8, 2014
1,173
332
Canucks would add. Personally wouldn’t do it even as is though as a Canucks fan. I want to give Virtanen 1 more year. He seems to have gotten his head on straight since the 2nd half of last season. I think he could breakout this season. If he does, I would not trade him. His size and speed are extremely rare

I agree, not worth trading Jake Virtanen as he's shown flashes of game-breaking ability.

At minimum, I'd give Virtanen the same amount of time that Sven Baertschi was given to prove himself -- so at least until 26yo before losing hope of him being a top-6 player; regardless, his basement is a 3rd line grinder which is useful. Literally my only concern about Virtanen is whether or not he surrounds himself w/ "yes men"; like binge eating w/ a certain teammate (allegedly), or possibly a personal trainer that placates him b/c he cuts the check. Sooner or later, I think the combination of criticism & being in his hometown will motivate him to be at his best. Keep in mind that Tom Wilson is 2 years older than Virtanen & just had his breakout year this past season.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
Who has to add here to make the value work? I'm leaning towards "neither" or maybe Vancouver, but I'd like to hear other opinions.


E. Lindholm - C/RW - (RFA)
S. Darling - GK - 2021 UFA

for

J. Virtanen - RW - (RFA)
J. Markstrom - GK - 2020 UFA

You'd have to add a lot, a lot. Darling stinks and is a cap dump, but Markstrom isn't their answer to a future #1 and Virtanen at this point is a project and a half.

Two meh pieces don't get you 1 very good one and a negative asset.
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
If Carolina made that offer. It is a no brainer, you have to make that trade.

Lindholm can play with Pettersson until he transition to the center. Then Lindholm can be the 3rd line center.

But Carolina doesn't make that trade
 

Canucks1096

Registered User
Feb 13, 2016
5,608
1,667
I agree, not worth trading Jake Virtanen as he's shown flashes of game-breaking ability.

At minimum, I'd give Virtanen the same amount of time that Sven Baertschi was given to prove himself -- so at least until 26yo before losing hope of him being a top-6 player; regardless, his basement is a 3rd line grinder which is useful. Literally my only concern about Virtanen is whether or not he surrounds himself w/ "yes men"; like binge eating w/ a certain teammate (allegedly), or possibly a personal trainer that placates him b/c he cuts the check. Sooner or later, I think the combination of criticism & being in his hometown will motivate him to be at his best. Keep in mind that Tom Wilson is 2 years older than Virtanen & just had his breakout year this past season.

Virtanen turned pro when he was 19. So you are giving him 8 years to develope? Wow that is some local boy treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cardiac_Canes

lanceuppercut75

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
2,878
1,128
Toronto area
Two meh pieces don't get you 1 very good one and a negative asset.
IMO a more accurate assessment is...

young 2nd liner
bad contract ($1M 1y too much)

young 3rd liner
bad contract ($2M 2y too much)

Both forwards have some potential to move down one line long term, and both have long-shot potential to move up one line long term.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
IMO a more accurate assessment is...

young 2nd liner
bad contract ($1M 1y too much)

young 3rd liner
bad contract ($2M 2y too much)

Both forwards have some potential to move down one line long term, and both have long-shot potential to move up one line long term.

Saying Virtanen is a young 3rd liner at this point is very very optimistic. He's barely a decent 4th liner at this point, far too inconsistent, could have used another full year in the AHL or should have been traded altogether as he might not develop well in that developmental system at all. Markstrom is decent, but he's a guy I look at as a 1B.

Darling stunk, for sure, a massive cap dump there, but EL is a damn solid player, you aren't going to get him for essentially a back-up that was played as a #1 and a potentially decent 3rd liner that at best is a 4th liner for now.
 

Honour Over Glory

Fire Sully
Jan 30, 2012
77,316
42,447
What does Vancouver need to add to get it done?

Nothing that makes sense for them.

Lindholm is a solid 40+ pt player that adds solid depth to that team, unless you're adding to that depth in some meaningful way, what is the point for them?

I mean Demko might interest them for obvious reasons, but then is that a price Vancouver is willing to pay? It'd have to be Demko + Gaudette + a 3rd for Lindholm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SvechniCanesCup2019

Cquant

Registered User
May 14, 2015
798
137
I think Lindholm is the best player in this trade. Virtanen still has tons of potential though. Virtanen is maybe the wrong choice of player to include. He will never get back any value in the first place. Vancouver really doesn't have the pieces to pull off a trade for Lindholm.

We could offer Baertschi, Goldobin, Granlund, Hutton. And I bet none of these pieces are enticing to Canes fans. Maybe Goldobin if they're looking for a different fit to McGinn/Skinner. But that's a risk and not worth Lindholm in value.
I would put Kole Lind on the table in a trade for Lindholm though.
 

lanceuppercut75

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
2,878
1,128
Toronto area
We could offer Baertschi, Goldobin, Granlund, Hutton. And I bet none of these pieces are enticing to Canes fans. Maybe Goldobin if they're looking for a different fit to McGinn/Skinner.
This is off topic, but I'm pretty sure Goldobin's value has plummeted. He is no longer waiver exempt and hasn't yet estabished himself as an everyday NHLer.
 

