Elias Lindholm or Phil Danault?

[SeanMoneyHands]

Who would you rather have?

Click to read more...

 

[DimitriL07]

Lindy babyyy

 

[Bond]

Does this include the gross contract Lindholm is about to get?

 

[majormajor]

With contracts included then Danault.

Without contracts I'd have to think about it.

 

[CanadienShark]

Danault with contacts considered.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Danault has a solid contract, and he's one of the best at what he does, it's him

 

[wetcoast]

Danault has a solid contract, and he's one of the best at what he does, it's him

Maybe as he is at 5.5X3 but he is also 31,.

Lindholm is 2 years younger and he will probably get a contract for around 7 million and maybe 5 years?

I know what Danault is and the term is kind of short but I still think Lindholm is the better player and would take him but it's really close, considering contracts.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Maybe as he is at 5.5X3 but he is also 31,.

Lindholm is 2 years younger and he will probably get a contract for around 7 million and maybe 5 years?

I know what Danault is and the term is kind of short but I still think Lindholm is the better player and would take him but it's really close, considering contracts.

He's 31 but I think his game will age really well, and by the time his contract end, L.A. will be able to sign him on the cheap side because of age

I think that Lindholm is better offensively, but as far as defensive forward goes, I think that Danault is simply one of the best

 

[wetcoast]

He's 31 but I think his game will age really well, and by the time his contract end, L.A. will be able to sign him on the cheap side because of age

I think that Lindholm is better offensively, but as far as defensive forward goes, I think that Danault is simply one of the best

Fair enough like I said this one is close and some of it depends on the contract Lindholm signs but for me I'd rather have the younger better offensive center.

 

[biturbo19]

If it includes contracts (projection for Lindholm) it's Danault pretty comfortably for me.


Now...contracts aside, it's tough. Danault is a guy who should be a perennial Selke candidate. He's one of the best genuine two-way "shutdown" centers in the game while still churning out very respectable production ever year. Just rock solid and consistent. Lindholm is a solid two-way player in his own right, but Danault still has a noticeable edge in defensive impact.

Neither is a real offensive dynamo. I think individually...they're pretty comparable in that regard. In what they can really "drive" by themselves. The trick is...i think Lindholm ultimately has the significantly higher offensive "ceiling". That is...if you can pair him with the right dynamic offensive catalyst wingers, he's proven that he can elevate right along up to that #1C sort of production level. It's a bit of a unique skillset to have the ability to be "elevated" to those heights even. I don't think Danault has that. I think there's more of a "hard cap" on his skill ceiling.



So in a vacuum, without contracts considered (or the age difference)...i'd say it's a really darn good question. I think i'd lean Lindholm and hope that i have the offensive line-driving wingers to pair with him. But either way, i'm getting a really solid two-way center. The RH shot thing is almost an afterthought...but with the razor thin margin between these two, that can be a really useful thing to have in the deck for critical faceoffs, with significant relative scarcity compared to LH faceoff guys.

 

[norrisnick]

Unless Lindholm comes in a full $2M/yr higher in AAV, Lindholm.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If it includes contracts (projection for Lindholm) it's Danault pretty comfortably for me.


Now...contracts aside, it's tough. Danault is a guy who should be a perennial Selke candidate. He's one of the best genuine two-way "shutdown" centers in the game while still churning out very respectable production ever year. Just rock solid and consistent. Lindholm is a solid two-way player in his own right, but Danault still has a noticeable edge in defensive impact.

Neither is a real offensive dynamo. I think individually...they're pretty comparable in that regard. In what they can really "drive" by themselves. The trick is...i think Lindholm ultimately has the significantly higher offensive "ceiling". That is...if you can pair him with the right dynamic offensive catalyst wingers, he's proven that he can elevate right along up to that #1C sort of production level. It's a bit of a unique skillset to have the ability to be "elevated" to those heights even. I don't think Danault has that. I think there's more of a "hard cap" on his skill ceiling.



So in a vacuum, without contracts considered (or the age difference)...i'd say it's a really darn good question. I think i'd lean Lindholm and hope that i have the offensive line-driving wingers to pair with him. But either way, i'm getting a really solid two-way center. The RH shot thing is almost an afterthought...but with the razor thin margin between these two, that can be a really useful thing to have in the deck for critical faceoffs, with significant relative scarcity compared to LH faceoff guys.

I feel like Danault COULD--he's got excellent vision--but he'd need two shooters because he has a dogshit shot and isn't a shooting threat.

That's not to argue with you, I agree, and I like your description of it.

 

[rypper]

Lindholm had a pretty great playoffs that really changed my opinion of him in a good way.

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Lindholm for me but I'm biased after seeing him in the playoffs.

His contract will be way higher than Danault so contract considered you maybe take Danault, but Lindholm was fantastic.

 

[KevinRedkey]

1v1 it's Lindholm, but bigger picture I probably take Danault because he has a more unique skillset that would lend well to the type of team I would try to build if I were a GM.

I also like the idea of spending less on what I hope to be my 2C, so that's a factor as well.

 

[Machinehead]

Lindholm isn't in Danault's league at 5v5.