Trade: Calgary sends Lindholm and Hanifin to Calgary for Hamilton, Ferland, and Fox

[AJgoal]

 

[yave1964]

WOW, big win for Carolina IMHO.

 

 Hanifin has been good but not as good as hoped for since being drafted, enormous potential but still not lived up to the hype. Lindholm has a good game, a bad game and a nothing game, he has not gotten a bit better. I think he has leveled off.

 

 Hamilton has developed into one of the top two way defenseman in the game, Ferland, meh, a body who can score a bit certainly not much worse than Lindholm. Hamilton IMHO AT THIS MOMENT is by far hands down the best player in the deal. Hanifin can change all that but I am starting to think he is what he is, a solid top four defender.

[JR Ewing]

a) I like this for Carolina a lot more than I like it for the Flames.

b) Carolina now have 4 RHD (Pesce, Hamilton, Faulk, TVR) and 1 LHD (Slavin). They're almost perfectly matched trade partners for EDM, who have a leftorium on defense but only one quality right-handed defenseman (Larsson).

 

 

[ruxpin]

8 hours ago, yave1964 said:

Hamilton has developed into one of the top two way defenseman in the game

 

I agree with everything.   And prevailing wisdom is Carolina did very well here.  

 

I wonder about Hamilton.   I am concerned about his already being moved twice when on-ice production indicates it's extremely foolish to move him.  Someone check his Instagram account(s).    Seriously, I don't get it.  

[jammer2]

Fantasy wise, Lindholm may have moved into a late first round designation. He really improved his optics. I'm sure he will be tried at wing and given the chance to play with Johnny.G and Mohnahan, so he lucked into one of the real nice landing spots in the league. His point totals can move from the 50's to the 70's if everything goes right...and he's right at the proper age to move it up a step, even without the better linemates. Tkachuck takes a hit here, but not much, he will improve, even on the 2nd line and 2nd pp...and his PIM's make him valuable also. Ferland takes the real hit here, moving to a weaker offense and worse linemates. 

[yave1964]

40 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

Fantasy wise, Lindholm may have moved into a late first round designation. He really improved his optics. I'm sure he will be tried at wing and given the chance to play with Johnny.G and Mohnahan, so he lucked into one of the real nice landing spots in the league. His point totals can move from the 50's to the 70's if everything goes right...and he's right at the proper age to move it up a step, even without the better linemates. Tkachuck takes a hit here, but not much, he will improve, even on the 2nd line and 2nd pp...and his PIM's make him valuable also. Ferland takes the real hit here, moving to a weaker offense and worse linemates. 

I have kicked the tires on Lindholm enough over the years to be very discouraged, five full seasons, a career high of 17 goals and 45 points and a whole bunch of like seasons, I am more inclined to think he will end up not being able to sustain more than a second line role. 

[jammer2]

13 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

I have kicked the tires on Lindholm enough over the years to be very discouraged, five full seasons, a career high of 17 goals and 45 points and a whole bunch of like seasons, I am more inclined to think he will end up not being able to sustain more than a second line role. 

 

There is a 50/50 chance you are right. He could be one of the slower developing youngsters, or we may have seen his best already. At least he is in a spot to improve. If you can't improve with Sean and Johnny Hockey, it's never coming. My gut says he sticks on that line and becomes a real fantasy asset. 

[jammer2]

5 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I agree with everything.   And prevailing wisdom is Carolina did very well here.  

 

 

 The thing is, we pretty well know what Hamilton is, maybe he peaks this year or next.....but expect mid 50's in pts type of thing...we don't know the ceiling for Hanfin, he's a full 4 years younger....so Lindholm and the untapped potential of Hanfin make this a Calgary win in my eyes, but way to early to tell for sure. 

[JR Ewing]

@yave1964 @jammer2

 

I'm a guy who like lists and order, and prefer not to make pure guesses. I'm not Carnak the Magnificent. So, whenever a player has big change in his totals (or if we're talking about if it's likely that he will) I ask myself 5 questions:

1. Has there been a big change in his health?

2. Has there been a big change in his usage/opportunity?

3. Has there been a big change in the quality of his teammates/linemates?

4. Has there been a big change in the quality of his opposition?

5. Is the player entering an age where we can expect either a sharp rise or decline in his performance?

 

You could ask more questions and you could ask some different ones as well, but I always felt like these do a pretty good job of explaining performance or projecting expectation. With Lindholm, we have a guy who has been quite consistent: he plays about the same number of games, posts about the same number of points. Is it likely that we could see big changes in his scoring this year?

