not for at least 5 years with SB and NMC. By then he'll be declining and too old to trade. Safe to say Bruins aren't going to trade him

Structured pretty much how I expected. Front load it and make the last years where is actual money owed is significantly less then his cap hit. Basically makes him more movable towards the end of the contract.

And Lindholm's decline started at 25 .... He was a ....

Number 1 D at 23/24
Number 2 D at 25
Number 3 D at 26
Number 4 D at 27/28

I wonder what he's going to look like at 36 ...

Considering he left a team in the midst of an 8-year rebuild, I think he'll get over it. lol.

I really like Lindholm so it is very upsetting to me that he will be a Bruin for 8 years.

Where the guy that said I’m an idiot and he’ll never sign for less than 7.5m lol

Considering the year he has had- this is an overpay.
Considering he is 28 years old- an 8 yr deal is long.
Im sure playing with Boston will improve his overall defensive numbers, but the window for them to compete is closing rapidly, and if Lindholm is unable to turn it around- this contract could look closer to Vlasic's deal in SJ than getting a top 4 dman at the going rate.

I don't love this signing.

Lindholm probably isn't as bad as he has looked over the last few years, but he probably isn't the player he looked like at his peak, and while I think the top pair will be elite defensively, that's an $16M tied up to a top pair that isn't going to be great offensively, and given that I think McAvoy is actually a bargain, I feel like Lindholm will have a hard time justifying the $6.5M in year one, let alone into his 30's. A lot rides on Lindholm being a significantly better player than he has shown over the last 3 years or so, and even if he improves, could still fall short of living up to the acquisition cost and new contract.

Good deal, AAV’s on point, maybe a bit too much term but that’s how it is for good top end players

I was on my way to say I don't understand, but I guess I do understand.

Here's the problem: Most people have no sound way of determining defensive ability.

Plus/minus can have the opposite effect. If you trust a player in defensive situations they will have lower plus/minus.
Hampus Lindholm heavily reduces the amount of shots taken at his goalie. That's how we know he's good defensively.
His point totals are actually fine considering the minutes he plays. His point totals should be relatively low considering he played for Anaheim and not Toronto.

I think this is a good deal for both sides

I could argue that Holl doesn't play the PP and plays hard minutes against top minutes. But I'm not saying Holl is nearly as good a Lindholm, but for all the criticism Holl and most Leaf Dmen get on CF, they must be doing something right.

These are not so important details, but, out of curiosity, how could Boston give Lindholm an 8 year contract on March 20th if he was a member of the Ducks on the previous trade Deadline (2021)?

According to CBA 50.8 (b) (iv), shouldn't it have waited till 15h on March 21st or the contract to be signed by the Ducks before the trade? Am I missing something?

Good job for making this about the Leafs..

Well, he's playing on a good team. The sum of all Leafs players is pretty much their standing position. All we can argue is what players contributed how much to it. If you suggest Holl has anything but a very, very, minor positive (if at all) impact, then that only removes from what Matthews or Nylander, or some actual good player I would attribute most of the success to, does

This contract seems ok – the term is a bit long for somebody his age, but 2-way defensemen tend to age better than those who rely more on offense – but why were they in such a rush to sign him? By trading for him, they have exclusive negotiating rights until July 1 (or whenever free agency opens this year), and they’re the only team that can offer him 8 years. Wouldn’t it make sense for them to let him play a few games for them first, to see how well he fits in before they make such a big commitment to him?