I would rather let Lindholm go to KHL for a year and think about his career than trade for scraps.
Rumor: Lindholm Mega Thread: All Rumors/Proposals Go Here
- Thread starter hostilebynature
- Start date
- Status
Lindholm was a reach at 6 in 2012. Sergachev was a gimme at 9 (Sabres borderline ******** to pass over him for Nylander, most likely wanted to grow a rivalry with Leafs). If you compare both of them on their respective draft days Sergachev looks more attractive.
Of course Lindholm developed well and Sergachev might not, but he hasn't been given a chance to develop yet. Sergachev looks like a Russian Carlson but a better skater. Lindholm might be more mistake free but Sergachev could be a gamebreaker.
That said, Habs should do Sergachev+ for Lindholm even if it hurts them long term because Lindholm-Weber is their best chance at the cup.
Redline
Registered User
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Did I really need to put an asterisk in there, and point out that extreme circumstances may be an exception?
Those straws still look a little out of reach.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Wait, we're dismissing Lindholm because he wasn't ranked 6th overall by everyone? Despite the fact that everything he has done since then is prove that, not only did he deserve to be picked 6th overall, but he has a good argument for 1st overall in that draft.
So, not only do the actual draft results not favor you here(Lindholm was picked 6th overall), but somehow his play since then doesn't factor into this?
ADifferentTim
Knowledgeable & Pure
I polished up my initial proposal.
LAK receives:
Bernier (1.95M retained by ANA), 2.2M
Rights for Lindholm
ANA receives:
Jack Campbell, 600K
Brayden MacNabb, 1.6M
1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks (one each) to ANA at the draft year(s) of ANA's choosing, should Lindholm sign with LAK; 7th rounder for a failed negotiation
I'm pretty sure this polished proposal is not lopsided by now.
LAK receives:
Bernier (1.95M retained by ANA), 2.2M
Rights for Lindholm
ANA receives:
Jack Campbell, 600K
Brayden MacNabb, 1.6M
1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks (one each) to ANA at the draft year(s) of ANA's choosing, should Lindholm sign with LAK; 7th rounder for a failed negotiation
I'm pretty sure this polished proposal is not lopsided by now.
Please stop.
To be more constructive: add Toffoli and keep going.
Last edited:
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
It's still lopsided.
And you can be sure that Los Angeles is the last team Anaheim would ever want to make a deal with, that involves Lindholm. Second on that list would probably be San Jose.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Eternal Leaf
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,773
- 39,734
I think you could argue Forsberg or Lindholm for top spot.. depending on team needs
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Debatable. I'd probably agree with you, personally, but Lindholm is definitely in the discussion.
I think the point is more that, since being drafted, Lindholm's stock has continued to rise. Being a reach at #6 doesn't mean he didn't deserve to be picked there, and his play since then definitely supports that he did deserve it. It seems... questionable, to make this about where they were picked in their respective drafts, when Lindholm was not only picked ahead, but he has proven he deserved to be.
What's the argument for Sergachev? That he might be better? He also might be worse. Given Lindholm's play, I think the current odds favor the latter possibility more than the former. Sergachev would have a lot of ground to make up, and Lindholm is still at a point in his career where he can keep extending that gap.
Edit: I understand you aren't making that argument. I'm just trying to go into more detail on why it's even relevant.
Uberpecker
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2011
- 3,615
- 1,750
Sounds terrible for Buffalo. Whatever value Lindholm supposedly has on Risto is more than equalized by the fact that Risto is signed and to a good deal to boot. Don't understand the reasoning behind this proposal.
Redline
Registered User
Or just don't speak in absolutes like you did if its not absolute. Wouldn't that be a more sensible approach?
He's not dismissed, it's just that if they were both drafted the same draft year Sergachev would look better on draft day. Lindholm had 4 years to develop and developed pretty well, Sergachev hadn't had those years, but that's not the same as Sergachev busting. If you look at his tools and work ethic chances of him busting are really minimal, there's nothing he NEEDS TO WORK AT BADLY to be an effective NHLer like Reinhart with skating or Zadorov with decision making.
Obviously Lindholm's value is greater than Sergachev because he's more proven. The argument you can make for favoring Sergachev is
- Lindholm coming in at 6 million, Sergachev 3 years at ELC. 2 of Lindholm's ELC years he was a 4+ million dollar caliber player, could get that kind of steal from Sergachev as well
- Sergachev has a different skillset, if you want a more physical/offensive defenseman vs more steady he could be a better bet
- Additional stuff coming back with Sergachev since 1 for 1 Lindholm hold more value.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
If you want to make that your sticking point, feel free. My point still stands. Take your moral victory.
Redline
Registered User
KevinRedkey
12/18/23 and beyond!
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,534
- 5,820
Would you trade your #1 dman (Shea Weber) for a good defensive prospect (Thomas Chabot for example)?
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
And I'm sure someone could argue that Griffin Reinhart looked better on draft day. Or Dumba. Or Trouba. Or even Yakupov. Is that really an argument for Sergachev?
Anaheim had a number of other defensemen they could have chosen at the draft. A number of other players, even. Ones who were, arguably, better looking at the time of the draft. Anaheim picked Lindholm because they did their homework. See what studying gets you? If we could manipulate things so that Sergachev was drafted in 2012, there is no guarantee that he goes ahead of Lindholm. I actually think it's pretty unlikely that they would. They saw something they really liked in Lindholm. Seems to me that they were right.
The argument for Sergachev is really limited to potential, and that argument is pretty questionable given what Lindholm has shown. The monetary side is nice, but are you going to move your best defenseman for a player who might potentially be as good? I wouldn't.
What do you even propose Lindholms salary going to be seeing as how the values here are a wash and the Kings are pretty close to capped out.
He's not going to sign a bridge deal, and the Ducks are trying to clear to 6 mil so thats the number you need to look at.
There will be no 'negotiations' as he is technically a free agent. It will be a courtesy 'We are signing Lindholm, do you want the picks straight up, is there something else that interests you, or what plus the picks mean you won't match' call.
Ducks are going to have to do one of
Add one of their sweet D prospects with a cap dump
Give away Fowler for pretty much nothing
Trade away a top 5 young defender amd a cap dump for a lesser, but good young defender and somethnic extra.
Still can't believe they'd do anything other than the first two options. But you never know I guess. Maybe Murray has some of that Burke in him that hates paying young players? I dunno, weird he's not signed yet. Hate when teams nickel and dime elite players.
Add one of their sweet D prospects with a cap dump
Give away Fowler for pretty much nothing
Trade away a top 5 young defender amd a cap dump for a lesser, but good young defender and somethnic extra.
Still can't believe they'd do anything other than the first two options. But you never know I guess. Maybe Murray has some of that Burke in him that hates paying young players? I dunno, weird he's not signed yet. Hate when teams nickel and dime elite players.
- Status
