[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Which one of them was signed into years in his 30s?

Is there a difference between signing a 21 year old Hanifin, and a 23 year old Lindholm to signing a 31 year old Neal, a 31 year old Brouwer, a 31 year old Kadri, a 30 year old Markstrom, a 30 year old Huberdeau, or a 29 year old Coleman? You tell me. The only one we lucked out on was Tanev.

You didn’t say anything about their age in the post I was responding to. Only that Huberdeau hadnt played for the Flames yet, therefore he shouldn’t have been extended.
If you’re going by odds, the Huberdeau signing was definitely more of a sure thing, then signing Lindholm to a 6 year deal, seeing as he hadn’t broke out yet.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

You didn’t say anything about their age in the post I was responding to. Only that Huberdeau hadnt played for the Flames yet, therefore he shouldn’t have been extended.
If you’re going by odds, the Huberdeau signing was definitely more of a sure thing, then signing Lindholm to a 6 year deal, seeing as he hadn’t broke out yet.

That is the opposite of how probability in hockey as it relates to age and production work.

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

That is the opposite of how probability in hockey as it relates to age and production work.

So you're betting on the 23 year old with a career high 45 pts, over the 29 year old coming off a 115 point season and 4 straight seasons over a ppg? The odds would not be in your favour.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by flamesgod

You didn’t say anything about their age in the post I was responding to. Only that Huberdeau hadnt played for the Flames yet, therefore he shouldn’t have been extended.
If you’re going by odds, the Huberdeau signing was definitely more of a sure thing, then signing Lindholm to a 6 year deal, seeing as he hadn’t broke out yet.

I understand I didn't mention age right off the bat. It's difficult to mention everything without making my posts a km long, resorting to fine print, or hiring a lawyer to make a forum post. I don't mind clarifying what I meant, or agreeing to disagree before repeating the same arguments over and over.

I just find it difficult when I'm having a discussion with one poster that only mentions things he/she/they disagree with. As soon as I reply to that poster, another will find something else to knit pick in the new post, and eventually the argument/point gets derailed altogether.

In this instance I wasn't trying to take shots at Tre, as much as I was suggesting that GMs should be held to a higher standard than 'this move seemed good at a time'. They don't have hindsight, but they spend millions on trying to obtain hindsight in various methods. If a team keeps misevaluating players in trades/free agent signings then there might be something wrong and perhaps it can be tweaked/improved in the decision making process. That's something I hope is done under Conroy. Somehow the argument evolved into well then you can't sign any free agent to long term deals and then into you can't sign any player to a long term deal because we don't have 20/20 hindsight... that wasn't my point. My point was that the Flames kept misjudging veteran players' fit and production before signing them and Huberdeau looked like an instance of where they could've tested it beforehand.

As for the odds(I finally got to the 2nd point of your post, so I apologize for the long read), I can see where you're coming from and I think that betting on a 20-25 year old player to improve is a safer bet than betting on a 30+ year old to play at the same high level for the duration of his retirement contract.

[Hackey]

If Lindholm doesn't sign what do the Flames do? They really are at his mercy. He's basically their only chance at trying to remain competitive. I suppose you could try and throw big money in free agency the following year. Not sure how realistic that would be though.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Would you be able to trade either Huberdeau or Kadri for future considerations this offseason without retaining salary?

I don't mind staying positive about their production. It still doesn't change the fact that both those signings looked bad at year 1, and 0 respectively. I get that Tre was better than Feaster and Sutter, but that's still a pretty low bar. I hope Conroy is a much better GM than Tre.

Anyways I'm tired of this discussion. I'm pretty sure you guys see where I'm coming from.

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I understand I didn't mention age right off the bat. It's difficult to mention everything without making my posts a km long, resorting to fine print, or hiring a lawyer to make a forum post. I don't mind clarifying what I meant, or agreeing to disagree before repeating the same arguments over and over.

I just find it difficult when I'm having a discussion with one poster that only mentions things he/she/they disagree with. As soon as I reply to that poster, another will find something else to knit pick in the new post, and eventually the argument/point gets derailed altogether.

