Player Discussion Elias Lindholm

[iFan]

The idea of Lindholm, Petey and someone else sounds appealing on paper. Moving Petey to the wing would allow him more space to be creative, especially with a legitimate scoring threat while Lindholm takes on the more responsible aspects of center. It's just a matter of how we make all that work cap wise.

Hronek really feels like he's gone already at this point. If Zadorov and Lindholm actually take discounts, I can't exactly fault management in dropping the one guy who wants to squeeze us. Granted, we still don't know about Joshua.

fans said this about JT Miller, then he re-signed. Relax jumping to these conclusions. It'll play out the way it plays out.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

fans said this about JT Miller, then he re-signed. Relax jumping to these conclusions. It'll play out the way it plays out.

Yes. Lets not speculate during the offseason.

 

[oceanchild]

I thought the ROR deal was fine. Term wasn't crazy and the AAV was lower than I expected. Lindholm is an inferior player to ROR and paying him drastically more is just bananas. Lindholm isn't even worth $7M today, let alone into his 30s.

I think if you have to justify a signing with, "well yeah we know it'll age badly so here's how we can prepare to get out it....", it's not a good signing.

If you sign Lindholm, the team isn't really going to have the space to add any other top-six wingers. Bringing back Lindholm only makes any sense if he's going to be a top-six fixture. Trading Garland to make room is just dumb, and I've had many other back-and-forth posts about that. Garland's already giving them 1st line ES calibre play at $5M. They're not going to find another more cost-efficient top-six forward than that. He was also very effective in the playoffs. You want non-PDO scoring, that's Garland.

I don’t know how your valuing Lindholms play. He had a bad season for sure and was better in the playoffs. Sure, I get what you’re saying in response to me suggesting they front load the dollars. That for me is a risk management tool and something they should consider on any contract that has significant value. You only have so many levers as a large market team with more cash available and that is one of them. Makes sense to me to put your asset in a place that its value is maximized. I don’t think one year that went poorly encapsulates this player and while I agree that ROR is a better player currently, his signing was before a large cap increase, came at a later age, and he has more concern about wear and tear. I don’t think a center that profiles like Lindholm will be available without us spending significant assets and likely won’t be much cheaper. I do find it interesting that the front office staff and coaching group who have been a revelation for this franchise feel he is worth the cost, but you value your own eye test and somehow think more of your opinion then the one coming from the team (possibly). As for Garland, many on this board wanted to trade him earlier, I’m not sure on your opinion of the matter, but it would see like a sell high possibility. The top 6 is more important and he isn’t currently playing with the first two lines. I get depth is important, but he doesn’t seem to fit and you can get a player that puts up 80% of what Harland does for like 50% of the cost.

 

[Hodgy]

One of the problems with the Lindholm contract is the fact he hasn't shown he can play well with either Pettersson or Miller (with the latter not being tested). This would make the re-signing, to me, incredibly risky, since we absolutely have to upgrade Petey's wingers, and signing Lindholm may not accomplish that but may also take up so much cap space that we are further precluded from any other alternative.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

If he actually turned down 7x7 like rumour suggested then good luck to him

It was still a good trade, he brought us some great playoffs memories

 

[bossram]

I don’t know how your valuing Lindholms play. He had a bad season for sure and was better in the playoffs. Sure, I get what you’re saying in response to me suggesting they front load the dollars. That for me is a risk management tool and something they should consider on any contract that has significant value. You only have so many levers as a large market team with more cash available and that is one of them. Makes sense to me to put your asset in a place that its value is maximized. I don’t think one year that went poorly encapsulates this player and while I agree that ROR is a better player currently, his signing was before a large cap increase, came at a later age, and he has more concern about wear and tear. I don’t think a center that profiles like Lindholm will be available without us spending significant assets and likely won’t be much cheaper. I do find it interesting that the front office staff and coaching group who have been a revelation for this franchise feel he is worth the cost, but you value your own eye test and somehow think more of your opinion then the one coming from the team (possibly). As for Garland, many on this board wanted to trade him earlier, I’m not sure on your opinion of the matter, but it would see like a sell high possibility. The top 6 is more important and he isn’t currently playing with the first two lines. I get depth is important, but he doesn’t seem to fit and you can get a player that puts up 80% of what Harland does for like 50% of the cost.

What do you want me to say? Yeah, I'm stating my opinion of the player based on what I value, viewing him, and his overall statistical profile. If we should just accept appeals to authority as correct and that the "brass knows best", there wouldn't be any discussion. By that logic, I guess Benning was a fantastic GM by virtue of the fact that he was a GM.

Lindholm's production is essentially a product of whoever he plays with. Paying $7M for that calibre of player is crazy. He is solid defensively, but not elite, and it doesn't make up that gap. I said at the deadline, I liked the trade as a rental. And I have the same take now.

I never wanted Garland traded and that take proved to be the correct one, as he's shown his value. He is not "depth". He is a legit top-six player. He drives play and scores at ES at a first line rate, and plays top-six minutes. There is no logical way to define him as "depth". They're really not going to find a better player for cheaper. People keep saying this, "you can get 80% of the player at 50% of the cost easily". Like no, you literally will not. Tell me which player then?

 

[Breakers]

Get a 4th rounder from Boston and be done with it

 

[oceanchild]

What do you want me to say? Yeah, I'm stating my opinion of the player based on what I value, viewing him, and his overall statistical profile. If we should just accept appeals to authority as correct and that the "brass knows best", there wouldn't be any discussion. By that logic, I guess Benning was a fantastic GM by virtue of the fact that he was a GM.

Lindholm's production is essentially a product of whoever he plays with. Paying $7M for that calibre of player is crazy. He is solid defensively, but not elite, and it doesn't make up that gap. I said at the deadline, I liked the trade as a rental. And I have the same take now.

I never wanted Garland traded and that take proved to be the correct one, as he's shown his value. He is not "depth". He is a legit top-six player. He drives play and scores at ES at a first line rate, and plays top-six minutes. There is no logical way to define him as "depth". They're really not going to find a better player for cheaper. People keep saying this, "you can get 80% of the player at 50% of the cost easily". Like no, you literally will not. Tell me which player then?

Hoglander and Joshua on the Canucks alone as a 80 % at 50% and I know the counting stats are not exactly 80% but the cost is also no 50%. I feel like he is getting overhyped by this fan base at this time. As for appeals to authority, I know Benning is a moron and I knew it when he was in charge. Significant difference between watching professionals work and trusting them, to blindly accepting what is said. This management and its limited to them and my opinion could evolve.. seems to be spot on and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, until further notice.

 

[bossram]

Hoglander and Joshua on the Canucks alone as a 80 % at 50% and I know the counting stats are not exactly 80% but the cost is also no 50%. I feel like he is getting overhyped by this fan base at this time. As for appeals to authority, I know Benning is a moron and I knew it when he was in charge. Significant difference between watching professionals work and trusting them, to blindly accepting what is said. This management and its limited to them and my opinion could evolve.. seems to be spot on and I will give them the benefit of the doubt, until further notice.

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that's fine. But like, it's seems pretty bizarre for your criticism of another poster to be "you don't agree with management". It's a discussion board. That's kinda the point. And again, by the logic you provided (the brass knows, they're the professionals), then literally any GM is always making the right decision by virtue of being in that role.

And no, Garland is not getting overhyped here. He is finally being accurately described. He drives play and scores at ES at a 1st line level. Those are just factual assertions. Joshua and Hoglander do not drive play at that level, and their goal totals are inflated by unsustainable shooting. Not that I don't like those players (I've said elsewhere I would try to retain Joshua), but they are simply not the same calibre as Garland.

 

[oceanchild]

If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that's fine. But like, it's seems pretty bizarre for your criticism of another poster to be "you don't agree with management". It's a discussion board. That's kinda the point. And again, by the logic you provided (the brass knows, they're the professionals), then literally any GM is always making the right decision by virtue of being in that role.

And no, Garland is not getting overhyped here. He is finally being accurately described. He drives play and scores at ES at a 1st line level. Those are just factual assertions. Joshua and Hoglander do not drive play at that level, and their goal totals are inflated by unsustainable shooting. Not that I don't like those players (I've said elsewhere I would try to retain Joshua), but they are simply not the same calibre as Garland.

To the first point, I feel like your view on Lindholm is suffering from recency bias and he will improve and his game is equivalent of a second line Center. I don’t know the details from behind the scene, but the team does and I trust them. I personally think a $7m contract ages well (not for 8 years and would prefer the term be limited to 5 but know that is unlikely). Second line centers of his ilk are now $8m so I believe that the $7m prices in a tough season. As for Garland, we clearly disagree on the player, what he brings and the cap allocation. Unless he is on a top 6 line and producing more than his current point totals, I think it would be better to reallocate those dollars on a forward that scores more. You can get a $8m and $2m forwards (or $9m and $1m etc.) or have two $5m forwards with Garland being one. I don’t see any $5m forwards available that are game changers.

 

[F A N]

I would have been happy with ROR on that deal and everyone thought it was a bad deal. I don’t think it was or will be. I also don’t think a $7m x 7 is going to play out poorly.

I thought the ROR deal was fine. Term wasn't crazy and the AAV was lower than I expected. Lindholm is an inferior player to ROR and paying him drastically more is just bananas. Lindholm isn't even worth $7M today, let alone into his 30s.

Besides the fact that the Canucks would have to have offered more than Nashville for ROR to sign here, timing contributes a lot to the discussion though. Whether ROR is better in his prime is completely irrelevant. Last offseason, the general perception here was that the Canucks were not ready to contend. ROR was 32. Lindholm will turn 30 in December. And even if you compare the two players' stats at the time of trade, O'Reilly was in the midst of a 19 points in 40 games season and wasn't fast to begin with. Lindholm had 32 points in 49 games and is a much better skater.

$7M for Lindholm is definitely steep. He'll need to be play like he did in his prime for a few years for the contract to be worth it.

One of the problems with the Lindholm contract is the fact he hasn't shown he can play well with either Pettersson or Miller (with the latter not being tested). This would make the re-signing, to me, incredibly risky, since we absolutely have to upgrade Petey's wingers, and signing Lindholm may not accomplish that but may also take up so much cap space that we are further precluded from any other alternative.

They've barely tried though. It's possible Lindholm does well with a healthy and productive Petey.

 

[bossram]

To the first point, I feel like your view on Lindholm is suffering from recency bias and he will improve and his game is equivalent of a second line Center. I don’t know the details from behind the scene, but the team does and I trust them. I personally think a $7m contract ages well (not for 8 years and would prefer the term be limited to 5 but know that is unlikely). Second line centers of his ilk are now $8m so I believe that the $7m prices in a tough season. As for Garland, we clearly disagree on the player, what he brings and the cap allocation. Unless he is on a top 6 line and producing more than his current point totals, I think it would be better to reallocate those dollars on a forward that scores more. You can get a $8m and $2m forwards (or $9m and $1m etc.) or have two $5m forwards with Garland being one. I don’t see any $5m forwards available that are game changers.

No, it's not recency bias at all. I've never had a very high view of Lindholm, even in his glory days next to Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Like I've said before, his production is largely a function of the quality of play of his linemates (and successful PP1 unit). That is who he is.

To me, he is ideally slotted as a 3C on a contender at this point. They can't pay him $7m to be that. It's just crazy.

We disagree on Garland, because I flat out think your evaluation is wrong. For illustration, here are two players at ES:
Player A: 41 points, 2.4 points/60, +0.65 RelTM xG/60 differential
Player B: 45 points, 2.42 points/60, +0.36 RelTM xG/60 differential

One of these guys is, in your mind, "depth player" Conor Garland. The other is elite forward and pending top free agent Sam Reinhart. Yet their ES production and play-driving ability is basically the same. People need to figure this out, PP production is almost completely detached from ES play and should be considered as such. Or is Sam Reinhart a 3rd liner?

Besides the fact that the Canucks would have to have offered more than Nashville for ROR to sign here, timing contributes a lot to the discussion though. Whether ROR is better in his prime is completely irrelevant. Last offseason, the general perception here was that the Canucks were not ready to contend. ROR was 32. Lindholm will turn 30 in December. And even if you compare the two players' stats at the time of trade, O'Reilly was in the midst of a 19 points in 40 games season and wasn't fast to begin with. Lindholm had 32 points in 49 games and is a much better skater.

