Speculation: Gabriel Landeskog for Hampus Lindholm

[Meeqs]

Realistically the push behind the Avs trading a core player rumors came from 3 things.

1) Roy wanting the Avs to make a big push for Radulov, and thus needing to move a player to free up the cap space it would have taken
2) Roy wanting the change the makeup of the team as after last season he had no answers on how to make the team better with the players that he had, thus also wanting a change up.
3) The uncertainty that came with the Avs D core with Barrie being unsigned.

Now that the Avs have all of their core players locked up long term and Roy is no longer the coach there is very little reason to expect the Avs to make any major moves.

Also I HIGHLY doubt Ana would be willing to move their best Dman atm

 

[Meeqs]

I also love how for the past 4 years no one outside of NJD remembered that Larsson existed and the second he is moved to EDM everyone suddenly "realizes how amazing he is" and public opinion of him sky rockets on here. Cracks me up

 

[Ducks in a row]

If Anaheim was willing to trade Lindholm for a W they would already have Taylor Hall.

Not true because trading for Hall would be giving a division rival who badly needed a blueline improvement exactly what they need to help take the next step forward we would never want to do that if we trade Lindholm will not be to a division rival not unless we get a payment that is impossible to say no to and Hall is not that payment.

Sorry, no GM would choose Hall over Landeskog. Perhaps you all should stop seeing the Hall trade as a loss for EDM and just a sign of what his actual value is. A complimentary winger who isnt an integral piece of a winning team.

Landeskog has a better overall game but Hall is much better offensively take your pick. Landeskog is also a complimentary winger and his team only made the playoff once getting eliminated in round 1 it's not like he has won much in the NHL.

Never thought I'd say this, but it seems like #47 is becoming overrated.

Defensively there aren't many I'd pick over him, but he still has rough edges, for instance when it comes to handling the puck (losing it between his own legs) etc.

It's not like he clearly has a noticeably higher value than Hall or Lando. I'd say their values are really close at this point. It's pretty much up to what the respective team needs.

Lando for Lindholm does make sense.

Anaheim needs a first line winger and Colorado needs a first pairing defenceman. Anaheim also have several young studly D-men waiting for their shot in the NHL.

Colorado probably adds a little though.

Lando + 2nd for Lindholm or take the 2nd out and instead have Colorado take Stoner as a cap dump.

Lando-Getzlaf-Perry would be a mother****er to play against.

Trading Lindholm for Landeskog is idiotic. Top pair quality defenseman >> 50+ point LW

Landeskog has a $5,571,429 cap hit for 5 years then is a UFA. His actual salary this coming season is $5,500,000 then $6,000,000 in 2017-18 to 2019-20 and $6,500,000 in 2020-21.

Landeskog has a total of 7 playoff games of experience with 3 goals and 1 assist. We need playoff performers he is not what I would call one.

If we trade Lindholm for Landeskog we need more then a little added we need a lot added and even then I wouldn't be happy about it. What if Fowler wants to become a UFA after his contract is up? We will be without Lindholm and Fowler and will be in big trouble. Lindholm shouldn't be traded for anything reasonable he is just too important to us not to mention the cost we payed for him which was a 6th overall pick we used to draft him.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Sounds a lot like a lower-key Doughty or Keith - is his ceiling that high though?

I always seen him like a vlasic with a more offensive upside and flare. He doesn't have the physical style that doughty haS, and really hasn't been tested as far as mins go yet.

The numbers he put up in those charts and what not are as a 22 year old playing with a 24 year old rookie, that's pretty impressive in its self, not like he has a drew doughty playing on his pairing.

His spacing and positioning are basically always correct, his skating ability and hockey IQ allow for him to make plays to get out of the zone, and all though his numbers haven't fully shown it yet his offensive instincts are pretty good too, I'm thinking he makes a huge jump in his play this season, and leaves no question marks if he is a #1.

 

[Vipers31]

I also love how for the past 4 years no one outside of NJD remembered that Larsson existed and the second he is moved to EDM everyone suddenly "realizes how amazing he is" and public opinion of him sky rockets on here. Cracks me up

Yeah, that process was particularly obvious to me, as well.

 

[Paul4587]

Care to explain how Lindholm is "so much better" than Larsson?

I think a lot of people don't realize how good Larsson has become thanks to playing in a market that doesn't get a lot of attention.

Both are great defensively, I would say Larsson is much more willing to play physically and is probably stronger physically. Both are great along the boards. Positionally Larsson is very good but Lindholm is among the best in the league, Lindholm's gap control is generally flawless, he has a long reach and is great at swatting pucks away when a forward thinks they have it under control. I would give a slight edge to Lindholm defensively, both are very good though.

The big difference to me is offensive and skating ability. Larsson has a harder shot but I think that's about the only advantage he has on Lindholm in these two areas. Larsson is no slouch in terms of skating ability but Lindholm has a quicker first step, is much more agile and has a better top speed too. In terms of puck movement, Lindholm is miles ahead at skating the puck out of danger and his first pass is very good. He's also better in terms of instincts, he's always jumping into prime scoring positions at exactly the right time and while his shot isn't as hard he gets it off far quicker and he also generates far more shots on goal and scoring chances.

