Sativika Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 I like the right shot centre Lindholm acquisition. The comparables to Bluegar are definitely similar. I mean, the fact he's a righty and has better face off prowess; do those aspects of him justify an elite level salary? As it looks right now, Lindholm's a 2nd or 3rd centre with us. Bluegar and Suter have been such with us all year. Sure, he had that one anomalis season scoring 40plus goals with superstar wingers. Still, for primarily a defensive minded centre, is he worth that much?!?!?!?!?!? Sure. Pay the man. Just don't overpay him. As much as Lindholm was a great get; to me he's not worth some of the numbers I've seen bandied about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 8 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said: I know, but Blueger and Lindholm are surprisingly close in a lot of categories. They basically play the same role (defensive center who can kill penalties) and are scoring at the same clip almost exactly - 40 point pace over an 82 game schedule. Lindholm plays a lot more minutes with better wingers though, but does have a much better faceoff %. We should be comparing Lindholm to Miller and Petey, not Blueger, but here we are. Comparing Lindholm to Miller and Pettersson is more apt. I do agree we're all hoping for more from Lindholm offensively, but he is definitely not hurting play in the offensive zone. While Blueger is also good defensively and on the dot, I'd say Lindholm is much better. He's made many more noticeable plays in the defensive zone to thwart potential scoring chances. Plus, Lindholm does have much more to offer than Blueger on the offensive end. We're just waiting for that to all click. Also if you think about it, 12 games isn't actually that much time to get acclimated, so I think we're being a bit hasty with how critical we are of Lindholm. If Lindholm is still playing like this after the season and playoffs, then I think it would be more fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 15 hours ago, ngoway said: Comparing Lindholm to Miller and Pettersson is more apt. I do agree we're all hoping for more from Lindholm offensively, but he is definitely not hurting play in the offensive zone. While Blueger is also good defensively and on the dot, I'd say Lindholm is much better. He's made many more noticeable plays in the defensive zone to thwart potential scoring chances. Plus, Lindholm does have much more to offer than Blueger on the offensive end. We're just waiting for that to all click. Also if you think about it, 12 games isn't actually that much time to get acclimated, so I think we're being a bit hasty with how critical we are of Lindholm. If Lindholm is still playing like this after the season and playoffs, then I think it would be more fair. I get this, but I'm still waiting. Another bland performance against LA. He's on pace for 37 points with us. That's outrageous for a rental top line center. Glad some of the CDC posters are finally seeing and judging him accordingly. The same rightly happens to any player not producing or performing. It happened to Kuzmenko and Mikheyev and now it's happening to Lindholm. Only blessing in disguise is that we might be able to sign him to a 5-6M deal at this rate if he doesn't pick up because he's worth not a penny more and even 6M is generous. Garland is on a 40 point pace, good defensively and great forechecker and gets 5M (admittedly quite an old deal) so Lindholm should be on something similar plus a tiny bit more for his faceoffs and the time, so about 5.5-6M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 6 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said: I get this, but I'm still waiting. Another bland performance against LA. He's on pace for 37 points with us. That's outrageous for a rental top line center. Glad some of the CDC posters are finally seeing and judging him accordingly. The same rightly happens to any player not producing or performing. It happened to Kuzmenko and Mikheyev and now it's happening to Lindholm. Only blessing in disguise is that we might be able to sign him to a 5-6M deal at this rate if he doesn't pick up because he's worth not a penny more and even 6M is generous. Garland is on a 40 point pace, good defensively and great forechecker and gets 5M (admittedly quite an old deal) so Lindholm should be on something similar plus a tiny bit more for his faceoffs and the time, so about 5.5-6M. The bar for Lindholm was definitely higher and should be. But our team as a whole right now is struggling, so there's also that factor. The criticism towards Kuzmenko and now Mikheyev have been warranted as they had 40+ games with multiple opportunities to get their game together. Lindholm is still only at 13 games. Even Tocchet just said to be patient and give him more time: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tocchet-patient-lindholm-slow-start-canucks Garland and Lindholm also can't really be compared. Lindholm plays C and is much better defensively than Garland. Garland is better on the forecheck, but