Speculation: The Quest to sign Lindholm: Part II

[Vipers31]

Former top 10 pick dman for former top 10 pick dman..

That's your most obvious fallacy. Lindholm isn't defined by being a former top-10 pick. You might as well suggest trading Yakupov for Matthews, for being a former-1st-overall for another. Lindholm is a proven commodity, one of the very best young defensemen in the game, not just in one draft, and tracking well to make it to the elite. He isn't defined by how he started out.

 

[Sojourn]

Anaheim cannot seem to sign these players..

Former top 10 pick dman for former top 10 pick dman..

Former 1st round forward only since trended up for former 1st round former only since trended up..

RFA contracts vs 3 years of cheap

Anaheim is stacked with defenseman and can wait 1-2 yrs for Juolevi to catch up..

Anaheim avoids paying Rakell 3-4 mill and signs Boeser for 925k at years end in time for the playoffs when his season is done..

Dorsett fills in as a veteran forward in the meantime..

Canucks likely take on 6 extra million when all said and done and have to protect both players, Anaheim gets two protection slots opened up as both prospects are exempt for this and likely next expansion too.


I see some reasons why... care to share some why nots? Anaheim gives up the better players now, Vancouver gives up cap space, expansion slots and their best two prospects..

I won't speak for the Vancouver side, but from Anaheim's side, Lindholm's value isn't that of a former top 10 pick. It's what his current play is, as well as his upside. Vancouver would likely be out of their mind thrilled if Joulevi had the kind of start to his NHL career that Lindholm had.

Edit: And I see Viper beat me to it.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

No. We aren't going to sign Trouba for what he wants, and in the meantime he's just sitting there. The longer it goes, the more likely it is that he requests a trade. Again. His value will depreciate.

If we were in a position to sign Trouba, I'd be fine with that. I like Trouba as a player. But it sounds like he wants what Lindholm wants, and he deserves that money even less. I'd even prefer a very good young prospect, and maybe a high draft pick to that. Those are assets that will increase in value over time. Trouba won't. Not when he isn't playing, and not when he's pissed that he's sitting.

Well in my mind Anaheim would be able to flip Trouba. There is a market for a player like him.

Plenty of teams would come calling, and with the roster set, Anaheim has the leverage.

 

[crowi]

I wouldn't normally feel comfortable speaking for an entire fan base. But in this case, I can tell you there isn't a single canucks fan that would give up Boeser or Juolevi for the Ducks package.

Yup, yup. I think a few canucks fans would agree here, but mostly you would be alone.

 

[Vipers31]

I understand the Ducks are in win now mode, but you obviously know nothing about Boeser or Juolevi if you wouldn't trade Lindholm for them. Like come on lol...

I wouldn't normally feel comfortable speaking for an entire fan base. But in this case, I can tell you there isn't a single canucks fan that would give up Boeser or Juolevi for the Ducks package.

I see there's a new face running for Canuck Head Homer office. The early polls will love stuff like this.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I wouldn't normally feel comfortable speaking for an entire fan base. But in this case, I can tell you there isn't a single canucks fan that would give up Boeser or Juolevi for the Ducks package.

That's more of a reflection on Canucks fans than it is on Lindholm or Rakell.

Lindholm >>>> Juolevi. Lindholm is a 22 year old #1D. Juolevi is a prospect.

Rakell > Boeser. If you think Boeser has significantly more upside than what Rakell is right now, you either need to pay more attention to Rakell or get a serious reality check.

Just yikes all around.

 

[Sojourn]

Well in my mind Anaheim would be able to flip Trouba. There is a market for a player like him.

Plenty of teams would come calling, and with the roster set, Anaheim has the leverage.

Except they don't. It's still an un-signed player that they wouldn't be in a position to sign. How is that really any different? Teams will probably want to be able to negotiate with Trouba before they are willing to give up big assets for him Finding the right team for that will take time, and while time passes Trouba gets unhappy with being unable to play.

Edit: It's not that Trouba isn't a good asset. He is. But if I'm GM there is no way I'm moving a key player for an asset who will be put into a position to depreciate the second we acquire him. If we don't move him immediately, things get complicated, and the possibility of getting full value for him starts to decline. If he requests a trade again, it could decline sharply.

 

[crowi]

Still no poll either... come on man. If you believe in what you say then put it to test.

 

[CanuckGame39]

That's more of a reflection on Canucks fans than it is on Lindholm or Rakell.

Lindholm >>>> Juolevi. Lindholm is a 22 year old #1D. Juolevi is a prospect.

Rakell > Boeser. If you think Boeser has significantly more upside than what Rakell is right now, you either need to pay more attention to Rakell or get a serious reality check.

Just yikes all around.

if you DONT think Boeser has significantly more upside than Rakell, then you really are the one who needs to pay attention and get a reality check.

i clearly said earlier that its a trade that doesnt make sense for either side, i understand why you guys wouldnt take it, but from the Canucks side, we dont touch that trade either, makes no sense for either side. i LOVE Lindholm, he is a damn good DMan, i hope you guys get him signed up fast.

 

[puckluck33*]

Just offer sheet either Lindholm or Rakell Anaheim does not have enough cap space to match to keep both players.

