Proposal: Landeskog to Isles

[Jarey Curry]

Wouldn't really consider that to be their exact C depth, considering MacKinnon, Mitchell, Duchene and Soderberg rank 45, 70, 90 and 98 in faceoffs per game.

MacKinnon only had his first full-time year at C this year, and it saw Duchene on the wing more so than ever. They could use another 2/3 C as Soderberg is best suited in a defensive-minded role.

We have Rantanen who is pretty much a hybrid and Grigorenko used to play center. Anyway Laneeskog shoukd fetch us #1c/top2d/top3winger caliber player and if not, he shouldn't be traded

 

[tucker3434]

Nowhere in the tweets does it say that ANA asked for Landeskog. We have no idea how that conversation went down. Could just have easily been that COL offered Landeskog for Lindholm and BM turned it down. COLs need for another top pairing D-man is just as big as our need for 1st line LW.




All we know from the tweets is that Landeskog isn't getting you Lindholm. Therefore, you can't say that's about the ballpark of what the return should be. Still, the OP is bad.

Don't care. It's what the Avs should ask for. We are thin on the wings, and we are thin on two way players. Why trade the only proven young one we have unless it's a perfect return?

And that's the problem with all these Avs rumors. I fully believe the Avs shopped Landeskog for Lindholm. I bet they tried to get Trouba too. The Avs would likely trade a core piece for another core piece that solves a bigger area of need. But the chances are close to zero that they'll trade a core piece for a package of picks and prospects. It's the opposite of what they're trying to do.

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

The problem with the Avalanche trading Landeskog is (as everyone else has brought up) they'd be depleting an area of need.

The other problem is that a 1st line winger in no way gets you a 1st pairing D.

Tons of teams have this problem right now...

 

[Avs44]

Nowhere in the tweets does it say that ANA asked for Landeskog. We have no idea how that conversation went down. Could just have easily been that COL offered Landeskog for Lindholm and BM turned it down. COLs need for another top pairing D-man is just as big as our need for 1st line LW.




All we know from the tweets is that Landeskog isn't getting you Lindholm. Therefore, you can't say that's about the ballpark of what the return should be. Still, the OP is bad.

We can say that, because there is practically no reason for the Avs to accept less. The return in a case like should be whatever the Avs ask. Otherwise, when it is more than likely not met, he stays.

 

[CodeE]

I've love to see what a non-Capuano coach can do with our young players before we Milbury up the joint and package them all together.

Ladd provides what Landeskog does. 50-60ish points, strong leadership, not afraid to play defense. Landeskog is just much younger (and, I'll be fair, a better player than Ladd) so Colorado wants an arm & a leg for him, but we signed Ladd for free to bring all the things we'd expect Landy to bring to our team.

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

And Landeskog is better than every single one of those players.

The Avs have no reason at all to move him.

Of course he's better than all of them, but there's no point in trading for him when we have all that LW depth. Andrew Ladd will do fine with Tavares. We need a RW.

But yeah, I have no idea why Colorado would move Landeskog.

 

[davinhimself]

Ya you're right OP, Avs really need to improve our center depth.


I mean, between Duchene, Mackinnon, Soderberg, Grigorenko, Mitchell all as Natural centers on the Avs roster, as well as having just drafted Jost(A center) in this years draft, and having Compher and Beaudin as natural centers in the system, and using Rantanen as a Center last year to prepare him for that role, we really could use another center.


Especially considering we have so much fantastic winger depth.




Another proposal that only takes 1 teams needs into account. Nevermind the fact that the value is absolutely awful yet again.


Avs pass and block the Islanders number.

Avs would win this big time on value.
No way I would do it from NYI standpoint.
Do some homework on Pulock.

Not that I think COL would do it either - but you're off on the value point.

 

[Bender]

The problem with the Avalanche trading Landeskog is (as everyone else has brought up) they'd be depleting an area of need.

The other problem is that a 1st line winger in no way gets you a 1st pairing D.

Tons of teams have this problem right now...

All things being equal, generally no.

But I will say that it depends:

Team A - on the upswing, needs one last big piece to become serious contenders willing to trade proven youth 20-24 yrs old for a veteran 1D.

Team B - on the downswing, has a very good 30 year old #1D but not much else on the team and it will take 4-5 years to build it all back up.

The conditions have to be ideal but it can happen.

By the way, I don't know that I'd refer to Landeskog as just a 1st line winger. The guy has already proven a ton as a power forward and he's not even yet 24 years old yet.

Power forwards tend to take longer to develop, there is still more to come from Lando and that's why I want the Avs to keep him at all costs.

 

[missionAvs]

All things being equal, generally no.

But I will say that it depends:

Team A - on the upswing, needs one last big piece to become serious contenders willing to trade proven youth 20-24 yrs old for a veteran 1D.

Team B - on the downswing, has a very good 30 year old #1D but not much else on the team and it will take 4-5 years to build it all back up.

The conditions have to be ideal but it can happen.

By the way, I don't know that I'd refer to Landeskog as just a 1st line winger. The guy has already proven a ton as a power forward and he's not even yet 24 years old yet.

Power forwards tend to take longer to develop, there is still more to come from Lando and that's why I want the Avs to keep him at all costs.

This. I'm of the opinion that Landy is right on up there with MacK as the most untouchable guys on our roster. We have literally no one that can replace what he brings to the table which is so much more than any points he's putting up. I honestly think that he's our most complete player by a good margin.

 

[tucker3434]

Avs would win this big time on value.
No way I would do it from NYI standpoint.
Do some homework on Pulock.

Not that I think COL would do it either - but you're off on the value point.

Big time? Do some homework on Landeskog.

 

[Otto91]

To Colorado: Ryan Pulock, Ryan Strome and 1st round pick 2017

To islanders: Gabriel Landeskog

This seems very fair to me as Colorado gets stronger at center and defense. Isles get stud winger they were looking for.

Two Words! Why? & No!

 

[Yashin for President]

Big time? Do some homework on Landeskog.

Nobody doubting Landys skill but a player like Pulock who is about to explode after a solid half season and Strome with the addition of a 1st round pick is great value for Colorado. Isles make this move so they don't lose Pulock/Strome to Vegas. I didn't realize Colorado was lacking at wing according to its fans. FYI Strome can play wing too.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Nobody doubting Landys skill but a player like Pulock who is about to explode after a solid half season and Strome with the addition of a 1st round pick is great value for Colorado. Isles make this move so they don't lose Pulock/Strome to Vegas. I didn't realize Colorado was lacking at wing according to its fans. FYI Strome can play wing too.

There is a big difference between "value" and "incentive". Your offer gives the Avs no incentive to move Landeskog.

 

[Meeqs]

That's about as ignorant as his comment. Best record in the league, Stanley Cup Winner, four teams over 100 pts?

Metro is as strong and probably stronger in 2015-2016 than the Central.

Haha whatever you say bub

 

[CodeE]

If you take all the teams in a division to calculate the average number of points they scored, the Metro finished last year with 95.875 points and the Central finished with 94.571 points.

The Metro also took home both the President's Trophy as well as the Stanley Cup.

This "OMG the central is soooooo much better than your junk heap of a division" narrative is dumb.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

If you take all the teams in a division to calculate the average number of points they scored, the Metro finished last year with 95.875 points and the Central finished with 94.571 points.

The Metro also took home both the President's Trophy as well as the Stanley Cup.

This "OMG the central is soooooo much better than your junk heap of a division" narrative is dumb.

If we're using random stats to claim which division is the toughest, the Central is the only division that didn't have a single team score under 215 goals on the season. Every other division had 3 teams fail to score at least 215 goals.

 

[Sparksrus3]

Two Words! Why? & No!

Tune in next week for more insightful commentary from Otto.
As an added bonus he will spell Landeskog backwards 5x fast without writing a cheat sheet.
He is a very good player and should stay in Colorado.
LETS GO ISLANDERS !!!

 

[CodeE]

If we're using random stats to claim which division is the toughest, the Central is the only division that didn't have a single team score under 215 goals on the season. Every other division had 3 teams fail to score at least 215 goals.

Except I'm not using "random stats" so you pulling one out of your butt doesn't discredit what I said. How many points a team puts up in any given year is still the best way to judge that team's success,and the Metro had a higher average point total than the Central last season.

If you can think of a better way to judge two divisions against each other, let me know. If it's just "central is so much better I don't need to prove it cause everyone knows it" then don't waste your time typing up a response.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Avs would win this big time on value.
No way I would do it from NYI standpoint.
Do some homework on Pulock.

Not that I think COL would do it either - but you're off on the value point.

I couldn't give less of a **** who Pulock is.


Landeskog is a proven 1st line forward and one of the top Two Way wingers in the game today. Not to mention he's the captain of the team and signed long term to a very team friendly deal.


Pulock hasn't done **** in the NHL yet.



The value is awful for Colorado. We trade by far the most valuable and most proven asset in the deal and we dont get anything similar in return, just lesser pieces.

 

[tucker3434]

Nobody doubting Landys skill but a player like Pulock who is about to explode after a solid half season and Strome with the addition of a 1st round pick is great value for Colorado. Isles make this move so they don't lose Pulock/Strome to Vegas. I didn't realize Colorado was lacking at wing according to its fans. FYI Strome can play wing too.

That's neat that you think so, but we can't exactly bank on that when trading away our 23 year old captain. Pulock hasn't done anything so amazing to make him a lock to be great. He could just as easily stall out and turn into a journeyman 4/5. If that happens to him in NYI, no big deal. If it happened in Colorado after trading Landeskog for him, it'd be the end of the entire management team.

If Landeskog was on his way out of town, it'd be one thing, but he isn't. So we have no reason to trade him for a lottery ticket.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Except I'm not using "random stats" so you pulling one out of your butt doesn't discredit what I said. How many points a team puts up in any given year is still the best way to judge that team's success,and the Metro had a higher average point total than the Central last season.

If you can think of a better way to judge two divisions against each other, let me know. If it's just "central is so much better I don't need to prove it cause everyone knows it" then don't waste your time typing up a response.

Average wins between the two divisions gives a slight edge to the Metro, (C:42.714 v M:42.875) but the Central has a slight advantage in ROW (C:39.57 v M:39.25). If you do the math from that, you'll see the Metro teams averaged 3.625 SO wins, and the Metro averaged 3.144 SO wins per team. That works out to roughly 1 more point per team due to SO wins.

Metro teams had 81 OTLs last season (10.125 per team).

Central teams had 64 OTLs last season (9.14 per team).

So, the Metro got 1 more point per team from SOs, and 1 more point per team from OTLs. Not sure I'd use SO and OTL advantages as proof the Metro is the harder division.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Nobody doubting Landys skill but a player like Pulock who is about to explode after a solid half season and Strome with the addition of a 1st round pick is great value for Colorado. Isles make this move so they don't lose Pulock/Strome to Vegas. I didn't realize Colorado was lacking at wing according to its fans. FYI Strome can play wing too.

I don't really get the bolded. Did Pulock have some impressive moments when he was called up? Yes. But he didn't exactly look like a surefire, can't miss #1 defenseman, either.

The bolded makes it sound like he had a Gostisbehere-like second half. Instead, he looked good on the PP, played solid in transition, and looked average defensively, all with sheltered minutes. Not sure other than wishful thinking what it was about his play that screamed "he's about to explode".

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

If we're using random stats to claim which division is the toughest, the Central is the only division that didn't have a single team score under 215 goals on the season. Every other division had 3 teams fail to score at least 215 goals.

Metro teams versus Central (Link):
Washington 9-4-1
Pittsburgh 8-5-1
NY Rangers 8-6-0
NY Islanders 9-4-1
Philadelphia 11-3-0
Carolina 7-4-3
New Jersey 7-7-0
Columbus 6-8-0

Central teams versus Metro (Link):
Dallas 11-4-1
St. Louis 6-7-3
Chicago 7-8-1
Nashville 6-7-3
Minnesota 5-10-1
Colorado 5-10-1
Winnipeg 7-7-2

Seems to me the Metro feasted on the Central. Add to that, the Metro had the President's Trophy winners and Stanley Cup winners, and I'd say there's no argument which was the stronger division this past season.

 

[CodeE]

Average wins between the two divisions gives a slight edge to the Metro, (C:42.714 v M:42.875) but the Central has a slight advantage in ROW (C:39.57 v M:39.25). If you do the math from that, you'll see the Metro teams averaged 3.625 SO wins, and the Metro averaged 3.144 SO wins per team. That works out to roughly 1 more point per team due to SO wins.

Metro teams had 81 OTLs last season (10.125 per team).

Central teams had 64 OTLs last season (9.14 per team).

So, the Metro got 1 more point per team from SOs, and 1 more point per team from OTLs. Not sure I'd use SO and OTL advantages as proof the Metro is the harder division.

How does the Metro having more SO wins and OTLs make it a worse division, exactly?

In today's NHL, teams are expected to try and force overtime if necessary and win in the shootout if necessary. Why do only regulation wins should determine which division is better?

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

I sincerely hope you don't think a comment founded in ignorance actually was...

Haven't people jokingly called him Johnny Malkin?