[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

The Stanley cup champs have a player whose previous dogs owner had a cousin with an 84 trans am, so do the flames, so we can win the cup now!
I hate these comparisons that have absolutely nothing to do with us playing better or making the playoffs, I’m going to go out on a limb and say next year’s championship team made the playoffs this year
(not picking on you, it is rampant throughout the forum)

I get frustrated with how many folks ignore the “Vegas” element to Vegas’ success.

Like, the Blues couldn’t operate the way the Knights do anymore than we could.

You can do things the way Vegas does when you’re a top-3 destination market and you pay $600M to steal a top-6 F or top-4 D from every other team.

Otherwise, you have to draft your superstars, usually top-3, sometimes top-5, and the 13 cups between Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Colorado, Tampa and Washington since Sid and Ovi came into the league proves that.

And even Vegas doesn’t escape the reality that “top picks need to be stars” - year one, they make the finals with a goalie taken 1st overall.

Their core is now anchored by a 2nd overall pick and a 4th overall.

The only team that truly managed to make it work without top-5-drafted players is Detroit, and their whole team was assembled under an entirely different economic reality.

[Flames_F.T.W]

I understand Lindholm taking his time, but it's annoying that the team is directionless until he signs

[Locke]

The Calgary Flames should not have a blank check for Elias Lindholm

Craig Conroy and his management team, as of now, are still waiting on a decision from Elias Lindholm and whether or not he wants to stay with the Calgary Flames. The 28-year-old centre is looking for a big payday wherever he goes, and a report from Daily Faceoff’s Frank Seravalli says that money is not an issue for the Flames.

Lindholm is an effective first-line centre, don’t get me wrong. But is he worth the Flames shelling out an insane amount of money just to keep him? No. He’s certainly not worth the phrases “money not an issue” and “Flames are ready to pay.”

At this point, it’s hard not to believe that the best option is trading Lindholm both for the betterment of the player and for the franchise.

And for the franchise, it allows them not to be wrapped up in another long-term deal with a player that hasn’t produced enough to warrant an $8.5-$9.5 million contract. 36-year-old Lindholm is not going to be worth around $9 million, and plenty of people, including myself, would argue that Lindholm, at the current state of his career, isn’t worth that much.

It’s worth repeating that Lindholm is still an excellent player that can bring tons of value to some teams around the NHL. He could be worth $9 million to a certain franchise, but the Flames shouldn’t put a blank check in front of Lindholm and be okay with whatever answer they’re given.

https://flamesnation.ca/news/the-cal...elias-lindholm

Pretty much echoes what I've been saying for quite some time now. He might even have copied and pasted some of my posts.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Otherwise, you have to draft your superstars, usually top-3, sometimes top-5, and the 13 cups between Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Colorado, Tampa and Washington since Sid and Ovi came into the league proves that.

That's not as true as it was. Pittsburgh is not drafting Malkin, Crosby, Fleury, and Staal anymore under the new draft rules. LA and Tampa both had their top picks become #1 d-man. It helps to draft high to acquire a #1 d-man, but the majority of actual #1 d-men were not drafted especially high.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Locke

https://flamesnation.ca/news/the-cal...elias-lindholm

Pretty much echoes what I've been saying for quite some time now. He might even have copied and pasted some of my posts.

In today's NHL giving a player a blank check and signing them for around $9 mil aren't even close to the same thing.

The Leafs are giving Matthews a blank check and that number will probably be 50% higher than Lindholm gets

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

In today's NHL giving a player a blank check and signing them for around $9 mil aren't even close to the same thing.

The Leafs are giving Matthews a blank check and that number will probably be 50% higher than Lindholm gets

Meier just signed for $8.8. Horvat and F. Forsberg signed for $8.5. $9 million is the new $7 million.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

In today's NHL giving a player a blank check and signing them for around $9 mil aren't even close to the same thing.

The Leafs are giving Matthews a blank check and that number will probably be 50% higher than Lindholm gets

Yep that's low end 1c money. Worth that all day imo

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Locke

https://flamesnation.ca/news/the-cal...elias-lindholm

Pretty much echoes what I've been saying for quite some time now. He might even have copied and pasted some of my posts.

From the article:

"At this point, it’s hard not to believe that the best option is trading Lindholm both for the betterment of the player and for the franchise.

And for the franchise, it allows them not to be wrapped up in another long-term deal with a player that hasn’t produced enough to warrant an $8.5-$9.5 million contract."



$8.5-9 million has been the going rate for a 60+ point first line player for at least a year now. Horvat, Forsberg, Hintz, Laine, Dubois, Meir, Larkin, Miller, Barzal.

Flames are going to pay it or lose him. They aren't going to sign a comparable player for less either.

[heep223]

This isn’t soccer where the Saudis can truly say that money isn’t an issue and just buy everyone and everything.