In this instance I wasn't trying to take shots at Tre, as much as I was suggesting that GMs should be held to a higher standard than 'this move seemed good at a time'. They don't have hindsight, but they spend millions on trying to obtain hindsight in various methods. If a team keeps misevaluating players in trades/free agent signings then there might be something wrong and perhaps it can be tweaked/improved in the decision making process. That's something I hope is done under Conroy. Somehow the argument evolved into well then you can't sign any free agent to long term deals and then into you can't sign any player to a long term deal because we don't have 20/20 hindsight... that wasn't my point. My point was that the Flames kept misjudging veteran players' fit and production before signing them and Huberdeau looked like an instance of where they could've tested it beforehand.

As for the odds(I finally got to the 2nd point of your post, so I apologize for the long read), I can see where you're coming from and I think that betting on a 20-25 year old player to improve is a safer bet than betting on a 30+ year old to play at the same high level for the duration of his retirement contract.

Nobody signs a 30+ year old expecting them to not decline at some point. It's a fairly simple consideration of the team's trajectory and where they are in their build-cycle. I don't understand how posters can be so hopeless about the next few years, but worry that we're somehow undermining our potential in the late 2020s.

As for GM standards, IMO you are underestimating the autonomy of every other stakeholder in the league (ie. all players, coaches, and other GMs). Every single decision is a compromise. Waiting to find out that Huby wasn't an immediate fit doesn't really help anything...it would simply force you into an urgent situation to sell low.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

…whoosh?

Are you watching tennis too?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Nobody signs a 30+ year old expecting them to not decline at some point. It's a fairly simple consideration of the team's trajectory and where they are in their build-cycle. I don't understand how posters can be so hopeless about the next few years, but worry that we're somehow undermining our potential in the late 2020s.

As for GM standards, IMO you are underestimating the autonomy of every other stakeholder in the league (ie. all players, coaches, and other GMs). Every single decision is a compromise. Waiting to find out that Huby wasn't an immediate fit doesn't really help anything...it would simply force you into an urgent situation to sell low.

The OP mentioned that the Huberdeau contract was more of a sure thing than the Lindholm contract. In my opinion there was a higher chance Lindholm living up to a $5M contract as a 23 yearold than Huberdeau to a $10.5M contract as a 30 year old. That's why I brought up the decline, which I agree - GMs and front offices project for the duration of the contract.

Again I agree that hockey decisions such as extending a player are a negotiation and therefore a compromise. However a GM also has the option to not sign a player if that situation handcuffs the franchise for the foreseeable future. Teams like Vegas, or Carolina traded away and lost good players for nothing, yet somehow they remain competitive each year by shrewed desicions and good management. At this point it seems as though selling low on Huberdeau would've been better than commiting $84M to him. We'll see what he is next year, but he needs to become a star again at that price tag.

[jayswin]

You have to wonder if there's some strategy to Lindhom's decision to "see how things go to start the season", too. I get that he likely genuinely wants to see before signing, but he's also a player that has had a 78 and 82 point season in the last 4 years, but only had 64 last season.

He knows the Flames are set to be unleashed offensively this season, the organization and coach have made it clear. He may be wanting to go balls out and fly to a PPG pace over the first couple of months and say "so about that negotiation, I think my current stats are closer to what I am and will be than the last year version of me".

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You have to wonder if there's some strategy to Lindhom's decision to "see how things go to start the season", too. I get that he likely genuinely wants to see before signing, but he's also a player that has had a 78 and 82 point season in the last 4 years, but only had 64 last season.

He knows the Flames are set to be unleashed offensively this season, the organization and coach have made it clear. He may be wanting to go balls out and fly to a PPG pace over the first couple of months and say "so about that negotiation, I think my current stats are closer to what I am and will be than the last year version of me".

I don't see Lindholm making more than the $8.5M-$9M x 8 being mentioned as the Flames offer. I think it's more risky for him to have another 65P season, then it is beneficial for him to have another 80P season. That said, if he plays lights out, finds chemistry with Huberdeau, and so on, then I don't mind the Flames paying him more as a result.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I don't see Lindholm making more than the $8.5M-$9M x 8 being mentioned as the Flames offer. I think it's more risky for him to have another 65P season, then it is beneficial for him to have another 80P season. That said, if he plays lights out, finds chemistry with Huberdeau, and so on, then I don't mind the Flames paying him more as a result.