 

[crowi]

if you DONT think Boeser has significantly more upside than Rakell, then you really are the one who needs to pay attention and get a reality check.

i clearly said earlier that its a trade that doesnt make sense for either side, i understand why you guys wouldnt take it, but from the Canucks side, we dont touch that trade either, makes no sense for either side. i LOVE Lindholm, he is a damn good DMan, i hope you guys get him signed up fast.

Oh I see how it is. Sneak attacks and after questioned make amends and run for the hills.
Yet again, your prospects, especially Juolevi, would be lucky to become as good as Lindholm has. I like Boeser as well, but he isn't better than Rakell until he proves he can play in a pro league.

 

[Vipers31]

Just offer sheet either Lindholm or Rakell Anaheim does not have enough cap space to match to keep both players.

So, you mean offer sheet both?

The number of teams that have the cap space and picks to offer sheet either is very low to begin with.

 

[CanuckGame39]

Oh I see how it is. Sneak attacks and after questioned make amends and run for the hills.

How am i running for the hills? youre the one who keeps coming at me, just because i dont agree with your opinion, i can make a Poll if youd like, but after the poll doesnt go your way youll just blame it on the fact there is a huge amount of Canucks fans on this forum, so the poll was skewed, not worth my time.

i never said anything disrespectful all i said is the trade doesnt work, and YOU feel insulted because i dont think Lindholm and Rakell is enough for our top two prospects, im not Jim Benning, im just giving my opinion, move along man.

 

[izzy]

Just offer sheet either Lindholm or Rakell Anaheim does not have enough cap space to match to keep both players.

And what team can afford to do this now?

 

[crowi]

How am i running for the hills? youre the one who keeps coming at me, just because i dont agree with your opinion, i can make a Poll if youd like, but after the poll doesnt go your way youll just blame it on the fact there is a huge amount of Canucks fans on this forum, so the poll was skewed, not worth my time.

i never said anything disrespectful all i said is the trade doesnt work, and YOU feel insulted because i dont think Lindholm and Rakell is enough for our top two prospects, im not Jim Benning, im just giving my opinion, move along man.

Make the poll then. Let's see how it goes.

Edit: still no poll. Please get on with it.

 

[Bank Shot]

I wouldn't normally feel comfortable speaking for an entire fan base. But in this case, I can tell you there isn't a single canucks fan that would give up Boeser or Juolevi for the Ducks package.

If that were the case then the entire fanbase would be idiots.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

Except they don't. It's still an un-signed player that they wouldn't be in a position to sign. How is that really any different? Teams will probably want to be able to negotiate with Trouba before they are willing to give up big assets for him Finding the right team for that will take time, and while time passes Trouba gets unhappy with being unable to play.

Edit: It's not that Trouba isn't a good asset. He is. But if I'm GM there is no way I'm moving a key player for an asset who will be put into a position to depreciate the second we acquire him. If we don't move him immediately, things get complicated, and the possibility of getting full value for him starts to decline. If he requests a trade again, it could decline sharply.

I understand your point. It could get messy, but with the amount of teams that could use a player like Trouba I personally don't think it will take longer than a week.

Again, this is my idea, so maybe it doesn't work. Just wanted to toss out the idea, and thanks for the response.

 

[Rebels57]

Murray is a terrible GM.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Prospects do nothing for ANA.

That's nice, but there aren't many teams that are going to deal you a young, cheap, proven top 6 guy when they know you have to make cap room.

Sorry, fair value is off the table at this point. Or you can keep Fowler and let your best D and 4th best F sit out.

 

[crowi]

That's nice, but there aren't many teams that are going to deal you a young, cheap, proven top 6 guy when they know you have to make cap room.

Sorry, fair value is off the table at this point. Or you can keep Fowler and let your best D and 4th best F sit out.

Or we sign bridge deals. That's nice too.
I do like how you took that comment out of context there too. Fowler had nothing to do with this ongoing argument. Kudos.

 

[Sojourn]

So, you mean offer sheet both?

The number of teams that have the cap space and picks to offer sheet either is very low to begin with.

How would that even work? I don't think you can actually do that. With an offer sheet, you're committing your draft picks in the form of compensation. I think the NHL would step in and stop that.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Or we sign bridge deals. That's nice too.
I do like how you took that comment out of context there too. Fowler had nothing to do with this ongoing argument. Kudos.

1) Oh yeah that bridge deal is right there ready to be signed any day now. This was all part of Murray's plan I was told. After all, he did say it could go into August/Sept so clearly things are right on schedule.

2) Of course Fowler is relevant to the conversation. He's the guy that has the right balance of tradeable/expendable/marketable. But you need to do it in a deal that's going to clear up cap. That means pick/prospect. But wait... you say prospects aren't needed.....

Kind of a pickle there as like I said, it's unlikely you get a cheap but proven NHL forward. Too bad, a few months ago you probably could have gotten Spooner, but that ship has sailed now.

 

[Vipers31]

How would that even work? I don't think you can actually do that. With an offer sheet, you're committing your draft picks in the form of compensation. I think the NHL would step in and stop that.

Oh, right. It would require two teams to collaborate.

 

[Dr Quincy]

How would that even work? I don't think you can actually do that. With an offer sheet, you're committing your draft picks in the form of compensation. I think the NHL would step in and stop that.

You could OFFER both guys offer sheets, but you couldn't sign both of them to one. Like you said, the pick situation would put the kibosh on that.

 

[Sojourn]

Oh, right. It would require two teams to collaborate.

Which is also not allowed.