[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[Jason14h]

You're not trading Lindholm for a late 1st and a Middle Prospect vs Signing him long term

You are trading him for a 1st, Prospect, and 8 Million in cap room

Now using the cap room effectively isn't a guarantee either, but that is a large asset in itself.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I bet if they did not have Makar they would offer Hanifin a long term contract.

But a Colorado with Lindholm and Hanifin instead of MacKinnon and Makar gets nowhere near the Stanley Cup, it is probably a bubble team. The idea that the Flames should sign a mediocre 1st line center in his 30’s to a longterm contract because the trade return is terrible is awful asset management.

The Flames don’t view it that way though is all that matters. If they can re-sign Lindholm they will. A trade around Lindholm will not bring back a player or prospect that has clear #1 upside.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You're not trading Lindholm for a late 1st and a Middle Prospect vs Signing him long term

You are trading him for a 1st, Prospect, and 8 Million in cap room

Now using the cap room effectively isn't a guarantee either, but that is a large asset in itself.

I’d prefer they sign Lindholm rather than getting cap space to fill with an overpaid Schiefele lol

[Hackey]

If we sign Lindholm he's here for the next 9 years. That's a very long time. You might rather sign him at this moment in time but down the road that may be a contract you'd rather not have. Especially with Huberdeau just starting an 8 year deal, Weegar just staring an 8 year deal, Kadri still has another 6 years. That group isn't elite to win now, yet alone down the road. And you're completely handcuffed trying to compete or trying to rebuild.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hackey

If we sign Lindholm he's here for the next 9 years. That's a very long time. You might rather sign him at this moment in time but down the road that may be a contract you'd rather not have. Especially with Huberdeau just starting an 8 year deal, Weegar just staring an 8 year deal, Kadri still has another 6 years. That group isn't elite to win now, yet alone down the road. And you're completely handcuffed trying to compete or trying to rebuild.

Everyone knows this.

Everyone.

We all know the athlete decline in productivity charts.

The Flames know. The media knows.

It's just not that simple. I think when you own/run a sports franchise you have to be better at asset management (sign the player or move him), and hopefully we see that going forward.

But the Flames don't operate in a simple fantasy hockey bubble. They worry about franchise value, and being relevant. We've seen Canadian teams rise to the top of the no trade lists, I think they've seen the same with GM and coaching candidates.

If they feel that Lindholm will keep the Flames relevant for the next eight years, and that his decline rate will make him a valuable member to the team well into his contract ... they may see this as less cut and dried as some fans do.

As I said earlier ... better asset management, and then UFA decision on a player by player basis.

I don't see the move everyone suggestion as being very valid.

[Muta]

Just an observation (since I barely visit their site), but man, there's a lot of good articles and interviews on the Flames website that have come out over the course of the summer where players are talking about how excited they are for the upcoming season and how much they love this city. Really refreshing to read.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

How about 9/9.5x6?

Why does every contract extension need to be 8 years.

8 years should be reserved for franchise type players, but since it was introduced for re-signing clubs, it's been the new "thing" and its been abused in order to entice players to stay long term. 8 year length is a large risk for any team, no matter how young the player is at the start of it, because so much can happen in that period of time. But since so many 8 years have been handed out the last couple years to budding stars, it's now becoming the baseline for the demands of UFA-aged players with any kind of market value. I don't blame them for wanting that security on the verge of inevitable decline, but the max length should be reserved for a certain ilk of player in an appropriate age range.

There will be so many brutal contracts out there in 5 years that teams will be clamouring for a rising cap more than ever just to help dilute an awful allocation of dollars.

The few teams that have been conservative with large signings are going to have a huge advantage over all these teams pushing their chips in right now (including the Flames)

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

How about 9/9.5x6?

Why does every contract extension need to be 8 years.

8 years should be reserved for franchise type players, but since it was introduced for re-signing clubs, it's been the new "thing" and its been abused in order to entice players to stay long term. 8 year length is a large risk for any team, no matter how young the player is at the start of it, because so much can happen in that period of time. But since so many 8 years have been handed out the last couple years to budding stars, it's now becoming the baseline for the demands of UFA-aged players with any kind of market value. I don't blame them for wanting that security on the verge of inevitable decline, but the max length should be reserved for a certain ilk of player in an appropriate age range.

There will be so many brutal contracts out there in 5 years that teams will be clamouring for a rising cap more than ever just to help dilute an awful allocation of dollars.

The few teams that have been conservative with large signings are going to have a huge advantage over all these teams pushing their chips in right now (including the Flames)

Why would Lindholm sign for less than max term?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Why would Lindholm sign for less than max term?

