[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[Mr.Coffee]

Right so Lindholm went from playing with all star players Gaudreau and Tkachuk putting up crazy numbers to playing with brutal players Kadri and Huberdeau, following a Stanley Cup career high point season and another guy who scored 115 points, and it’s not Lindholm it’s Sutter. It’s playing with these lowly players Kadri / Huberdeau.

Okay… maybe Lindholm was carried more by Gaudreau / Tkachuk than people here think? And maybe that’s why the Flames shouldn’t make a horrendous contract blunder by committing to him for nearly a decade at a high cap hit?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m not sure why you keep intentionally missing the point.

LOL

how about reading what I’m saying? Should we sign all those guys to 8 year deals??????? That is the ####ing question. LOL.

It's just a bad point

any quality player needs to be put in the right situation (with other quality players, ice time, PP, ect.) to suceed

Have your opinion on signing him or not but Lindholm was certainly not carried by Gaudreau/Tkachuk and is value on the market is easy 8.5-9M

He's getting it, here or elsewhere...I would bet you anything

and if he was +61 every season we would be talking about 13 or 14M, nobody is using that as the norm

[Mr.Coffee]

Whether or not that’s his market value, and I would agree with you it probably is, is not all that relevant as to if the Flames should sign him.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Right so Lindholm went from playing with all star players Gaudreau and Tkachuk putting up crazy numbers to playing with brutal players Kadri and Huberdeau, following a Stanley Cup career high point season and another guy who scored 115 points, and it’s not Lindholm it’s Sutter. It’s playing with these lowly players Kadri / Huberdeau.

Okay… maybe Lindholm was carried more by Gaudreau / Tkachuk than people here think? And maybe that’s why the Flames shouldn’t make a horrendous contract blunder by committing to him for nearly a decade at a high cap hit?

Chemistry matters. Continuity matters. Nobodies head was on straight last year. That was obvious just watching them. Last year is the outlier.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

No, but it would have been fine when Bergeron was 29.

Well, it depends, context is everything. If the Bruins were at a similar state the Flames are then maybe not. Also, just my opinion but Lindholm ain’t anywhere near Bergeron’s level, especially in Bergeron’s prime.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

You don’t have to “take it away” but you should consider that in the full context of offering him $72mm carrying him into his mid to late 30s over 8 years and exiting a season with a notably worse performance than the one when those players were on his line. Because, you know, those players don’t play here anymore.

Seems kinda obvious to pay for anticipated future performance, which was my point you all intentionally missed in your eagerness to defend everything Flames, otherwise why not go offer Wayne Gretzky a contract?

Do you have that post copied to your clipboard?
It's the same thing every time. No offence, but you aren't informing anyone who is reading here. I understand your position. I feel that Lindholm's anticipated future performance is going to be very good relative to his next contract.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

Chemistry matters. Continuity matters. Nobodies head was on straight last year. That was obvious just watching them. Last year is the outlier.

Chemistry matters. Exactly. Glad we agree.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Have to take Bergeron/Marchand/McAvoy and MacKinnon/Makar/Toews off the list since they all played together so it’s statistically impossible to tell which of them wasn’t just benefitting from a better player.

It's defend the Flames at all costs, hey?

Thank you for the lecture on statistics, too.

If you apply the same logic to the others on that list, I suspect we'd be looking at a similar variance between Lindholm and the others listed.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, it depends, context is everything. If the Bruins were at a similar state the Flames are then maybe not. Also, just my opinion but Lindholm ain’t anywhere near Bergeron’s level, especially in Bergeron’s prime.

Bergeron is probably retired, and Lindholm will be playing in the nhl next season.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Whether or not that’s his market value, and I would agree with you it probably is, is not all that relevant as to if the Flames should sign him.

It is relevant if you're trying to stay competitive. Which the Flames are.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by blender

Bergeron is probably retired, and Lindholm will be playing in the nhl next season.

What? Try to follow along I was replying to if it would have made sense to sign Bergeron when he was 29.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, it depends, context is everything. If the Bruins were at a similar state the Flames are then maybe not. Also, just my opinion but Lindholm ain’t anywhere near Bergeron’s level, especially in Bergeron’s prime.

Go look at Bergerons numbers at the same age. Lindholms are probably better.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Chemistry matters. Exactly. Glad we agree.

Yes, chemistry can take time to develop.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

It is relevant if you're trying to stay competitive. Which the Flames are.

If you’re using years of when Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Lindholm played together to justify why you should or shouldn’t do key strategic moves with Lindholm, it makes no sense. I can’t put it anymore plainly.

Gaudreau doesn’t play here anymore. No point in trying to frame who Lindholm is because he could repeat anomalous seasons when Gaudreau was here.

[blender]

Sorry, was busy posting. All good.
I appreciate your contributions here. I was just trying make the point that IMO Lindholm has upside still as a top player at his position. Like Bergeron did at 29.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

If you’re using years of when Gaudreau, Tkachuk and Lindholm played together to justify why you should or shouldn’t do key strategic moves with Lindholm, it makes no sense. I can’t put it anymore plainly.

Gaudreau doesn’t play here anymore. No point in trying to frame who Lindholm is because he could repeat anomalous seasons when Gaudreau was here.

It still matters. Because he's shown he's able to elevate his game with top guys. It's quite comparable to Bergeron, only Bergeron has pretty much always had a star beside him.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It's defend the Flames at all costs, hey?

Thank you for the lecture on statistics, too.

If you apply the same logic to the others on that list, I suspect we'd be looking at a similar variance between Lindholm and the others listed.

just stop

debate the points

we could easily say "hate the Flames at all costs hey"

I mean by the logic in here the Flames shouldn't trade Dube for McDavid because his linemates will suck and he will get far less points than he has with Drai

Signing Lindholm to 8.5M is good for the team, unless the goal is to be worse (which it might be for some)

I guarantee a lot of teams would love Lindholm at this price, its not about defending the Flames

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

It's defend the Flames at all costs, hey?

Thank you for the lecture on statistics, too.

If you apply the same logic to the others on that list, I suspect we'd be looking at a similar variance between Lindholm and the others listed.

It has nothing to do with defending the Flames. Taking out Makar, Tkachuk, and Toews’ best season takes them off the list, too.

It’s just not a relevant point because of that. If Lindholm is only on the list because of Tkachuk, then Tkachuk is only on the list because of Lindholm, and it’s no coincidence that there are batches of players that play together (or did) on that list.

At the end of the day it’s just an impressive list to be on. Nobody should feel the need to twist and turn and panic that somebody is going to sign Lindholm to a billion dollars just because he’s on the list. Why put effort into finding some reason to minimize something that makes a current and former Flame look good? It was a great season that Lindholm was a big part of. Why do you as a fan, or any fan really, feel the need to ensure nobody talks about it and nobody is impressed by it?

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

Go look at Bergerons numbers at the same age. Lindholms are probably better.

When Bergeron was 28, he had 62 points in 80 games, and was +38. Bruins were 54-19-0-9.

Lindholm was 28 this year, and had 64 points in 80 games, and was +14. Flames were 38-27-0-17.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

It still matters. Because he's shown he's able to elevate his game with top guys. It's quite comparable to Bergeron, only Bergeron has pretty much always had a star beside him.

Which is exactly my point- he played with another player who scored 115 points last year and it didn’t go as well. Certainly not the kind of results you’d wanna bank an 8 year key contract to. In fact, that’s our most recent relevant data point.

If anyone is cherry picking stats here it’s the original post on this topic talking about how good Lindholm was during an era with players that aren’t even here.