 

1. Has there been a big change in his health?

 Since turning 20, Lindholm has played 81, 82, 72 and 81 games. He has been extremely healthy, so if this changes it's a disaster for Calgary.

 

2. Has there been a big change in his usage/opportunity?

Lindholm has averaged about 18 minutes and 23.7 shifts per game, which is a higher-usage 2C or lower-usage 1C. He could have a slight uptick in his minutes. This is the sort of difference in time is equal to about 2 or 3 points if he were to produce at the same amount as before. The major item here would be if Calgary uses him less on the PK and he gets more time on the PP than he had in Carolina. If so, if he were to produce at VERY established rates, we're talking about another 3 or 4 points.

 

3. Has there been a big change in the quality of his teammates/linemates?

Overall, I think this one isn't as cut-and-dried as folks might immediately think. Gaudreau would be the best linemate Lindholm has played with, but Aho and Terevainen aren't exactly bums. Also, he walks on to a team in Calgary which has just lost their best producing defenseman. Improvements here could be marginal.

 

4. Has there been a big change in the quality of his opposition?

This is a question which is more targeted at players just entering the league or who just made a major change, or are playing for a coach who greatly prefers them in a different role. This won't be an issue for Lindholm.

 

5. Is the player entering an age where we can expect either a sharp rise or decline in his performance?

No, not at all. By the time a guy is in his mid-20s, the growth is measured in inches rather than feet or yards.

 

So, should we expect big changes in Elias Lindholm's production? Overall, I think that a lot has to go right for him in order to see a big jump in his boxcars numbers. The major circumstances which changes those things aren't really there for him.

[jammer2]

26 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

@yave1964 @jammer2

 

I'm a guy who like lists and order, and prefer not to make pure guesses. I'm not Carnak the Magnificent. So, whenever a player has big change in his totals (or if we're talking about if it's likely that he will) I ask myself 5 questions:

1. Has there been a big change in his health?

2. Has there been a big change in his usage/opportunity?

3. Has there been a big change in the quality of his teammates/linemates?

4. Has there been a big change in the quality of his opposition?

5. Is the player entering an age where we can expect either a sharp rise or decline in his performance?

 

You could ask more questions and you could ask some different ones as well, but I always felt like these do a pretty good job of explaining performance or projecting expectation. With Lindholm, we have a guy who has been quite consistent: he plays about the same number of games, posts about the same number of points. Is it likely that we could see big changes in his scoring this year?

 

1. Has there been a big change in his health?

 Since turning 20, Lindholm has played 81, 82, 72 and 81 games. He has been extremely healthy, so if this changes it's a disaster for Calgary.

 

2. Has there been a big change in his usage/opportunity?

Lindholm has averaged about 18 minutes and 23.7 shifts per game, which is a higher-usage 2C or lower-usage 1C. He could have a slight uptick in his minutes. This is the sort of difference in time is equal to about 2 or 3 points if he were to produce at the same amount as before. The major item here would be if Calgary uses him less on the PK and he gets more time on the PP than he had in Carolina. If so, if he were to produce at VERY established rates, we're talking about another 3 or 4 points.

 

3. Has there been a big change in the quality of his teammates/linemates?

Overall, I think this one isn't as cut-and-dried as folks might immediately think. Gaudreau would be the best linemate Lindholm has played with, but Aho and Terevainen aren't exactly bums. Also, he walks on to a team in Calgary which has just lost their best producing defenseman. Improvements here could be marginal.

 

4. Has there been a big change in the quality of his opposition?

This is a question which is more targeted at players just entering the league or who just made a major change, or are playing for a coach who greatly prefers them in a different role. This won't be an issue for Lindholm.

 

5. Is the player entering an age where we can expect either a sharp rise or decline in his performance?

No, not at all. By the time a guy is in his mid-20s, the growth is measured in inches rather than feet or yards.

 

So, should we expect big changes in Elias Lindholm's production? Overall, I think that a lot has to go right for him in order to see a big jump in his boxcars numbers. The major circumstances which changes those things aren't really there for him.

 

 I have my over under on Lindholm at about 65 pts. I'm thinking 68-70 with no injuries....and about 20 pp pts. That's a big nice uptick....we shall see what happens. 

[yave1964]

2 hours ago, jammer2 said:

 

 I have my over under on Lindholm at about 65 pts. I'm thinking 68-70 with no injuries....and about 20 pp pts. That's a big nice uptick....we shall see what happens. 

