[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

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.

I just threw it out but they could make it work. You don't think players want to have a direct hand in securing franchise altering players? I'd say many would. Some go to the IIHF World Championships after the season is over to keep playing. And more revenue means higher cap and more money for the players.

I think many would've paid to watch teams compete for Bedard. And a half full arena plus TV rights is better than nothing, which they get right now.

You have teams intentionally tank for generational players now, how would tanking to miss playoffs and play in the draft tournament be any different? Except it would award higher placed teams, so there's more motivation to finish higher standings even if you aren't making the playoffs.

Makes trades more interesting potentially, and there's all kinds of trade protections in place, no reason they couldn't alter them to not be lottery protected but tournament placement protected.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

Because acquiring teams have better players than them and they'd be adding to their own rosters. They're good players - but they aren't the key pieces that carry a team, and we should not be treating them that way.

We drafted 16th last year. If you were to trade off Lindholm, Backlund, Hanifin, and Tanev throughout the course of the season...you don't think that could drive the team to a top 10 pick?

I just don't see Lindholm as a top line centre that is going to take this team beyond where it has been...and I'm just hoping they set their sights a bit higher. I think having Lindholm and Kadri as your 1-2 for the next half decade just won't result in much beyond what we've seen.

[Aarongavey]

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.

If he is that bad that he only gets you middling prospects and late picks why sign him to an 8 year deal?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If he is that bad that he only gets you middling prospects and late picks why sign him to an 8 year deal?

Then no team would ever sign their UFAs. Rentals usually go for late 1sts and middling prospects. Is the team better with Lindholm on it or a return like in the Mark Stone or Horvat trade. The answer is pretty clear in the short and medium term. The only way they rebuild is if Lindholm doesn’t want to re-sign and even then they probably go with some re-tool trade that leaves them in the middle.
I’d prefer if they tossed in the towel but I’m just hoping they hit some steals with their draft picks and the vets bounce back.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Because acquiring teams have better players than them and they'd be adding to their own rosters. They're good players - but they aren't the key pieces that carry a team, and we should not be treating them that way.

We drafted 16th last year. If you were to trade off Lindholm, Backlund, Hanifin, and Tanev throughout the course of the season...you don't think that could drive the team to a top 10 pick?

I just don't see Lindholm as a top line centre that is going to take this team beyond where it has been...and I'm just hoping they set their sights a bit higher. I think having Lindholm and Kadri as your 1-2 for the next half decade just won't result in much beyond what we've seen.

You think everything that went wrong last year is just the new normal and we’re headed toward drafting 16th again? Bleak. I guess I just disagree that was the case and think it’s a super weird season use as the model and to assume that’s basically the most you’re going to get out of this roster.

I think the team will bounce back significantly, including Huberdeau and the goaltenders, so no, I don’t think losing those guys gets you into the top 10 picks. I think losing them is what would keep us knocking on the door around 15th. Especially if we keep some of them to the trade deadline.

But again, I think it’s going to be tough to get value from a Lindholm trade given the market, and I actually think he’s a quality top line center. But you’re saying he’s not and that we’d somehow fall down the standings and would recoup all this value from trading a guy who isn’t a key piece and isn’t a quality top line center in a market where guys who actually fit that mold have been given away for free?

He’s either a lot better than you’re giving him credit for and you’re going to get some, but not much value for him because of the market while the team actually suffers without him. Or he’s exactly who you say he is and you’re going to get basically nothing for him because of the market and his leaving is going to have a negligible impact.

You seem to want it to be both ways. So good we get all this value and suffer without him, but so bad that he’s not worth signing and we’ll never win with him.

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If he is that bad that he only gets you middling prospects and late picks why sign him to an 8 year deal?

Did you read the post? It has nothing to do with quality. Teams that are going to try to acquire a player like that are going to be closer to contenders which means:
- late picks (good teams have later picks)
- middling prospects (contenders usually have a lesser prospect pool)

Boston is a good example. There is also the obstacle of fitting in his contract for a lot of the teams that would want him. We’ve seen how tight that makes things this year, the market sucks.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

If he is that bad that he only gets you middling prospects and late picks why sign him to an 8 year deal?

