[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I mean, there is a whole new hockey season to look forward to, with all sorts of tantalizing storylines to go with it ...

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

So talk about them, no one is stopping you.

The thread discussion went towards high draft picks and their impact on successful teams. Naturally rebuilding discussion ensues from that.
It's not a big deal; most people aren't pounding on the rebuild right now drum.
The thread police don't need ro react everytime the word "rebuild" is mentioned.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know anyone who brings up the lotto every other day for an entire summer.

It's nice to not know any Oiler fans isn't it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Stop being so negative.

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Ya the negativity has to stop. Some folks just want something to look forward to. Nothing wrong with that.

On a positive note, I appreciate that the complainers have entered the “stop being negative about my negativity” phase of obnoxiousness.

Growth. Progress. Enlightenment.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Yep, well said.

Those opposed to rebuilds seem to believe that those who are pro-rebuild see it as some sort of guaranteed Stanley Cup route. We (pro-rebuild folk) know that it isn't, but we do think it's the only real sure-fire non-expansion, non-lighting in a bottle way to put your team in a position to have a consistent shot at things...

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

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

On a positive note, I appreciate that the complainers have entered the “stop being negative about my negativity” phase of obnoxiousness.

Growth. Progress. Enlightenment.

LOL, I guess we have reached the I’m runner your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you phase of obnoxiousness.

People looking forward to a rebuild while knowing it won’t happen now and that we will put a bubble team together for the next couple years is not negative, it is just realistic.

[Vinny01]

The Flames tossed out the rebuild scenario when they took the path of the summer of Brad. Huberdeau, Kadri, Weegar getting max term deals was a clear indication this team is all in and one year where they failed to get some bounces, had some key players have a terrible season, and clearly some issues between the GM and coach.

The team changed the coach and GM with a focus on improving the issues that Treliving and Sutter had which definitely impacted the group. There are spots open for prispects to make the team and hopefully make a positive impact. The shock of the trade and extension have passed and Huberdeau comes back with a fresh perspective. Markstrom will be highly motivated to prove last year was a blip and hearing about the stuff Sutter was saying (telling Vladar to get ready despite the game being 0-0) I think he will be refreshed.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

LOL, I guess we have reached the I’m runner your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you phase of obnoxiousness.



People looking forward to a rebuild while knowing it won’t happen now and that we will put a bubble team together for the next couple years is not negative, it is just realistic.

Ah, yes. "Realistic." At this point it's just a buzz-word people use to promote their own poorly evidenced opinions as incontrovertible facts.

The truth is actually that this team— *ahem* —REALISTICALLY is much better than just a bubble team.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There are only 7 teams that haven’t picked multiple times in the top 5 since 2003.

What I found interesting is that 6/7 have either won the cup or appeared in the finals in that same time frame. And 7/25 teams with multiple picks have failed to do either.

It’s not just Edmonton and Toronto that haven’t broken through, it’s Buffalo, NYI, Columbus, Arizona, New Jersey, Carolina, etc. LA and Chicago are up there for # of top 5 picks with all these teams, but the funny difference is that both LA and CHI’s appearance in the top 5 are pre and post-cup win combined, while all the rest of these teams have yet to even see a cup final in the past 15 years or so (except Jersey a decade ago).

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.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Ummm...St Louis drafted Pietrangelo 4OA 11 years before winning their cup, and didn't pick higher than the teens after that...

How many teams have picked multiple top 5 since 2003 (if you want to include Washington we've gotta go back that far...)? It's probably easier to think of the teams that haven't...

The Blues drafted Pietrangelo in 2008, he started has a full time player starting in 2011. In the 8 years he was on their team they made the playoffs 7 times. He is no doubt a first ballot hall of famer.

[ComixZone]

From 32 Thoughts.

- the Lindholm number will have to be between $8.5 and $9M
- discusses that the Flames are one of the more interesting teams going into the season
- don't believe they are as bad as they were last year
- Markstrom can turn it all around for the team
- Friedman asks how do you optimize Huberdeau? You can argue the value of Lindholm signing a deal (example given is $8.75M), but does signing Lindholm give the ability to get the most out of Huberdeau - otherwise, how do you get value out of Huberdeau?

...sink money to help Huberdeau. Sinking more money into risky UFA contracts to try and make better use of your already cruddy contract situation. If that's how the Flames are approaching things, that's just stupid chasing stupid hoping not to win the stupid prize.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

LOL, I guess we have reached the I’m runner your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you phase of obnoxiousness.

People looking forward to a rebuild while knowing it won’t happen now and that we will put a bubble team together for the next couple years is not negative, it is just realistic.

Why are you a runner and what does that have to do with glue?

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.

Totally, and I wasn’t really making a point, I just thought it was interesting.

Though I will say that if it’s too obvious to point out that rebuilding is hard, it’s probably too obviously to point out that Stanley Cup winners have great players on their teams.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

From 32 Thoughts.