being a winger = having much less responsibility. Plus being a right hand C right now has much more value than a right handed winger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jess Posted March 1 Author Share Posted March 1 45 minutes ago, ngoway said: The bar for Lindholm was definitely higher and should be. But our team as a whole right now is struggling, so there's also that factor. The criticism towards Kuzmenko and now Mikheyev have been warranted as they had 40+ games with multiple opportunities to get their game together. Lindholm is still only at 13 games. Even Tocchet just said to be patient and give him more time: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tocchet-patient-lindholm-slow-start-canucks Garland and Lindholm also can't really be compared. Lindholm plays C and is much better defensively than Garland. Garland is better on the forecheck, but being a winger = having much less responsibility. Plus being a right hand C right now has much more value than a right handed winger. There's definitely a mix of factors. Lindholm is not playing up to expectations, though it's also true that the rest of the team is slumping too, so both factors are contributing to each other. At the current rate, I'd lean towards letting Lindholm go away in FA, but as @DownUndaCanuck says, if his poor play lowers his value substantially so that he's willing to take a lot less than the money he was previously looking for, I could maybe be okay with a deal that's in the $6M or less range. All that said, my Loui Eriksson PTSD is a bit triggered, so I'd be hestiant to give Lindholm a long deal at this point. Still, he's got quite a few games left to finish the season and we're definitely making the playoffs, so he could still turn things around in remaining games this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, -AJ- said: There's definitely a mix of factors. Lindholm is not playing up to expectations, though it's also true that the rest of the team is slumping too, so both factors are contributing to each other. At the current rate, I'd lean towards letting Lindholm go away in FA, but as @DownUndaCanuck says, if his poor play lowers his value substantially so that he's willing to take a lot less than the money he was previously looking for, I could maybe be okay with a deal that's in the $6M or less range. All that said, my Loui Eriksson PTSD is a bit triggered, so I'd be hestiant to give Lindholm a long deal at this point. Still, he's got quite a few games left to finish the season and we're definitely making the playoffs, so he could still turn things around in remaining games this year. Definitely not up to expectations so far. But at least is that he's helping us win faceoffs consistently, and has been very good defensively. My main point to all this is that 13 games in is too early to label this as a failure. If after the season his play hasn't picked up, yes to definitely either him walking, or hopefully getting him at a reasonable contract and hoping for a bounce back. I don't think any of us ever want to experience that Loui Eriksson situation again, but I believe Lindholm is a better player than Eriksson. He'd also be two years younger than when we signed Eriksson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 3 hours ago, -AJ- said: There's definitely a mix of factors. Lindholm is not playing up to expectations, though it's also true that the rest of the team is slumping too, so both factors are contributing to each other. At the current rate, I'd lean towards letting Lindholm go away in FA, but as @DownUndaCanuck says, if his poor play lowers his value substantially so that he's willing to take a lot less than the money he was previously looking for, I could maybe be okay with a deal that's in the $6M or less range. All that said, my Loui Eriksson PTSD is a bit triggered, so I'd be hestiant to give Lindholm a long deal at this point. Still, he's got quite a few games left to finish the season and we're definitely making the playoffs, so he could still turn things around in remaining games this year. After last season (especially Cole and Blueger) I hope we offer him a one year "show-me" 6M deal. I'd take that and run. Would be a bit hard if it means we have to let our depth guys like Blueger or Joshua walk. In theory Lindholm at 6M gives us three solid centers so we don't really need Blueger who might cost 3-4M. Right now in all fairness Blueger is the better center but Lindholm always carries that potential of regaining his former glory, although that slips further and further away, whereas Blueger is playing the best hockey of his life right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 5 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said: After last season (especially Cole and Blueger) I hope we offer him a one year "show-me" 6M deal. I'd take that and run. Would be a bit hard if it means we have to let our depth guys like Blueger or Joshua walk. In theory Lindholm at 6M gives us three solid centers so we don't really need Blueger who might cost 3-4M. Right now in all fairness