Jerry the great
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 834
- 840
Player Discussion Elias Lindholm
- Thread starter Nucker101
- Start date
The Canucks invested long-term in J.T. Miller, who'll be 36 by the time is contract winds down. And even if it doesn't happen, I could still see the Canucks trying to the same approach with Lindholm.
The reason is 'flexibility'. Both guys can play wing or center with equal facility. They're excellent on the draw; and can even contribute on the PP and the PK. In short, they provide coach Tocchet with the ultimate flexibility in making up his lines.
They could center any one of three lines; or shift to the wing with Pettersson. I don't know if Lindholm will ever approach the scoring heights he achieved in Calgary with Tkachuk and Gaudreau. But I think the Canucks could justify an offer of $7m for 7 seasons.
But if someone wants to out-bid that, then it's sayonara.
The reason is 'flexibility'. Both guys can play wing or center with equal facility. They're excellent on the draw; and can even contribute on the PP and the PK. In short, they provide coach Tocchet with the ultimate flexibility in making up his lines.
They could center any one of three lines; or shift to the wing with Pettersson. I don't know if Lindholm will ever approach the scoring heights he achieved in Calgary with Tkachuk and Gaudreau. But I think the Canucks could justify an offer of $7m for 7 seasons.
But if someone wants to out-bid that, then it's sayonara.
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
Not just get outbid but he can also be offered a much better role on Boston or Columbus. Personally I was hoping he'd sign to a reasonable deal but if that's not going to happen I'm fine with that, as he's a bit of a luxury with Pettersson and Miller ahead of him.
The timing for trying more or again has come and gone. Very risky to sign a big contract on the assumption that two players, that previously didn’t play well together, will now play well together.
Absolutely. We shouldn't be signing Lindholm assuming he would be a fit alongside Petey.
Lindholm is a known player. Rutherford drafted the guy and he and Allvin saw him play in the same division for years when Lindholm was in Carolina and then more recently when he was in Calgary and on the Vancouver Canucks. This shouldn't be a case where management is lacking information on the player.
Age is a huge mitigating factor. As for "reputation", that's in the past/not a factor? In 21-22, Lindholm outproduced ROR offensively and finished far ahead of ROR in Selke voting. In 22-23, Lindholm also outproduced ROR offensively and picked up some Selke votes while ROR didn't. Lindholm obviously had a bad year this season while ROR had a bounce back year.
Again, I don't pretend to know how Lindholm would trend. There's certainly a lot of risk here. I also question the merits of spending ~$7M AAV on a guy player who might end up spending the majority of his time in a 3rd line defensive role.
Ask yourselves, " Did I want them to resign Horvat for 8M for 8 years". because that is what he got (more actually, 8.5M)
Lindholm is a much better player than Horvat in every area of the games but perhaps goal scoring.
If they can get Lindholm signed, who is basically the same age as Horvat, for under 8.5M for 8 years they should do it because someone else will throw him a boatload of money if they hesitate and run out of time.
The Cap is going way up and the percentage of their cap that Lindholm's contract occupies will be going way down.
This should have been done already.
Why have they made zero signing?
Does Émilie Castonguay still work for the Canucks?
Lindholm is a much better player than Horvat in every area of the games but perhaps goal scoring.
If they can get Lindholm signed, who is basically the same age as Horvat, for under 8.5M for 8 years they should do it because someone else will throw him a boatload of money if they hesitate and run out of time.
The Cap is going way up and the percentage of their cap that Lindholm's contract occupies will be going way down.
This should have been done already.
Why have they made zero signing?
Does Émilie Castonguay still work for the Canucks?
HairyKneel
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2023
- 1,294
- 1,180
I didn't. There's a difference between believing a player is worth more/can get more on the open market and thinking it's a good idea to pay even close to market price.
If the team had traded Miller, then ya you pay and re-sign your captain. The old Miller vs Horvat discussions are instructive. A lot of us would love to keep Petey, Miller, and Horvat, but it was price prohibitive.
It's been reported that Horvat's last offer for Horvat was 7x$7.5M. I've said all along that management probably has Horvat replacement in mind when it comes to Lindholm.
Horvat is only worth 8.5M because a crazy team on the East coast signed him for that.
But this contract set the market for players like Lindholm.
Anyone, including Émilie Castonguay saying Lindholm is now not worth a similar contract will be sorely disappointed.
The possibility Lindholm may take a discount to stay doesn't detract from the fact it is a discount.
