Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Nils Lundkvist: Part II

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edge said:
I've always been higher on Lundkvist's longer-term potential and wanted to see what would happen if given time to cook and without the demands of "having" to get a more immediate return. Frankly, that approach has paid dividends.

I've always felt there wasn't a tremendous long-term gap between Lundkvist and Boqvist, so much as it was a matter of Boqvist being further along heading into their draft years. So for me, none of this is too terribly surprising.
Click to expand...

And Boqvist got roasted repeatedly by the Rangers when they played the Hawks. Dude didn't look ready defensively at the NHL level
 
duhmetreE said:
He's better than Fox? I dont know how to handle this
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but they have similarities in their game. Lundkvist is 2+ years younger so we need to avoid thinking he can be as good as Fox is at the moment, but that doesn't mean he cannot grow to that level.

His strongest assets are his gap control, transition game and versatility. If you look at his 6 goals this season in the SHL this season, you see a bomb from the blue line, a breakaway, a snipe from the left circle, a wrist shot from the slot... He doesn't just score in 1 way. He finds ways to add those points though.

There's a lot of talk about Sandin, but I think Lundkvist is slightly better. In the WJC, Lundkvist was overall the better defenseman. Time will tell how fast he develops into a top-4 or even top pair D-man but the Rangers have time. We are loaded on the right side.

His contract expires at the end of the season, and when I spoke to him a few weeks ago, he said that he will either play in NY or Hartford and does not expect to go back. He can technically go back, but unlike Jesper Sellgren this season, he isn't under contract so he would either sign a new deal with Luleå or, and I don't like this scenario, loan him to a different team
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbassler, Harbour Dog, McSauer and 1 other person
Levitate said:
And Boqvist got roasted repeatedly by the Rangers when they played the Hawks. Dude didn't look ready defensively at the NHL level
Click to expand...

I would argue that he could've benefitted from a similar approach to the one taken with Lundqvist.

But Boqvist is a prime example of why I lean more conservatively. I think people see skilled young players and there's a desire to get them going faster and push them to tap into that skill level. But playing in the best league in the world is about more than skill, and time after time after time we see young players who are thrown to wolves, fall behind and stay behind because of the weight placed on them to have an immediate impact. Subsequently, we see guys who put it together for their second or even third team because they're no longer held to certain expectations or having to carry around that baggage.

There are plenty of guys who didn't return the best possible investment for the teams that drafted them because they were rushed. Counter to that, I find it much more difficult to come up with as long of a list of players who failed because they "over-ripend" for their drafting team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter Gathers
Edge said:
I would argue that he could've benefitted from a similar approach to the one taken with Lundqvist.

But Boqvist is a prime example of why I lean more conservatively. I think people see skilled young players and there's a desire to get them going faster and push them to tap into that skill level. But playing in the best league in the world is about more than skill, and time after time after time we see young players who are thrown to wolves, fall behind and stay behind because of the weight placed on them to have an immediate impact. Subsequently, we see guys who put it together for their second or even third team because they're no longer held to certain expectations or having to carry around that baggage.

There are plenty of guys who didn't return the best possible investment for the teams that drafted them because they were rushed. Counter to that, I find it much more difficult to come up with as long of a list of players who failed because they "over-ripend" for their drafting team.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of truth to this. Expectations can affect a player mentally, to the point where they just drown. It's why the whole "change of scenery" thing exists. A good example for the Rangers is someone like Anton Strålman, Anthony DeAngelo and Derick Brassard.

I don't think the Rangers are necessarily doing a bad job with their prospects, but I also refuse to believe they are perfect. There are lessons to be learned around the league when it comes to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dshea19
Amazing Kreiderman said:
There's a lot of truth to this. Expectations can affect a player mentally, to the point where they just drown. It's why the whole "change of scenery" thing exists. A good example for the Rangers is someone like Anton Strålman, Anthony DeAngelo and Derick Brassard.

I don't think the Rangers are necessarily doing a bad job with their prospects, but I also refuse to believe they are perfect. There are lessons to be learned around the league when it comes to this.
Click to expand...

I think they'd had more hits than misses. But the misses, or potential near-misses were more high-profile, so people closer attention.

But all-in-all, I definitely think the Rangers have had almost as much post-draft success as one could reasonably hope for since 2017.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
JT Miller and McDonagh for Lundkvist himself isn't even that terrible it looks like. We still don't know what Hajek is.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, we shed $12 million that we'd have to be paying them today (or trying to move in order to go after Panarin, Kreider, Trouba, etc.), and in return we received what eventually amounted to two center prospects, and two defensive prospects --- including one that can be considered a top prospect level asset.

In terms of trading for futures, that's a fair deal. Obviously, you hope it works out and you get max value, but really the only thing you can really ask is that it be "fair" value. I think we got that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jas
SnowblindNYR said:
JT Miller and McDonagh for Lundkvist himself isn't even that terrible it looks like. We still don't know what Hajek is.
Click to expand...
Im still fine with the trade did we get back a great return like Nash? No but I like the prospects we got back in Nils and Henriksson. Howden I still think can be an ok bottom 6 player he just needs to get back that confidence he had at the biggest of last year. Hajek was the valued piece in that trade by Gorton and I still think he can be good but injuries had derailed him a bit
 
Edge said:
I still feel more comfortable projecting him as top 4, but I've always been hesitant about getting too caught up in the projected "placement" of players.
Click to expand...

