Lankinen has been better than his numbers indicate so I'd like to see him stay as an insurance policy for Demko. But if he's got his eye on a big payday it makes sense to wait. A lot can happen between now and the end of the season. If he implodes at some point or gets injured an early signing could be a disaster. If we can get him at 4m x 3yr I'd jump on it. If he's eyeing 5 x 5 I'd take my chances.
Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Go Your Own Way
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
Nona Di Giuseppe
Registered User
It's eerie that you mention BOS. I've been thinking about a BOS trade for Miller here and I just know @bossram will hate it, but I'm doing it anyway.
Futures will have to be added to BOS's side:
Miller + Desharnhais for $750k AAV retention on Elias Lindholm and Brandon Carlo.
Lindholm is treated as a salary dump, which means Carlo isn't enough coming back, but that's the basis.
Rationale:
Lindholm is the Cozens-type of risk without the young player cost attached. VAN management had already prioritized Lindholm for $7m AAV, over Zadorov (iirc), they just couldn't get him to their number. This trade allows for that and gets them a shut down RHD (which I think is their ideal target).
This also allows the 2nd line to become 'Garland's line'. He can be tasked to handle the puck and Lindholm can be the shooter. It plays into each player's natural tendency.
Lindholm is awful in any top six.
Yes.
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 17,322
- 16,739
Yes the most idiotic contracts are to older goalies (Husso) who had brief sustained periods of success without a lot of expectations. Lankinen has good numbers for a decent period but he's also played behind 2 teams that play a pretty conservative boring defensive game without having to do it when it's on him to produce for long with intense pressure.
IDK i admit i'm pretty useless at goalie scouting and how that looks on a contract. We've been lucky to not have to look at that much in a search and quite frankly i've never played or coached the position. So many mushy middle goalies i wouldn't get emotional over one myself
I would err on the side of caution and certainly want to see more if he's looking at term and a 4 plus million deal. At that point there is nothing to gain by doing it now
IDK i admit i'm pretty useless at goalie scouting and how that looks on a contract. We've been lucky to not have to look at that much in a search and quite frankly i've never played or coached the position. So many mushy middle goalies i wouldn't get emotional over one myself
I would err on the side of caution and certainly want to see more if he's looking at term and a 4 plus million deal. At that point there is nothing to gain by doing it now
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
I'd bet he'd have pretty substantial trade value this year relative to other goalies over previous years. If we are not contending, I'd deal him.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 17,322
- 16,739
It's not a bad idea if you get a decent back up option back that maybe is a bit older but also add an asset. Depends how far apart i would think
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 17,322
- 16,739
Maybe something like to Detroit with Hoglander for Rasmussen and Talbot if you could pull that off
Even Joe Valeno is a pretty good player with some small upside that could theoretically replace Suter next year and compete with Blueger and Raty for minutes down the middle. i wouldnt be adding if that's the deal though. Or just get picks you can use for the top4 were gonna get bent over for
Even Joe Valeno is a pretty good player with some small upside that could theoretically replace Suter next year and compete with Blueger and Raty for minutes down the middle. i wouldnt be adding if that's the deal though. Or just get picks you can use for the top4 were gonna get bent over for
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 3,894
- 1,939
I see, the story says a clause but the NHLPA isn't showing one, neither is PPedia;
2024-2028 Standard Contract
term4yrs
value$14.00M
cap hit$3.50M
Yakov Trenin is signed to a 4 year, $14,000,000 contract with a cap hit of $3,500,000 per season, currently playing for the Minnesota Wild. His contract was signed on July 1, 2024, and expires at the end of the 2027-28 season, when Trenin will be 31 years old.
Signed On Jul 1 2024
Signing Agent Renat Mamashev
Signed By
% Cap Contract Start 3.98%
Signing Status UFAage 27
| 2024-25 | 2025-26 | 2026-27 | 2027-28 | 2028 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cap Hit | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | UFAage 31 |
| AAV | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | |
| Base | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 | |
| Performance Bonuses | - | - | - | - | |
| Signing Bonuses | - | - | - | - | |
| Total Salary | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 | |
| Minors Salary | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 | |
| Clauses | |||||
| UFA Year | |||||
| Buy Out | Buy Out | Buy Out | Buy Out |
A second site CPWAGE also doesn't show a clause; I know the story did but....
| Foligno, Marcus "A" | 4 UFA | NMC | NHL | 33 | 4.5 | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | UFA |
| Hartman, Ryan | 3 UFA | NMC | NHL | 30 | 4.5 | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | $4,000,000 | UFA |
| Trenin, Yakov | 4 UFA | NHL | Signed | 28 | 4.0 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | $3,500,000 | UFA |
| Gaudreau, Frederick | 4 UFA | M-NTC | NHL | Signed | 31 | 2.4 | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | UFA |
Last edited:
There was no hyperbole in my post. Your trade proposal was truly insane based on Miller's current value under his contract, and Lindholm's significant negative value.
Just because they have to trade Miller doesn't mean they have to shoot themselves in the foot by taking on Lindholm. They'd be way better off just trading Miller for picks and prospects and hold onto those until a centre becomes available. Its always better to not take on an albatross contract than taking one on.
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 3,894
- 1,939
The Canucks offered the same amount and term but Lindholm signed 15 minutes after 12 midnight, he couldn't get out of here fast enough, maybe longer than 15 minutes but the first day. What does that tell you? Now he has a NMC so not likely coming back here to face the pressure cooker.
Cozens and Lindholm are not even close to comparable, one thing is one player is 3 to 4 years from reaching his prime and the other is 1 or 2 years past his prime and within 5 years of retiring.
Silence is deadly. With all the talk and rumors floating around why have they stopped this suddenly?
What is settled might be who is going and when, they might be waiting for some more cap space to evolve.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 25,055
- 10,063
I don't think it was much else than the fact the Canucks already had Pettersson and Miller, and Lindholm didn't want to play third-fiddle at centre. For some reason, he still thinks of himself as a top-six (if not top-line) centre. Boston obviously offered the money/term and looked at him as a long-term borderline 1C there.
As MS mentioned, Lindholm still has it him obviously, based on last year's playoffs. But I don't think it's a particularly long stretch to say he put it into serious gear heading into this summer's contract negotiations and now has reverted back to taking it easy.
So long-story, short, I don't think he'd have an issue coming back here if it was in return for Miller, but I don't think you'd really want him on that contract because it looks a lot like he's got his money and is going back into cruise control.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,669
- 7,415
I think the response is inane/absurd given the caveats that the scenario depends upon Miller having to be moved, they need a 2C back right away, and Lindholm is treated as a cap dump in the deal, but you go Hodgy.
So you're dealt one shitty hand by having to trade Miller doesn't mean you just have to accept a shitty option just cuz
But if he is a 7 mil cap dump, that means we would need significant assets to recoup said value. Like more than Boston has let alone is willing to give.
It makes more sense to in that scenario, take futures and deal them for a centre in the future.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,669
- 7,415
Except VAN doesn't have very much to deal either.
You're on the right track though, this is also about getting significant futures alongside. Think of it like a reverse Kuzmenko deal. They give retained Lindholm (Kuz) + 1st + Carlo (for example) to get Miller + cap dump (Desharnhais). Total money is +$750k to VAN. VAN banks on Lindholm rebounding and they flip the 1st for help elsewhere (or use the pick).
If Lindholm doesn't rebound, you flip him to a centre starved team. Decent right shot Cs are scarce. If he does rebound though, you did about the best you could in a distressed situation.
I just would not bet against a player that has shown top6 ability over 9.5 years and can raise his game in the post-season.
But why not just do a Horvat deal and then get another “Hronek”?
If Lindholm flops here too, after flopping in Boston that will greatly tank his value.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,669
- 7,415
Greater than already being a cap dump? It's low now. The upside is that the cap is expected to go up considerably and he's already signed.
This is why I think they tried to re-sign him on a $7m/7yrs deal here: He is tradeable even in this state.
Re Horvat deal: Like flip Miller for 1st+ and then send that 1st+ for a Dman?
Your initial post didn’t have the caveat that the Canucks needed a centre back, and notwithstanding the rumours, why would we assume management would require this? They’ve already proven that if they can’t trade an asset for the position they want, they will flip for a draft pick and trade that (e.g., Horvat). Im sure they’d prefer getting a centre back, but this sho up don’t be seen an absolutely requirement.
And sure, you’ve recognized that Lindholm is just a cap dump, but he actually likely has significant negative value at this point. Not just some valueless cap dump.
And even assuming the Canucks needed to trade Miller, and even if you wrongly assume they need a centre back, your trade proposal is stilll insanely bad for the Canucks. They’d be way better off targeting a similar defensemen to Carlo on another team, and a middle six centre on another team that doesn’t an albatross of a contract.
Sometimes you can’t solve every problem with one trade, but in a capped league, you absolutely can’t be taking on contracts like Lindholm, it will kill you. It’s the kind of move Jim Benning would make.
So ya, it’s an insane offer, and basically everyone on here except you seems to agree.
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
Bjorkstrand available out of Seattle as per Friedman.
There'd be a bidding war amongst the handful of teams that are really serious about making a run in the playoffs but talk about a guy that would look good in our top 6.
There'd be a bidding war amongst the handful of teams that are really serious about making a run in the playoffs but talk about a guy that would look good in our top 6.
Last edited:
He’s on pace for 38 points and has gotten prime minutes exposed to one of the best wingers in the game. And he’s 30. And he’s on the first year of a 7 year contract making 7.75 million per year. He’s not just a “cap dump”. He’s got significant negative value at this point.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,669
- 7,415
Absolutely. He'd be a near ideal fit.
Francis is getting ahead of the offseason here. Bjorkstrand is in year 4 of his 5 year contract.
This Forbort guy might be all right.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 26,822
- 13,663
Funny you should mention Seattle, I'm currently working on an upcoming post about them (& more!) and potential targets.
Edit: Bjorkstrand isnt a UFA so big no thanks but I think they've got a few other lower key options.
Last edited:
- Jul 8, 2022
- 1,340
- 1,445
He's basically an older worse version of Boeser. Slow, soft and not a good defensive player. It would be nuts to target him IMO.
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
?
Consistent 20-25 goal / 55 point guy, and I think most CBJ and SEA fans would say he has a good two-way game.
And 5.4M is good value for that type of contribution.
- Status