Adding the 8th year should have already have happened.
I don't care if it means they can't sign Teddy Blueger.
But this contract set the market for players like Lindholm.
Anyone, including Émilie Castonguay saying Lindholm is now not worth a similar contract will be sorely disappointed.
The possibility Lindholm may take a discount to stay doesn't detract from the fact it is a discount.
Adding the 8th year should have already have happened.
I don't care if it means they can't sign Teddy Blueger.
Ignoring whether we do or do not want to re-sign Lindholm, we are the only team that can offer an 8 year deal, why don’t we use it?
If he thinks he will get 8m x 7 years (56mil) on a retirement contract, when that contract is done, chances are he’ll be out of the league. We could toss him 56mil on an 8 year deal for a 7mil cap hit. It’s a win win.
If he thinks he will get 8m x 7 years (56mil) on a retirement contract, when that contract is done, chances are he’ll be out of the league. We could toss him 56mil on an 8 year deal for a 7mil cap hit. It’s a win win.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,454
- 7,151
Garland is a top6er, but if his play doesn't mesh with Miller or Pettersson, then he's depth too. Both things can be true. He represents a roster construction issue that I'm not sure this team is going to be able to resolve. The best they can do is to continue to build the 3rd line around him.
Lindholm has better range in what he can do. He can play with skilled players or play a shut down role. He also represents a traditional archetype in a highly valued position. This is why it makes sense to re-sign him: He is more apt to carry his value forward. Whereas even now, after a good year from Garland, you would barely get a mid-round pick for him in trade.
Ironically, both Lindholm and Garland have the same issue on this team: They each can't play with the team's best forwards on the same line.
Coincidently, this is why the value play for Guentzel also makes sense. It's less about what his possession metrics suggest and more about what his talent would provide.
Last edited:
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,454
- 7,151
I thought the same, but I think the team values him at less than 50 million in total cash. If he got the extra year, he would sign imo.
The contract is going to be trash at the end regardless… The extra year wouldn’t bother me if it brought the cap down…
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,454
- 7,151
Wouldn't bother me either.
That said, at 7 years, Lindholm's contract would end when he turns 36. Miller's contract also ends when he turns 36.
oceanchild
Registered User
It is my conclusion yes, he doesn’t play in the first two lines and doesn’t get PP time (to speak of). He does drive play, but it doesn’t translate to points. You can find ways to frame the discussion to say he is more than a third line player, but in the end he plays on the third line. His $5m would best be used in other ways.
Again, Garland produces at a 1st line ES rate and plays top-six ES minutes. He is a top-six calibre player. Contending teams still have top-six players down the lineup. It's partly why they're, y'know, good.
Bolded is part of why I would not re-sign Lindholm at these numbers being thrown around. Paying for things that are traditionally overvalued. If your concern with Lindholm and Garland is trade value, let's get real. After being attached to a huge contract, Lindholm will not have much trade value. Do you think Nazem Kadri has much trade value now?
Yes, for sure, they should try for Guentzel. Because he is a near-elite player, which they desperately need. He is fundamentally in a far higher tier of players than Lindholm.
He gets ES points (both total and and at a rate) at a 1st line level. He drives play. He plays top-six ES minutes. He is a top-six calibre player. If you conclude otherwise, you're just wrong. I'm sorry. You realize good teams have good players lower in the lineup as well. That's partly what makes them...y'know, good. Your only legitimate criticism is that Garland is not a PP guy. Yeah sure, that is true. They don't need him to be and he's not paid like a guy who also collects 30 PP points either.
Following from your logic, Sam Reinhard is not a top-six player. He's just a PP merchant, because that's where the difference in points come from. Following from your logic, Dylan Holloway should be considered a top-six player because his name on the lineup chart happens to be on the 2nd line.
The Garland stuff is weird because it’s not like he looks like shit but has great underlying stats. He was very evidently one of our top players outside of the first 25% of last season.