He has never hit 50, he has never hit 20 goals, five years is a pretty fair sample size, I just don't see it. Maybe on a line with Gretzky and Kurri, lol, Anderson became a HOFer more because of the talented linemates than his actual abilities, Shutt with Lemaire and Flower put up much better numbers than he would have had with anyone else, so yeah linemates matter. I just don't see much substance in Lindholm, year after year he chugs along with 35-45 points and uninspired defense so if there is any uptick I don't see much more than 50 points which fantasy wise makes him a worthy streamer but that is about all. Henrique esque at best. IMHO.

[ruxpin]

56 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

He has never hit 50, he has never hit 20 goals, five years is a pretty fair sample size, I just don't see it. Maybe on a line with Gretzky and Kurri, lol, Anderson became a HOFer more because of the talented linemates than his actual abilities, Shutt with Lemaire and Flower put up much better numbers than he would have had with anyone else, so yeah linemates matter. I just don't see much substance in Lindholm, year after year he chugs along with 35-45 points and uninspired defense so if there is any uptick I don't see much more than 50 points which fantasy wise makes him a worthy streamer but that is about all. Henrique esque at best. IMHO.

I don't think I see a huge uptick, but I also think you and JR are underestimating the difference a better team might make.  I know his linemates weren't bad in Carolina, but the coaching and overall team was.  I think he's in a better spot. 

 

I think 68-70, while not absurd, is high.  It represents a 50% increase on his career high. I don't think the change of circumstance accounts for that. Maybe. 

 

But I don't think 55-60 is out of the realm.  His goal scoring would need to improve to the 20-25 range and his assists would have to approach his career high 34. 

 

I have a feeling we have a guy whose drive doesn't match his ability, so we'll see. I would expect his production to improve, but not by 50 %.

[yave1964]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

I don't think I see a huge uptick, but I also think you and JR are underestimating the difference a better team might make.  I know his linemates weren't bad in Carolina, but the coaching and overall team was.  I think he's in a better spot. 

Bill Peters was his coach in Carolina and is now his coach in Calgary as well. I think Peters is a fine coach, well respected around the league but in Carolina he was trying to make a silk purse from the proverbial sows ear.

  That is something that I admit I didn't take into account, Peters would not have signed off on the deal if he didn't see more in Lindholm than the numbers he has put up, Obviously they have been together for three years now and his first move after opting out of Carolina and being snagged up by Calgary was to reunite with Hanifin and Lindholm which sys a lot. I am still skeptical of Lindholm but the fact that the coach sought him out may mean something.

[ruxpin]

1 minute ago, yave1964 said:

Bill Peters was his coach in Carolina and is now his coach in Calgary as well. I think Peters is a fine coach, well respected around the league but in Carolina he was trying to make a silk purse from the proverbial sows ear.

  That is something that I admit I didn't take into account, Peters would not have signed off on the deal if he didn't see more in Lindholm than the numbers he has put up, Obviously they have been together for three years now and his first move after opting out of Carolina and being snagged up by Calgary was to reunite with Hanifin and Lindholm which sys a lot. I am still skeptical of Lindholm but the fact that the coach sought him out may mean something.

Yeah. Agreed.  That gets me to the 55-60 range, which on that team does wonders. If they have another player on that team at around 60, it's only going to open up some more space for other guys.  He could go higher than 60, I suppose, but I think the 55-60 could be realistic. 

[JR Ewing]

2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I don't think I see a huge uptick, but I also think you and JR are underestimating the difference a better team might make.  I know his linemates weren't bad in Carolina, but the coaching and overall team was.  I think he's in a better spot. 

 

I think 68-70, while not absurd, is high.  It represents a 50% increase on his career high. I don't think the change of circumstance accounts for that. Maybe. 

 

But I don't think 55-60 is out of the realm.  His goal scoring would need to improve to the 20-25 range and his assists would have to approach his career high 34. 

 

I have a feeling we have a guy whose drive doesn't match his ability, so we'll see. I would expect his production to improve, but not by 50 %.

 

Hey, I could be wrong, and he comes out and scores a bunch more points. I think it's less likely than him doing something closer to what his averages suggest, because it's not like he's moving a situation where he was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken ****, but now plays for a much better team. Carolina and Calgary were nearly identical last year.

 

So, he's not going to play much more than he did before. He's not going to play with night-and-day difference in talent compared to what he had before. He's not going to be used in a much more prominent role than before. So where is the big bump in offense going to come from?

 

-In order to get a lot more goals, then he will have to shoot the puck one hell of a lot more. He has a career shooting percentage of 8.9%, but let's be kind and give him the median value: 10%. To get to 25 goals, he would need to get about 250 shots. The problem: he's averaged 163 shots. I would be shocked to see this sort of increase in shot volume. It's either that or he has one of those years where everything goes in and he ends up at 13-15%. It could happen. That sort of thing is a bit of a fluke though, and bound to return to normal after.

