In fairness, I think most players or organizations would agree that he plays tough. The issue is that he can't get the puck out of his zone, offense dies on his stick and loses the battles because he doesn't have the size to back the toughness. His body is probably glued together at this point from the physicality he put himself through but such is hockey...
He’s not a productive player.No, you don’t. Insane take. 1 year at 4.5 for a productive player?
I watch him play every night. Yes, he is.
If you think he’s productive for 4.5 mil then your bar is really low.
What’s not productive about him?
Is anything that you don't like going to be thrown into the whole small sample advanced stats?
There are shittier defenseman who have been traded at the deadline for actual assets in recent history. Lindgren isn’t a negative asset. We shit on him a lot, but every fanbase here does the same. The problem with Lindgren is he’s not a top pairing dmen and various coaches have repeatedly attempted to treat him as one.
This is doing the thing you're accusing me of but we can point to the very obvious point production from him as a way to say he's not productive. We can look at him being underwater last season xG% in terms of productivity. The year before that you can attribute whatever success you want to playing with Adam Fox as his numbers without him that year were very bad by comparison. I mean, in what capacity has he been productive?
Yes and when competitive teams put guys like this on the trade block, they're not valued the same as a shitty defenseman being rented off of a non-playoff team.
I love how people who don’t watch a player can whip out a stat sheet and think they know it all.
You can say the second line until you're blue in the face but the idea that everything or mostly everything is random over the amount of games we're talking about is a lazy response.
You called him the productive player. Instead of pointing out why you think he's a productive player, you ran with "tell me how's he's not productive." On top of that, you ran with "anybody can point to silly stats and you don't watch the player". You offered absolutely nothing to that conversation with the other poster. He hasnt had great analytics in over a year now. It's not sample size. Also, if those random stats shouldn't be used against him, why should those random stats be used for him? You haven't posted anything supporting him being productive. chill out.
It is about small sample size. You want to ignore like 300-400 games for less than 100 games.
Rangers have enough cap room this year that they can afford to retain on him with his deal expiring. Lindgren at 2.25 mil definitely has value to contenders around the league. He’s still a fine bottom pair defenseman. Problem is rangers often play him as and need a top 4 dman.
When you talk about a player "being" productive, you don't ignore the current player and go down a route of "but he was 75% good and 25% bad for his career." Productive at 4.5m means you're talking about his current play. Nobody said he has been bad his entire career.
It's more like you want to ignore about 200+ games for the shade over 100. He's just not anywhere near as good as you like to pretend he is. Just because you watch him every game doesn't mean you're assessing him in a legitimate way. You got blinders on.
You're the one who said the Rangers have to include a 3rd to move him. That is a negative asset, regardless of where he's moved.
If the Rangers hold on to him until the trade deadline and retain then they should be able to get a return. If they want to move him out now, it's going to cost them. All those players referenced were cheaper, moved at the deadline, and were traded by non-playoff teams except for Cade Webber who was a prospect on a sub-mil contract. Those differences matter whether you acknowledge that or not.
Johnson was making 3.2M and was 35 at the time of his trade. Lindgren is 26 years old. We're not talking about a fossil. That difference matters whether you acknowledge that or not.
It does matter. At the time of the trade was the trade deadline. If the Rangers can wait until then, they may get a return as well. If they try to move him now, it doesn't really matter if he's 26 or 35 because 4.5 is still a lot of cap right now and he's not worth it. How many times has anyone making what Lindgren makes get dumped at this point in the season for nothing? This all happens at the deadline unless you're willing to pay to get rid of him.
