Article: The Wild Should Be Lurking In the Weeds For Elias Lindholm

[Justin Wiggins]

View full article

[Tony Abbott]

To me, this is a classic case of a good (not great) player who's about to get an awful contract. Not better than JEEK, IMO, which should be the bar to clear when looking for outside help. It's going to cost a bunch in assets, then term, then cap hit for a guy who turns 29 in December. A triple whammy.

If the Wild's system can't produce an Elias Lindholm-type guy, they've got bigger problems than Elias Lindholm is gonna solve.

[vonlonster67]

42 minutes ago, Tony Abbott said:

To me, this is a classic case of a good (not great) player who's about to get an awful contract. Not better than JEEK, IMO, which should be the bar to clear when looking for outside help. It's going to cost a bunch in assets, then term, then cap hit for a guy who turns 29 in December. A triple whammy.

If the Wild's system can't produce an Elias Lindholm-type guy, they've got bigger problems than Elias Lindholm is gonna solve.

Tony, I have to agree with all of that! If I'm going to trade assets its gonna be for a younger Swede we have all discussed this past week.

We just need to push past these next six months for a clearer picture.

I'm all about Swedesota, but not at 30 sumtin! 

[Protec]

It all depends on the price. 

I agree the Wild need to consider this chance and their situation now, versus looking for a guy next Summer when money is available or the year after. By then Lindholm would be the reason you wouldn't get somebody else at center. So there's some gamble no matter what. An expensive guy has to produce cause if not, they can't be traded very easily. Rask was a great example of a player who once acquired, became an anchor for 4M that just didn't make sense on any roster. I think Lindholm is a different type of player from Ek albeit similar production. Could be a good fit. Timing is kinda crummy. I don't think Lindholm would be like a Rask but the risk is there with an aging player. Personally, I think Hartman is a much cheaper, proven guy. Lindholm would be a better fit if on a Hartman or Ek contract. If he's gonna be >6M or something, I think the Wild could just wait. It's not like MN is desperate. It's Calgary who has the problem. Only if Guerin can leverage that would I wanna see the Wild get Lindholm.

[mnfaninnc]

I would think that both Pettersson and Lindholm would be great additions to this club. Pettersson is more expensive and younger, but, both teams are looking at similar return from the Wild, perhaps even the same prospects.

Could it be that the bidding war is for the Wild prospects and not for the Wild to compete for the players? That would be an ironic opportunity. Wouldn't it be interesting if the chief prospect chip is coveted by both teams? 

I believe a Lindholm type player probably is good enough to fill our need. I could see this team's identity being good scoring with good defense. Lindholm probably provides that defense a little better. For me, I see Lindholm as a better distributor than Ek, but neither one is flashy. Flashy comes from our wings. 

As for compensation, we would need to be able to pay either player in '24. Just from the eye test, I would assume, without looking at stats, I would expect Lindholm to be a little larger, tougher to knock off the puck and better in the dot. Having the RHS option for big faceoffs, I think, would be a good thing for this team. Lindholm makes the easy play offensively, the safe play. Pettersson would be more creative, flashier and more of a highlight reel. Which one would be a better fit for the team now, and in the future?

If Lindholm truly costs less to obtain, I'm thinking that may be the direction to go in. From a size perspective, Lindholm has Pettersson by about 25 lbs. even though Pettersson is an inch taller. Lindholm also has Pettersson by 11 points in the dot. Both can score. Both can assist. Both play all situations. Pettersson is clearly more explosive, but, I think Lindholm is more active in his own end. Lindholm has a better handle on the +/-(flawed system admitted), but Pettersson is 4 years younger. Neither has a ring, but I'd have to believe that Lindholm has done more winning.

I can see Lindholm in the $8.5m extension area and Pettersson in the $10.5m extension area. I also believe that Lindholm will keep up his production well into his 30s, but that is more of a risk than Pettersson. It's also interesting to note that both GMs are younger in the job than Shooter. Shooter doesn't try to fleece other teams. Brackett will likely be pounding the table for Pettersson. And I think both teams can benefit from our deep prospect pool. Does giving up less (likely Rossi is involved in both) for Lindholm actually make our roster better? That is the question! Lindholm also gives a high character veteran leader in the locker room that we may lose in Foligno, Hartman, Goligoski, and Zuccarello.

[MNCountryLife]

I have watched Ek get better after each summer break.  He is already close to being a #1C.  If he has another solid off season and ups his game at all...IMHO: we will have a 1C on the roster and I will advocate on his behalf that he deserves that accolade.  It could also allow GMBG some flexibility on finding a 2C rather than a 1C....perhaps in the 23 to 26 age range rather than 30.