 

-I think getting to 34 assists is much possible, especially since he's actually done that. Statistically, he's good playmaker. The absolute best playmakers of all-time get assists on about 60%* of the goals scored while they're on the ice., and he's averaged 52% over his career so far. Last season, he was a 47%, and if he recovers, I think he can see some more assists.

 

I was thinking 50ish to maybe 55 points next year.

 

---

*

Off-topic, and more on the playmaking thing. About 20 years ago, in pursuit of finding a way to look at playmaking from a different perspective than simply looking at how many assists a player had, I came up with something I unimaginatively called PLAY. It's dead simple, but also instructive:

 

A / (TGF - G), where A is the player's assists, TGF is the total goals scored while the player is on the ice, and G is the player's own number of goals scored (since you can't get an assist on a goal you score, after all). PLAY ticks a few boxes:

 

-It's fair to players across different eras.

-It's fair to players with different quality of linemates.

-It's fair to player on different quality teams overall.

 

Of the career leaders in career Adjusted Assists, here are the PLAY leaders:

 

In other words, over the course of his career, Wayne Gretzky was awarded an assists on almost 75% of the goals scored while he was on the ice. He's is the runaway leader in this category, to nobody's surprise. Single-season, he has the best season ever, at .827. Oh. Wait. I should say that he's tied for the top single-season PLAY score ever:

 

Connor McDavid, 2018: 41 G, 67 A, 122 TGF, 81 PossA, .827 PLAY.

In other words, 97 had an assist on 67 out of 81 possible assists this year.

 

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

I was thinking 50ish to maybe 55 points next year.

Well, your high in a five point spread is my low in a 5 point window, so I don't think we're actually coming at this much differently. I'm just looking for a couple more goals. 

 

I think Calgary's offensive players are better than Carolina's though, so I think that's the crux of the difference more than I think we disagree at all about Lindholm himself. 

[J0e Th0rnton]

14 hours ago, yave1964 said:

I have kicked the tires on Lindholm enough over the years to be very discouraged, five full seasons, a career high of 17 goals and 45 points and a whole bunch of like seasons, I am more inclined to think he will end up not being able to sustain more than a second line role. 

I think I have kicked the tires more than you on Lindholm

 

And Zibanejad lol

[ruxpin]

14 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

I think I have kicked the tires more than you on Lindholm

 

And Zibanejad lol

You're welcome to both. Please. 

[jammer2]

On 6/24/2018 at 12:05 PM, yave1964 said:

Shutt with Lemaire and Flower put up much better numbers than he would have had with anyone else, so yeah linemates matter.

 

 Interesting. I thought it was Shutt and Guy who helped out Lemaire's point totals. That's why they called it the donut line, cause the center was missing....lol. 

[yave1964]

2 hours ago, jammer2 said:

 

 Interesting. I thought it was Shutt and Guy who helped out Lemaire's point totals. That's why they called it the donut line, cause the center was missing....lol. 

lol. Anyone playing with Flower was a sure fire point machine, Lemaire, Shutt, Mahovlich before Lemaire were all products of playing with the best player of their generation. Like Anderson when he played with Gretzky and Kurri, like Gillies with Bossy and Trottier might be a more apropos comparison. I never thought of Jethro as a real HOFer on his best day but he is in because of his linemates.

 

  Lindholm has had good linemates, Staal slipped playing with him and exploded after leaving for the Wild, but as mentioned he has had good linemates in Staal, Aho, Teravainen and more and done squat with it. An entire season on a line with Monahan and Gaudreau might do him wonders but it didn't to Versteeg or quite a few other 40 point a year players. Players find their level. Linemates may raise them a bit but I just don't see it in Lindholms case.

[jammer2]

15 hours ago, yave1964 said:

Anyone playing with Flower was a sure fire point machine, Lemaire, Shutt, Mahovlich before Lemaire were all products of playing with the best player of their generation.

 

 I do think Guy was a generational superstar, but I think Shutt was super talented also.Lemaire was good in his role, but would not be so fondly remembered if he never played with Guy. I like comparing Shutt to Steve Larmer, same kinda player, but Stevie had a mean side to him. Early on in my OHL watching, will never forget seeing the dazzling talent of linemates Ludzik and Larmer from the Niagara Falls Flyers. Those two were a wicked tandem in junior. 

 

 EDIT....could you imagine what Guy could have done if he ever quit smoking and hit the weights a bit....at least gain some more stamina....lol, he was a one of a kind, huh?