Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Hampus Lindholm offer sheet (BUF/NJD)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
SnuggaRUDE said:
This is a paranoid delusion. Before free agency there were plenty of people who thought Buffalo (or some other teams) should offer sheet Lindholm given ANA's precarious cap and internal limitations. But 90% of Buffalo fans weren't writing his name on their roster projections.

An offersheet would have caused one or two other players to squirt free from ANA, but unless it was a number over 8M they'd have made those adjustments.
Click to expand...

the bold is just not true, a majority of the lineups they had before the trade deadline had Lindholm on their roster.

You're right though, we would have made adjustments to keep Lindholm, but during those conversations we were told we couldn't match the Sabres offers because they would make an offer that was front loaded so we couldn't match it or to just send one to screw us.
 
dracom said:
believed their team would OS Lindholm because they had the cap space and their GM doesn't give a **** if he's screwing up a positive relationship with another GM.
Click to expand...

They're professionally competing against each other. They don't have "relationships." They're not settling down and starting families together. Nobody gives a **** about their "relationships" when it comes to a chance to significantly improve their teams. And Tim Murray in particular has gone out and said so to the press with regard to offersheets.

If we had $8M in cap space to do it, I'd still hope GMTM had the balls. It's not happening now, but "relationships" isn't the reason why.
 
dracom said:
the bold is just not true, a majority of the lineups they had before the trade deadline had Lindholm on their roster.
Click to expand...

lolwut?

As someone who was mocked on his own board for his commitment to the Lindholm dream, I can tell you that's not what happened.
 
dracom said:
the bold is just not true, a majority of the lineups they had before the trade deadline had Lindholm on their roster.

You're right though, we would have made adjustments to keep Lindholm, but during those conversations we were told we couldn't match the Sabres offers because they would make an offer that was front loaded so we couldn't match it or to just send one to screw us.
Click to expand...

You have a hard on for a perception of reality which just didn't exist. I frequent the Sabres board, 90% of lineups did not include Lindholm.

People discussed at what dollar value ANA would be unable to match. Such a strike price almost certainly existed. Not many people advocated 9+M offer sheets. I'm sure there were some who did, but they'd have been a minority.

You're bent out of shape because others discussed theoretical pain points for your favorite team.
 
Trade Bieksa & Stoner with added picks, then trade either Vatanen & Fowler.

Then sign Lindholm & Rakell.

Finally, offer sheet Ristolainen.:D
 
Zippy316 said:
Interesting.

If NJ has their third, I would debate going into the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick territory. The better option would be to offer just below the 5.632 million.
Click to expand...

Anaheim likely matches anything below the 5.6 range in all seriousness. The only way this would realistically work would be to get into 6M+ territory and thats a big ask.
 
dracom said:
You're right though, we would have made adjustments to keep Lindholm, but during those conversations we were told we couldn't match the Sabres offers because they would make an offer that was front loaded so we couldn't match it or to just send one to screw us.
Click to expand...

You're still vulnerable, pal, just not from us. Frontload an $8m deal and you have to dump an alarming amount of salary for nothing coming back to make it work in your internal cap.

If it were July 1 again, I'd still be saying we should try it. I don't know who the teams are with a bunch of space, no internal cap, and profound need for LHD, but if one is out there, it still looks good to me.
 
mytduxfan said:
Loving the back-tracking from BUF fans. Admittedly, it was a select minority that were saying we'd have to trade Lindholm for nothing or risk him signing an offersheet, but those few still seem to back-tracking hard. You were wrong, just own it.
Click to expand...

Quote where I wrote it. I'll own it then.

(Hint: I didn't write it).
 
dracom said:
I'm not talking about right now, most Sabres fans realize it's not happening now. I'm talking about during the season, that's when most Sabres fans believed their team would OS Lindholm because they had the cap space and their GM doesn't give a **** if he's screwing up a positive relationship with another GM.
Click to expand...

Again, "most." Most Sabres fans did not think this at all. We've been focused on Fowler due to the cap situation. "Most" Sabres fans would agree, even months ago.
 
dracom said:
the bold is just not true, a majority of the lineups they had before the trade deadline had Lindholm on their roster.

You're right though, we would have made adjustments to keep Lindholm, but during those conversations we were told we couldn't match the Sabres offers because they would make an offer that was front loaded so we couldn't match it or to just send one to screw us.
Click to expand...

Not true, and you couldn't prove it anyway.
 
haseoke39 said:
You're still vulnerable, pal, just not from us. Frontload an $8m deal and you have to dump an alarming amount of salary for nothing coming back to make it work in your internal cap.