$7M for Lindholm is definitely steep. He'll need to be play like he did in his prime for a few years for the contract to be worth it.

I'm not saying and never said the Canucks should have signed ROR. I'm saying that ROR is a relevant comparable (and IMO a superior player at the time of his signing) and thus Lindholm's contract should be similar. That the Canucks would have to pay exorbitantly more than that is ridiculous and they should just walk from Lindholm.

 

[JohnHodgson]

Get a 4th rounder from Boston and be done with it

The smartest thing they can do right now is to get picks for all of their major UFAs: Zadorov, Lindholm and Joshua. Replace these guys with cap efficient contracts like Dillon, Bleuger, and Duhaime. Use surplus cap to address the top six.

4th/5ths can be valuable at the deadline. That's how you can get depth guys like Lafferty or DeSmith.

 

[oceanchild]

No, it's not recency bias at all. I've never had a very high view of Lindholm, even in his glory days next to Gaudreau and Tkachuk. Like I've said before, his production is largely a function of the quality of play of his linemates (and successful PP1 unit). That is who he is.

To me, he is ideally slotted as a 3C on a contender at this point. They can't pay him $7m to be that. It's just crazy.

We disagree on Garland, because I flat out think your evaluation is wrong. For illustration, here are two players at ES:
Player A: 41 points, 2.4 points/60, +0.65 RelTM xG/60 differential
Player B: 45 points, 2.42 points/60, +0.36 RelTM xG/60 differential

One of these guys is, in your mind, "depth player" Conor Garland. The other is elite forward and pending top free agent Sam Reinhart. Yet their ES production and play-driving ability is basically the same. People need to figure this out, PP production is almost completely detached from ES play and should be considered as such. Or is Sam Reinhart a 3rd liner?


I'm not saying and never said the Canucks should have signed ROR. I'm saying that ROR is a relevant comparable (and IMO a superior player at the time of his signing) and thus Lindholm's contract should be similar. That the Canucks would have to pay exorbitantly more than that is ridiculous and they should just walk from Lindholm.

On Garland: stats have limitations and are best used as a guide. garland has had multiple NHL caliber coaches but has not been used in a primary role. At what point is it acceptable that he is termed and considered a top 9 forward.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Maybe I'm out of the loop with what fair value is for players, but my first thought on 6x8 for Zadorov is "Yuck". Zadorov, from what I've heard from Avs fans, is a very streaky player who can look like a top pairing guy when he's on his game but can fall off the face of the earth and steal the chaos giraffe title from Myers.

I liked him a lot in his time here and I definitely want to sign him, but giving term and money to him is a little bit frightening.

didn't he play for the Avs like 5 years ago?

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Management needs to evaluate whether Lindholm is coming off a poor season or it is a sign of things to come. Last season, without Gaudreau and Tkachuk, he still put up 22 goals and 64 points and good defensively. Very comparable the player management saw in Horvat.

Horvats not good defensively.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

The idea of Lindholm, Petey and someone else sounds appealing on paper. Moving Petey to the wing would allow him more space to be creative, especially with a legitimate scoring threat while Lindholm takes on the more responsible aspects of center. It's just a matter of how we make all that work cap wise.

Hronek really feels like he's gone already at this point. If Zadorov and Lindholm actually take discounts, I can't exactly fault management in dropping the one guy who wants to squeeze us. Granted, we still don't know about Joshua.

never once thought he will be traded. fan speculation means absolutely nothing

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

No disrespect to Lindholm, this is a serious question - what teams out there do we foresee topping a 7x7 offer for him?

 

[Killer Orcas]

No disrespect to Lindholm, this is a serious question - what teams out there do we foresee topping a 7x7 offer for him?

Columbus past chemistry with Johnny G and they have cap space and need.

 

[Nucker101]

No disrespect to Lindholm, this is a serious question - what teams out there do we foresee topping a 7x7 offer for him?