Cquant

Registered User
May 14, 2015
798
137
This is off topic, but I'm pretty sure Goldobin's value has plummeted. He is no longer waiver exempt and hasn't yet estabished himself as an everyday NHLer.

Definitely. So he is another one of those guys that we have that isn't worth anything.
I still believe in him. He looked good in the end there and he could be our ticket to getting back Tryamkin.

Nothing that makes sense for them.

Lindholm is a solid 40+ pt player that adds solid depth to that team, unless you're adding to that depth in some meaningful way, what is the point for them?

I mean Demko might interest them for obvious reasons, but then is that a price Vancouver is willing to pay? It'd have to be Demko + Gaudette + a 3rd for Lindholm.

Totally understandable, but Demko is kind of taboo. We'd at least be looking for Demko for Lindholm. Fair value has nothing to do with it. And don't underrate Gaudette there. The reason Markstrom is available is because Demko is ready. Basically, it makes no sense to do an all futures for an established player trade for the Canucks at this point in time. We are looking for established player for established player type trades, maybe with a future add, but definitely not pure futures.
 

lanceuppercut75

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
2,878
1,128
Toronto area
Not sure about this Demko talk. Carolina has both Nedeljkovic and Booth in their AHL/ECHL system, along with Helvig as well.

There's barely enough ice time to go around to develop 3 young quality goalie prospects, and if you care about Helvig, adding Demko makes 4 guys you're trying to develop at the same time.
 

lawrence

Registered User
May 19, 2012
15,883
6,620
Who has to add here to make the value work? I'm leaning towards "neither" or maybe Vancouver, but I'd like to hear other opinions.


E. Lindholm - C/RW - (RFA)
S. Darling - GK - 2021 UFA

for

J. Virtanen - RW - (RFA)
J. Markstrom - GK - 2020 UFA

What does Vancouver need to add to get it done?

Been liking what I’m seeing from virtanen the last 6 weeks, not too interested, in really moving and I’m homestly surprised there is a serious proposal for him ,but thank you for a time least doing research, as he’s been ok in his role as a checking winger.

Would love to do darling for markstrom, also not too interested in lindholm either, as we have some young guys we will allocate ice time too for development, (gaudette,pettersson,dahlen) with maybe goldobin and gadjovich, later in our year, if we are to do,this, it is more likely we will ask to change virtanen to bartchi, or,goldobin.
 

Cardiac Jerks

Asinine & immoral
Jan 13, 2006
23,353
39,933
Long Sault, Ontario
Canes give up the best player in the deal and don’t get back anything we need.

There is value in dumping Darling but for that reason alone I wouldn’t do this. If the rumours are true and contract negotiations aren’t going well wth Lindholm we can do better in a trade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Wouldn't do this at all as a Canes fan. No interest in making a bad trade just to get rid of Darling's contract, because 1) I'd rather just keep Lindholm and buy-out Darling which would only cost us $1.3M a year and 2) If we move Darling and take on Markstrom (who isn't the answer), we only save $4M in real money.

The economics aren't compelling enough to lose Lindholm in this deal.
 

GoldiFox

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
13,287
32,030
Zero interest for Canes. Canes have half a dozen guys at Virtanen’s level competing for 1-2 spots.

Buyout Darling or bury him in the AHL. Trade Lindholm or Faulk for Grubauer++.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaskCanesFan

Shanejones

Registered User
Jun 12, 2018
191
31
Eastern passage
Nothing that makes sense for them.

Lindholm is a solid 40+ pt player that adds solid depth to that team, unless you're adding to that depth in some meaningful way, what is the point for them?

I mean Demko might interest them for obvious reasons, but then is that a price Vancouver is willing to pay? It'd have to be Demko + Gaudette + a 3rd for Lindholm.
Way over priced
 

Dan Kelly

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,530
926
Who has to add here to make the value work? I'm leaning towards "neither" or maybe Vancouver, but I'd like to hear other opinions.


E. Lindholm - C/RW - (RFA)
S. Darling - GK - 2021 UFA

for

J. Virtanen - RW - (RFA)
J. Markstrom - GK - 2020 UFA

the answer is obvious....the Canucks! no chance in hell does Virtanen = Lindholm.
 

gianni

Registered User
Apr 8, 2014
1,173
332
Virtanen turned pro when he was 19. So you are giving him 8 years to develope? Wow that is some local boy treatment.

Virtanen was rushed into the NHL, and had no business being on the roster at 19yo: he would just be graduating college this year had he gone the NCAA route. How many years are you willing to give Adam Gaudette to develop? b/c they're the same age.

Not local boy treatment at all, it's "let a potential powerforward develop to the point that you're absolutely sure you know what he is so it won't come back to haunt you" like the Cam Neely trade. Also, it took Todd Bertuzzi until 25yo to put up a decent season, and the Sedins til 25/26yo to develop into 1st liners -- I'd exercise patience w/ him.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->