Lindholm would stay if we blow it up. Also Sutter is a win now coach so we won't be blowing it ip for 2-3 years

Rangers decline

At 26 he is too old to stay through a rebuild, the same as we saw with Mantha.

However I agree that CGY is most likely going to sign a bunch of UFA's and try and do the same thing they have done for 5 years. However this is my thread in which CGY is actually smart so just go with the suspension of disbelief on this one haha.

You missed the part where I clicked submit on the trade, it clearly went through lol

If Calgary trades Lindholm (extremely unlikely) then newhook or byram has to be in the deal and then some

Lindholm doesn’t get either. Barron probably, but you aren’t getting an elite prospect for Lindholm. It gets tiresome that fans response to any trade with the Avs is “Newhook or Byram”, those kind of prospect la go for elite players 1st line players, neither of which is Lindholm. And if the response is well then they don’t get Lindholm, fine because I’d rather have Byram and Newhook together on ELC’s than him.

See the post above fam on the likeliness.

Plus fans always like to believe they will get other teams top 5 picks and what not but it almost never works that way. Just one of those lazy post tropes.

Timmins and Barron are similar assets to me. Also CGY WILL need some higher end prospects but I am assuming they are getting them from other trades and this one follows strong historical precedent

I would love Lindholm on the Avs. I think CGY would ask for more than that though

You can just say you know nothing about Lindholm and move on. Clearly he’s not a guy you’re familiar with or you’d value him significantly more than you’re implying.

Man you are just checking off all the bingo spots on the 'typical CF AGM commentor board' arent ya.

You can feel however you want fam, didn't come here worrying about your uneducated homer opinion.

How many Flames games have you watched this year? Or the year before? If you don’t even know the first thing about Lindholm I’m not going to waste my time explaining the rest of the levels to his game. He’s a helluva lot more valuable than a couple B prospects and a 2nd pair defenseman.

He isn’t elite, I’ve watched him for years. He is a great 2nd line guy on a great contract. That does not get you elite prospects. In Newhook and Byram why would they trade them for anybody that isn’t either a) a top pairing dman or b) playing on the Avs top line. Lindholm does neither. But you reach deep into your factual argument bag and go with “you know nothing about Lindholm”. Bro you don’t know if I’m a a man or a woman if all I do is watch hockey all day long, or if I make hockey jerseys in my free time. Weak bro weak.

I know him better than you do. Also I am mostly replying to these because if I can get you to say 2 more tropes I will have bingo, but depending on which one you use I can use the free space

I mean in all fairness he is CGY's best player currently and his deal is valuable. I have him as a 1st line guy. The fact that Lindholm is a legit player isn't really the issue with the dummy above and there is an interesting conversation to have on the topic, they just aren't capable of having it

Tkachuk is their best player, but regardless it just gets so tiring of “player x begins with Byram or Newhook”, in Lindholm’s case for COL he is a 2nd line player who’s value is enhanced by his contract it doesn’t change what he is it also doesn’t change that he would be a great get for COL. Personally I thought your offer was really good. Timmins is going to be so good (for someone else), Graves is a top 4 guy, Kaut is a bit of a wild card but is 100% an NHLer and a 1st. That’s 4 NHL players, assuming you can draft right, including 2 top 4 dmen.

Just because he’s not Rantanen or MacKinnon doesn’t make him not a 1st line talent, that’s a horrendous take. He gets around 30 goals and 70 points, he gets Selke votes and is an excellent PKer, he can play centre or the wing, he plays physical, and he’s locked up for under 5mil for several years. If you don’t think that’s a first line calibre player you’re delusional, there are maybe 3 teams in the league where he doesn’t play C or RW on the top line, and Colorado being one of them doesn’t lower his value at all. He’s basically Danault but sacrificing a small amount of defensive skill for a good shot and ability to play effectively on the power play.


Haven’t seen you back up anything you’ve said with any sort of information. Where’s that on your bingo card? Posting a terrible thread with lopsided trades for other teams’s top players, saying stuff like “I clicked submit so it went through,” claiming to know more about other teams, and then failing to justify any of your ambiguous statements seems like you check quite a few boxes as well. You a closet Leafs fan?

He scored 70pts one time. ONE time. His prorated number for this year is 68. I’m not criticizing what he is, but drawing a cartoon correlation or Chicago Bulls one he is a Robin not a Batman. If he is your best player you have problems. This is my point. He has solid possession metrics with a career 56 CF with around a career 56%OZS. I don’t mean to be a dick, but he’s a 2nd line guy on the Avs period. You don’t trade prospects that are basically considered universally elite, Byram a minute eating point producing #1 dman, and Newhook who if he were on about 20 other teams including Calgary he is the future 1C.

