Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Gabriel Landeskog for Hampus Lindholm

Avsblitzkrieg

Avsblitzkrieg

Registered User
May 1, 2016
1,579
0
Westminster
Cogsbreakaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mack went through a sophomore slump. However he did beat Gretzky's s
Scoring streak as a rookie. See how that works?
 
Jeti

Jeti

Blue-Line Dekes
Jul 8, 2011
7,141
1,684
MTL
As a fan of neither team, I think Lindholm is worth significantly more than Landeskog. Lindholm's value is more like MacKinnon's, probably even higher. The Avs lost too much firepower up front in recent years to be able to trade from there to fix the defense without opening another hole, so it makes no sense.
 
Paul4587

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,196
13,210
Cogsbreakaway said:
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?
Click to expand...

You can win without elite wingers. You can't win without elite defenseman.

Cogsbreakaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

Landeskog hasn't improved on his 19 year old season in terms of PPG, you can't just arbitrarily compare one random year of two players careers. MacKinnon is 3 years younger and has a lot higher offensive upside. He is also a centre which is more valuable.
 

Nordic*

Registered User
Oct 12, 2006
20,476
6
Tellus
Paul4587 said:
You can win without elite wingers. You can't win without elite defenseman.
Click to expand...

Where do you see Lindholm in the NHL right now among d-men, around 25th?

How many d-men are truly elite? How much would he have to improve to get to the top-5ish, which I assume is the cut-off of the truly elite defencemen?

The amount of great talents among defencemen right now is simply astounding.
 
dracom

dracom

Registered User
Dec 22, 2015
13,702
9,849
Vancouver, WA
Cogsbreakaway said:
Where do you see Lindholm in the NHL right now among d-men, around 25th?

How many d-men are truly elite? How much would he have to improve to get to the top-5ish, which I assume is the cut-off of the truly elite defencemen?

The amount of great talents among defencemen right now is simply astounding.
Click to expand...

Lindholm is higher on the list of top D-men that Landeskog is on the list of forwards.
 
Exit Dose

Exit Dose

Registered User
Jul 2, 2011
29,203
3,336
Georgia
Cogsbreakaway said:
Is he higher on the list of LD:s than Landeskog is on the list of LW:s?
Click to expand...

That is not how you build a team. This team is built from the back to front. You don't just pop out the best player in that spot because you've got some lottery tickets that might pay off in a few years. You typically draft a player like Lindholm once every decade or two. We likely don't have two or three.
 
Avsblitzkrieg

Avsblitzkrieg

Registered User
May 1, 2016
1,579
0
Westminster
Exit Dose said:
That is not how you build a team. This team is built from the back to front. You don't just pop out the best player in that spot because you've got some lottery tickets that might pay off in a few years. You typically draft a player like Lindholm once every decade or two. We likely don't have two or three.
Click to expand...

I aggree with this statement. However, to pass on a potentially elite talent to get a lesser d-men is folly. I think Edmonton is a good example of this. This year as an example do you take pool party or one of the d-men. It may have been a good idea to trade down and take a kings ransom. My point being is that there is more skilled forwards then d-men. You can't miss on the d-men otherwise you'll be killed in the media.
 
Avsblitzkrieg

Avsblitzkrieg

Registered User
May 1, 2016
1,579
0
Westminster
dracom said:
IMO, yes. Though limiting it that much is kind of pointless.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Landeskog is I'd consider a top ten LW to me easily. Who do you have ahead of landy? Lindholm for landeskog doesn't make sense for the ducks, I aggree, but don't be trashing landy.
 
Last edited:
Paul4587

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,196
13,210
Cogsbreakaway said:
Where do you see Lindholm in the NHL right now among d-men, around 25th?

How many d-men are truly elite? How much would he have to improve to get to the top-5ish, which I assume is the cut-off of the truly elite defencemen?

The amount of great talents among defencemen right now is simply astounding.
Click to expand...

Yes around mid 20s. At 22 years a old. The latter fact is very impressive.

And I would say there's just over 10 elite defensemen in the league at the moment. I don't think Lindholm is far off.
 
go4hockey

go4hockey

Registered User
Oct 14, 2007
6,216
2,469
Alta Loma CA
North said:
Landeskog is not better than Hall.

Hall could return Lindholm 1 for 1 had the Oilers been interested in trading Hall to a team in the West and had the Ducks been interested in trading Lindholm.

Landeskog could not bring back Lindholm 1 for 1. There would have to be an add on the Avs part.
Click to expand...

Hall would not have a chance at landing Lindholm 1for1. Not even close. The Oilers would have jumped at that if it was possible.
 
Exit Dose

Exit Dose

Registered User
Jul 2, 2011
29,203
3,336
Georgia
Avsblitzkrieg said:
I aggree with this statement. However, to pass on a potentially elite talent to get a lesser d-men is folly. I think Edmonton is a good example of this. This year as an example do you take pool party or one of the d-men. It may have been a good idea to trade down and take a kings ransom. My point being is that there is more skilled forwards then d-men. You can't miss on the d-men otherwise you'll be killed in the media.
Click to expand...

I feel like there may be crossed wires, here. I'm a Ducks fan arguing that Lindholm is more valuable to Anaheim than Landeskog would be.
 
go4hockey

go4hockey

Registered User
Oct 14, 2007
6,216
2,469
Alta Loma CA
ManofSteel55 said:
Don't kid yourself, Anaheim had a lot of media attention over the past few years compared to New Jersey
Click to expand...

There is little to none as far as media coverage for the Cali teams. That's part of the reason guys like playing here. You leave the rink and can go about living a normal life with no attention. The only media attention ANA gets is if they are put on the network game. Either way media coverage or not Lindholm >>Larsson.
 
Skinnyjimmy08

Skinnyjimmy08

WorldTraveler
Mar 30, 2012
22,898
12,709
go4hockey said:
There is little to none as far as media coverage for the Cali teams. That's part of the reason guys like playing here. You leave the rink and can go about living a normal life with no attention. The only media attention ANA gets is if they are put on the network game. Either way media coverage or not Lindholm >>Larsson.
Click to expand...

Agreed.. I wish ducks would get more Media attention cause I'm always intrigued by them. I see nothing about them rarely ever up in Canada where I am. Them and Devils get nothing
 
Avsblitzkrieg

Avsblitzkrieg

Registered User
May 1, 2016
1,579
0
Westminster
Exit Dose said:
I feel like there may be crossed wires, here. I'm a Ducks fan arguing that Lindholm is more valuable to Anaheim than Landeskog would be.
Click to expand...
Nah bro I understood. I agree the trade is a bad idea. Landy doesn't hold the value of Lindholm. Landy is however a very good player and a fan favorite.

I guess I was just going off of the subject a bit on building from the blue line out
 

StayAtHomeAv

Registered User
May 20, 2014
6,681
127
Paul4587 said:
You can win without elite wingers. You can't win without elite defenseman.



Landeskog hasn't improved on his 19 year old season in terms of PPG, you can't just arbitrarily compare one random year of two players careers. MacKinnon is 3 years younger and has a lot higher offensive upside. He is also a centre which is more valuable.
Click to expand...

Landeskog is my favorite player. I value 2way play more than most do, and even intangibles. And Lando has even been better than MacK each year imo. But MacK is definitely the more valuable player.
 
Cousin Eddie

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,200
37,461
Landy is probably my favorite player but as an Avs fan I do this trade yesterday if it's possible.
 
1909

1909

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
21,208
11,756
Maybe the speculation about trading Landeskog was key to Roy's departure from Denver. He's the one who gave him the "C" on his jersey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X