And leave the average at what the ask was for max term…

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Why would Lindholm sign for less than max term?

Matthews just signed for less than max term. Unless you have to sign the old guys to max term because they know they will not be worth the money in the back half of the contract it should be theoretically possible to do it.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Matthews just signed for less than max term. Unless you have to sign the old guys to max term because they know they will not be worth the money in the back half of the contract it should be theoretically possible to do it.

Dude…..really?

Matthew’s is 25. He’ll be 31 when he’s up for his next deal and can sign his final 7!or 8 year deal then. He’s set up perfectly to cash in huge, yet again.

Lindholm being three years older is all but certainly looking for his last deal. If we consider the option being laid out and he signs a 6 year extension, he’s 35 when that ends. Unless he wants to retire early, why would he leave an extra two years on the table that could net him $16-18M? I’ll go out on a limb and say he’s not signing a two year extension for more than $8-9M a year at 35.

[TOfan]

^actually Lindholm would be 36 when a 6 year deal would expire making the case even less attractive for him.

Frankly, if I were in Lindholm’s shoes and the Flames offered me a 6 year deal at $8-9M per, I would just say ‘thanks, maybe we can revisit this after July 1st’. I would question how serious the Flames would be if that’s what they’re offering.

[GioforPM]

Well, a 6 year term is only 1 year less than he'd get as a UFA. But you'd have to make up the difference in bigger dollars, which really hurts your cap right now.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Everyone knows this.

Everyone.

We all know the athlete decline in productivity charts.

The Flames know. The media knows.

It's just not that simple. I think when you own/run a sports franchise you have to be better at asset management (sign the player or move him), and hopefully we see that going forward.

But the Flames don't operate in a simple fantasy hockey bubble. They worry about franchise value, and being relevant. We've seen Canadian teams rise to the top of the no trade lists, I think they've seen the same with GM and coaching candidates.

If they feel that Lindholm will keep the Flames relevant for the next eight years, and that his decline rate will make him a valuable member to the team well into his contract ... they may see this as less cut and dried as some fans do.

As I said earlier ... better asset management, and then UFA decision on a player by player basis.

I don't see the move everyone suggestion as being very valid.

It's funny to talk about franchise value and being relevant when they haven't been relevant for 3 decades now. They literally have one Cinderella run and nothing else in the last 35 years. If relevant means missing playoffs and first round exits then sure keep Lindholm for the next 9 years and add another decade of being "relevant."

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Hackey

It's funny to talk about franchise value and being relevant when they haven't been relevant for 3 decades now. They literally have one Cinderella run and nothing else in the last 35 years. If relevant means missing playoffs and first round exits then sure keep Lindholm for the next 9 years and add another decade of being "relevant."

Well, what’s your market analysis telling you about relevancy and franchise value? Wonder how your conclusions stack up against the Flames.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Hackey

It's funny to talk about franchise value and being relevant when they haven't been relevant for 3 decades now. They literally have one Cinderella run and nothing else in the last 35 years. If relevant means missing playoffs and first round exits then sure keep Lindholm for the next 9 years and add another decade of being "relevant."

If I had your attitude about this team, I would find something else to do with my time. You don't seem to be enjoying it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TOfan

^actually Lindholm would be 36 when a 6 year deal would expire making the case even less attractive for him.

Frankly, if I were in Lindholm’s shoes and the Flames offered me a 6 year deal at $8-9M per, I would just say ‘thanks, maybe we can revisit this after July 1st’. I would question how serious the Flames would be if that’s what they’re offering.

Are you positive that teams will be breaking down the door to offer him a seven year deal in free agency?

6 years at $9 million per year is far from an insult IMO.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Matthews just signed for less than max term. Unless you have to sign the old guys to max term because they know they will not be worth the money in the back half of the contract it should be theoretically possible to do it.

Matthews will get his long term deal when he turns 29, when all's said and done he'll likely retire #1 in NHL earnings, far more than that dummy up north.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Are you positive that teams will be breaking down the door to offer him a seven year deal in free agency?

6 years at $9 million per year is far from an insult IMO.

If I were him I’d feel pretty confident there would be a team, or more, offering 7 year term. Would it be for $9M a year? Depends on how this season goes and if I’m Lindholm, that’s were I see the risk.

Based on what those close to the team have been saying, it’s widely believed the Flames have an 8 year deal on the table.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Are you positive that teams will be breaking down the door to offer him a seven year deal in free agency?

6 years at $9 million per year is far from an insult IMO.

Horvat says he does