[Re-signed] Elias Lindholm

[jdreed3184]

I think Lindholm has a decent chance at a 60-65 point career ahead of him. Either as a #1 or 2 right winger or a #2 Center, there?s enough talent in CGY to make him relevant.

He?s only 24 still.

[rataylor22]

I think Lindholm has a decent chance at a 60-65 point career ahead of him. Either as a #1 or 2 right winger or a #2 Center, there?s enough talent in CGY to make him relevant.

He?s only 24 still.

Most statistical models indicate players have reached their peak offensive output by 24. Players who peak later than that are outliers. Those players will usually have been drafted in later rounds, not the top 5.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, there is no need for teams to sign absolutely everyone for so many years.

Especially with no discount for doing so.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Most statistical models indicate players have reached their peak offensive output by 24.

I think this is simply incorrect, especially when prefaced with "most". Please either share the data to back up your claim, or let us know which hand you pulled it out of your arse with.

[jdreed3184]

I recall data that suggests mid-20?s as a peak age for goal scoring, but not points. Seems low for overall points but I could be wrong.

Lindholm isn?t much of a goal scorer anyway.

I?m not saying he?s going to hit his initial expectations - but I think it?s unlikely that his average points per year for the next 5+ years is sub-50, given his age, talent, development, future usage and surrounding team.

[rataylor22]

I think this is simply incorrect, especially when prefaced with "most". Please either share the data to back up your claim, or let us know which hand you pulled it out of your arse with.

Of course you "think" something lol

https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/23...katers-part-1/

- - - Updated - - -

I recall data that suggests mid-20?s as a peak age for goal scoring, but not points. Seems low for overall points but I could be wrong.

Lindholm isn?t much of a goal scorer anyway.

I?m not saying he?s going to hit his initial expectations - but I think it?s unlikely that his average points per year for the next 5+ years is sub-50, given his age, talent, development, future usage and surrounding team.

Yea. That's really just based on a narrative. There's nothing he's done so far to suggest that will happen.

[rataylor22]

https://theathletic.com/359600/2018/...x-nhl-forward/

Also.

[lucafen4]

at six years... 4.8 seems high to me.. but not outrageously so. 4.25/4.5... is more of what I expected... and not 6 years 4, maybe 5

[als_revenge]

My guess (and it's really a guess) is that a premium was being paid to buy out UFA years. You don't trade for a player at this age and then sign him to a short-term deal and let him walk...

[agentzero]

My guess (and it's really a guess) is that a premium was being paid to buy out UFA years. You don't trade for a player at this age and then sign him to a short-term deal and let him walk...

That's a pretty good guess..

Either way, it certainly looks like they intend to use him a lot. Top 6 for sure at that price.

[bergman]

Lindholm had filed for arbitration. I couldn't remember for sure but seemed to think rulings by the arbiter are 1-year deals. Tried to look it up but almost all deals are settled before the arbitration meeting is held because it's such an ugly process to have the team sit there and rip their own player. So I'm not sure what the Flames thought they were avoiding by signing this deal. They could be thinking that for whatever internal reason they have, Lindholm is likely to succeed quite well in CGY, thus would demand much more next offseason. Other then that it seems a bit strange to go for this term. Then again, they have JG and SM on great deals so it's not the end of the world if Lindholm sticks at 40-50 points as a middle-six player.

[agentzero]

Then again, they have JG and SM on great deals so it's not the end of the world if Lindholm sticks at 40-50 points as a middle-six player.

These days, it seems to be the going rate for that kind of production too... It used to be that your top line winger made 5M.. Like Ilya Kovalchuk or Jarome Iginla... Man, the economics of the league have inflated so significantly..

[Pengwin7]

IDK... I think people are still too quick to make decisions on Lindholm.

The transition to NHL center is VERY difficult.
Lindholm had a pretty solid 1st/2nd NHL years, where he played only some spot center (taking about 200 FO).
In his 3rd season they shifted him to moderate C-duty (taking 400+ FO).
And in his 4th/5th season they shifted him to full C-duty (taking 600,, then 800+ FO).

While some may not be gaga over his scoring, he did improve from a 2nd/3rd year -23... to -2 and -8 the past two seasons.
He's holding down his line... and that comes at a cost to his scoring.

Calgary has two options here with him.
1. They can TRY him at full time C, or
2. They can say, "Hey, I think we have good scorer here if we let him go to W".

And letting a player go to W is a huge difference.
Babcock used to "kick start" Z and Datsyuk by letting them play half wing / half center with each other.
And we saw what Giroux did last year by getting some breaths by having Couts man the two-way of that line at C. (G still took faceoffs, but Couts was mainly in charge of 3rd man).

So, we shall see with Lindholm.
Yes, I think he's still a 45-50pt player if he's asked to play full-time two-way C. And there's value alone in holding down an NHL line.
But... IF they let him go to wing on line 1 or 2... you're looking at a guy that is gonna put up closer to 55-60pts.

Personally, I think Monahan's your C1 (obv) and Backlund is just fine as a C2.
I think they (could) keep Jankowski at C3. I don't mind him. I think he's wasted at C4.

Lindholm is absolutely wasted (IMO) as a C3 at $4.8m with moderate wingers.
But, if you slot him as a top two line wing, I think you get your money's worth.

I'm holding him in my leagues and hoping he gets some wing-duty with the reins taken off.

[RizzeeDizzee]

https://theathletic.com/359600/2018/...x-nhl-forward/

Also.

I see - so two examples is commensurate with being able to say "most" sources. Interesting.

What bothers me most isn't that what you said was reaching - but make no mistake, it was - it's that had I deigned to say the same thing you'd have jumped down my throat even more, and have in the past.

[rataylor22]

I see - so two examples is commensurate with being able to say "most" sources. Interesting.

What bothers me most isn't that what you said was reaching - but make no mistake, it was - it's that had I deigned to say the same thing you'd have jumped down my throat even more, and have in the past.

Lol

[rataylor22]

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/...s-age-analysis

https://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010...-game-peak-age

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...ation.1238041/

http://www.behindthenet.ca/projecting_to_nhl.php

https://www.tsn.ca/pinning-down-a-pl...years-1.388514

Of course Tulsky has the most in-depth analysis of this, but his work is unavailable as he *checks notes* is running the Carolina Hurricanes

https://canucksarmy.com/2015/08/18/h...pact-of-aging/

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...-get-old-fast/