Money is always an issue in a cap world. And if it’s not - it should be.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

From the article:

"At this point, it’s hard not to believe that the best option is trading Lindholm both for the betterment of the player and for the franchise.

And for the franchise, it allows them not to be wrapped up in another long-term deal with a player that hasn’t produced enough to warrant an $8.5-$9.5 million contract."



$8.5-9 million has been the going rate for a 60+ point first line player for at least a year now. Horvat, Forsberg, Hintz, Laine, Dubois, Meir, Larkin, Miller, Barzal.

Flames are going to pay it or lose him. They aren't going to sign a comparable player for less either.

Yeah. And thats fine. Let some other team have him.

I keep saying it, we do not want that contract on our books until he's 36.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

$8.5-9 million has been the going rate for a 60+ point first line player for at least a year now. Horvat, Forsberg, Hintz, Laine, Dubois, Meir, Larkin, Miller, Barzal.

Flames are going to pay it or lose him. They aren't going to sign a comparable player for less either.

But then he's THE GUY for the entirety of the contract, and there's no going back. If we develop somebody, we won't be able to keep him because we decided nobody else was coming along and comitted to Lindholm. We will have to trade our next star players away to keep Lindholm and friends. Whether we want to or not. For almost a decade.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

I understand Lindholm taking his time, but it's annoying that the team is directionless until he signs

Don’t worry, the Flames have an airtight plan in place this time. On June 30, 2024 they will have someone slash the tire on Lindholm’s wife’s vehicle preventing any last minute car rides.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

In today's NHL giving a player a blank check and signing them for around $9 mil aren't even close to the same thing.

The Leafs are giving Matthews a blank check and that number will probably be 50% higher than Lindholm gets

Yeah, and they're going to get a Matthews from 25-33. That is value.

He is going to be 'The Man.'

That is a guy you pay because of that 8-year contract you're probably looking at a minimum of 6-7 years, out of 8, of PRIME performance.

This is not that.

[FanIn80]

"Flamesnation" is just another Calgary Puck btw. Not sure I'd put a lot of stock into their articles posts.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Redrum

But then he's THE GUY for the entirety of the contract, and there's no going back. If we develop somebody, we won't be able to keep him because we decided nobody else was coming along and comitted to Lindholm. We will have to trade our next star players away to keep Lindholm and friends. Whether we want to or not. For almost a decade.

The Stars have Seguin and Benn locked into 9.5M+ contracts well into their 30s and had no problem locking down Robertson, Heiskanen, and Hintz.

Things change. If we spend less on guys like Coleman and Mangiapane, we spend less.

There is close to a 0% chance that we would have to trade away young star players because of a Lindholm contract. Let’s be realistic about it.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I get frustrated with how many folks ignore the “Vegas” element to Vegas’ success.

Like, the Blues couldn’t operate the way the Knights do anymore than we could.

You can do things the way Vegas does when you’re a top-3 destination market and you pay $600M to steal a top-6 F or top-4 D from every other team.

Otherwise, you have to draft your superstars, usually top-3, sometimes top-5, and the 13 cups between Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA, Colorado, Tampa and Washington since Sid and Ovi came into the league proves that.

And even Vegas doesn’t escape the reality that “top picks need to be stars” - year one, they make the finals with a goalie taken 1st overall.

Their core is now anchored by a 2nd overall pick and a 4th overall.

The only team that truly managed to make it work without top-5-drafted players is Detroit, and their whole team was assembled under an entirely different economic reality.

[musth]

Lindholm and Hanafin to Toronto for Matthews

All with extensions

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Redrum

But then he's THE GUY for the entirety of the contract, and there's no going back. If we develop somebody, we won't be able to keep him because we decided nobody else was coming along and comitted to Lindholm. We will have to trade our next star players away to keep Lindholm and friends. Whether we want to or not. For almost a decade.

The cap is primed to shoot up for the next few years. 9 mil really won't be that bad.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

The cap is primed to shoot up for the next few years. 9 mil really won't be that bad.

The cap going up isn't relief. It just means every player from now on will be more expensive.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The Stars have Seguin and Benn locked into 9.5M+ contracts well into their 30s and had no problem locking down Robertson, Heiskanen, and Hintz.

Things change. If we spend less on guys like Coleman and Mangiapane, we spend less.

There is close to a 0% chance that we would have to trade away young star players because of a Lindholm contract. Let’s be realistic about it.

It's not about the Lindholm contract. It's about the several we already have like it. This WILL cause big issues down the road even without his albatross being added to the mess. Benn's contract ends after his 34 year old season, and he was over a PPG player that you should hang on to. Seguin leaves just one bad contract which ends in only 4 years. We have several of those, for worse players, taking them to late 30s instead of early to mid 30s.