Ce que je ne comprends pas, c’est le refus de la direction d’ajouter une 8ème année… ils n’ont même pas donné à Miller cela pour réduire son plafond annuel ! (Il a obtenu un 8 x 7).
S’ils/nous voulons tellement Lindholm qu’ils sont déjà dans le quartier des 7 ans, pourquoi ne pas simplement égaler ce qu’il obtiendra probablement en agence libre avec un 7 x 8 ou même un 7,25 x 8 ?
—
GoldenChest2000
16 Comments
Because Demko’s and Hughes contract are coming up in the next 2-3 years they need all the flexibility they can get. And let’s be real, giving a 29 year old 8 years usually never ends up well for the team giving out that contract.
Is a sign and trade not an option somehow? Even if we can’t keep him for cap reasons we could get a return for him at least instead of letting him walk for nothing. Lindholm would have to be interested in that as well in order to make it work though.
The right call imo. It’s too much money and term tied up on centres, especially when he’ll be likely 36 when it ends and when we already have a similar situation with Miller. We’re better off using that cap space to improve our winger depth or defense
I will be ok with this if we manage to sign Guentzel…
Who’s getting the kids? 🙁
There’s so many reports of him going to Boston I’m surprised they havent been hit with tampering lol
We were always going to have to overpay, I’m glad we aren’t
The team is headed for a breakup with a lot of key players. I still say we should be shopping Demko while he’s remotely healthy before another injury knocks him out for good. I’ve loved watching him play, but not being able to count on your star goaltender for basically any playoff run is upsetting.
Unfortunately the fact is Lindholm is a luxury we simply can’t afford. We still need a top 6 winger and need to fill out our bottom 6 and depth on defense. I’d love to keep him but 7×7 is already too much/too long.
7-8 years for a 29 tear old is too long.
They shouldn’t signing him. He’s in clear decline or is very mentally fragile. Giving 7 years to a 50-60 point centre when they have 2 good centres already is a huge wast of resources.
Im okay with moving on from Lindholm. Even though he’s only 29, he’s already at 800+ career games. A 7 year deal takes him to ~1400 games.
His last 2 seasons were 64 points, and 44 points. He’s hit 30 goals once, and was point/game once.
He’s a good player, but he’s not a *great* player.
Perhaps they are planning for the future as The Canucks will need to open up a lot of space to try and sign two UFA local boys to come play for Vancouver.
Meh, I’m fine if he goes to free agency. I trust this management. Benning didn’t do them any favours.
If lindholm knows Boston is giving him bc 7y x 9-9.5m, unfortunately he’s not going to settle for 7 x 7.
No idea how you read that article and that minor Friedman quote and decide that the Canucks won’t go to 8 years ans that THAT is the deal breaker.
How do you know Lindholms ask isn’t 8Mx8 or more? Where has it been stated by anyone that the reason the deal won’t happen is because the Canucks won’t sign him for 8 years?
All that Friedman quote says the Canucks are willing to do 7×7 but Friedman doesn’t think that gets it done.
Yeah to be frank I mean he wasn’t getting that much in Calgary why does he think 1 over time goal and some decent play for like a month and half justified a 2.5 mill raise, for all we know he could sign big and then not pan out long term. Id only be interested if he was to sign for 2-3 years anyway. 7-8 years seems too risky for a player who’s been up and down. We have him a good push but his stock is higher from us. Calgary got rid of him for a reason