Will Lindholm Resign ??

[RandV]

exactly my thoughts

he apparently turned down 8yrs at 9 million were not in a position to be in those kinds of bidding wars. And you just know that Boston is sitting there waiting to get an offer on the table to join the brothers this summer.

We'll see what happens but if he is in it to cash in then he's probably going to regret passing on that offer, especially considering unless Vancouver trades his rights teams can only offer him a 7 year deal. I would suspect though that this offer was Calgary being desperate and he just didn't want to extend there.

 

[VanJack]

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but Allvin seems to be the kind of GM who has an extensive book on these players--give his years of scouting and experience as an NHL executive.

The UFA's he's signed in the off-season are a testament to his thoroughness and acumen. Almost every guy he signed not only fit into the lineup seamlessly, but brings the kind of effort and character they were looking for. And they all came in at the almost optimum price point.

So I'm optimistic that once Lindholm fits into the Canuck lineup, and if they go on an exciting playoff run, he might be more amenable to re-signing in Vancouver.

But even if bolts in the off-season as UFA, it was still worth it for the Canucks. The Western Conference is wide-open this year. Almost a half-dozen teams could get on a roll and get all the way to conference finals.

 

[Quinntessential]

He will resign himself to lifting cup after Quinn Hughes

 

[dman34]

I really wonder how much Lindholm's value has dropped after his sub par 1.5 seasons in Calgary? How much could he restore his value by finishing the reg season strong and having a solid playoffs?

Looking at comparables, how about Vinny Trochek who signed a 7 x 5.625M contract with the Rangers at a similar age to be their 2C?

Very similar career numbers to EL. He averages 0.7pts/game vs EL at 0.69. No he hasn't had a 40 goal season playing beside JG ad Tkachuk, but does that really make him worth millions more?

Calgary is not a desirable place to be right now. Especially after signing those Huberdeau & Kadri contracts. I'd want 9M or more to stay too if the team was paying a players like Huberdeau 10.5 and Kadri 7.

Barring a massive resurgence, I realistically feel that we could get Lindholm for 6 or 7 years x 6.5M or in and around there. Realistic?

 

[beachcomber]

He's a rental. They won't sign him.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Hes or new foundational c and will retire a Canuck

 

[bandwagonesque]

At 8x8 or whatever, no. I doesn't matter if you think it gives you a shot for a couple of years -- don't sign contracts you know represent poor value. If you hadn't signed other similar contracts earlier you wouldn't be in a position to need to sign another to stay competitive.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

At the price we just give up, we better find a way to sign him.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

At the price we just give up, we better find a way to sign him.

I dont think you understand how much it costs to dump a contract like Kuzmenko's in todays NHL.

 

[Delocatedfan]

I think he will be more of a rental unless EP40 indicates he wants to move on and if thats the case maybe sign him to be a stopgap guy (depending on if they trade Petey for a haul).

For me the obvious signings are Petey & Hronek. From their the defense will need a good chunk of remaining cap space to sign 2 or 3 guys to fill out the rest of the pairings + depth

 

[F A N]

lmao

Edit: Pearson has 3 points in his last 25 games with a 3.25 cap hit (ie. more than Joshua, Lafferty, and Hoglander combined), and getting DeSmith "mitigates it a little" holy cow.

I don't think that was @VanJack's point. He's saying we traded a 3rd to get rid of Pearson's contract and getting DeSmith in return "mitigates" the price paid a bit.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I dont think you understand how much it costs to dump a contract like Kuzmenko's in todays NHL.

Was he a cap dump though? I think for CGY, he was not. They wanted him. However to VAN, he was a soon-to-be cap dump. In your opinion, would that change at all the calculus of the deal?

Sekeres was talking about this the other day: How CHI was hanging around waiting to scoop up Kuzmenko once he hit cap dump territory around the deadline. For VAN, this kind of passive interest suggests moving Kuzmenko sooner rather than later. Before his value tanks. That probably had them send more over to CGY than they otherwise would have, which is interesting.

I still think they make the deal even if Kuzmenko holds 2nd round pick value, but it's a haul for CGY for sure. They did the right thing by executing now.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Was he a cap dump though? I think for CGY, he was not. They wanted him. However to VAN, he was a soon-to-be cap dump. In your opinion, would that change at all the calculus of the deal?

I think he absolutely was a cap dump.

Healthy scratch player tanking the play of one of our top lines with no use in the bottom 6.

If you feel Kuz was a positive value piece that we lost in this trade than the price is pretty high. But I would disagree heavily.

Sekeres was talking about this the other day: How CHI was hanging around waiting to scoop up Kuzmenko once he hit cap dump territory around the deadline. For VAN, this kind of passive interest suggests moving Kuzmenko sooner rather than later. Before his value tanks. That probably had them send more over to CGY than they otherwise would have, which is interesting.

I think CLG hopes they can rebuild his value and move him for something at the TDL of 2024-25 season.

Fair bet for a team in their awkward position.

I still think they make the deal even if Kuzmenko holds 2nd round pick value, but it's a haul for CGY for sure. They did the right thing by executing now.

People on these forums keep repeating that LAST YEARS Kuzmenko only held 2nd round pick value, while scoring at a 40 goal pace and carrying one fifth of this years cap hit.

I disagree with that too.

