[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

You could pull a dallas, not pay money out the nose to try and play a continuance game, suck for 2 years, and then hope Kadri+Huberdeau+ whoever are still at least valuable secondary contributors or good shield players to bring up the youth.

That's kind of revisionist, though. Dallas only made the playoffs twice in 8 years prior to that "suck for 2 years" and made moves to acquire older guys like Sharp Niemi, and Oduya leading into that 2-year period, and traded for Bishop in 2017 (right in the middle of it). They were absolutely throwing money around trying to be competitive.

Either way, if Wolf is as advertised (and/or Markstrom bounces back) and Huberdeau bounces back to even an average version of himself, top 5 is pretty much out of the question.

This is a team where everything that could go wrong went wrong and we still only missed the playoffs by a point. Do people think this team is actually going to get worse? Even a minor improvement at basically any position puts us back in that conversation, but take away our top center and we maybe pick around 15 again?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The blues are an exception all together. my claim is too simple to be true. Winning a championship is complicated.

The point at the core of my series of posts is that teams very rarely, sign a core of vets long term into their 30s and turn that into championships. more often than not, they draft star players and develop them. Often times some of these players come from the top 5 picks. Not always, the blues brought in a red hot goalie and rode him to the promises land, and Kopitar was an 11th pick.

Sometimes teams full of aging vets and huge term contracts do win it all. Vegas did, Washington did, the 2001 Avs did, and the 1989 Flames did. It isn't impossible, but it is not a well travelled path.


Exceptions always exist. again, no one is suggesting drafting in the top 5 turns into championships no matter what. But I know how the Avs landed Makar and Mackinnon, or how the Blackhawks landed Toews and Kane how the Penguins landed Malkin and Crosby, or the Lightening landed Hedman and Stamkos.

The counter to your argument that not having multiple top 5 picks over the course of 7-8 years is not a well-traveled path by championship teams OR by bottom-dwellers. Very few teams will fail to have multiple top 5 picks over that course of time. So the correlation between having multiple top 5 picks and winning championships is barely better than chance alone.

The Flames are an interesting animal when it comes to top 5 picks. They have certainly traded away many 1st round picks, but those have been for the most part mid to late 1st round picks, so they haven't lacked for top 5 picks due to trades. One thing they have had is terrible draft lottery luck; I believe they are the only team (perhaps aside from the recent expansion teams?) that has moved down in the lottery but never moved up.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is all true about right now, so it makes sense to actually enjoy the journey instead of constantly complaining that you aren’t on a different one, no?

The beginning of a rebuild is fun in its own way. And I’m sure the fans will feel very rewarded when the Flames win, regardless of how they get there.

Maybe if I believed this group was on an upward trajectory. Treading water or slowly declining isn't that exciting.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

The counter to your argument that not having multiple top 5 picks over the course of 7-8 years is not a well-traveled path by championship teams OR by bottom-dwellers. Very few teams will fail to have multiple top 5 picks over that course of time. So the correlation between having multiple top 5 picks and winning championships is barely better than chance alone.

The Flames are an interesting animal when it comes to top 5 picks. They have certainly traded away many 1st round picks, but those have been for the most part mid to late 1st round picks, so they haven't lacked for top 5 picks due to trades. One thing they have had is terrible draft lottery luck; I believe they are the only team that has moved down in the lottery but never moved up.

You're right the Flames are an interesting animal. The Flames and Vegas are the only teams to never draft inside the top 3, and that will continue to be the case for ourselves for a long time I think.

In the end I can't pretend that I am an expert or know the way. I am just a dog chewing a bone waiting for the season to start. I think though I might have a look at a list of teams that have never successfully rebuilt next.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Stop signing bad contracts immediately. That's step one. Signing bad contracts isn't going to help you make use of that 4-6 years, it only further screws it up.

You want to make the best of Kadri and Huberdeau's deals? Trade Lindholm. Target the best young prospects and players and picks you can get - and infuse the team with young talent that can develop alongside Huberdeau and Kadri.

Loading up with more old, expensive players that you know that in all likelihood are not going to provide good value over the duration of the deal is not the good answer here. It's the short sighted stupid answer.

How is this not a recipe for perpetual mediocrity? You get some good young players that hit their stride in a few years - maybe even a C as good as Lindholm - just in time for Huby and Kadri to actually start declining?

[GioforPM]

Trading Lindholm for picks and prospects gets you middling prospects and late picks. People who know better forget that not all first rounders are equal and nothing you get in such a trade is a lottery pick. Any team who wants Lindholm thinks he is a key to being a contender, meaning they already have a good team.

Hanifin is a bit of a different animal - he's young enough where he could be expected to be part of a longer term growth for a team like, say, Chicago.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Trading Lindholm for picks and prospects gets you middling prospects and late picks. People who know better forget that not all first rounders are equal and nothing you get in such a trade is a lottery pick. Any team who wants Lindholm thinks he is a key to being a contender, meaning they already have a good team.

