BC_Hawk Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 15 hours ago, The Duke said: I’ve actually really liked Lindholm. I wouldn’t give him 9 mil… but unless he wants to get his bag on a bottom feeder I doubt he’s getting that on a contender. I’ve loved the faceoff and two way ability - what a boon to Petey and Miller - and assuming he ups the offence a touch as he settles, I hope we bring him back for around 7.5-8 mil. Great option to run him on the wing in the top 6, as a 3C, or a 2C if we want to go lotto line. It’s luxury zone, though. Need to take care of Petey and the back end first. Lots of cards to fall this offseason. 100% agree. Once we resign Petey..then resign/sign our 24/25 D, the next priority is Lindholm. The ability to have 3 1/2Cs on a team is ridiculous in terms of the flexibility it offers. I have enjoyed Bluegers play, but Suter would be fine as 4th C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 30 minutes ago, Jaimito said: not sure what a major virus is. Hope he gets better soon. Our poor Kuzy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBearded1 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 7 hours ago, HKSR said: Our poor Kuzy I just thought it was because he sucked playing D 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Wrong guy. Shoulda got Monahan. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 12 minutes ago, Dom said: Wrong guy. Shoulda got Monahan. Put down the pipe my friend, put it down now. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Put down the pipe my friend, put it down now. 6G 1A in 9 games. Outperforming Lindholm by a country mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 29 minutes ago, Dom said: Wrong guy. Shoulda got Monahan. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 To me the big loss in this whole saga was not trading Kuzz at the last DL when he was on league min on pace for 40+g Imagine the haul. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 He should not be playing center as he can’t really carry his own line. He’s much better as a winger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 15 minutes ago, Hammertime said: To me the big loss in this whole saga was not trading Kuzz at the last DL when he was on league min on pace for 40+g Imagine the haul. For real, I was one of the folks saying we should sell him off, we were never going to make the playoffs last season Would have gotten a great return 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Coconuts said: For real, I was one of the folks saying we should sell him off, we were never going to make the playoffs last season Would have gotten a great return what hockey reason was there to trade him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, Bob Long said: what hockey reason was there to trade him? Loading up for this season, or the future. Kuzmenko's cap hit vs production would have allowed him to fit on any playoff team, his shooting percentage was unsustainably high, and Bruce bump or not we were in tough to make the playoffs. Could have returned picks, prospects, a young NHL'er, or some combination thereof. We're still extremely thin regarding center prospects for example. He was a sell high option, we could have done very well by trading him when his value was highest. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Coconuts said: Loading up for this season, or the future. Kuzmenko's cap hit vs production would have allowed him to fit on any playoff team, his shooting percentage was unsustainably high, and Bruce bump or not we were in tough to make the playoffs. Could have returned picks, prospects, a young NHL'er, or some combination thereof. We're still extremely thin regarding center prospects for example. He was a sell high option, we could have done very well by trading him when his value was highest. Outside of the picks are great argument, what team reason was there to move him? It looked like Kuzy was a great fit with Petey. Why move that unless you had to? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 29 minutes ago, Rounoush said: The conversation has to be started, too many people are on the Lindholm/PA hype train but scrutiny is due. Lindholm has looked brilliant defensively, on the PK and at faceoffs. But he has been garbage offensively or running his own line. This from a guy who is supposed to be a first line center, Selke-nominee and deserving of an 8M contract? Right now he's playing like Manny Malhotra - a checking 3C who can kill penalties. He's scoring at a 40 point pace with the Canucks despite playing on our top PP and with our All-stars at times. Now you could argue even Blueger's outscoring him. Not good enough for someone who cost so many assets and is going to ask for 7-8M based on one 40G season with two superstars which feels like eons ago. For what he cost us, he has to be better. It's 12 games in now so he's had time with the team and practices. That's about a third of his rental life as a Canuck over already. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 4 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Outside of the picks are great argument, what team reason was there to move him? It looked like Kuzy was a great fit with Petey. Why move that unless you had to? I didn't see his production as being sustainable, in part because of his shooting percentage I also saw him as more of a benefactor, how many tap ins did he have last season? Turns out I wasn't wrong 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 25 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Not good enough for someone who cost so many assets -Joni Jurmo was not an asset -Kuzzy and his 5.5 million dollar cap hit was not an asset -a 4th round pick is what we got for Curtis Lazar We gave up 2 decent assets in the late 1st and B level prospect. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 30 minutes ago, Coconuts said: I didn't see his production as being sustainable, in part because of his shooting percentage I also saw him as more of a benefactor, how many tap ins did he have last season? Well, who has been a better producer with Petey since? It's hard to find players with his potential 30 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Turns out I wasn't wrong Sure, and Allvin found a way to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Well, who has been a better producer with Petey since? It's hard to find players with his potential Sure, and Allvin found a way to move on. Hard to say, but it certainly wasn't this season's Kuzmenko He did, which brings us full circle, I reckon we could have done better for him last season and was calling for him to be traded But one circle is enough for me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, Coconuts said: Hard to say, but it certainly wasn't this season's Kuzmenko He did, which brings us full circle, I reckon we could have done better for him last season and was calling for him to be traded But one circle is enough for me But it doesn't make sense from a team building pov, and where mgmt sees the team at competitively. We can always trade anyone for picks and a theoretical haul. It's much harder to find roster players that work great together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: But it doesn't make sense from a team building pov, and where mgmt sees the team at competitively. We can always trade anyone for picks and a theoretical haul. It's much harder to find roster players that work great together. That depends entirely on a theoretical Kuzmenko return, but it didn't happen so that's an unending list of who could have been acquired And sure, but we wound up moving him anyway, things are easier to look back on in retrospect Thing is, it wasn't retrospect for everyone, I wasn't the only one arguing we should have traded him We got Lindholm out of it, and he's a very good player, I just we'd gone about it differently and acquired blue chip guys 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: what hockey reason was there to trade him? I was pretty outspoken on this last year before the DL and before the draft. Took a thrashing on the ol CDC for it. What's done is done and we still got a decent return but a guy on pace for 40g on league min would have gotten a haul of picks and prospects to set us up during the OEL buyout years. He was a free asset and I suppose if we traded him after 6 months maybe we would have difficulty attracting other free assets. It was pretty obvious Tocc didn't like what he saw last year. Not flipping him at the draft didn't make sense to me. But I thought hey they must have a plan they must really like him and want to work with him to get better. In the end it cost us Hunter b to dump him. It was a dissapointing rollercoaster. I like Lindholm though I think he's been underrated so far by people around here. He takes a lot of the pressure off of Miller to have to hard match against top lines all the time. Edited February 28 by Hammertime 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 7 minutes ago, Hammertime said: He takes a lot of the pressure off of Miller to have to hard match against top lines all the time. I think this is a key takeaway. Miller has taken off since Lindholm arrived. I'm sure it has to do with reduced defensive duties. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 20 minutes ago, Hammertime said: I was pretty outspoken on this last year before the DL and before the draft. Took a thrashing on the ol CDC for it. What's done is done and we still got a decent return but a guy on pace for 40g on league min would have gotten a haul of picks and prospects to set us up during the OEL buyout years. He was a free asset and I suppose if we traded him after 6 months maybe we would have difficulty attracting other free assets. It was pretty obvious Tocc didn't like what he saw last year. Not flipping him at the draft didn't make sense to me. But I thought hey they must have a plan they must really like him and want to work with him to get better. In the end it cost us Hunter b to dump him. It was a dissapointing rollercoaster. I like Lindholm though I think he's been underrated so far by people around here. He takes a lot of the pressure off of Miller to have to hard match against top lines all the time. I guess for me I'd rather see them try to make a player like this fit, vs. more futures. As we can see with Lindholm, who we know is a very good player, it takes time to gel. I just don't see how Kuzy gets moved last year. He picked Vancouver, I'm sure there were discussions over long term fit which is why he picked us in part, they probably had a good exit meeting, etc etc. Just wasn't a thing that was going to happen. When I look at Buffalo or ANA, e.g., who have had all the great picks, they still suck. Why? because the pro side development is very very hard to do. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I just don't see how Kuzy gets moved last year. He picked Vancouver, I'm sure there were discussions over long term fit which is why he picked us in part, they probably had a good exit meeting, etc etc. Just wasn't a thing that was going to happen. 26 minutes ago, Hammertime said: He was a free asset and I suppose if we traded him after 6 months maybe we would have difficulty attracting other free assets. I agree to an extent. Which is why when he wasn't moved then. I supported seeing it through with Kuzz only to watch him get turfed a handful of months later. 46 minutes ago, Hammertime said: In the end it cost us Hunter b to dump him. It was a disappointing rollercoaster. Asset management? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, Hammertime said: Asset management? I mean this is the holy land for hindsight isn't it? If we end up keeping Lindholm because Petey wants out e.g., it will look like quite a good move. But.. but... but.... you can go over and over what ifs, which I admit is kind of fun to do. I trust this current management groups ability to do the pro-side development well, most of the time. Compared to ol Jimbo, e.g., who's decisions we're still paying for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Posted by Jaimito,
Official Trade Announcement
Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel
10 reactions
Go to this post
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.