The one thing that I liked that he said at the end of the interview is that he definitely sees himself scoring more goals. That is his focus for improvement in the coming years and he wants to be a consistent 20 goal scorer.
So do we. So do we...
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Maybe in a few years but for now it's looking like it will make Frolik expendable if he doesn't have a bounce back year
Players like Frolik and Backlund can never be redundant on a good, deep roster capable of rolling three, even four lines. Fans are going to be pleasantly surprised at how good these players look this season now that Backlund and Frolik can be dedicated in roles that are more fitting to their skill sets.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
The Following User Says Thank You to Hot_Flatus For This Useful Post:
If we have backlund/frolik against the top lines at home, that should improve match ups for two other scoring lines. Hopefully that should make a big difference to the home record this year...
There is value there even without big point totals.
But really, what risk? You mention minutes, but if he's doing well he'll get minutes. Should they target players who've done bad for another team? I'm not getting your concern... it's pretty standard to see someone perform on another team and covet them in a trade.
The concern is effectiveness and efficiency. Deep teams have great players who slot lower in the line up but can play higher. Weaker teams deploy lesser quality players higher in the line up which is why I pointed to Mason Raymond as an example.
Raymond played 17 minutes a game with a terrible Leafs team and put up nearly 20 goals and 45 points. He then comes to a better Calgary team on a new contract, struggles to stay in our top 6, forced to play in the bottom 6 and naturally cannot replicate the same production and is then bought out.
He's an extreme case which I don't see happening with Lindholm. But this is an every year occurance in the league where one player goes to a new team or situation and struggles to produce like the year before because they didn't get the same opportunities as previous.
I don't know what Lindholm is and I can't say I've ever paid attention to his game. So he is an unknown quantity to me, but to me, a less riskier player would be one who scores more efficiently at even strength, per minute that he plays with less opportunities on the PP and etc. That would be a player who I would say has a higher likelihood of breaking out.
The concern is effectiveness and efficiency. Deep teams have great players who slot lower in the line up but can play higher. Weaker teams deploy lesser quality players higher in the line up which is why I pointed to Mason Raymond as an example.
Raymond played 17 minutes a game with a terrible Leafs team and put up nearly 20 goals and 45 points. He then comes to a better Calgary team on a new contract, struggles to stay in our top 6, forced to play in the bottom 6 and naturally cannot replicate the same production and is then bought out.
He's an extreme case which I don't see happening with Lindholm. But this is an every year occurance in the league where one player goes to a new team or situation and struggles to produce like the year before because they didn't get the same opportunities as previous.
I don't know what Lindholm is and I can't say I've ever paid attention to his game. So he is an unknown quantity to me, but to me, a less riskier player would be one who scores more efficiently at even strength, per minute that he plays with less opportunities on the PP and etc. That would be a player who I would say has a higher likelihood of breaking out.
This is clearly evident.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
The concern is effectiveness and efficiency. Deep teams have great players who slot lower in the line up but can play higher. Weaker teams deploy lesser quality players higher in the line up which is why I pointed to Mason Raymond as an example.
Raymond played 17 minutes a game with a terrible Leafs team and put up nearly 20 goals and 45 points. He then comes to a better Calgary team on a new contract, struggles to stay in our top 6, forced to play in the bottom 6 and naturally cannot replicate the same production and is then bought out.
He's an extreme case which I don't see happening with Lindholm. But this is an every year occurance in the league where one player goes to a new team or situation and struggles to produce like the year before because they didn't get the same opportunities as previous.
I don't know what Lindholm is and I can't say I've ever paid attention to his game. So he is an unknown quantity to me, but to me, a less riskier player would be one who scores more efficiently at even strength, per minute that he plays with less opportunities on the PP and etc. That would be a player who I would say has a higher likelihood of breaking out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
This is clearly evident.
I think the point in career of Raymond versus Lindholm is quite different. As is their respective positions, talents and previous history. Raymond's 20 goal season came at 27, after he was a PTO pickup, having been not signed by Vancouver, after having multiple low point season (really only one good one before that one) and he immediately reverted to his previous standard.