I really like Larsson but if he can a Hall then Lindholm can get much more than Landeskog.

I like Landeskog a lot and would love to add him but a good 23 year old first line winger is worth less than a good 22 year old top pairing defenseman.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I just don't think you move lindholm... #1 dmen are arguably most important pieces on a team... why move him unless we needed a 1c... which we don't... we need wingers but not desperate enough tof move our top dmen. I'd rather get a lesser winger and move Fowler or despres rather than lindholm.

We have an elite winger in Perry, we just need to find another consistent produce from the wing and/or a 2/3 Center so w3 can move rakell to wing who still has more offensive upside to his game

 

[Nordic*]

Let me say, first off, that I dig Landeskog. I would love to add him. I wouldn't love to add him for Lindholm.

But that isn't really why I'm responding... You've mentioned many times how big a step back our blue line takes without Fowler, and now you're proposing we move Lindholm?

For the record, I'm not suggesting our blue line wouldn't take a step back if we moved Fowler. It absolutely would. It's why I think the team should head into the season with him on the roster, and then make adjustments accordingly during the season. I'd rather have the strong blue line first, instead of being more average across the board.

What I don't get is how you can say that about Fowler, and then go on to say we'd survive without Lindholm. Those are two contradicting statements, once you really look at them. Even if we say, for the sake of argument, that Lindholm is equal to Fowler, you should be saying the same thing about him that you are about Fowler. Even if their strengths are in different areas, the end result is still a blue line missing a big piece. No one else on the blue line is equivalent to either of them. And, finally, even if someone like Theodore, or Larsson, or even Montour somehow reaches the level of either of them, in all likelihood that is at least a few years away. That doesn't do much for them now.

All of this is before you consider Lindholm's age, and his upside, which is quite good. Currently, he'd be damn tough to replace, but if he becomes that true #1? It could take a decade to get a prospect who even has the potential. Which still doesn't mean they reach it.

It does take a big step back, but we have high-end D-prospects that will be in the NHL within 0-3 years, to enhance the defence once again.

We have no high end wingers, or perhaps one of you count Ritchie - who I personally don't see first line potential in.

We deal from a strenght and aquire a player who plays a position that is an organisational weakness.

With Colorado adding, I'd be positive if this trade happened. And I love #47.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

It does take a big step back, but we have high-end D-prospects that will be in the NHL within 0-3 years, to enhance the defence once again.

We have no high end wingers, or perhaps one of you count Ritchie - who I personally don't see first line potential in.

We deal from a strenght and aquire a player who plays a position that is an organisational weakness.

With Colorado adding, I'd be positive if this trade happened. And I love #47.

None of our high end dmen are in the same caliber player of lindholm... at best larsson could become a similar player but the rest are more like Fowler and Vatanen.


To me moving 1 of Sami Fowler or despres makes a ton more sense. You don't move your top dmen to get a top line winger when you already have a corey perry

 

[Nordic*]

None of our high end dmen are in the same caliber player of lindholm... at best larsson could become a similar player but the rest are more like Fowler and Vatanen.


To me moving 1 of Sami Fowler or despres makes a ton more sense. You don't move your top dmen to get a top line winger when you already have a corey perry

I have wanted to move Vatanen ahead of Fowler and Lindholm, from the start, but that won't happen now that he signed an extension...

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I have wanted to move Vatanen ahead of Fowler and Lindholm, from the start, but that won't happen now that he signed an extension...

So your next best option is move our top dmen for a winger?

 

[Nordic*]

So your next best option is move our top dmen for a winger?

The top D-man last season, going by ice-time, wasn't Lindholm.

And Landeskog is not just "a winger", but a 23-year old two-way star winger.

 

[Heraldic]

The top D-man last season, going by ice-time, wasn't Lindholm.

And Landeskog is not just "a winger", but a 23-year old two-way star winger.

Lindholm got clearly more ice time on 5v5. Fowler got relatively more ice time on PP.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

The top D-man last season, going by ice-time, wasn't Lindholm.

And Landeskog is not just "a winger", but a 23-year old two-way star winger.

You do realize without lindholm we don't make playoffs last season

Would rather trade Fowler for someone like Tatar and go from there, I think Ritchie will be fine in nhl thiS season. I feel more comfortable letting lindholm Vatanen and Theodore filling Fowler's role then Vatanen Fowler Theodore filling Lindholm's role

 

[Paul4587]

The top D-man last season, going by ice-time, wasn't Lindholm.

And Landeskog is not just "a winger", but a 23-year old two-way star winger.

60 point two way wingers are very valuable in todays league. But 22 year old number one defensemen are more valuable.

Landeskog is awesome but he's not worth trading Lindholm for.

 

[StupidGenius]

Yeah, that process was particularly obvious to me, as well.

It's almost like thousands of us who didn't watch a lot of New Jersey Devils games in the past few years suddenly had a reason to start looking into what this guy's was all about, and liked what we saw. Almost.