It doesn’t matter that he’s not on the 1st line. He’s a 1st line calibre player, and if he’s not there on the Avs that’s simply a luxury for them. That doesn’t reduce his value at all. Tavares/Malkin play on the 2nd line, would you offer a 2nd line calibre package for them? And the average of his last 3 years (which I think is a pretty decent way to evaluate an established player) is 30 goals and 71 points over an 82 game season, so I think that’s a reasonably accurate statement. You can’t acquire top-tier players with a collection of mid-tier assets, there’s gotta be at least one top-tier asset going back (either at a different position in a hockey trade, or a futures piece with top-tier potential, like Newhook or Byram, combined with another asset to mitigate the risk of them never reaching their peak potential). Would you accept Tanev, Dube, and 7 2nd round picks for MacKinnon?

It doesn’t matter that he’s not on the 1st line. He’s a 1st line calibre player, and if he’s not there on the Avs that’s simply a luxury for them. That doesn’t reduce his value at all. Tavares/Malkin play on the 2nd line, would you offer a 2nd line calibre package for them? And the average of his last 3 years (which I think is a pretty decent way to evaluate an established player) is 30 goals and 71 points over an 82 game season, so I think that’s a reasonably accurate statement. You can’t acquire top-tier players with a collection of mid-tier assets, there’s gotta be at least one top-tier asset going back (either at a different position in a hockey trade, or a futures piece with top-tier potential, like Newhook or Byram, combined with another asset to mitigate the risk of them never reaching their peak potential). Would you accept Tanev, Dube, and 7 2nd round picks for MacKinnon?

That’s just some flawed logic. He is a career .63pt per game player which equates to a 52 pt player which is smack dab in the middle of being a 2nd line player. Those players get good packages not elite prospects. He’s a 2nd line player in CGY my man. Don’t like a trade that nets 2 2nd pairing dman, a young good though not sexy forward prospect and a 1st fine, but the Avs aren’t trading one of their 2 elite prospects for him plain and simple.

MacKinnon’s a career 0.977 ppg player, which is an 80 point pace. Does that make him an 80 point player? Marchand is a career 0.889 ppg player, does that make him a 73 point guy? Give your head a shake, you’re the one using flawed logic here. That’s just a stupid metric all around.

You are blinded by your allegiance. What an asinine reach to use a comparison but we will go down that rabbit hole. Take MacKinnon’s best season away from him, he is still a .933 ppg play driving playoff monster that is one of the best players in the world. Take Lindholms best season away and he isn’t even a 50pt a season player. You are reaching. Lindholm is good, but he doesn’t drive play, ffs he plays on the 2nd line in CGY. Give my head a shake? Pull your head out.

Wtf? I used the exact same logic you did lol, how am I blinded by my allegiance just because I’m intelligent enough to realize Lindholm is much better than a 50 point player even if you isolate his offensive production and completely ignore his defensive strength and versatility. Don’t get mad when you’re flawed argument gets used against you, that’s a sign to reconsider if this metric is one you really want to use. I’M certainly not denying Mack is excellent, I’m pointing out that your logic is flawed because production from longer than 3 years ago has no affect on the player someone is today. I consider Mack a 100+ point player easily, but by your logic we should only consider him an 80 point player. By my logic we should consider him a 106 point player, even though he’s technically never topped 100 points. Whose method is more accurate? Please, try to convince me that Mack’s production is closer to 80 points per year than 106, I’m begging to hear this. It should be pretty simple and definitely justifiable if your logic that this metric has any use at all is accurate. You can’t just cherry pick and claim that it works for reducing Lindholm’s value but then doesn’t affect anyone else, so arguing that Mack is an 80 point guy is the position you’ve put yourself in. Maybe you’d trade Mackinnon for Gaudreau and a 1st? After all, by your metric Gaudreau is a 78 point player, which is only 2 points less per season, and you get a 1st out of it, definitely an overpay and a trade you’d for sure make if this is how you evaluate players accurately, right? Going back further than 3 years to try and discredit a top level player by claiming that his rookie numbers somehow provide any insight into his current skill level is the only asinine take here. It’s an objectively stupid metric to try and use and an even stupider take that you’re reaching to try and justify. Arbitrarily removing a year makes it even worse lmao. And Lindholm has played on Calgary’s top line for 3 years lol, he’d objectively play on the top line of 28 teams in the league. Just because Colorado isn’t one of them doesn’t reduce his value.

It’s just to painful to point out what statistical modeling is and truncated mean, and that’s why I tried simplifying it for you by eliminating the top result instead of the top and bottom so you get a truer mean of production, but hey I’m the one that needs to shake my head. Literally you stated you make assumptions that are not factually based, MacKinnon is not (yet) a 100 pt player you don’t think for a minute Marchand doesn’t let him know that every time they see each other. But yeah you go with just a points that I have used, ignore driving play, or his limited xGD success. I’m sorry my man, I should have never started a discussion with somebody who isn’t interested in facts but is blinded by a bias of the team he roots for. Good luck with that.