- the Lindholm number will have to be between $8.5 and $9M
- discusses that the Flames are one of the more interesting teams going into the season
- don't believe they are as bad as they were last year
- Markstrom can turn it all around for the team
- Friedman asks how do you optimize Huberdeau? You can argue the value of Lindholm signing a deal (example given is $8.75M), but does signing Lindholm give the ability to get the most out of Huberdeau - otherwise, how do you get value out of Huberdeau?

...sink money to help Huberdeau. Sinking more money into risky UFA contracts to try and make better use of your already cruddy contract situation. If that's how the Flames are approaching things, that's just stupid chasing stupid hoping not to win the stupid prize.

If you’re in a cruddy contract situation for an extended period of time with no easy way out, doesn’t it make a lot more sense to try to maximize it and get everything you can out of it? If you’re locked into guys like Huberdeau and Kadri for at least 4-6 years, you might want to see if you can perform at the highest level your team is capable of for at least that amount of time, no?

Would it be stupid to burn that time doing nothing because you don’t think you can compete and you don’t have the flexibility for a sell-off?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you’re in a cruddy contract situation for an extended period of time with no easy way out, doesn’t it make a lot more sense to try to maximize it and get everything you can out of it? If you’re locked into guys like Huberdeau and Kadri for at least 4-6 years, you might want to see if you can perform at the highest level your team is capable of for at least that amount of time, no?

Would it be stupid to burn that time doing nothing because you don’t think you can compete and you don’t have the flexibility for a sell-off?

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.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

...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...

Yeah, this seems unrealistic to me. Signing Lindholm is probably the best way to maximise Huberdeau's value, and this by virtue of the fact that he can immediately contribute to recouping that value. If Lindholm is traded, the Flames are left with at minimum this next full season where that value is not realized, and then probably the next few years after that. It seems more likely that a trade for futures would result in a hole on the roster at the most critical position for the most critical years of Huberdeau's current contract, which seems like a bad idea if the goal is to get the most out of him.

[Toonage]

He might be, unless their tiny time together last year was a sign of bigger issues between the two in which case signing Lindholm does nothing for Huberdeau.

I'd be very curious to know if their lack of time together was all Darryl or what was up.

[PepsiFree]

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.

Signing Lindholm to $9M isn’t a bad contract though, it’s just not ideal given the other contracts we have. So you’d be forgoing signing good contracts because you’d rather ice a middling team for the duration of the Huberdeau contract.

If the best young prospects and picks you can get are Zary-level and a 2nd rounder, does that actually help?

If Wolf is good enough to make this team competitive, do you want to spend the next several years going into the playoffs with Kadri and Dube as your top two centers? Keep drafting right where we are, wait until Huberdeau and Kadri are on the decline and the players you got for Lindholm are near 30 if they made the team at all, and then what?

Isn’t it smarter to look 3-4 years down the road when guys like Coleman, Markstrom, and Mangiapane can come off the books and be replaced by younger players than handicap the team for the next 3-4 years because reasons?

Seriously, given the roster we have right now, explain how shipping out the top center for a middling return is better for the team. There’s going to be picks and prospects coming in over the next 8 years whether you do it or not, so what’s the actual benefit?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you’re in a cruddy contract situation for an extended period of time with no easy way out, doesn’t it make a lot more sense to try to maximize it and get everything you can out of it? If you’re locked into guys like Huberdeau and Kadri for at least 4-6 years, you might want to see if you can perform at the highest level your team is capable of for at least that amount of time, no?

Would it be stupid to burn that time doing nothing because you don’t think you can compete and you don’t have the flexibility for a sell-off?

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.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The Blues drafted Pietrangelo in 2008, he started has a full time player starting in 2011. In the 8 years he was on their team they made the playoffs 7 times. He is no doubt a first ballot hall of famer.

No argument that he's a great player...but the Blues are an exception to your 'multiple top 5 picks within a few years' claim.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

No argument that he's a great player...but the Blues are an exception to your 'multiple top 5 picks within a few years' claim.

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.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, this seems unrealistic to me. Signing Lindholm is probably the best way to maximise Huberdeau's value, and this by virtue of the fact that he can immediately contribute to recouping that value. If Lindholm is traded, the Flames are left with at minimum this next full season where that value is not realized, and then probably the next few years after that. It seems more likely that a trade for futures would result in a hole on the roster at the most critical position for the most critical years of Huberdeau's current contract, which seems like a bad idea if the goal is to get the most out of him.

A Lindholm trade for futures would likely also make Huberdeau even harder to trade, if his relatively poor performance from last year persisted for additional seasons in the absence of a 1C on the team. It would amount to deliberately turning a player who has the potential to be an organizational asset into a guaranteed organizational anchor, having exactly the opposite effect of what those clamouring for a Lindholm trade are hoping to achieve.

Sign Lindholm, staple Huberdeau onto his left wing, and give Coronato an extended look on his right. Let them develop some chemistry over the next 2-3 seasons. If things go well, but you still want to get out of the back half of Huberdeau's contract, you can hopefully sell high at that time when the 10.5M will look like an average cost for a 1st line 100 point winger.