Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Will they stay or will they go, now?
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
If Lindholm is back you'd have to think it would be to centre EP's line. I wouldn't be against that necessarily, and would be cheaper than Guentzel. It's a risk though.
Jerry the great
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 827
- 828
I think the top 6 RW hole is the one I've gone back and forth the most on. The name i keep coming back to is Arvidsson. I can see him wanting to come here and it not costing a ton to make it happen. only a year older than Guentzel, but maybe a little less tread on the tires due to style of play. $5MM per on a 2 year deal might get it done and i don't think the on ice impact is much of a drop off from Guentzel IF he stays healthy. Spend the difference on a really good 4th line C like Stenlund to carry the PK water.
Considerations for Lindholm:
Center vs. winger
Right handed (which we lack)
Cheaper contract
No injury history
Can play up and down the lineup (utilized by Tocchet effectively)
Skillset matches our core (plays bumper or net front on PP)
Established chemistry
Western conference player (used to heavier travel load)
I don't see what advantage Guentzel has over Lindholm right now. Maybe our top-6 looks better on paper with him but I think our team is better Lindholm. Guentzel is a great player but I don't think he's 2M better than Lindholm. Between the two of them Guentzel is the luxury. If we're spending big money on a forward it should be Reinhart instead.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,781
- 17,734
Guentzel is a flat out more effective player than Lindholm, especially offensively.
Quinton Byfield
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2021
- 339
- 858
Hey, you see all that red? That is bad. You see all that blue? That is good.
Lindholm represents an incredible inefficiency in cost benefit. To pay him big and long is banking on a rebound that a smart managerial group should not even consider. Personally I don’t want Lindholm back at all.
What you should do instead is target someone that gives you 80% of Lindholm gives with less dollars. Targeting someone like Monahan would be a much smart allocation of funds. Good at faceoffs, can produce and help the top 6, much lower term and dollars.
If they really wanted to push the boat out I suppose they could try to keep Lindholm and get Guentzel, but I assume that would absolutely mean Joshua gone, and Mikheyev and Hronek traded. Maybe they resign Zad and Myers and bring in Dillon or Tanev as well? Then you would have to be hoping that one of the remaining d-men can fill in that top spot alongside Hughes, which is a big ask.
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
Dhaliwal has said this morning that that is false - for what it's worth. He does have very chummy relationships with pretty much all the player agents, so you could probably draw a straight line to Guentzel's agent as the source for that comment.
Doesn't mean he's coming here - but that he hasn't shut the door on any potential Canadian destinations, either.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,781
- 17,734
Who knows really. Even if he prefers to play in the States, I’d still be using the Canucks as leverage if I were Guentzel’s agent.
Szechwan
Registered User
- Sep 13, 2006
- 6,090
- 6,186
He'd be dumb to say otherwise. Get that bidding war going
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 24,419
- 8,912
Let’s f’ing go. I’m here for the drama. Blow it up JR.
Guenzel's agent will leverage Canucks offer with his chosen US teams, hopefully they dont concentrate too hard on him, wouldnt want to run out of time.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 24,419
- 8,912
Sat just saying what management tells him. JR’s favourite game, he played with Pettersson, let’s watch.
Guentzel and Boeser share an agent. There’s no probably, we can definitively draw a straight line.
I don’t want to listen to Sat Shah. I have nothing against him but his info is always couched in vagaries with nothing concrete.
That said, the talk of Hronek going to arbitration seems ridiculous. That’s far too long for the Canucks to wait with open cap space. He’ll be sorted out before free agency. That will either be a new contact or traded.
That said, the talk of Hronek going to arbitration seems ridiculous. That’s far too long for the Canucks to wait with open cap space. He’ll be sorted out before free agency. That will either be a new contact or traded.
I'm intrigued by the Hronek trade possibilities, both in terms of return and cleared cap space. That said, the draft is not a good time to trade warm bodies, and if they did trade him it would not be easy to replace his offensive contributions.
I don’t think it’s trade him at the draft but trade him by the draft. The draft is only a few days before free agency so that becomes the hard deadline.
But yeah, players are worth less at the draft than at almost any other time.
Bonham
Registered User
To tell you the truth, if it's not posted on @VCanucksNews then I ain't readin' it...
These numbers are basically useless but that 4% EV def WAR for Guentzel is maybe the lowest I’ve ever seen.
Hey, you see all that red? That is bad. You see all that blue? That is good.
Lindholm represents an incredible inefficiency in cost benefit. To pay him big and long is banking on a rebound that a smart managerial group should not even consider. Personally I don’t want Lindholm back at all.
What you should do instead is target someone that gives you 80% of Lindholm gives with less dollars. Targeting someone like Monahan would be a much smart allocation of funds. Good at faceoffs, can produce and help the top 6, much lower term and dollars.
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 4,242
- 4,479
If we do sign Guentzel hopefully we can trade for his rights and get him on an eight year deal to keep the aav down. I think Guentzel on the Canucks could get 90 points next year.
MarkusNaslund19
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2005
- 5,690
- 8,398
I happen to think Guentzel fits our needs better than Lindholm too, but hockey is far too complex and with far too many variables to reduce it to 'red bad, blue good'. These should be taken with a grain of salt unless they make sense considering context and match the eye-test of a learned watcher.
Hey, you see all that red? That is bad. You see all that blue? That is good.
Lindholm represents an incredible inefficiency in cost benefit. To pay him big and long is banking on a rebound that a smart managerial group should not even consider. Personally I don’t want Lindholm back at all.
What you should do instead is target someone that gives you 80% of Lindholm gives with less dollars. Targeting someone like Monahan would be a much smart allocation of funds. Good at faceoffs, can produce and help the top 6, much lower term and dollars.
Guentzel Pettersson Hoglander
Arvidsson Miller Boeser
Joshua Blueger Garland
Podkolzin Suter PDG
GITER DUN BUD
Arvidsson Miller Boeser
Joshua Blueger Garland
Podkolzin Suter PDG
GITER DUN BUD
- Status