Lindholm is 23. He was a first round pick. He has been consistent over the last two seasons.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Don't you think Lindholm should get a look at center? He might be the second best center on the team.
He might be. But we also have Backlund, Jankowski, Ryan and maybe Bennett. Lindholm could also be the best or 2nd best RW. And I’m not sure Czarnik is hot to the task of being the #2 RW if Lindholm is at centre.
Our depth on RW is worse therefore I think Lindholm shores up that position. If one of our centre gets injured then I think you can move Lindholm to centre
What was Carolina offering that ended their negotiations? You would think Carolina would have loved a contract like this.
Seems like the owner took a hardline stance and didn’t want to pay for potential. Hard to win when you trade your players just before they’re about to break out.
He might be. But we also have Backlund, Jankowski, Ryan and maybe Bennett. Lindholm could also be the best or 2nd best RW. And I’m not sure Czarnik is hot to the task of being the #2 RW if Lindholm is at centre.
Our depth on RW is worse therefore I think Lindholm shores up that position. If one of our centre gets injured then I think you can move Lindholm to centre
Plus its always a nice advantage to have a winger on the ice who can take draws if he has to.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Nope. Lindholm can play RW too and there’s a good chance he does. Centre is the most important position up front so having good depth there isn’t redundant.
What was Carolina offering that ended their negotiations? You would think Carolina would have loved a contract like this.
rumour is they offered only a shade over 4m.
LeBrun specified, saying that the Canes are currently offering a tick above $4 million dollars as an AAV. Lindholm’s camp is staying firm on their asking price, which is believed to be just north of $5 million.
I guess not everyone can be as smart as you. But my point is still valid regardless of what you think.
But you went from worrying that Lindholm will regress, that he played well before and because of that there's somehow a chance he won't play well now.
Then, in your last post, you talk about players more likely to break out that you'd rather target.
Which is it? Are you worried he'll regress, or won't break out? I don't think your point *is* valid, as you haven't backed it up with good reasoning and moved the goal posts.
I think the point in career of Raymond versus Lindholm is quite different. As is their respective positions, talents and previous history. Raymond's 20 goal season came at 27, after he was a PTO pickup, having been not signed by Vancouver, after having multiple low point season (really only one good one before that one) and he immediately reverted to his previous standard.
Lindholm is 23. He was a first round pick. He has been consistent over the last two seasons.
Mason Raymond is just one example of the endless examples that exist out there. It just happened to be a recent one off the top of my head that was relative to the Flames and the posters here.
For the record, I'm not even dumping on Lindholm here. He's clearly a quality NHLer who's probably going to be a good player for us. It was a simple remark that I didn't want his cap hit starting with a $5.xx and at the end of the day, it doesn't.
its a nice top 6 for sure... hopefully, the bottom 6 will pick it up this upcoming year... i think Ryan will definitely help, as will having Frolik add some scoring ability to the bottom six
But you went from worrying that Lindholm will regress, that he played well before and because of that there's somehow a chance he won't play well now.
Then, in your last post, you talk about players more likely to break out that you'd rather target.
Which is it? Are you worried he'll regress, or won't break out? I don't think your point *is* valid, as you haven't backed it up with good reasoning and moved the goal posts.
It's all of the above and I would hope that the Flames management group does the same thing considering how many failed trades/acquisitions we've had in the last few years. I hope the team has hired some more critical thinkers.
Anybody can find a way to spin a trade or a player to make it sound like it sounds great, but for me, I'm looking at it from all angles here and my initial instinct upon reading that Lindholm wanted $5M+ was not a positive one.
I'm not even out right saying that he'll regress, I'm just saying, the possibility exists from what I'm seeing. I'm not just going to assume that because he's 23 and a 1st round pick that he's automatically just going to continue to improve. That isn't exactly valid either and with the limited amount of knowledge we all have of this particular player, I don't know how one could even back up anything with "good reasoning." It's all just opinion and conjecture at this point.
