[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[gvitaly]

I forget if this was posted here, but here's the projection towards the end of last season.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yes, but what I mean is - is 8.5-9M "star" salary in 2025-26? Or is it "good player" salary?

I would suggest anytime you are above 8% of the total cap space you are in star salary territory. With 23 players, the average player should be getting about 4.3% of the cap. If you have 4 players getting a combined 32% of the cap those guys are probably your stars, next 6 probably get about 30% of the cap and they are probably your good guys players and then you have about 9 players getting 23% of the cap and they are probably your average to below average players and then 4 players getting 4% of the cap and they are your league minimum players.

Flames sign Lindholm anywhere near 9 million and they will have 4 players for the life of his contract that get at least 32% of the cap. Those would have to be your stars by any reasonable measure.

[PepsiFree]

100 players make over 8% of the cap.

Are there 100 stars in the NHL?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

100 players make over 8% of the cap.

Are there 100 stars in the NHL?

Yes probably, that would be three per team. Playoff teams probably have 4-5 on average, non-playoff teams probably have 2-3. With 32 teams that works out to over 100 stars.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I would suggest anytime you are above 8% of the total cap space you are in star salary territory. With 23 players, the average player should be getting about 4.3% of the cap. If you have 4 players getting a combined 32% of the cap those guys are probably your stars, next 6 probably get about 30% of the cap and they are probably your good guys players and then you have about 9 players getting 23% of the cap and they are probably your average to below average players and then 4 players getting 4% of the cap and they are your league minimum players.

Flames sign Lindholm anywhere near 9 million and they will have 4 players for the life of his contract that get at least 32% of the cap. Those would have to be your stars by any reasonable measure.

And, once again, the majority of their contracted years are going to be on the wrong side of 30, and with all that money tied up, their supporting cast is going to be pretty threadbare.

[Jason14h]

Lindholm is worth 8-8.5M. The difference between 7.5 to 8.5 for a star (Hes a star/star light, not a superstar) doesnt matter. No team gets in cap problems because of the extra $500K-1M on a star (Now that 'star' can become garbage, but the extra $1m isnt the issue, its when the star stops producing)

The question is with the existing Flames contracts with term, can we win a cup or at least seriously challenge with or without Lindholm before these players are terrible contract ex stars?

I don't think we even come close to a real contender with this team and Lindholm in the next 2-3 years, and then we will be one of the most expensive and old teams.

Signing Lindholm signals "more of the same" and I think that's the main issue people have.

Now if we're going for more of the same, I guess going "all in" on 'more of the same' makes the most season. Sign Lindy, go get Nylander, and hope you have a goalie go on a magical run and worry about the contracts in 3 years.

But in doing this I think we just see 3 years of meh, followed by a forced long terrible rebuild stuck with aged expensive assets

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Locke

And, once again, the majority of their contracted years are going to be on the wrong side of 30, and with all that money tied up, their supporting cast is going to be pretty threadbare.

That is the biggest problem, only other team that has tried the old guy approach for their top 4 players is San Jose with Karlsson, Burns, Couture, Vlasic. It would be novel for it to work.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is the biggest problem, only other team that has tried the old guy approach for their top 4 players is San Jose with Karlsson, Burns, Couture, Vlasic. It would be novel for it to work.

And they were coming off a decade of success, already had a garbage minors system, and were hoping for a run or two before they knew this would happen.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is the biggest problem, only other team that has tried the old guy approach for their top 4 players is San Jose with Karlsson, Burns, Couture, Vlasic. It would be novel for it to work.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Signing Lindholm signals "more of the same" and I think that's the main issue people have.

Now if we're going for more of the same, I guess going "all in" on 'more of the same' makes the most season. Sign Lindy, go get Nylander, and hope you have a goalie go on a magical run and worry about the contracts in 3 years.

One of the biggest problems is that the alternative isn't much better. Some people think the alternative is a rebuild, but realistically, the alternative is still a team with Huberdeau, Kadri, and Weegar locked into old age, trying to "go for it" without a top-line center.

It's... uglier. For sure.

The only difference between the two scenarios, especially based on what guys are getting in trade right now, is whether we're doing "more of the same" with or without a top-line center.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is the biggest problem, only other team that has tried the old guy approach for their top 4 players is San Jose with Karlsson, Burns, Couture, Vlasic. It would be novel for it to work.

You're not wrong, but Detroit in 2007-08 won a cup with:

Lidstrom 37
Holmstrom 35
Hasek 43 / Osgood 35
Datsyuk 29
Franzen 28
Kronwall 27
Rafalski 34

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

One of the biggest problems is that the alternative isn't much better. Some people think the alternative is a rebuild, but realistically, the alternative is still a team with Huberdeau, Kadri, and Weegar locked into old age, trying to "go for it" without a top-line center.

It's... uglier. For sure.

The only difference between the two scenarios, especially based on what guys are getting in trade right now, is whether we're doing "more of the same" with or without a top-line center.