It's not that he's "that bad". It's a function of what teams would want him and what teams couldn't use him at the stage in their competitive cycle. Team with high picks are rebuilding. They don't need a Lindholm. A team like Colorado could use him, because he arguably pushes them into the Stanley Cup favorite category. Their picks are not going to be early ones.

[Strange Brew]

I doubt a team like Colorado gives him an eight year contract. To me that’s the question here, is he the kind of player you sign to that kind of contract. But that may be moot, sounds like Flames are committed to that length of a deal.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I doubt a team like Colorado gives him an eight year contract. To me that’s the question here, is he the kind of player you sign to that kind of contract. But that may be moot, sounds like Flames are committed to that length of a deal.

If Colorado didn’t have MacKinnon I bet they would

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If Colorado didn’t have MacKinnon I bet they would

If they were desperate to fill that gap while they have a window I could maybe see a contract close to that. In our very different position? It seems like nobody would, since nobody has jammed themelves into the tiniest possible cell in "cap jail" before.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I doubt a team like Colorado gives him an eight year contract. To me that’s the question here, is he the kind of player you sign to that kind of contract. But that may be moot, sounds like Flames are committed to that length of a deal.

It doesn't matter what contract they give him. The trade is for his services this year. Lindholm has no NTC so he can't control where he goes. and with the Landerskog situation, they may well offer him a decent contract anyway. They really only have Mackinnon on a long term big money contract - and they need to make hay while Makar is under contract (for 4 years). The only real question is whether they need to spend money on a goalie.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It doesn't matter what contract they give him. The trade is for his services this year. Lindholm has no NTC so he can't control where he goes. and with the Landerskog situation, they may well offer him a decent contract anyway. They really only have Mackinnon on a long term big money contract - and they need to make hay while Makar is under contract (for 4 years). The only real question is whether they need to spend money on a goalie.

My point was whether Lindholm was worth an 8 year deal, not who would trade for him as a rental. Lots of teams would do that and that doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the contract negotiation IMO.

[Sandman]

I bet Boston would LOVE to get Lindholm on an eight-year deal.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bonded

If Colorado didn’t have MacKinnon I bet they would

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.

If the Flames trade him to a contender with such weak prospects, that contender probably does not have the cap room to re-sign Lindholm. So Voila, the problem is solved and the Flames can pull a St Louis Blues with Dougie Weight and get picks and prospects and the player that they traded away.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Get rid of the salary cap.

You forgot to add “and kill a number of Canadian franchises”.

[The Cobra]

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.

While your premise is correct, Chicago has made it clear they are not currently interested in signing UFA’s to long term deals, nor trading prospects for established players. They want to build through the draft, then eventually use their cap space to pay those players. They certainly gave no intention of trading any first round picks.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You forgot to add “and kill a number of Canadian franchises”.

Always hilarious when fans of small market Canadian teams bring up getting rid of the cap, lol. I guess they're fans of Toronto/New York/Detriot etc.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

While your premise is correct, Chicago has made it clear they are not currently interested in signing UFA’s to long term deals, nor trading prospects for established players. They want to build through the draft, then eventually use their cap space to pay those players. They certainly gave no intention of trading any first round picks.

Yeah, Chicago was just a name I threw out of a developing team that a guy like Hanifin (as oppposed to Lindholm) could fit into, since he’s still young enough to be there when the rest of the team is developed. Plus, they also scored their franchise draft pick.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Always hilarious when fans of small market Canadian teams bring up getting rid of the cap, lol. I guess they're fans of Toronto/New York/Detriot etc.

The cap is a double edged sword though. If all teams can spend the same, then the advantage goes to teams in attractive cities and tax havens. The cap favours big cities and hot spots. I wish the CBA allowed for tax adjustment for each team (can’t do anything about the weather).

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The cap is a double edged sword though. If all teams can spend the same, then the advantage goes to teams in attractive cities and tax havens. The cap favours big cities and hot spots.

Right, but those opportunities shrivel as those teams sign high end players… if they didn’t have a cap they would just land all of them.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Right, but those opportunities shrivel as those teams sign high end players… if they didn’t have a cap they would just land all of them.

I suppose, or the teams with the richest owners.

Canadian teams unfortunately have the most rabid fans but the least attractive cities for players (especially players in their mid 20s).