Hanifin is a bit of a different animal - he's young enough where he could be expected to be part of a longer term growth for a team like, say, Chicago.

I think the trade Lindholm at all costs camp needs to understand that.

First of all the team wants to compete and Lindholm gives us the best chance.

With the market I bet the best prospects to come our way would be in the Pelts tier and not the A prospect we all would love to have along with a first. Look what Toffoli got after a career year.

So is the team better off trading our top line C for 3rd line potential 2nd line prospects when we are already going to graduate a bunch onto the team this year and start the cycle of whining that we don't have top line talent and pine for guys like Lindholm again.

I roll with Lindholm and see what happens and I now believe that he is going to sign prior to the season starting.

[GioforPM]

The other thing is that Lindholm (and the other pending UFAs) are all playing for contracts this year (with Calgary or not). All things being equal they will have good seasons.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

No one is suggesting that there is a direct line between drafting in the top 5 and winning the cup. It is too obvious to repeat that rebuilding is very hard and some teams spiral for a long time. Everyone knows the risk with rebuilding, we have lived through it.

That out of the way. The point I was making and others are making as well is that teams that win championships have all future hall of fame players in key positions. These players, more often than not are home grown. No one is suggesting you can't hall of famers anywhere in a draft, or even pick them up undrafted. But It is also undeniable that top 5 picks have a better chance of turning into impact players.

Our perception of recent cup winners, doesn't necessarily reflect the reality under the current rules. Pittsburgh and Chicago were built in a time when you could get multiple #1 overall picks in a row. The draft rules have changed (thank you Edmonton). For example, Pittsburgh has won 3 Stanley Cups in the Crosby era. Are they winning all three of those if the new rules were in place, at the time, and instead of drafting Malkin they draft at #3 or 4 and end up with Cam Barker or Andrew Ladd instead of Malkin?

Increasingly teams like Vegas and St. Louis, and I'd argue Tampa, are showing us that the trend is moving away from building a championship team built around generational players. It's all about solid asset management.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

Dallas moved up from 8th to 3rd in the draft lottery - they never really "bottomed out". Complete luck (which we haven't had) and great drafting changed the direction of that franchise.

Yeah winning a draft lottery and getting lucky (skilled) in finding stars in the last first and second isn't tanking.

The only summary there is get lucky and things change.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Stop signing bad contracts immediately. That's step one. Signing bad contracts isn't going to help you make use of that 4-6 years, it only further screws it up.

You want to make the best of Kadri and Huberdeau's deals? Trade Lindholm. Target the best young prospects and players and picks you can get - and infuse the team with young talent that can develop alongside Huberdeau and Kadri.

Loading up with more old, expensive players that you know that in all likelihood are not going to provide good value over the duration of the deal is not the good answer here. It's the short sighted stupid answer.

It really boils down to the goaltending. Markstrom bounces back and the Flames are definitely in the playoffs with Lindholm. No Lindholm and a Markstrom bounce back probably has them in the bubble. No Lindholm and Markstrom sucking again might get them a top ten pick.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

Our perception of recent cup winners, doesn't necessarily reflect the reality under the current rules. Pittsburgh and Chicago were built in a time when you could get multiple #1 overall picks in a row. The draft rules have changed (thank you Edmonton). For example, Pittsburgh has won 3 Stanley Cups in the Crosby era. Are they winning all three of those if the new rules were in place, at the time, and instead of drafting Malkin they draft at #3 or 4 and end up with Cam Barker or Andrew Ladd instead of Malkin?

Increasingly teams like Vegas and St. Louis, and I'd argue Tampa, are showing us that the trend is moving away from building a championship team built around generational players. It's all about solid asset management.

I wish they would change the draft rules even more. There is so much parity now, that it doesn't make as much sense anymore to have such a bottom heavy favoring for lottery odds. I know they tried to even it out a bit, but not enough IMO. It over compensates some teams at the expense of others.

Teams that try and barely miss the playoffs or are bubble teams tend to get stuck in that rut. It seems like an unfair system that punishes teams for trying to stay competitive. I don't think there is a huge difference between the teams that finish 17 to 27, and the ones that finish below that, usually purposely put themselves in that position. Quite often those teams also already have top young talent, but are just going through a lag period for things to come together.

[FanIn80]

I wonder if weight in the lottery should be given to teams who have never had a first overall (in addition to existing parameters like standings, etc).

Edit: Like let's say CGY finishes 32 and EDM 31, like it would be pretty stupid if EDM wins the #1 (for their 4th or 5th time) over us (who have never had one).

[Groot]

Bottom 16 teams all play in an AHL playoff format tournament that determines draft order.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Groot

Bottom 16 teams all play in an AHL playoff format tournament that determines draft order.

