Bruins to acquire Lindholm

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,391
While I’m a fan of acquiring Lindholm it’s an absolute indictment of this front office having to spend assets to shore up the LHD after paying two LHD free agents above market in the off-season.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,918
While I’m a fan of acquiring Lindholm it’s an absolute indictment of this front off having to spend assets to shore up the LHD after paying two LHD free agents above market in the off-season.
Agreed, no doubt.

Any chance they agreed to an extension with Lindholm? I can't see how this trade is going to be palatable otherwise.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,650
Gallows Hill
While I’m a fan of acquiring Lindholm it’s an absolute indictment of this front office having to spend assets to shore up the LHD after paying two LHD free agents above market in the off-season.
Not to mention the two first round picks that used on LHD in 2015 & 2017.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Lindholm seems like he should be a really good get. He was a fantastic player before he broke his wrist and this year he's playing exclusively with Jaime Drysdale and getting caved in. Chuck or Carlo are massive upgrades on the defensive end of the ice and likely brings him back to who he was. Dom Tiano was all over this since last week and says there will be an extension. Holding my breath on the return but cautiously optimistic.

A $3m d will be in the press box every night, though. Yikes.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,918
I was thinking that Studnicka would be in this deal, so I'll say it's him. Please no Lysell. (I realize that Lysell is not a roster player.)
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,918
I think Lysell’s too young to be a roster player. Think Studnicka, maybe Senyshyn or someone of that level.
Lysell's definitely not a roster player. And they can have Senyshyn -- would love for it to be him! (But he's not a roster player either to be clear.)
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,650
Gallows Hill
If they got this done with an extension and didn’t have to give up Lohrei or Lysell I’ll be happy as hell.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,918
John Moore going cuz they need to clear a seat for Forbort on the whatever floor of the Garden.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
This feels like a pretty good trade. A cap dump, a late first, Vaak, and 2 2nds for a signed Lindholm
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,918
We've been burned too many times in situations like among all four sports for me to get too excited about the rumored cost, but if it's true, I'm relieved.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,207
Missoula, MT
Yeah, this is a good trade. An extension means we have a great young D for a number of years. Love this.

2C and lets go.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
Love it. Quoting myself from the other thread:

Lindholm seems like a better fit for this team, and such a natural pairing with McAvoy that I don't see Chychrun being. He's not flashy, but he's a shutdown defender who can get the puck out of his own end. Especially come playoff time, a pairing of him and McAvoy is going to dominate half the game at 5v5 and 4v5, no matter who they're playing with or against. And they can then shelter and matchup the bottom 4 to get the best out of them.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Gryz-Chuck
Hampus-Carlo
Reilly-Clifton

Ya that's a good d. upgrade Clifton and things are looking good. fire Forbort into the sun.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,802
Alamogordo
Should move Grz down to the 2nd pairing as well, where he is much better suited
Gryz-Chuck
Hampus-Carlo
Reilly-Clifton

Ya that's a good d. upgrade Clifton and things are looking good. fire Forbort into the sun.
I would go:

Lindholm-Chuck
Grz-Carlo

Keeps either line from being pure defense.

Either way, I love it.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Should move Grz down to the 2nd pairing as well, where he is much better suited

I would go:

Lindholm-Chuck
Grz-Carlo

Keeps either line from being pure defense.

Either way, I love it.
Either is fine, I just have a hard time not playing Gryz and Chuck given they are the most effective pair at 5v5 in hockey the last two seasons. Either way the top four is massively upgraded.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,207
Missoula, MT
I think the Reilly-Clifton 3D pairing is pretty damn good too, honestly. Very few teams have 6 D like this.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
They know that they can move Grz up top when they need to score, or when specific situations arise. But generally speaking I think Grz is better on the second pair. He’s better playing a few less minutes given some of his durability issues (McAvoy will play a ton come playoffs), and having your top pair also be your PK1 simplifies things. Plus it balances out the puck movers / d-first guys as LogansDad mentioned
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
I honestly think Clifton has been hurt by how awful Forbort is.
They've been pretty effective as a pair but Cassidy really protects them. It's not the end of the world if they play I just don't see how Forbort plays on this team anymore without injuries. He's dreadful 5v5 and Lindholm takes his PK minutes. I really hope Cassidy doesn't put Reilly upstairs and downgrade 12 minutes of ES ice time in deference to maybe 2 min of PK2.
 

jk333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2009
4,328
Boston
Given the way everything is playing out, I like this trade. Upgrades the team this year and the defense for the next few years.

We are screwed in a year or 2 anyway, mine as well take our shot this year and possibly next if we are lucky and things work out.
 

burstnbloom

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
2,761
Friedman and Lebrun have both reported they are working on an extension. I'd guess 8X$7, which is not without risk.