It's just not true.
Let's even assume that at 26, he's still as "old" as a 28yo Staal or 30yo Girardi due to rough mileage. Heck, let's even say he's gonna lose an eye sometime soon. So I'm granting you the real possibility that he's going to break down even worse and sooner than the other two.
$5.5 or $5.7 was just under 8% of the cap back then. If anyone is saying to give Lindgren $7m (8% next season) for 6 years, then we'll all say that's a terrible idea and the same thing as Staal or Girardi.
People are batting about $4.5 for 4 years. That's just over 5% of the cap. If you could go back in time and make both Staal and Girardi sign for $3.6m x 4y (5% of the cap at the time), we would have been BALLIN'! Extra space, no buyout, no cap dump trade.
Feel free to make the argument that Lindgren's body has already broken down worse than those two, to the tune of 2-4 years of lost prime. But it's not so bad that paying him 2/3 the cap percentage for 2/3 the duration is "the same mistake all over again." Unless you're truly wagering on the fact that it's not merely "the same thing," but is "much, much worse." There's a chance, sure.
Go ahead and double down on the pessimism. Just don't wrap it in a package of rational pragmatism. It's simply not the same thing as the other two.
In a perfect world, we could sign Hanifin or someone to something not egregious and then trade Lindgren. He'd have at least *some* value around the league. So I'm not saying he's a perfect little angel that we must protect at all costs. I just think a shorter two or three year deal could be really good for both sides. Four years, still doable. Five, eh, I'm not sure. Six? No way, that's the same thing as Staal or Girardi!