Proposal: Canucks - solidify Goaltending and Defense (H. Lindholm and B. Bishop)
- Thread starter Horse McHindu
- Start date
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
Again those players aren't enough to get Lindholm but its not that far off, the Ducks don't get ripped off.
Brutal value for Lindholm. Like in the 40% of his value range.
Don't see why one would trade Nolan Patrick for a year of Ben Bishop either.
Don't see why one would trade Nolan Patrick for a year of Ben Bishop either.
THall4
Registered User
IMO the Canucks do not have the assets to acquire Lindholm, esp from a divisional rival. Bishop I can see but they have Miller and Marsktrom long term...maybe if the dump Miller off somewhere...or Vegas takes him..
Grazzy
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2012
- 730
- 1
As a Canucks fan (and a huge Horvat fan), I make that deal with Anaheim in a second. Lindholm is a legit #1 defencemen and the cost on acquiring him would be gigantic and definitely not something the Canucks can afford to do. Also, The Canucks look pretty solid on defense (with Juvi, Hutton, Subban, Tryamkin etc.) and really weak up front once the Sedins retire. So again, don't know why you would make that trade - doesn't fit needs.
Alexander Edler
Registered User
Grazzy
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2012
- 730
- 1
Miller's contract expires at the end of the year, but Markstrom looks to be a capable starting goalie and then there's also Demko who looks very promising. I don't think you make that trade especially when you consider that there's a solid chance the 1st is a lottery pick.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,362
- 2,277
If they can't come to terms with Lindholm, that will be over money. That probably means the 14M 36 year old wonder twins are out. Even at 50%... if they had 7M extra $ it would go to keeping Lindholm who will be a better asset for much longer.
Why on earth would the Lightning, who are very much in "win now" mode, trade a top-two goalie in the NHL for a backup goalie and a pick? They essentially kill their chances at the Cup this season and get absolutely nothing in return that will help them on the ice for at least the next few years. This deal is beyond horrible for Tampa.
Killer Orcas
Registered User
Value aside why is Vancouver trading for a soon to be UFA and giving up a possible top 5 pick and their starter? Horvat , Hutton and a 2nd for Lindholm is pretty close but neither club would do it. Lindholm is a stud and that is something you don't give up without a severe over payment which the Canucks are in no position to do at this time.
Canucks want Bishop he's free next year just money and they keep their 1st and Markstrom. People need to realize were rebuilding and need multiple assets not less. Lindholm is great but not at the cost of Horvat, Hutton and the 2nd we just don't have the depth to lose that much at this time.
Easy pass for Canucks and Ducks wouldn't agree either. Tampa would be ready to sign now.
Canucks want Bishop he's free next year just money and they keep their 1st and Markstrom. People need to realize were rebuilding and need multiple assets not less. Lindholm is great but not at the cost of Horvat, Hutton and the 2nd we just don't have the depth to lose that much at this time.
Easy pass for Canucks and Ducks wouldn't agree either. Tampa would be ready to sign now.
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
Uhhhh no, top 2 goalie? No, and I would love to see anyone other than a lightning fans agree with that. Bishop once again is a UFA who they presumably will not resign, (due to that thing called a salary cap) they do have another pretty good goalie there no? To say this is beyond horrible for Tampa is so ridiculous it's hard to even comprehend. This isn't even taking into consideration the fact that the Nucks do not need a goalie.
Nucklehead Supreme
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 4,387
- 2,377
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,939
- 18,021
If I'm Yzerman, I make that trade. That pick has a very real chance of being top 5 even with Bishop helping the Canucks win games.
Ducks say no, they're trying to win now and Lindholm is their #1 dman. That trade doesn't make them a better team this year at all.
Ducks say no, they're trying to win now and Lindholm is their #1 dman. That trade doesn't make them a better team this year at all.
Lemmiwinks
Registered User
Not a chance in the world. It's Lindholm's age and potential that ramps his value up. Giordano turns 33 at the beginning of next season.
Bishop is the closest thing in the league to Carey Price and the Lightning are trying to win the Stanley Cup now; do you understand that? Because non-bottomfeeding teams don't trade their MVPs for garbage. The Lightning have zero use for Markstrom and a pick doesn't help them while their window is open. You may want to learn how actual contending teams operate before you start calling my posts ridiculous.
Lightning say no, they're trying to win now and Bishop is their #1 goalie (and MVP.) That trade doesn't make them a better team this year (or for the next few years) at all.
After you first made the comment about Hutton being a potential #1D I had to do some research and could not find one scouting report that said he would even be a top pairing D, in fact the best that was said was that he could be a middle pairing also mentioned depth defenceman that doesn't sound like a #1D to me
David Bruce Banner
Acid Raven Bed Burn
No thanks to the Bishop deal, Markstrom is fine for us for now, and I think Demko will eventually be the next Schneider.
I think I'd pass on the Lindholm deal as well. He would require the kind of overpayment that would cripple this team. I'm happy taking my chances with Horvat, Hutton and the ++'s
I think I'd pass on the Lindholm deal as well. He would require the kind of overpayment that would cripple this team. I'm happy taking my chances with Horvat, Hutton and the ++'s
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,278
- 10,201
no thanks lindholm is on the cusp of being a franchise dman which the ducks have been searching for, for many years. it takes an overpay to get him and this isn't it.
Halla
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2016
- 14,727
- 3,779
even if hutton is just a decent 2nd pairing dman?
yeah, cant wait. I'll be saving this one as well. I'll revisit your comments october 2018
Nylanderthal
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2010
- 7,901
- 6,252
I'm thinking the ducks can probably send a contract back with him, be it stoner or bieksa, there are ways they can make it work. I know this trade forces Kesler either moved to the RW or 3c but that forward group would be gnarly and cup worthy.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
We are not trading Lindholm for the Sedin Twins even at 50% retained each. A expansion draft is coming soon don't want to be spending protection spots on the twins. Even if no expansion draft was coming would not make that trade because in two years the Sedin twins will be gone. You don't trade a player like Lindholm like that it is crazy.