Players are not going to want to play playoff series in order to draft a top pick. You may have some teams possibly intentionally miss the playoffs if a generational player is available so they can win that tournament. Who would pay to watch the bottom half of the league play for the chance for a high pick? Teams who miss the playoffs and have traded their first round pick will intentionally tank to not gift their 1st overall to an opponent.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wish they would change the draft rules even more. There is so much parity now, that it doesn't make as much sense anymore to have such a bottom heavy favoring for lottery odds. I know they tried to even it out a bit, but not enough IMO. It over compensates some teams at the expense of others.

Teams that try and barely miss the playoffs or are bubble teams tend to get stuck in that rut. It seems like an unfair system that punishes teams for trying to stay competitive. I don't think there is a huge difference between the teams that finish 17 to 27, and the ones that finish below that, usually purposely put themselves in that position. Quite often those teams also already have top young talent, but are just going through a lag period for things to come together.

The current model should definitely change. The purpose of giving "bad" teams higher draft picks is to allow them to become competitive. Encouraging teams to repeatedly tank until they can leap frog the teams playing fair hockey, is not what it's supposed to be about.

[Radio]

This post does nothing to get the thread back on track but...

Maybe they could give the most improved team that didn't make the playoffs the season before more lottery balls, improving their chances.

[memphusk]

Get rid of the salary cap.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

How is this not a recipe for perpetual mediocrity? You get some good young players that hit their stride in a few years - maybe even a C as good as Lindholm - just in time for Huby and Kadri to actually start declining?

If you're trading Lindholm, your 2023/2024 season path is set. You'd be selling Hanifin, Tanev, and Backlund as well. That right there is about the most severe sell-off we'd have seen in recent times.

It's a short term sacrifice, but the bounty returned would then load us up with young talent. Some of which may contribute as soon as next year and the year after. Including the 2024 1st round draft pick that would likely be a top-10 pick.

This team is not good enough to compete at the top of the league. If we sign our aging veterans now, there's no real help coming at the top of the roster. Is Lindholm + Huberdeau high-end enough to be anything of note? I don't believe so. I think the structure of the roster wasn't good enough when Lindholm was flanked by our two best players at the time in Gaudreau and Tkachuk. We've lost both of those players, and the organization just seems to think that they can swap in lesser parts and improve...and I just don't think that's a good way to go about things.

Re-signing Lindholm is the most sure-fire way to maintain the status quo. A status quo that is not and never has been good enough.

There was a line of discussion this off-season around "he's the best centre we've had since #25! We can't let him go!"...that's not a high enough bar for the organization to set for itself. That's managing through fear of the unknown. If what we have has proven to not be good enough, why are we so afraid of what else could happen?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Just to be clear, I don't believe there are any fans (or, certainly, only very few fans) who are "opposed to rebuilds." I'm not, but I am also not sold on the idea that this is the best decision NOW. I have no doubt that in a few years—maybe as few as three; maybe not for another five—the Flames will be rebuilding, and that's fine. But, I also think there is unrealised potential in the current roster that I am eager to see realised. Moreover, I think that a lot of posters have unrealistic expectations about just how much luck and potential frustration there is that goes along with any rebuild, which plays a big part in my reluctance to jump in to one (unnecessarily, I think) today.


Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

My argument to this is that the unrealized potential you may see on this roster, is the same unrealized potential every team sees of themselves. I feel like with the amount of quality free agents who are likely about to sign retirement contracts - now is the time to capitalize on them. Don't delay.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If you're trading Lindholm, your 2023/2024 season path is set. You'd be selling Hanifin, Tanev, and Backlund as well. That right there is about the most severe sell-off we'd have seen in recent times.

It's a short term sacrifice, but the bounty returned would then load us up with young talent. Some of which may contribute as soon as next year and the year after. Including the 2024 1st round draft pick that would likely be a top-10 pick.

This team is not good enough to compete at the top of the league. If we sign our aging veterans now, there's no real help coming at the top of the roster. Is Lindholm + Huberdeau high-end enough to be anything of note? I don't believe so. I think the structure of the roster wasn't good enough when Lindholm was flanked by our two best players at the time in Gaudreau and Tkachuk. We've lost both of those players, and the organization just seems to think that they can swap in lesser parts and improve...and I just don't think that's a good way to go about things.

Re-signing Lindholm is the most sure-fire way to maintain the status quo. A status quo that is not and never has been good enough.

There was a line of discussion this off-season around "he's the best centre we've had since #25! We can't let him go!"...that's not a high enough bar for the organization to set for itself. That's managing through fear of the unknown. If what we have has proven to not be good enough, why are we so afraid of what else could happen?

If guys like Lindholm and Hanifin are not good enough, why exactly is any team giving us a bounty for them? And why would any team in a similar or worse situation (and thus, better picks and prospects) want them?

And to that point, if someone like Lindholm isn’t good enough to help us be a top team, why is he good enough to keep us out of the top 10 picks?

It’s not even managing through fear of the unknown, it’s literally stating the known. What we have hasn’t proven anything yet.