But I doubt the value is higher than a 3rd the moment he signed his new contract. Cap space is soooo valuable in the NHL today.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think he absolutely was a cap dump.

Healthy scratch player tanking the play of one of our top lines with no use in the bottom 6.

If you feel Kuz was a positive value piece that we lost in this trade than the price is pretty high. But I would disagree heavily.

I'm not sure. The two sides valued him differently, imo. I think there's enough ambiguity to think about it, but not enough to redo the trade. He was trending toward cap dump, and really that's enough to want to execute on the trade

I think CLG hopes they can rebuild his value and move him for something at the TDL of 2024-25 season.

Fair bet for a team in their awkward position.

People on these forums keep repeating that LAST YEARS Kuzmenko only held 2nd round pick value, while scoring at a 40 goal pace and carrying one fifth of this years cap hit.

I disagree with that too.

But I doubt the value is higher than a 3rd the moment he signed his new contract. Cap space is soooo valuable in the NHL today.

Fair points. I think it was savvy speculation on the part of Sekeres. I recommend listening to that radio hit.

 

[TruGr1t]

Lindholm will need to take a bit of haircut on AAV probably, and the Canucks will have to do some creative moves to open up space, but it's not impossible.

 

[geebster]

With the current management group if they feel that Lindholm is a key piece they will find a way. I actually trust them. We have to see how he fits and if he is more of a luxury than a key piece.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

With the current management group if they feel that Lindholm is a key piece they will find a way. I actually trust them. We have to see how he fits and if he is more of a luxury than a key piece.

So weird.

Its been a decade since most of us here could say that.

 

[Canucker]

For me, it's all dependent on how he meshes here...if he has instant chemistry with Petey and we have more success, I think you need to do what it takes to get him re-signed. I think this off-season will require some tough choices...this might be the time to try and sell high on Boeser to make room to keep some of these other players, like Lindholm...if he doesn't mesh, we move on.

 

[RobertKron]

I don't think that was @VanJack's point. He's saying we traded a 3rd to get rid of Pearson's contract and getting DeSmith in return "mitigates" the price paid a bit.

Trading a third to dump that contract isn't something that needs mitigation, though. At this point, that trade is highway robbery.

 

[StreetHawk]

For me, it's all dependent on how he meshes here...if he has instant chemistry with Petey and we have more success, I think you need to do what it takes to get him re-signed. I think this off-season will require some tough choices...this might be the time to try and sell high on Boeser to make room to keep some of these other players, like Lindholm...if he doesn't mesh, we move on.

Canucks are getting close to the point, once this off season arrives to not being able to afford that middle range salary guys like Garland/Mik. Even Brock's $6.65 mill for 1 more season may need to move and/or not continue on after the contract expires. Maybe not all get moved, but 1 or 2 have to be.
Hughes, Petey, Miller, Hronek, Demko and say they do ink Lindholm to an extension, it will be getting the rest of the group signed a cheaper contracts to offset that.

 

[F A N]

Trading a third to dump that contract isn't something that needs mitigation, though. At this point, that trade is highway robbery.

I'm not sure if you're not following the discussion or I'm missing your point here. Regardless that is between you and VanJack.

 

[Lindgren]

For me, it's all dependent on how he meshes here...if he has instant chemistry with Petey and we have more success, I think you need to do what it takes to get him re-signed. I think this off-season will require some tough choices...this might be the time to try and sell high on Boeser to make room to keep some of these other players, like Lindholm...if he doesn't mesh, we move on.

Yes, I think you're bang on with the bolded.

There's been a certain amount of discussion around the idea that a re-signed Lindholm is a bit of an insurance policy should Pettersson end up getting moved, but I do wonder about the possibility that things could work in the other direction—that if Pettersson and Lindholm click the way it's hoped, that'd be an incentive for both of them to stay, and for Pettersson in particular not to extract every last cent on his deal. (Management might even be thinking that it couldn't hurt for Pettersson to be hanging out with an older Swede with a reputation for being more-or-less even-keeled.)

I remember vaguely a story that Pettersson was upset about Jonathan Dahlen not sticking with the big club, that he and his agent had a discussion with management about it. It suggested to me the possibility that there's a bit of selfishness there, a greater-than-usual concern about one's line-mates, etc. (OK, Petey, here's your linemate. And here's our generous contract offer.)

 

[bossram]

At the price we just give up, we better find a way to sign him.

No. Lindholm was the perfect fit as a rental.

Justifying the acquisition cost by gunking up the books with a bad, long-term contract that will be an overpayment from Day 1 is just doing something dumb for no reason.

If he wants to sign for something like the ROR contract ($4.5-5M x 4 years), then I'll welcome him back. Any more than that, I wish him the best.

 

[LaVal]

This is his big payday contract. It's going to be max term, include some sort of NTC/NMC, and he'll be in decline for the back half of it. A team can only have so many of these at once. If they end up having to trade Pettersson, then I could see the team committing on Lindholm, but otherwise they can't afford him.

 

[strattonius]

For Lindholm I'd be more concerned about term. Can't give this player more than 4 yrs. So long as Lindholm looks revitalized and has some chemistry with Pettersson would be fine with 8-8.5M at shorter term.

I do like the Trocheck player comparable. If Lindholm took a massive discount at 6M aav I would consider longer term for 6-7 yrs.

Of course this is all under the assumption that he plays well and has a good few months with us down the stretch.