I feel like "top pair" defenseman only get called such when they reach a point that people believe they are actually #1 defensemen. A #2 isn't a "top pair" guy because he needs a #1 to play with him, etc etc.

But what people seem to think of as #1's are pretty rare (basically just the superstars) while there are a whole lot of really great defensemen who can play lots of minutes in all situations but whom people find issues with.

Like...if Fox (or Lundkvist) can play 22 minutes per night in all situations, put up points, and defend well and grade out well on the advanced analytics charts, does it matter that they might not be Chris Pronger in his prime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raspewtin and dshea19
Levitate said:
I feel like "top pair" defenseman only get called such when they reach a point that people believe they are actually #1 defensemen. A #2 isn't a "top pair" guy because he needs a #1 to play with him, etc etc.

But what people seem to think of as #1's are pretty rare (basically just the superstars) while there are a whole lot of really great defensemen who can play lots of minutes in all situations but whom people find issues with.

Like...if Fox (or Lundkvist) can play 22 minutes per night in all situations, put up points, and defend well and grade out well on the advanced analytics charts, does it matter that they might not be Chris Pronger in his prime?
Click to expand...

People seem to call players that are top 10 in their position #1 D-men, like they do with centers.
 
Edge said:
I don't know if he's better than Fox per se, but I think he's arguably ahead of where Fox was around this time.

I think Fox is more naturally aggressive, and plays with more a cockiness than Lundkvist. But I think Lundkvist probably has more natural "skills" if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
It does and I cant wait for next season
 
Levitate said:
I feel like "top pair" defenseman only get called such when they reach a point that people believe they are actually #1 defensemen. A #2 isn't a "top pair" guy because he needs a #1 to play with him, etc etc.

But what people seem to think of as #1's are pretty rare (basically just the superstars) while there are a whole lot of really great defensemen who can play lots of minutes in all situations but whom people find issues with.

Like...if Fox (or Lundkvist) can play 22 minutes per night in all situations, put up points, and defend well and grade out well on the advanced analytics charts, does it matter that they might not be Chris Pronger in his prime?
Click to expand...

This is true, though I think Lundkvist might be more likely to slide into a top-support role type career. Maybe more of a 20 minute per night type, who makes incredibly smart plays, chips in on the offense and helps a team win, but isn't necessarily the focal point of the defense or the guy leading the charge.

I tend to think that especially on defense, a top pairing guy (or guys) set the tone for the other pairings. They sort of serve as keystones and the other defenseman fall in line around them with assignments, usage, etc.

Is Lundkvist that guy? Eh, maybe. But I definitely think he's guy who potentially helps form a strong core group, even if he's number 3 or 4 in that group.
 
Last edited:
Edge said:
This is true, though I think Lundkvist might be more likely to slide into a top-support role type career. Maybe more of a 20 minute per night type, who makes incredibly smart plays, chips in on the offense and helps a team win, but isn't necessarily the focal point of the defense or the guy leading the charge.

I tend to think that especially on defense, a top pairing guy (or guys) set the tone for the other pairings. They sort of serve as keystones and the other defenseman fall in line around them with assignments, usage, etc.

Is Lundkvist that guy? Eh, maybe. But I definitely think he's guy who potentially helps form a strong core group, even if he's number 3 or 4 in that group.
Click to expand...
For me a top pairing you can put out against the other teams top line, shut them down, take the puck away, transition into their zone, and hold the puck in while generating scoring chances. The essentially nullify the other teams best assets and are our teams best assets on the flip.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
I wouldn't go that far, but they have similarities in their game. Lundkvist is 2+ years younger so we need to avoid thinking he can be as good as Fox is at the moment, but that doesn't mean he cannot grow to that level.

His strongest assets are his gap control, transition game and versatility. If you look at his 6 goals this season in the SHL this season, you see a bomb from the blue line, a breakaway, a snipe from the left circle, a wrist shot from the slot... He doesn't just score in 1 way. He finds ways to add those points though.

There's a lot of talk about Sandin, but I think Lundkvist is slightly better. In the WJC, Lundkvist was overall the better defenseman. Time will tell how fast he develops into a top-4 or even top pair D-man but the Rangers have time. We are loaded on the right side.

His contract expires at the end of the season, and when I spoke to him a few weeks ago, he said that he will either play in NY or Hartford and does not expect to go back. He can technically go back, but unlike Jesper Sellgren this season, he isn't under contract so he would either sign a new deal with Luleå or, and I don't like this scenario, loan him to a different team
Click to expand...

Excited to hear this! Man, Hartford might get a big boost late in the season. How does his coming over interact with the whole 4 callups situation? Does he qualify for the playoffs down there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom