In a vacuum yes, goalies are relatively cheap. World class goalies on teams that are trying to win a Cup now and which have zero reason to trade said goalie, on the other hand, are not. Bishop is the Lightning's MVP, he carried the team on his back last season when it was decimated by injuries, he's consistently stolen games that the Lightning had no business winning, and whenever he's gone down with injuries the team has gone down with him (see the ECF last season or the first round of the playoffs three seasons ago.) Trading him for anything less than a stud young ELC player who fills a key organizational need (either a RHD PPQB or a top six scoring forward) makes absolutely zero sense for the Lightning.
Proposal: Canucks - solidify Goaltending and Defense (H. Lindholm and B. Bishop)
- Thread starter Horse McHindu
- Start date
In a vacuum yes, goalies are relatively cheap. World class goalies on teams that are trying to win a Cup now and which have zero reason to trade said goalie, on the other hand, are not. Bishop is the Lightning's MVP, he carried the team on his back last season when it was decimated by injuries, he's consistently stolen games that the Lightning had no business winning, and whenever he's gone down with injuries the team has gone down with him (see the ECF last season or the first round of the playoffs three seasons ago.) Trading him for anything less than a stud young ELC player who fills a key organizational need (either a RHD PPQB or a top six scoring forward) makes absolutely zero sense for the Lightning.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Unlikely, since Hutton would have struggled in Lindholm's role, and then his responsibilities, and ice time, would have decreased. You can't just transplant them in a vacuum and expect nothing to change. Boudreau isn't an idiot. He isn't going to put Hutton in Lindholm's role and not make any further adjustments. That's going to lose the team hockey games.
That's before you consider the fact we're talking about defensemen, and defense is actually a pretty important aspect of that position. Vatanen out-scored Lindholm. You aren't going to find any Anaheim fans suggesting that Sami is as good as Lindholm, based on that fact. Nor should you.
Yes, Lindholm is "way better" than Hutton. Hutton was 5th in ES ice time for defensemen, on one of the worst teams in the NHL. Lindholm was 1st in ES ice time for defensemen, on one of the best, and on the team that won the Jennings no less. Not only was Lindholm in a more important role, but he was much more successful in that role.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Lindholm played in 80 games not 82. Lindholm scored a lot more goals reaching 10 while Hutton scored just 1 goal. Goals favored Lindholm not being close. Hutton needs to get better at scoring goals 1 off of 104 shots is terrible. Lindholm had a few more points but in a few more games so that was close.
So for a good amount of time Hutton was playing on the Canucks 3rd pair which was a easier situation then Lindholm playing for the Ducks. According to http://www.rotowire.com/hockey/player.htm?id=3983 Lindholm had 15 power play points on the season while averaging 2:15 of power play time a game while according to http://www.rotowire.com/hockey/player.htm?id=4741 Hutton had 7 power play points on the season while averaging 2:17 of power play time a game. So in 2 less seconds a game on the power play Lindholm had more then double the power play points then Hutton hmm...
If Hutton was on the Ducks playing Lindholm role and mins Ducks wouldn't of won the Jennings trophy because Lindholm is much better defensively. Hutton would of been in the same situation Lindholm had being on the ice with teammates who had trouble scoring outside of the power play. How would Hutton of handled Lindholm role for the entire season? Odds are that he would of had struggles and not been as good as he was in a easier role for the Canucks.
Is Hutton better then Lindholm? Clearly not.
Is Lindholm way better then Hutton? Clearly he is because he was playing in a harder situation all season long and had outproduced him while playing a much better defensive game.
Your talking about this is only even a debate because HF loves to pick a kid who's trending well and overrate him drastically well guess what Hutton played in his 1st NHL season and did well and is now being overrated.
Also note Hutton is older then Lindholm.
Last edited:
There's no appetite among Ducks fans for trading Lindholm at practically any price.
You might as well suggest that the Angels trade Mike Trout to the Mariners for a collection of players and prospects, none of whom are as good as The Guy.
It's just not happening.
You might as well suggest that the Angels trade Mike Trout to the Mariners for a collection of players and prospects, none of whom are as good as The Guy.
It's just not happening.
Why would the Flames move their captain for a player they don't really need? To get a 2nd round pick, LOL.
You don't think teams would line up to bid for Gio if they did make him available?
When you approach a potential trade simply to make your team better, without consideration of the other team's needs, it's usually a terrible proposal.
You didn't disappoint.
The Flames have zero desire to trade Gio, and if they did they would need, as a minimum, another younger, cheaper top d-man coming back, such as Lindholm. At least in that deal the Flames get Gio's replacement and save some cap space.
IDuck
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2007
- 11,214
- 1,007
I wouldn't do either deal.
Vancouver is not in a position to be trading away 5 assets to acquire 2.
Lindholm may be a better player than either Hutton or Horvat, but he is not a better player than both players combined plus a pick. Take out either Horvat or Hutton and replace the 2nd with a 3rd or 4th and the deal might make sense to Vancouver.
Bishop is a soon to be 30 year old UFA who is starting to deal with the injury bug and may not even be a better goaltender than Markstrom who is 5 years younger.