Jerry the great
Registered User
- Jul 8, 2022
- 834
- 840
It was like he played the last 60 games with his motor at or near the redline. battle level was off the charts....whenever there was a 50/50 puck he seemed to come up with it like 8-9 times out of 10. That line created so many chances off of forecheck induced turnovers; it massively tilted the ice and it showed up all over the official scoresheet and the nerds scoresheet.
oceanchild
Registered User
You’re cherry picking specific stats and building a story to match’s narrative but it lacks context. Vancouver is weak on the wings and so he got more playing time. He wasn’t able to find traction with more talented players and was stuck on the third line. He has good metrics, but the third line wasn’t matched up against the other teams best players like many are. He controls play, but it doesn’t result in scoring and although it offers reprieve to the D group, doesn’t add to the scoreboard. He gets his points at even strength, well I guess he does it’s the only ice time he gets. This is why analytics is not the basis to make decisions alone, dispite multiple GMs, Coaches etc, he still only gets third line responsibility (and you could argue it’s sheltered). But you’re all in and think that underlying stats tell the whole story. Was this not his first winning team? Does he make those around him better? Is he a physical presence that wears down opponents or can he stick up for teammates. The guy is a good player, I am not trying to dispute that. He is also a luxury that due to cap constraints isn’t as impactful as other options can be. Your blinded by your over commitment to him getting the puck into the offensive zone without explaining why Suter, Mikheyev, and others play higher in the line up. Because the man doesn’t have that skill set and isn’t what we need.
Bourdon
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2007
- 4,527
- 1,166
Garland is a good player. But he represents a roster inefficiency. He doesn’t have chemistry with the top 6. He makes 5M for a 3rd liner.
Evan Rodrigues can get you half a point a game, can move up in the lineup in a pinch, and makes 3Mx4. These are the kind of players that winning rosters have, players that out contribute their salary. The same kind of thing the Sedins always alluded to.
I’m happy to have Garland back, but if it means bringing in a high end forward, it’s time to move on Garland, especially if his value has been redeemed in other team’s eyes.
Evan Rodrigues can get you half a point a game, can move up in the lineup in a pinch, and makes 3Mx4. These are the kind of players that winning rosters have, players that out contribute their salary. The same kind of thing the Sedins always alluded to.
I’m happy to have Garland back, but if it means bringing in a high end forward, it’s time to move on Garland, especially if his value has been redeemed in other team’s eyes.
Brian Burke has repeated so often, it's almost a given. NHL GM's make their biggest mistakes on July 1st; followed closely by the March TDL. They either sign guys to bloated contracts they can't afford; or give up assets in an often vain attempt to go on some sort of Stanley Cup run.
Fans have been living with those blunders from Canucks management for years. But strangely, no matter how this all turns out for the Canucks, I'm OK with it. Zadovov and Lindholm cost the Canucks a lot of assets to acquire, but they delivered exactly what you'd hope they would deliver in the playoffs.
But at this point, the Canucks probably can't afford to double-down and overpay for them. That's the decision they ultimately made with Bo Horvat, even though he was their captain and in the midst of a career season.
So if someone wants to dramatically overpay for these guys then let them. It'll mean some big holes in the lineup to fill, but Allvin and Rutherford have been proven to be more than up to the task.
Fans have been living with those blunders from Canucks management for years. But strangely, no matter how this all turns out for the Canucks, I'm OK with it. Zadovov and Lindholm cost the Canucks a lot of assets to acquire, but they delivered exactly what you'd hope they would deliver in the playoffs.
But at this point, the Canucks probably can't afford to double-down and overpay for them. That's the decision they ultimately made with Bo Horvat, even though he was their captain and in the midst of a career season.
So if someone wants to dramatically overpay for these guys then let them. It'll mean some big holes in the lineup to fill, but Allvin and Rutherford have been proven to be more than up to the task.
I disagree with you calling Garland or any player not playing with Miller or Petey "depth" and perception of Garland's trade value, but agree with other things you're saying here. Roster construction is a big issue. You have to find value somewhere. For example, if there's a winger that meshes well with Petey or Miller that otherwise isn't a top 6 player and isn't paid like one, you could afford to pay top 6 money to a player who plays on your 3rd line, especially one who produces like a top 6 player playing with bottom 6 players.
I am not on board with moving Garland absent a great deal. Garland's consistent ability to produce at ES puts him in good company. At this point, Garland's produces at ES like clockwork. You pretty much know what you're going to get. I think his playoff performance this season has answered a lot of questions and should raise his trade value. Money wise, the guy is in his prime and signed for 2 years at just under $5M AAV. That's a different commitment than to a 29/30 year old for 7-8 years.
I lean more towards having a stacked top 6 than a having a strong 3rd line. So between Guentzel and Lindholm (if Lindholm is to play 3C), I think Guentzel would be better. I do think the jury is still out as to whether Lindholm can play with Petey and there's also the option of reuniting the Lotto Line. But it doesn't seem that is Tocchet's preference.