I agree but if we actually did a rebuild we get some bottom 7 picks the next 2 years , and you hope as they are entering prime Hubby and Kadri play the Seguin and Benn roles

And hopefully with the assets for a Lindholm and Hanifin you hit on 2 young core pieces and rebuild on the fly without a 5 year bottom of the standing stretch

I personally think the eventual forced rebuild will be longer and much more painful in a few years then ripping the bandaid off now

But Conroy might not be GM in 5 years if he goes that direction , and Edwards may not care as he’ll sell the team when it’s value increases after the new arena is built

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I agree but if we actually did a rebuild we get some bottom 7 picks the next 2 years , and you hope as they are entering prime Hubby and Kadri play the Seguin and Benn roles

And hopefully with the assets for a Lindholm and Hanifin you hit on 2 young core pieces and rebuild on the fly without a 5 year bottom of the standing stretch

I personally think the eventual forced rebuild will be longer and much more painful in a few years then ripping the bandaid off now

But Conroy might not be GM in 5 years if he goes that direction , and Edwards may not care as he’ll sell the team when it’s value increases after the new arena is built

Yeah, if they were actually going to rebuild then sure, take the hit now and hope to bounce back in 3-4 seasons.

I just have zero confidence that losing Lindholm would force them to do that, or that any of our guys are going to return anything that special in terms of what a rebuilding team would value.

Trade value has just plummeted across the board this offseason, we might be stuck dealing with another team in a similar situation.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I agree but if we actually did a rebuild we get some bottom 7 picks the next 2 years , and you hope as they are entering prime Hubby and Kadri play the Seguin and Benn roles

And hopefully with the assets for a Lindholm and Hanifin you hit on 2 young core pieces and rebuild on the fly without a 5 year bottom of the standing stretch

I personally think the eventual forced rebuild will be longer and much more painful in a few years then ripping the bandaid off now

But Conroy might not be GM in 5 years if he goes that direction , and Edwards may not care as he’ll sell the team when it’s value increases after the new arena is built

That would be my preferred approach rather than doubling down on old guys. Signing another old guy to a longterm contract and seeing more bridge contracts (worst contract in hockey) because the Flames do not have the cap room would be the worst scenario

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, if they were actually going to rebuild then sure, take the hit now and hope to bounce back in 3-4 seasons.

I just have zero confidence that losing Lindholm would force them to do that, or that any of our guys are going to return anything that special in terms of what a rebuilding team would value.

Trade value has just plummeted across the board this offseason, we might be stuck dealing with another team in a similar situation.

The alternative though is signing Lindholm and we're locked into 'Geezer-Town' for nearly a decade.

Again, you remove one of those other contracts for Senior Citizens and I'm happy to sign Lindholm, but adding him on top of what we've already got doesnt seem tenable.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, if they were actually going to rebuild then sure, take the hit now and hope to bounce back in 3-4 seasons.

I just have zero confidence that losing Lindholm would force them to do that, or that any of our guys are going to return anything that special in terms of what a rebuilding team would value.

Trade value has just plummeted across the board this offseason, we might be stuck dealing with another team in a similar situation.

And in that case I say go get Nylander and sign Lindholm and throw a Hail Mary cause another long bad contract at this point doesn’t really affect us long term we’re already pot committed to whatever this team is !

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Locke

The alternative though is signing Lindholm and we're locked into 'Geezer-Town' for nearly a decade.

Again, you remove one of those other contracts for Senior Citizens and I'm happy to sign Lindholm, but adding him on top of what we've already got doesnt seem tenable.

Old-Guns?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Old-Guns?

But can they play the Trombone? Or the Sousaphone?

Unless somebody knows something I dont know, like when the current CBA is renegotiated theres going to be another round of unlimited compliance buyouts or some nonsense like that in 5 years, other than that the current roadmap the Flames are following seems like a bad, bad plan.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Locke

The alternative though is signing Lindholm and we're locked into 'Geezer-Town' for nearly a decade.

Again, you remove one of those other contracts for Senior Citizens and I'm happy to sign Lindholm, but adding him on top of what we've already got doesnt seem tenable.

This thread seems to circle back to the argument of Lindholm(by himself) being worth the 8+ right now, which isn't even close to addressing the real problem.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

When Conroy said he isn't going into next year with 6 UFA's to be, he was saying what we all felt after losing Gaudreau and Tkachuk. But it painted him in a corner. Fans get itchy and other GM's can use that kind of position against him. It makes it harder to be patient.

Perhaps now it's best to just keep these guys for the year and see what happens.

To see our situation objectively, take a look at Carolina's capfriendly page.
https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/hurricanes

Great team. They don't have many long term contracts and several are coming up next summer including Aho, Teuvo, Necas, Skjei, and Pesce. And they are in on a lot of trades for top players right now.

I would rather have a team with shorter contracts and flexibility with risk of losing players for nothing vs a bunch of aging and solid but not elite players locked long term. Flexibility means we have the ability to trade for a star in the future which inevitably come available (e.g. Thornton, Burns, etc).

Gaudreau and Tkachuk were elite stars. Losing them was unusual and hurt. Lindholm and Hanifin are great, but we already lost our elite players. We shouldn't be giving up so much to keep the next wrung down. No matter where we are in terms of rebuilding or going for playoffs.

The pressure is on the player too. They have to perform in a contract year.

Is this basically the Flames last year? Then Gaudreau left and Tkachuk said he wouldn't sign and then you're stuck.

Just like Carolina would be stuck if Aho leaves after next year and Necas tells them he won't stick around long term.