 

[Liferleafer]

I also love how for the past 4 years no one outside of NJD remembered that Larsson existed and the second he is moved to EDM everyone suddenly "realizes how amazing he is" and public opinion of him sky rockets on here. Cracks me up

Not everybody. The year he got sent down, i got roasted for offering good value for Larrson. ..even had some Devils fans agreeing with my proposals.

 

[anezthes]

MacKinnon ~ Lindholm, Landeskog ~ Fowler.

 

[Vipers31]

It's almost like thousands of us who didn't watch a lot of New Jersey Devils games in the past few years suddenly had a reason to start looking into what this guy's was all about, and liked what we saw. Almost.

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of thorough reflective work went into it. Even if I was to assume that, that's not even debating the point. The guy was talked down a ton by people that - like you said - clearly didn't watch a lot of Devils games and still acted like they knew what this guy is all about, and didn't care for what they didn't really see.

Don't feel addressed if the shoe doesn't fit you.

 

[caliamad]

MacKinnon ~ Lindholm, Landeskog ~ Fowler.

Yeah I think that is about right. The problem with fowler / Lando is contracts. The ducks would have to package someone like Stoner to make it work. Lando is signed longer than fowler so I think the ducks would have to add as well to make up for that.

#beginfowleristerriblebringintheherocharts

 

[Nordic*]

I do see where fellow Anaheim:ians are coming from, but my point is that we have several great young D-men in the organisation and lack high-end wingers/centers.

This puts us in the same situation as Edmonton, who let a better player go to fill a much needed black hole among top-2 (at least 4) RD:s.

Anaheim can hang onto #47 and hope he develops into a true #1 - and trade away Fowler (like most fans seems to want). I think that letting the best skating D-man in the NHL go will be a very bad idea.

Like I've said before. I'd rather give up Vatanen, but then you have the same situation as Edmonton, lacking a RD.


If Landeskog + isn't enough for you, which player(s) would you realistically give Lindholm up for? Remember that said player also has to be tied up on a good contract, preferbly more than 4 years.

Who?

 

[wraparound]

I do see where fellow Anaheim:ians are coming from, but my point is that we have several great young D-men in the organisation and lack high-end wingers/centers.

This puts us in the same situation as Edmonton, who let a better player go to fill a much needed black hole among top-2 (at least 4) RD:s.

Anaheim can hang onto #47 and hope he develops into a true #1 - and trade away Fowler (like most fans seems to want). I think that letting the best skating D-man in the NHL go will be a very bad idea.

Like I've said before. I'd rather give up Vatanen, but then you have the same situation as Edmonton, lacking a RD.


If Landeskog + isn't enough for you, which player(s) would you realistically give Lindholm up for? Remember that said player also has to be tied up on a good contract, preferbly more than 4 years.

Who?

MacKinnon

 

[Ducks in a row]

I do see where fellow Anaheim:ians are coming from, but my point is that we have several great young D-men in the organisation and lack high-end wingers/centers.

This puts us in the same situation as Edmonton, who let a better player go to fill a much needed black hole among top-2 (at least 4) RD:s.

Anaheim can hang onto #47 and hope he develops into a true #1 - and trade away Fowler (like most fans seems to want). I think that letting the best skating D-man in the NHL go will be a very bad idea.

Like I've said before. I'd rather give up Vatanen, but then you have the same situation as Edmonton, lacking a RD.


If Landeskog + isn't enough for you, which player(s) would you realistically give Lindholm up for? Remember that said player also has to be tied up on a good contract, preferbly more than 4 years.

Who?

We do have a lot of good defenseman prospects but that doesn't mean you trade your former 6th overall pick defenseman who has the best overall game of our blueliners. The defenseman prospects we have might not pan out to be a top pair quality that Lindholm already is.

Oilers needed defense very very badly they would continue to be a bottom of the league team without a improvement. Ducks don't need a top line winger nearly as badly as Oiler needed defense help. Also defenseman like Lindholm are worth a lot more then a winger like Landeskog you don't trade Lindholm for him.

Fowler might not re-sign after his contract is up he could test free agency.

Well of course it is better to trade Vatanen then Lindholm but neither should be traded.

I wouldn't trade Lindholm for any one player the Avalanche have.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I do see where fellow Anaheim:ians are coming from, but my point is that we have several great young D-men in the organisation and lack high-end wingers/centers.

This puts us in the same situation as Edmonton, who let a better player go to fill a much needed black hole among top-2 (at least 4) RD:s.

Anaheim can hang onto #47 and hope he develops into a true #1 - and trade away Fowler (like most fans seems to want). I think that letting the best skating D-man in the NHL go will be a very bad idea.

Like I've said before. I'd rather give up Vatanen, but then you have the same situation as Edmonton, lacking a RD.


If Landeskog + isn't enough for you, which player(s) would you realistically give Lindholm up for? Remember that said player also has to be tied up on a good contract, preferbly more than 4 years.

Who?

I just don't move lindholm I hang up when his name is involved... bottom line.

 

[Nordic*]

MacKinnon

If I'm not mistaken (?), Landeskog had a higher ppg than MacInnon as a 19 year old - and he is on a whole other level regarding the over all game (especially defensively).

He was also given the captaincy as the youngest player in NHL history - which speaks volumes about his character.