Confirmed with Link: [VAN/CAL] Canucks to acquire Lindholm (CAL) for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 1st 2024, & Conditional 4th 2024

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

HairyKneel

Registered User
Jun 5, 2023
1,289
1,178
I really really hope our brass is more interested about our team needs, vs the preference of Flames fans.

If you believe a deal couldn't be done without giving Kuz up to Calgary, or moving Mik somewhere else, then we just have to agree to disagree.

It is funny and convenient to see the narrative shift towards that however, after the end of season results... rather than at any time before..

It also ignores that Alvin still tried to replace Kuz, via Guentzel or another W, fully knowing there was a problem, but just failed. Mistakes were made either way.
Pretty plugged in with the team and management are you?

This is like the third insider on this board I’ve had the pleasure of reading. One guy is buddies with Manny Malhotra, the gut buster, another guy knows Dakota Joshua’s spending habits, now a guy who know the insides and outs out of trades and potential trades. Shit wasn’t there a guy that says nobody on the team likes Pettersson. What a wealth of knowledge. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,316
6,278
I really really hope our brass is more interested about our team needs, vs the preference of Flames fans.

As others have pointed out, it goes both ways. The point is that Kuzmenko is more attractive on paper, objectively speaking.


If you believe a deal couldn't be done without giving Kuz up to Calgary, or moving Mik somewhere else, then we just have to agree to disagree.

It is funny and convenient to see the narrative shift towards that however, after the end of season results... rather than at any time before..

It also ignores that Alvin still tried to replace Kuz, via Guentzel or another W, fully knowing there was a problem, but just failed. Mistakes were made either way.

Well the Canucks need to move salary in order to add Lindholm. I believe Kuzmenko had positive trade value so I think he could have been traded without us having to "pay" to move him, but that doesn't mean we could trade Kuzmenko for a draft pick without taking on any salary. I think we overpaid Mik thinking he could be a top 6 fit in the first place (which has since been admitted to be a mistake by Allvin) but with Mik's knee injury, age, and term left on his contract, I'm am not confident Mik had the same trade value as Kuz. And again, I don't know if we could trade Mik without taking on some salary. I think the Lindholm trade happened in large part because Calgary wanted Kuzmenko and there was no salary retention involved so it worked out for both teams.

I do recall thinking at the time of the Kuzmenko trade that he appeared to be the odd man out. I did think at the time that Mik was a better fit given Tocchet's issues with Kuz. So I agree with you that Mik's game/value cratered after the trade. I also did have some confidence that Mik would be better as he recovers from his knee surgery. In hindsight, I would have preferred to move Mik instead but I don't think the same deal is there.

I ask you again, what exactly are you saying the Canucks should have done?
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe

CanucksSayEh

Registered User
Apr 6, 2012
5,941
2,280
As others have pointed out, it goes both ways. The point is that Kuzmenko is more attractive on paper, objectively speaking.




Well the Canucks need to move salary in order to add Lindholm. I believe Kuzmenko had positive trade value so I think he could have been traded without us having to "pay" to move him, but that doesn't mean we could trade Kuzmenko for a draft pick without taking on any salary. I think we overpaid Mik thinking he could be a top 6 fit in the first place (which has since been admitted to be a mistake by Allvin) but with Mik's knee injury, age, and term left on his contract, I'm am not confident Mik had the same trade value as Kuz. And again, I don't know if we could trade Mik without taking on some salary. I think the Lindholm trade happened in large part because Calgary wanted Kuzmenko and there was no salary retention involved so it worked out for both teams.

I do recall thinking at the time of the Kuzmenko trade that he appeared to be the odd man out. I did think at the time that Mik was a better fit given Tocchet's issues with Kuz. So I agree with you that Mik's game/value cratered after the trade. I also did have some confidence that Mik would be better as he recovers from his knee surgery. In hindsight, I would have preferred to move Mik instead but I don't think the same deal is there.

I ask you again, what exactly are you saying the Canucks should have done?
Kuz is more attractive in person as well

Nucks paid a big price and paid early. They should have either used Mikheyev + in his place, or paid to move Mik elsewhere, and paid for EL in purely picks and prospects. OR, left themselves with a sure fire deal to acquire a winger to take Kuzmenkos spot after. Simple. If neither option works, then walk away, and keep the roster you have that is currently top of the conference.