I prefer Markstrom because of the age and salary cost difference plus I think Markstrom is better able to deal with his height than is Bishop who can look gangly at times which gets him caught out of position.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
.
You're entitled to your opinion, mine is based on the fact that we are talking 3 very young players who have played a total of 6 NHL seasons combined with Lindholm having played 3 of those.
So this discussion should be based on the upside of the players rather than what they have accomplished to date, especially considering the significant difference in quality of teammates each has played with.
How much higher is Lindholms ceiling than Huttons?
Does Lindholm have a higher ceiling than does Horvat?
For me, I see 3 young players who should each turn out to be good quality NHL'rs but do I see a significant difference in each's upside?
No I don't.
So what you're saying is: let's scratch out the fact that Lindholm is by far the better player and just go with our gut feeling.
Elias Pettersson
I'm not a troll
- Jan 22, 2014
- 3,843
- 1,827
Haha it's so obvious how overrated Lindholm is on HF by this thread. The fan boys are out in full force here.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
After your previous post, I hope you appreciate the irony here.
Mine is based on the fact that potential is just potential until it's actualized. Lindholm is living up to his potential, and then some. When all things are equal, a proven asset is worth more than an unproven one. That's when all things are equal. In this case, they aren't. Lindholm has better upside than Horvat and Hutton both. Lindholm's three seasons of NHL experience show that he's every bit the talent that he was touted as. More than, even.
There are a lot of highly touted prospects who fall short. Any GM worth his salt is going to value a prospect who has proven himself over an equal prospect who hasn't. The only reason a GM might favor an unproven talent is 1) if age is a factor(it isn't) or if 2) salary is a factor. That one might actually apply for Vancouver, but it's not like Benning couldn't shed salary. If your GM is determined to keep guys like Sbisa over a talent like Lindholm, you need a new GM. Yesterday.
And yes. Lindholm has a much higher ceiling than Horvat and Hutton. He's a 22-year old top pairing defenseman, with lots of room to grow. What does a top pairing defenseman grow into? A #1? A potential elite #1? Yes, he has a higher ceiling. Hutton and Horvat's realistic ceiling is, what? What Lindholm already is with Hutton(if we're being generous), and a #2 center?
Last edited:
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I don't think the value is terrible. It's solid value, if we're looking just at value. I'm not convinced it's quite enough, but that's not really the point. The point is that Anaheim would be trading an already great player, and a potentially elite one, for two smaller, but good pieces.
I'm not going to pretend it's easy to acquire good assets, because GM's don't want to just give those away, but an elite talent is much, much harder to come by. Lindholm is already a key contributor for Anaheim, and he has the potential to be even better. If he were moved, and let's add a lot of emphasis to "if" here, the Ducks would need someone who, at the very least, has the potential(realistically, not in someone's dreams) to be an equivalent talent.
This isn't like going to the bank with a hundred dollar bill, and asking for 20's. Or even 50's. When you have 20 players on your roster, you need as many hundred dollars bills as you can get. This is even more true when you realize that those 20 players breakdown to about 6-10 key players who see big minutes, and big responsibilities.
lindholmie
Registered User
- Feb 22, 2015
- 1,981
- 63
clunk
Registered User
Being a Ducks fan, I would have thought you guys would watch more Canucks games...
Well at least he'll be a surprise to the league. And I honestly, like I said, can't WAIT to link to this thread in the future. It's going to be glorious as I bathe in your tears.
I know the Canucks are the league's laughing stock, and rightfully so, but Hutton is one of our only few bright spots, and a large one at that. Ben Hutton along with Bo Horvat are the only things that will get me to watch nearly every game this season
clunk
Registered User
Scouting reports from before he was even an NHL regular.. He's developed much more since then. Maybe you should actually watch him?
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,278
- 10,201
Goose of Reason
El Zilcho
- May 1, 2013
- 9,732
- 9,466
I agree Hutton is quite underrated and has been for some time, he was excellent in college and stepped in as a top 4 defenseman this year almost seamlessly. But he's not on Lindholm's level at the moment.
clunk
Registered User
Thank you for a level headed and non biased response. I can agree with this... Lindholm is obviously better now, but Ducks fans need to understand why Canuck fans are turning this down. Just doesn't make sense for us, and Hutton has a chance of being better than Lindholm eventually.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
I suppose a one in a million chance is still a chance.
But realistically, it's never going to happen.
Bryanbryoil
Pray For Ukraine
- Sep 13, 2004
- 87,866
- 38,344
I don't know enough about Hutton to say for sure whether the Anaheim deal is a fair one or not. That said Horvat is a player although Anaheim already has Getzlaf and Kesler albeit both are in their 30's.
The 2nd deal would be a tough one for Tampa to turn down IMO, the pick could be very high even if Bishop stands on his head due to Vancouver losing a big piece up front in Horvat.
The 2nd deal would be a tough one for Tampa to turn down IMO, the pick could be very high even if Bishop stands on his head due to Vancouver losing a big piece up front in Horvat.