Blueger is the better center but Lindholm always carries that potential of regaining his former glory, although that slips further and further away, whereas Blueger is playing the best hockey of his life right now. Blueger is playing fairly well for us, but not sure I'd go as far as saying he's playing the best hockey of his life. I would like to retain Blueger, but he's probably behind Pettersson, Hronek, Lindholm, and Joshua for order of extensions. Doesn't fully add up either that Blueger is considered better than Lindholm. I'd take Lindholm 100% of the time over Blueger given their current play. Lindholm is a much higher caliber player who isn't playing to his best. Where Blueger is a middle to bottom end player who's playing above/at his expected play. Finding another Blueger in FA or from another team is much easier than finding another Lindholm. But yes I'd agree that if he keeps up this play that it would either have to be a one year deal, or just agree to an overall lower cap hit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 6 hours ago, ngoway said: Blueger is playing fairly well for us, but not sure I'd go as far as saying he's playing the best hockey of his life. I would like to retain Blueger, but he's probably behind Pettersson, Hronek, Lindholm, and Joshua for order of extensions. Doesn't fully add up either that Blueger is considered better than Lindholm. I'd take Lindholm 100% of the time over Blueger given their current play. Lindholm is a much higher caliber player who isn't playing to his best. Where Blueger is a middle to bottom end player who's playing above/at his expected play. Finding another Blueger in FA or from another team is much easier than finding another Lindholm. But yes I'd agree that if he keeps up this play that it would either have to be a one year deal, or just agree to an overall lower cap hit. Yes, but do we take Lindholm at 6-7M or Blueger at 3-4M? If there's a way we can sign Tanev on the cheap to a 1-2 year deal at I don't know...3-4M, then the question is Lindholm vs Blueger + Tanev. I know which one I'd want. Lindholm for some reason is getting a massive price tag on him for what, one good season he had eons ago? We're here shredding Petey for not being worth 12M (whereas a lot of that is potential/future) but people on CDC seem to think Lindholm deserves getting 7-8M on free agency. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 7 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said: Yes, but do we take Lindholm at 6-7M or Blueger at 3-4M? If there's a way we can sign Tanev on the cheap to a 1-2 year deal at I don't know...3-4M, then the question is Lindholm vs Blueger + Tanev. I know which one I'd want. Lindholm for some reason is getting a massive price tag on him for what, one good season he had eons ago? We're here shredding Petey for not being worth 12M (whereas a lot of that is potential/future) but people on CDC seem to think Lindholm deserves getting 7-8M on free agency. If Lindholm can find his game, it's Lindholm 100%. A top six right handed C is much more valuable than a bottom six left handed C. No disrespect to Teddy Blueger either as he's a good player. Again, let's give him until the end of the season before we start dumping on the guy. I think most of us agree Lindholm can be better, but I'm tired of hearing Canucks fans dump on the players and the team when the team/players are struggling a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kettlevalley Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 I think the reality is the decision time for Lindholm is now though. Do we flip him at the deadline as he isn't working out as well as hoped and tale those assets and get someone who fits better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 19 hours ago, kettlevalley said: I think the reality is the decision time for Lindholm is now though. Do we flip him at the deadline as he isn't working out as well as hoped and tale those assets and get someone who fits better? I would. I know sometimes players pan out and who knows, maybe Lindholm will be huge in the playoffs, but he hasn't shown us anything decent really. He can't generate any offence, can't run a line by himself, he just defends well. That's great but we didn't just spend so many assets on a checking 3C who's on pace for 35 points with us. I'd be calling around but teams wouldn't be stupid enough to offer high picks for him after they've seen him struggle with us. Our scouts should have done a better job on him in Calgary because he wasn't having a great season there either. That begs the question of whether he was a product or cause of their poor offence and I think now we can say it's a bit of both but he really does suck the offence out of a line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 18 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said: I would. I know sometimes players pan out and who knows, maybe Lindholm will be huge in the playoffs, but he hasn't shown us anything decent really. He can't generate any offence, can't run a line by himself, he just defends well. That's great but we didn't just spend so many assets on a checking 3C who's on pace for 35 points with us. I'd be calling around but teams wouldn't be stupid enough to offer high picks for him after they've seen him struggle with us. Our scouts should have done a better job on him in Calgary because he wasn't having a great season there either. That begs the question of whether he was a product or cause of their poor offence and I think now we can say it's a bit of both but he really does suck the offence out of a line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 On 3/2/2024 at 8:17 AM, ngoway said: If Lindholm can find his game, it's Lindholm 100%. A top six right handed C is much more valuable than a bottom six left handed C. No disrespect to Teddy Blueger either as he's a good player. Again, let's give him until the end of the season before we start dumping on the guy. I think most of us agree Lindholm can be better, but I'm tired of hearing Canucks fans dump on the players and the team when the team/players are struggling a bit. Is it just me or does it seem like we have a thing with veteran Swedes we bring in not working out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoway Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 3 minutes ago, Hammertime said: Is it just me or does it seem like we have a thing with veteran Swedes we bring in not working out. Haha we haven't had the best luck. Maybe it's the number #23? I will say though that there were many more flags around getting OEL in comparison to Lindholm. Lindholm makes a ton of sense on the team and is a good player, but just hasn't found the offense with us (yet). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 44 minutes ago, Rip The Mesh said: Impressively level-headed and honest take from a GM. Supporting the player but not hiding expectations. It seems Rutherford may have learned how to deal with the media a bit better. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 On 3/6/2024 at 9:53 PM, Hammertime said: Is it just me or does it seem like we have a thing with veteran Swedes we bring in not working out. Lets just hope it isn't so... And if it is, thank JR/PA for being able to let him go without being stuck with a long term contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 I think we saw an improvement in Lindy's' game against LA. He joined the team during a rough stretch of game; mostly on the road, with little practice time or even downtime. He is clearly more comfortable at C, the Canucks need to fit at RW as well. He does a lot of things well, defensively, is great at f/os, strong on his skates, hockey sense and will probably settle in as a 60pt-65 player on a top 6 line. I'm not on board for the (projected) package for Guentzel, so if Boston wants Lindy, they can send Fredy back to us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 So how do we view EL right now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire_Spiky Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, Warhippy said: So how do we view EL right now? Underwhelmed. I was really happy when we traded for him as I felt we needed another strong top 6 center. The overpayment would of been fine if we could resign him. However with him now playing on the 3rd and not producing, I doubt we'll resign him. He could turn the corner down the stretch, but at this point I don't see him in Canucks jersey long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 minute ago, Spitfire_Spiky said: Underwhelmed. I was really happy when we traded for him as I felt we needed another strong top 6 center. The overpayment would of been fine if we could resign him. However with him now playing on the 3rd and not producing, I doubt we'll resign him. He could turn the corner down the stretch, but at this point I don't see him in Canucks jersey long term. I have a feeling he tops out with a 2-4 year $5 ish million deal and I am wondering at that point if he is worth the term 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippersUp Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 6 minutes ago, Warhippy said: So how do we view EL right now? Pretty expensive rental. I had high hopes. At his current salary he's fine anything over 6m though and I think we have to walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire_Spiky Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Just now, Warhippy said: I have a feeling he tops out with a 2-4 year $5 ish million deal and I am wondering at that point if he is worth the term You think he'll settle for 5? Rumour was he had an 8m offer on the table from Calgary. He's definitely not worth that but someone will overpay him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 18 minutes ago, Spitfire_Spiky said: You think he'll settle for 5? Rumour was he had an 8m offer on the table from Calgary. He's definitely not worth that but someone will overpay him. his production since 2022 has tanked, so has his defensive abilities. hes not an $8 million player 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.