They're almost certainly gonna be paying someone to take Mik now anyway, so that price is built in, and it wasn't really hard to forsee. Kuz was very involved in not just EP's production, but Mikeyevs as well. No surprise it fell off so hard.

With all the rumors surrounding EL to Boston, EP to Canes, unloading Mikeyev to fit in Guentzel, it's clear that things didn't go to their plan, and they tried to fill the gaps they left. This wasn't some clean 1 for 1 trade that was to be the final staple heading into the playoffs. That's why they left themselves so much time pre-deadline. It was a mess, and now we are left with what's likely to be a big turnover, without much dry powder, a cap crunch, and a thin list of options.

Really wasted a good Lindholm effort.
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,830
10,556
Lapland
The guy was coming off a 39 goal 74 point season alongside Petey who also had a career year. I thought the 2 year deal was a tidy piece of work.
I think it was the worst of both worlds.

Short term deal with a high cap hit. If he was the real deal you are not signing him at a cheaper hit for long, and if, like I predicted his production was going to tank, you have a +5mil / year liability.

@MS Speculated , and I think it makes a ton of sense, that this was a "under the table deal" that they made when they initially signed him as a UFA.
IIRC, Kuzmenko signed his extension shortly after Tocchet came on board and then Tocchet started benching him. So the timing was pretty bad as the team signed Kuzmenko without knowing how he would fit under Tocchet.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,316
6,278
I think it was the worst of both worlds.

Short term deal with a high cap hit. If he was the real deal you are not signing him at a cheaper hit for long, and if, like I predicted his production was going to tank, you have a +5mil / year liability.
What's a fair contract for a pending UFA who was had 21 goals 44 points in 47 games at the time of signing but with only one NHL season under his belt? You could think he is the real deal (which I almost all of us did), but are you saying management should have given him a long term contract? I think management did well here and it was a good compromise. If Kuzmenko continued to perform he could be re-signed to a long term deal at age 29. Giving him a long term deal after one season would have been risky.

@MS Speculated , and I think it makes a ton of sense, that this was a "under the table deal" that they made when they initially signed him as a UFA.

I can see a longer term deal being discussed before hand. However, there's no reason for Kuzmenko to be locked into anything though. He was the most desired UFA outside of the NHL at the time and a strong season like he put up could easily get him more than $5.5M on the open market (although that market didn't quite materialize). Similarly, the Canucks would be stupid to commit to a 3 year deal for $5.5M for years 2 and 3 just to sign him since it doesn't bring the AAV down.
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,830
10,556
Lapland
What's a fair contract for a pending UFA who was had 21 goals 44 points in 47 games at the time of signing but with only one NHL season under his belt? You could think he is the real deal (which I almost all of us did), but are you saying management should have given him a long term contract? I think management did well here and it was a good compromise. If Kuzmenko continued to perform he could be re-signed to a long term deal at age 29. Giving him a long term deal after one season would have been risky.



I can see a longer term deal being discussed before hand. However, there's no reason for Kuzmenko to be locked into anything though. He was the most desired UFA outside of the NHL at the time and a strong season like he put up could easily get him more than $5.5M on the open market (although that market didn't quite materialize). Similarly, the Canucks would be stupid to commit to a 3 year deal for $5.5M for years 2 and 3 just to sign him since it doesn't bring the AAV down.
Just disagree a lot with you on this.
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,830
10,556
Lapland
That's fine, I'm just trying to understand your point of view. So you don't like the contract Kuzmenko signed. What do you think is a realistic fair contract?
His offensive stat profile had the loudest indicators for decline I have ever seen.

Someone was going to sign him to a contract like that. Wish it was not us.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,316
6,278
His offensive stat profile had the loudest indicators for decline I have ever seen.

Someone was going to sign him to a contract like that. Wish it was not us.

I thought you liked the player and thought he would outperform his contract? You just didn't like the extension because you didn't think the team can compete in the next 2-3 years?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad