With our without an extension in place?

With: this is probably close to it

Without: this would be an overpay for a1 year rental

When was the last time a UFA returned (basically) three 1sts in value?

Would be with an extension. Let's say 9.25 x 8 years

He'll be 30 when that new contract starts. Something to think about.

Flames fans are in despair, they got a fringe 3rd liner and a ****ty 3rd round pick for a 73 point player and their best scorer. Flames aint getting near 3 firsts in value for lindholm maybe a first and like an okay prospect if it goes well, if not looking at a repeat johnny or Toffoli situation

This is a pretty good trade for both sides, but the extension would need to be in the $8-8.5 range.

Agreed I went over board with 8 years. Maybe 9 x 6 years

I'm not against trading for Lindholm but it's gotta be good value. He's not a 100pt player, so you don't pay like he is. I'd say something like Peeke, Sillinger, and 2nd

When he's not a UFA. Lindholm won't be UFA for another year. If he agrees to extend with the acquiring team they'll pay full price not a rental price. Matthew Tkachuk returned more than this proposes.

He's already an impending UFA, right now. You'd be trading a guy on an expiring contract, in his final season. A year from now, if he has not re-signed with Calgary, you can't trade him at all. He's already gone.

Main reason to trade for him now would be to get the eight-year deal at a lower AAV, with the thought you could buy out the last two years or so if needed (see: Severson). Using that as reference, I still think this is a bit of an overpay. Sillinger (a recent top 12 pick), Mateychuk, the ‘24 1st round pick all seem too rich for a pending UFA. Ceulemans or Chinakov, Peeke/Knazko/Svozil/OBH, and a 2nd & 5th or 3rd & 4th (plus even Bemström and Bjork/Berni) aligns more properly.

If a 1st is involved, ‘25 or beyond makes more sense as well. Might not be everything Calgary wants, but it would be the most equitable for Lindholm given his ability, age, and contract status.

Dude. There's really no need to pretend like Sharangovich is dime a dozen trash. He ain't. I suspect this trade may not age the best, just fair warning.

THat they might just do, esp with the planned increase cap over the next few years. They have to keep in mind that they have some great young studs that will need big raises over the next couple years

Yikes; that's a little pricey for that term. If that's the price I think CBJ passes. If it's 9M x 5, or 8M x 8, then maybe

That's why I asked about the extension

Yea I replied to Dutchies about it. I think 9.25 x 5 years would work