Boston seems to be the popular guess, even if they just match the Canucks offer he might prefer riding shotgun with Pastrnak over 3C here

 

[rea]

More I think about it, I think letting him go is prob best. 7m could be spent so many ways to adding to the depth of this team, it's just not a luxury they can afford to spend down the middle in salary for 3 guys. W that money they could get a more than passable winger for ep, while also filling a 3c w someone defensively responsible.

 

[David71]

If he actually turned down 7x7 like rumour suggested then good luck to him

It was still a good trade, he brought us some great playoffs memories

thanks for your services, cya. lindholm can get the bag elsewhere. 8x7 7x7 from boston or columbus for example.

 

[F A N]

I'm not saying and never said the Canucks should have signed ROR. I'm saying that ROR is a relevant comparable (and IMO a superior player at the time of his signing) and thus Lindholm's contract should be similar. That the Canucks would have to pay exorbitantly more than that is ridiculous and they should just walk from Lindholm.

I get that, my point is that the Canucks would of had to offer more to sign ROR based on other factors including taxes and anonymity. I disagree that O'Reilly at the time of signing is superior.

ROR was coming off a 16 goal 30 point in 53 games season. He had 3 goals 9 points in 11 playoff games. The previous season he had 21 goals 58 points in 78 games. The prior year ROR had 21 goals 58 points in 78 games

Lindholm had 15 goals 44 points in 75 games. He had 5 goals 10 points in 13 playoff games. The previous season Lindholm had 22 goals 64 points in 82 games. The prior year Lindholm had 42 goals 82 points.

Lindholm will turn 30 in December. ROR was 32 (and turned 33 in the 2nd half of the season) - almost a 3 year difference in age contractually. With that said, ROR is probably more of an exception than the norm (if you don't think so, explain why we gave Mikheyev a bigger contract). Take Kadri. Calgary made the best offer for a 32 year old coming off a career season: 7x$7M.

Anyways, I think 7x$7M that the Canucks reportedly offer is a very strong offer. I don't think the Canucks shoudl go much beyond that.

 

[bossram]

On Garland: stats have limitations and are best used as a guide. garland has had multiple NHL caliber coaches but has not been used in a primary role. At what point is it acceptable that he is termed and considered a top 9 forward.

It sounds like you really can't dispute or argue against any of the things I'm saying at this point.

Under Tocchet, Garland plays top-six ice time, produces at a first-line rate at ES, and drives play to a strong degree. What is your conclusion from this? That he's a third line calibre forward?

 

[bossram]

I get that, my point is that the Canucks would of had to offer more to sign ROR based on other factors including taxes and anonymity. I disagree that O'Reilly at the time of signing is superior.

ROR was coming off a 16 goal 30 point in 53 games season. He had 3 goals 9 points in 11 playoff games. The previous season he had 21 goals 58 points in 78 games. The prior year ROR had 21 goals 58 points in 78 games

Lindholm had 15 goals 44 points in 75 games. He had 5 goals 10 points in 13 playoff games. The previous season Lindholm had 22 goals 64 points in 82 games. The prior year Lindholm had 42 goals 82 points.

Lindholm will turn 30 in December. ROR was 32 (and turned 33 in the 2nd half of the season) - almost a 3 year difference in age contractually. With that said, ROR is probably more of an exception than the norm (if you don't think so, explain why we gave Mikheyev a bigger contract). Take Kadri. Calgary made the best offer for a 32 year old coming off a career season: 7x$7M.

Anyways, I think 7x$7M that the Canucks reportedly offer is a very strong offer. I don't think the Canucks shoudl go much beyond that.

The production coming into UFA for both is similar, but ROR is (and always was) regarded as a much better two-way player. He also had the intangible factors (leadership, Cup winner) that teams pay for. The age difference does mitigate the difference in ROR>Lindholm.

Yes, I agree the Canucks would have had to may more for ROR. It seems like he wanted to go to Nashville. But again, I never said to sign ROR. I'm saying that if I'm Allvin and negotiating, we have a fairly comparable situation where the guy took way less than what Lindholm wants. $7M x 7 is way beyond fair. It's a bad contract from day 1. They should be walking.