Popular Post spook007 Posted July 18 Popular Post Share Posted July 18 15 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said: I agree about the rental. It was priority to acquire them for last season at both skill and cost efficiency. That made us better. Second priority was re-signing but management had a figure they weren't going above and were sticking to the plan. Everyone was saying Lindholm would or could command upward of $8 to $9 mill. So, in all honesty, no one really expected him to be here. And I don't believe they expected to keep Lindholm. Imo, they offered the contract in good faith in an attempt knowing he likely wouldn't accept because he could get what he wanted on the open market. Also, there was never an inkling or feeling that Lindholm wanted to stay or re-sign. Even when it was first spoken of late during the season. I think Lindholm himself viewed last year as temporary. Its the way I see it as well... Management would like to have signed Lindholm, but they had a number in mind and it was likely either not big enough, or Lindholm wanted to play elsewhere... but the team was in a good frame of mind, and PA wanted to help them win... They didn't win but the trade to get Lindholm was well worth it, as we were 1 game from progressing... I fully expect them to pull something similar this season, should we be in the same position coming close to TDL... 1 3 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 53 minutes ago, spook007 said: Its the way I see it as well... Management would like to have signed Lindholm, but they had a number in mind and it was likely either not big enough, or Lindholm wanted to play elsewhere... but the team was in a good frame of mind, and PA wanted to help them win... They didn't win but the trade to get Lindholm was well worth it, as we were 1 game from progressing... I fully expect them to pull something similar this season, should we be in the same position coming close to TDL... and it must be stated again, with our best offensive player playing injured (my speculation obviously which is contrary to what Petey & the Canucks have said officially). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 23 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: I disagree with Lindholm. I think when they made the trade they had an idea of a range he'd be looking for to be re-signed. What they didn't expect was Boston to make it public they were going after him. And it wasn't just Boston that was going after him. Zads they had the right money, just not the right term. In short I don't think those were expected to be rentals. Boston just likes to screw Vancouver a lot. I have to disagree. Lindholm was always a pipe dream and a silly notion to even seriously contemplate. No team can afford to purposely sign $7-$8 million dollar 3rd liners. Would have sunk this team for years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said: I have to disagree. Lindholm was always a pipe dream and a silly notion to even seriously contemplate. No team can afford to purposely sign $7-$8 million dollar 3rd liners. Would have sunk this team for years. John Tavares (just kidding of course, he might be a 3rd liner now but he wasn't always) Edited July 18 by NewbieCanuckFan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) 37 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: John Tavares (just kidding of course, he might be a 3rd liner now but he wasn't always) Haha, no doubt. That's the point of course, nobody purposely sign guys to $8 mil to play on the third line. Guys with bad contracts all over end up there and people get laughed at, but no GM purposely does this. That's like the Rangers trading for Bobrovsky to back up Shesterkin. Just a colossal waste. Edited July 18 by Gawdzukes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guntrix Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 On 7/17/2024 at 2:48 PM, Dr. Crossbar said: I never thought Lindholm and Zad were acquired to be long term. It was understood at the time - and I remember this sentiment - that re-signing was secondary to making the playoffs last year, giving the team the best chance possible to win, and only if they made sense financially. Lindholm especially. I'm glad we have more flexibility, tbh, and didn't wrap $14 million into two players. Even though I loved Zad. At the end of the day, they were good cost-effective additions to turn the corner into our window and gain playoff experience. That was important. But if we look at how we did improve with the most recent signings, we took a step up in suring up some gaps and weaknesses that we recognized last season. We'll be able to do the same this coming season like we did with Lindholm and Zad and improve the team even more. At this stage, from this perspective, we look to be improving incrementally in the right way. They did come at a cost though. Many posts are missing that in their analysis. Which is my issue with rentals: your future takes a hit. There have been many teams - Canucks included - that have taken much longer to rebuild because they bet the farm on rentals and it didn't pay off. I've never been a fan of rentals and I'll never advocate for them unless we're literally on the last year of a window and it's all or nothing. And even then, it's a big risk. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 39 minutes ago, Guntrix said: They did come at a cost though. Many posts are missing that in their analysis. Which is my issue with rentals: your future takes a hit. There have been many teams - Canucks included - that have taken much longer to rebuild because they bet the farm on rentals and it didn't pay off. I've never been a fan of rentals and I'll never advocate for them unless we're literally on the last year of a window and it's all or nothing. And even then, it's a big risk. Pretty much every contender does them though, to the point you're putting the team at a disadvantage if you don't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 9 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Pretty much every contender does them though, to the point you're putting the team at a disadvantage if you don't. Z cost us a 5th round pick & a *future* 3rd round pick. Those are the types of rental costs I don't have an issue. And it wasn't a slam dunk we wouldn't be able to re-sign him (he had a career type of year in the post-season & priced himself out of the market for us). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Crossbar Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, Guntrix said: They did come at a cost though. Many posts are missing that in their analysis. Which is my issue with rentals: your future takes a hit. There have been many teams - Canucks included - that have taken much longer to rebuild because they bet the farm on rentals and it didn't pay off. I've never been a fan of rentals and I'll never advocate for them unless we're literally on the last year of a window and it's all or nothing. And even then, it's a big risk. Sure, they did, and there is a cost, but context, situation, need, and individual dynamics matter. There's also the cost of not doing so, too. Especially when we're in our window now. We had to turn a corner from losing and make the playoffs last season. The standards were raised. Also, Allvin commited to the players, their desire to win, and getting them the help they needed to compete with the best team possible. It's not so absolute black and white. Things are fluid. Allvin and Rutherford are going to do what it takes to win while also looking at the bigger picture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 8 hours ago, Gawdzukes said: Would have sunk this team for years. and probably would've wasted the prime years of Hughes and Petey to compete for the Cup. I would have loved Lindholm, and wished that he took a discount to stay here. If we had been able to keep him at a discount, AND also sign Debrusk, we would've been gold for cup contention. But alas, this is as good as it gets for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 2 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Z cost us a 5th round pick & a *future* 3rd round pick. Those are the types of rental costs I don't have an issue. And it wasn't a slam dunk we wouldn't be able to re-sign him (he had a career type of year in the post-season & priced himself out of the market for us). Wish he stayed in Canuck colours, but he's now the enemy. Worst team to have signed with. Really? The Bruins?? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 47 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: Wish he stayed in Canuck colours, but he's now the enemy. Worst team to have signed with. Really? The Bruins?? Imagine him on the Oilers blueline? (not that they could afford the cap hit) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 10 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said: Imagine him on the Oilers blueline? (not that they could afford the cap hit) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 13 hours ago, N4ZZY said: and probably would've wasted the prime years of Hughes and Petey to compete for the Cup. I would have loved Lindholm, and wished that he took a discount to stay here. If we had been able to keep him at a discount, AND also sign Debrusk, we would've been gold for cup contention. But alas, this is as good as it gets for us. To be honest I couldn't really care less. It was just an absolutely non-sensical notion by completely unrealistic fans. There was no way he was going to consider staying here for $4 - $5 mil, which is the most anyone should afford to pay a third line center. That still would have screwed our cap over. We simply had no shot whatsoever at him. It's like thinking/hoping McDavid, Bedard, and Josi were going to request trades to the Canucks, and play for peanuts, or that Guentzel was going to sign with us for $5 mil. Never stop dreaming as they say but that was just silly and never going to happen. I mentioned this elsewhere but it's like signing Shesterkin to back up Hellebuyck, or vice versa. Here is al list of 15 random 3rd line centers: Turcotte $775,000 Greig $$863,333 Karlsson $5,900,000 Chytil $4,437,500 Poitras $950,000 Bourque $894,167 Colton $4,000,000 Sissons $2,857,143 Lowry $3,250,000 Copp $5,625,000 Paul $3,150,000 Henrique $3,000,000 Lundell $5,000,000 Haula $3,150,000 Hayes $3,571,429 Anyone who thought we were getting Lindholm just doesn't understand the financial side of hockey at all. A couple teams approached the $5 mil mark like Florida, who just won a cup, and Detroit, who had tonnes of cap space. We had next to none. A complete non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 22 hours ago, N4ZZY said: I would have loved Lindholm, and wished that he took a discount to stay here. If we had been able to keep him at a discount, AND also sign Debrusk, we would've been gold for cup contention. But alas, this is as good as it gets for us. Lindholm did not want to be third line centre behind Miller and Petey. He's going to have a shot at being Boston's number one centre. He was never going to sign here, regardless of how much money they dangled in front of him. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 On 7/17/2024 at 3:26 PM, spook007 said: I don't think they could fir Lindholm in at the $8M he got in Boston, and even less likely at the $9M that was reported to start with... They may have hoped he would be willing to negotiate but here we are... I hoped, he'd stay, as I thought be brought some fight to our top 6, but am certainly not unhappy with how it all has shaped up... PA has been really good at reshaping the team and change out any unwanted parts while still improving the team... Almost seems Lindholm was at the point; Who ever gives me the most for the longest, can have my services. From what I saw, he aint worth 8 or LOL, 9. At the point he's at in his hockey life, he's slowing down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wsiroRvMJM&t=45s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 I think we are going to need 3 goalies this year. What about adding a goalie prospect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 On 7/16/2024 at 12:53 PM, IBatch said: I'm old about to remember that Richard Broduer was considered King Richard for a reason. And young enough at the time to think that was pretty cool. Because, well Robin hood and stuff. It wasn't all bad, Skudra and Essensaa had their moments. That said a long gap between McLean and Luongo. Since then we've been blessed really. As for Lack not sure why he'd be given a lot of air time, team was still pretty good infront of him at the time. Why Luongo was snubbed is still Lacks legacy IMO. Bad teams and guys like Snow, Burke, Potvin, Skudra .. wish we gave Beezer an actual shot. Irbe. Had some moments too, Silovs for me has a lot to prove, because i've seen a lot of former number ones and guys who weren't number ones jammed into that role with mediocre results. So have you. Teams took a modest risk (by not signing a De-Smith). Hope Silovs will make the most of it. I think Felix the (road kill) cat was the worst goalie we ever had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyBoeser Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 On 7/30/2024 at 9:15 PM, erkayloomeh said: I think Felix the (road kill) cat was the worst goalie we ever had. Martin Brochu is worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nergish Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 On 7/30/2024 at 9:15 PM, erkayloomeh said: I think Felix the (road kill) cat was the worst goalie we ever had. 5 hours ago, PeteyBoeser said: Martin Brochu is worse. Felix sure looked good in our colours. But his on-ice performance was indeed quite poor. Kevin Weekes was easily the worst I’ve seen tend our crease, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTueyCanucksFan Posted August 4 Author Share Posted August 4 16 minutes ago, nergish said: Felix sure looked good in our colours. But his on-ice performance was indeed quite poor. Kevin Weekes was easily the worst I’ve seen tend our crease, though. The worst I have seen in my 46 years of life was Kay Whitmore. Close second would be our boy Dan Cloutier (originator of the can't stop a beachball meme). Garth Snow was awful as well. Irbe never made it to the NHL. Then we get into Felix and Weekes. Tbh though, Felix was never as bad as Whitmore. Felix was at least a legitimate starter on most teams when he came here from Toronto 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted August 4 Share Posted August 4 18 minutes ago, BTueyCanucksFan said: Irbe never made it to the NHL. 13 years. 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.