I think you misread my post a bit. I wasn't suggesting he's going to play out the full season and then ask for more money from the Flames. I mentioned the 2 month (just a guess based on him saying he wanted to feel things out to start the season before putting pen to paper) period where he comes out on fire and pushes his points per game as high as he can and then around December he can point to his PPG pace instead of last years 64 points and say "sign me for $9mil rather than $8.5 taking into account how I'm playing now that Sutter and his shot volume, perimeter system are gone".

If he lit it up for a couple of months and got an extra $250-$500k/yr on his contract, that's $4-$8mil over the contract.

[Strange Brew]

I hope the Flames are confident enough in what they have with Lindholm that his performance over 20 games isn’t going to affect their offer. 753 games in the NHL, about half of those with the Flames. If it is truly down to money, I’d like it if the Flames stick to their guns and don’t budge.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I hope the Flames are confident enough in what they have with Lindholm that his performance over 20 games isn’t going to affect their offer. 753 games in the NHL, about half of those with the Flames. If it is truly down to money, I’d like it if the Flames stick to their guns and don’t budge.

They might budge $250k to $500k if he clicks with someone (say Huberdeau) and starts to look like a PPG player again. And again, that is massive money over 8 years for Lindholm.

The other angle is Lindholm may click with Huberdeau and a looser system and around December say "you know what, I'm really confident in myself and what I can do this season, I'm going to play it out here (or get traded and play it out somewhere else) and test free agency with cap going way up.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I think you misread my post a bit. I wasn't suggesting he's going to play out the full season and then ask for more money from the Flames. I mentioned the 2 month (just a guess based on him saying he wanted to feel things out to start the season before putting pen to paper) period where he comes out on fire and pushes his points per game as high as he can and then around December he can point to his PPG pace instead of last years 64 points and say "sign me for $9mil rather than $8.5 taking into account how I'm playing now that Sutter and his shot volume, perimeter system are gone".

If he lit it up for a couple of months and got an extra $250-$500k/yr on his contract, that's $4-$8mil over the contract.

Classic Roman Turek move.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by jayswin

If he lit it up for a couple of months and got an extra $250-$500k/yr on his contract, that's $4-$8mil over the contract.

[Nelson]

Based on the Flames’ offer and Lindholm’s Swedish interview, I think Ryan Pinder’s recent comment is accurate. “I’m assuming Lindholm would sign if the Flames offered him way too much money.”

[Paulie Walnuts]

Elliot said it was quiet over the summer and not much negotiating was done between the sides.

He expects it to pick up this week and thinks the comment's from Lindholm are a positive sign but nothing is imminent.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Nelson

Based on the Flames’ offer and Lindholm’s Swedish interview, I think Ryan Pinder’s recent comment is accurate. “I’m assuming Lindholm would sign if the Flames offered him way too much money.”

This seems far too simplistic.

Money is, obviously, important but I suspect there’s much more that goes into a decision of this magnitude. And even if it is true, that the Flames will have to offer him way too much money, then they should move on and wish him luck whether that’s before the season or at the deadline.

I doubt it though. Lindholm seems like a guy who thinks things through and I think someone around her was saying his wife speaks pretty favourably about Calgary through her socials.

[dammage79]

Just sign or say you're not going to. Last thing this organization needs is more uncertainty heading into another season. Just two seasons removed from one of the worst outcomes of a scenario of walking your best players to the playoffs.

Meh, whatever, it's going to unfold the way it will. Let's play some hockey.get over this summer Flames related doldrums.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TOfan

This seems far too simplistic.

Money is, obviously, important but I suspect there’s much more that goes into a decision of this magnitude. And even if it is true, that the Flames will have to offer him way too much money, then they should move on and wish him luck whether that’s before the season or at the deadline.

I doubt it though. Lindholm seems like a guy who thinks things through and I think someone around her was saying his wife speaks pretty favourably about Calgary through her socials.

Not really sure how any fan would know whether someone “thinks things through”. If they back up the brinks truck he will sign. He is not an idiot, he is not worth anywhere near 9 million anywhere else.