If it were July 1 again, I'd still be saying we should try it. I don't know who the teams are with a bunch of space, no internal cap, and profound need for LHD, but if one is out there, it still looks good to me.
Click to expand...

We are not vulnerable if there are no teams that meet this criteria. I can think of NJD, but as has already been mentioned, they do not have the requisite picks. FLA is another possibility, but it would likely screw up their expansion protection and it's an unknown if they are trying to add cap after just handing away a top prospect to get rid of cap. There aren't that many teams with the right combination of need/cap space/picks to pursue an offer sheet large enough to pry him from the Ducks.

Nothing wrong with you saying your team should have tried it on July 1 but its far fetched to assume a team would do it at this point in the offseason, and very unrealistic to assume the Ducks would not match all but the most ridiculous offers.

And as for your earlier comment about the GMs competing with each other...they do indeed compete with each other, but they are also colleagues and have to deal with each other regularly for both player transactions and league matters. They also deal with many of the same agents and have to work with the same rising salary demands of the players each and every year. Inflating the cost of an RFA by sending a ludicrous offer sheet damages every GMs ability to re-sign their own RFAs. They all know this, which is why the tactic is seldom used and much maligned amongst them. Doing so purposefully to damage the internal salary structure of a non-cap team is possible, but very uncharacteristic of nhl GMs.
 
heusy_79 said:
Not a chance Vats is moved this off season, teams don't sign guys to long term deals and then trade them before they hit the ice. Will have to be Fowler or Despres being dealt.
Click to expand...

Despres' value is low right now due to his concussion issues last season too, so really it has to be Fowler. Although I would very much like it to be Stoner AND Despres and I would not care much about what we got in return. The cap space and a 3rd line RW would be a fine return for me.
 
Pennaduck said:
Despres' value is low right now due to his concussion issues last season too, so really it has to be Fowler. Although I would very much like it to be Stoner AND Despres and I would not care much about what we got in return. The cap space and a 3rd line RW would be a fine return for me.
Click to expand...

If we have to bite the bullet and sell low on Despres I'm fine with that, he's likely a goner in the expansion draft anyway.
 
Eichel15 said:
"some" fans of every team say outlandish things here. You're lumping an entire fan base together because of a few loudmouths?
Click to expand...
This is...wow. In your own post you admit that I only address the bombastic claims of some and somehow you think that means I'm referring to the entire fanbase.

Protip: I'm not.

But on the other hand, it's not like the more level headed of you were trying to bring the other poster's claims back down to a reality. I didn't see many people trying to simmer down the posts that said "If Lindholm doesn't sign, Buffalo is gonna offer like 7.2+"
 
I like the Ducks, solid team. But oh man their demise could be fats and hard. Carlyle was a brutal, brutal decision but thats just a coach. If they somehow bung up the Lindholm situation they will sink fast. How could you be so stupid? Pay your best D what he deserves. You pay Beiksa and Stoner to stink it up, so why not Lindholm?
 
heusy_79 said:
If we have to bite the bullet and sell low on Despres I'm fine with that, he's likely a goner in the expansion draft anyway.
Click to expand...

Define sell low, using generic terms. Curious to hear what you think his low value is.

Despres?

What the heck, define low value of Fowler as well (who knows it might happen)?
 
dracom said:
the bold is just not true, a majority of the lineups they had before the trade deadline had Lindholm on their roster.

You're right though, we would have made adjustments to keep Lindholm, but during those conversations we were told we couldn't match the Sabres offers because they would make an offer that was front loaded so we couldn't match it or to just send one to screw us.
Click to expand...

The only way this makes sense if you have confused Cam Fowler with Hampus Lindholm
 
Hunter368 said:
Define sell low, using generic terms. Curious to hear what you think his low value is.

Despres?

What the heck, define low value of Fowler as well (who knows it might happen)?
Click to expand...

Low value for Despres might be a 2nd with games played conditions on it. No point in discussing low value on Fowler, too much of a market for a Dman of that caliber to have to worry about selling low. When it comes to young, affordable defensemen who can log minutes, supply and demand says we won't have to worry about that.
 
heusy_79 said:
Low value for Despres might be a 2nd with games played conditions on it. No point in discussing low value on Fowler, too much of a market for a Dman of that caliber to have to worry about selling low. When it comes to young, affordable defensemen who can log minutes, supply and demand says we won't have to worry about that.
Click to expand...

Ok, if I understand you:

Selling low on Despres would equal a 2nd Rd pick with games played conditions attached so he might be worth a 2nd+ depending or possibly.

Fowler, whatever he's traded for (if he is) is high value b/c so much demand for him around various NHL teams he would never be traded at a low value.

Ok good to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom