Toggle sidebar

Value of: Landeskog vs JVR

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
BatVader said:
Speculation.
Both are available. You need an LW.
Who do you choose and why?


Bonus round... What would you trade to get them.



(Please start the season soon. I'm officially out of thread topics)
Click to expand...

Landeskog is a far superior player...

JVR would be cheaper to acquire...
 
Do you spend less on the lesser product or more on the higher end product? Depends on if you have the money to spend.
 
rynryn said:
i don't think anyone is riled.

I'm guessing it's a would you rather have the better top six guy or an acceptable top six guy and more balance--considering you'd have to give up more to get the better guy.
Click to expand...

No where in the OP opening statement does it state that. The thread title is simply player vs player and no proviso's are given to determine what scenario is better or worse.
 
Legend123 said:
are u serious?
I would pay ALOT more for Landy than for JvR. I would pay Gallagher/Pacs (not that it would) for Landy. I wouldnt dare pay that for JvR.
Click to expand...

lawl. wouldnt give up 5'9 3rd liner Gallagher for JVR?
leafs would laugh and block the habs number if that was even offered.

nice to see you would give him up for a guy who is 10x better in landy though :laugh:
 
Dustin said:
No where in the OP opening statement does it state that. The thread title is simply player vs player and no proviso's are given to determine what scenario is better or worse.
Click to expand...

yeah you're right. It wasn't the OP shifting the question like I thought. So obviously Landeskog no one but JVRs immediate family would opt to pick him up.
 
Landeskog is the better player. Factor in contracts it's a landslide. I do not envy the team that signs JVR's next deal.
 
Landeskog by a million miles..

Halla said:
lawl. wouldnt give up 5'9 3rd liner Gallagher for JVR?
leafs would laugh and block the habs number if that was even offered.

nice to see you would give him up for a guy who is 10x better in landy though :laugh:
Click to expand...

JVR cant hold Gally's jockstrap, yet another display of your hockey knowledge.
 
Glenn Healy said:
Let's say Colorado and Toronto make Landeskog and JVR available to 29 teams at the same time, I think almost all teams would initially be far more interested in Landeskog than JVR. It's not even a matter of preference, Landeskog is a superior player, younger and a better contract long-term (those points would make any team whether you're rebuilding, re-tooling or a contender interested in the player).

However, as the bidding war begins, you could see a few teams dropping out and then potentially moving onto JVR. Although not all teams because if you're in the beginning or even middle phase of a rebuilt, acquiring JVR doesn't make a lot of sense.

This question is odd because we have no idea what either teams want in return for each player. Thus, based on having those 2 players available, I think everyone will say Landeskog
Click to expand...

Flowzak said:
Wait what? No. Take off those glasses. Everyone's of the same mind that Landeskog >>>> JVR. What he's saying is, would a team rather pay a premium for a premium player, or pay less for what is more or so a complimentary piece and have available assets to spend elsewhere. How on earth did you take whether or not these two were overrated or underrated from that?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what OP was saying but I don't see how anyone can answer the question without knowing what the price for the two players would be. I agree with the first post I quoted. You can't answer the question without knowing the cost of the two players. Landeskog should cost more but how much more? And of which type of asset?(E.g., maybe Toronto would take a center whereas Colorado is only looking for a top LD and your team has centers but no real LD to trade or one of the teams would favor blue-chip prospects/picks, which your team has/doesn't have).
 
Halla said:
lawl. wouldnt give up 5'9 3rd liner Gallagher for JVR?
leafs would laugh and block the habs number if that was even offered.

nice to see you would give him up for a guy who is 10x better in landy though :laugh:
Click to expand...

Lol. Gallagher is younger, better and signed to a longer and cheaper deal.

3rd liner :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Avsblitzkrieg said:
The mild would be the last team he'd be traded too. Book it
Click to expand...

oh i get it! "Mild"! Oh LOL wow that's clever. Too bad there's no clever alliterative phrase to bridge "disorganized jumble****" and "Avalanche".

Anyway...How do you book something like that? Trade him to every single team and then back until you hit the last team? Seems impractical.

anyway, it seems like the Avalanche would want a replacement top six wing along with whatever hole-filler they'd demand as the main piece. So a complicated deal.
 
Not even comparable. Outside of point totals Landeskog is superior in every other area of the game by quite a margin
 
Halla said:
lawl. wouldnt give up 5'9 3rd liner Gallagher for JVR?
leafs would laugh and block the habs number if that was even offered.

nice to see you would give him up for a guy who is 10x better in landy though :laugh:
Click to expand...

JVR is Taylor Pyatt with more offense, I take Gallagher over him every day of the week. Third liner? I don't think so.
 
rynryn said:
oh i get it! "Mild"! Oh LOL wow that's clever. Too bad there's no clever alliterative phrase to bridge "disorganized jumble****" and "Avalanche".

Anyway...How do you book something like that? Trade him to every single team and then back until you hit the last team? Seems impractical.

anyway, it seems like the Avalanche would want a replacement top six wing along with whatever hole-filler they'd demand as the main piece. So a complicated deal.
Click to expand...

Colorado is not trading landy. It ain't happening. Bit I'll play bizzaro world with you your a division opponent, you guys are neck and neck with us. New coaching, there will be no huge changes made in Colorados core for ATLEAST this year. But you want him that bad? Your gonna pay, it'll hurt Mr mild.
 
Flowzak said:
Wait what? No. Take off those glasses. Everyone's of the same mind that Landeskog >>>> JVR. What he's saying is, would a team rather pay a premium for a premium player, or pay less for what is more or so a complimentary piece and have available assets to spend elsewhere. How on earth did you take whether or not these two were overrated or underrated from that?
Click to expand...

Take off what glasses? I don't have a dog in this fight.

You suggested Landeskog might not be "worth his price", which means you think his reputation or trade value is inflated, which means you don't think he's as good as his reputation is. Make sense?

If I'm getting fair market prices on both players, it's a no-brainer. You seem to imply that I wouldn't be.

Otherwise hat you're suggesting is that you'd rather pay a fair price for an inferior player than a fair price for a superior player, which is either extremely dumb or is taking team needs into account, which would make this thread a dumb question to begin with.
 
Juxtaposer said:
Take off what glasses? I don't have a dog in this fight.

You suggested Landeskog might not be "worth his price", which means you think his reputation or trade value is inflated, which means you don't think he's as good as his reputation is. Make sense?

If I'm getting fair market prices on both players, it's a no-brainer. You seem to imply that I wouldn't be.

Otherwise hat you're suggesting is that you'd rather pay a fair price for an inferior player than a fair price for a superior player, which is either extremely dumb or is taking team needs into account, which would make this thread a dumb question to begin with.
Click to expand...

That is not at all what I was implying. To get a better calibre player you need to trade a better calibre player. Sometimes a team may rather keep what they have instead of what they can acquire. In which case you would settle on a downgrade in return to trade a not so core piece. I'm pretty sure your a SJS fan, would you rather trade Couture for a similar calibre player in a position of need or Hertl? I think the answer is obvious but the return on Hertl will be a downgrade on the return for Couture.
 
The Podium said:
That is not at all what I was implying. To get a better calibre player you need to trade a better calibre player. Sometimes a team may rather keep what they have instead of what they can acquire. In which case you would settle on a downgrade in return to trade a not so core piece. I'm pretty sure your a SJS fan, would you rather trade Couture for a similar calibre player in a position of need or Hertl? I think the answer is obvious but the return on Hertl will be a downgrade on the return for Couture.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd rather trade Couture, but okay?

Doesn't really help your analogy that we don't really have a "position of need" to theoretically trade Couture for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom