Rumor: Bruins/Colorado getting serious about a deal?

[Ice Crusher]

I took it from Colorado fans themselves who said he doesn't create his own offense.

I can't imagine a scenario where I'd ever speak your "quote".

LOL where did you hear that? Because I don't think there are many Avs fans willing to trade him other than to help us get a critical piece on the back end for the future. By your thinking, he's a bottom-6 player? That just proves you base your observation on other people's opinion other than watching him play. He's been one of our best players the last 20 games and looks the same player he was before. Just watch him play and you'll see what you are getting.

 

[Coach Parker]

I don't see alot in Boston's prospect pool that would entice the Avalanche.

Really? Wow. I gotta say, I am really surprised at this. Do you follow prospects? (Honest question, not being condescending).

One thing we can all agree from both sides is that the Bruins have several prospects that the Avalanche find appealing. It's the amount and combination that we disagree upon.

 

[Coach Parker]

It's funny, I really hope these talks fall apart and we keep Landeskog, yet Bruins fans probably feel the same way about Carlo.

Usually the case when the value is close.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Really? Wow. I gotta say, I am really surprised at this. Do you follow prospects? (Honest question, not being condescending).

One thing we can all agree from both sides is that the Bruins have several prospects that the Avalanche find appealing. It's the amount and combination that we disagree upon.

You guys have nice prospects, but not many worth giving up Duchene or Landy for(granted not many teams do tbf).

 

[Coach Parker]

You guys have nice prospects, but not many worth giving up Duchene or Landy for(granted not many teams do tbf).

Define many. I see five guys that the Avalanche would love to have on the ice next year:

1. McAvoy
2. Carlo
3. JFK
4. Zboril
5. Senyshyn

6. Lindgren
7. Gabriele
8. Bjork
9. Cehlarik
10. Lauzon

I'd include the other four as well but to be really honest and not expect Avs fans to follow these prospects (most HF don't follow other teams prospects beyond the draft) but I can honestly say (because they will be fighting for spots in Boston next year) that all of those top five would be fighting for a spot or making the Avs next year...because I can say that if they remain in Boston as well.

All those picks and prospects brought in by moving out Boychuk, Lucic and Hamilton are on display and have been developing since the trades/drafts to the point where they can move some to replace those holes.

 

[Ice Crusher]

Define many. I see five guys that the Avalanche would love to have on the ice next year:

1. McAvoy
2. Carlo
3. JFK
4. Zboril
5. Senyshyn

6. Lindgren
7. Gabriele
8. Bjork
9. Cehlarik
10. Lauzon

I'd include the other four as well but to be really honest and not expect Avs fans to follow these prospects (most HF don't follow other teams prospects beyond the draft) but I can honestly say (because they will be fighting for spots in Boston next year) that all of those top five would be fighting for a spot or making the Avs next year...because I can say that if they remain in Boston as well.

All those picks and prospects brought in by moving out Boychuk, Lucic and Hamilton are on display and have been developing since the trades/drafts to the point where they can move some to replace those holes.

Actually, all the bolded would be as secondary pieces in a trade for Landeskog or Duchene as mention many times before.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Define many. I see five guys that the Avalanche would love to have on the ice next year:

1. McAvoy
2. Carlo
3. JFK
4. Zboril
5. Senyshyn

6. Lindgren
7. Gabriele
8. Bjork
9. Cehlarik
10. Lauzon

I'd include the other four as well but to be really honest and not expect Avs fans to follow these prospects (most HF don't follow other teams prospects beyond the draft) but I can honestly say (because they will be fighting for spots in Boston next year) that all of those top five would be fighting for a spot or making the Avs next year...because I can say that if they remain in Boston as well.

All those picks and prospects brought in by moving out Boychuk, Lucic and Hamilton are on display and have been developing since the trades/drafts to the point where they can move some to replace those holes.

I'm not saying that the Avalanche wouldn't want them on our team, but we wouldn't want them in exchange for Landy or Duchene.

I mean Compher and Bigras are good prospects but would you give up Pasta or Marchand for him? Hell ****ing no you wouldn't

 

[BruinLVGA]

Duchene, Landeskog, 2017 1st for Bergeron+Carlo

Hand in your Bruins fan card.

Why would we trade for a 31 year old lol.

I hope you mean that the dead last team in the league has no use at this stage for over 30 players in general...

Which is ~43pt pace over 82 games.

PS I like how you dodged the bulk of my post.

To a poster who said that Landeskog was on pace for a "34 points season" (<- keyword alert), you felt the need to correct him by saying "*43".
While that guy was wrong, you are wrong too: as proven by math, at current pace Landeskog is on target to have a 38 points season in 72 games.
For Landeskog to have a 43 points season, he would need to score 20 points in the last 28 games of the season, a 0.7142 ppg pace, which is much higher than his current 0.5227 over 44 games.
Math is not an opinion: you are wrong on this. It doesn't seem to me that correlating pace to remaining games should be rocket science... Very basic stuff...

The bulk of your post doesn't need addressing. I see a player who for the 4th straight season will see his points total go lower & generally speaking, a fan base that seems to think he is the bee's knees, yet is OK with trading him.
If he is still this amazing player, young, cost controlled and the captain, you should laugh at the idea of trading him. He should be the cornerstone of your franchise going ahead. You know a "he is not available. Period." thing. Talking about how great he is and still being very open to trade him, makes you guys sound like used car dealers...

 

[BruinLVGA]

Any concern over landeskog a goal scoring totals trending down the last few years?

26, 23, 20, on pace for 18 this year? The same as total points (65, 59, 53, on pace for 38)? Hell yeah.

 

[ON3M4N]

Hand in your Bruins fan card.



I hope you mean that the dead last team in the league has no use at this stage for over 30 players in general...



To a poster who said that Landeskog was on pace for a "34 points season" (<- keyword alert), you felt the need to correct him by saying "*43".
While that guy was wrong, you are wrong too: as proven by math, at current pace Landeskog is on target to have a 38 points season in 72 games.
For Landeskog to have a 43 points season, he would need to score 20 points in the last 28 games of the season, a 0.7142 ppg pace, which is much higher than his current 0.5227 over 44 games.
Math is not an opinion: you are wrong on this. It doesn't seem to me that correlating pace to remaining games should be rocket science... Very basic stuff...

The bulk of your post doesn't need addressing. I see a player who for the 4th straight season will see his points total go lower & generally speaking, a fan base that seems to think he is the bee's knees, yet is OK with trading him.
If he is still this amazing player, young, cost controlled and the captain, you should laugh at the idea of trading him. He should be the cornerstone of your franchise going ahead. You know a "he is not available. Period." thing. Talking about how great he is and still being very open to trade him, makes you guys sound like used car dealers...

Funny enough, last year he was .71 PPG and the year before that he was .72 PPG. He's capable of scoring at that pace, I just don't see it happening in Colorado this year. Should he get traded to a better team....maybe.

 

[Ice Crusher]

Hand in your Bruins fan card.



I hope you mean that the dead last team in the league has no use at this stage for over 30 players in general...



To a poster who said that Landeskog was on pace for a "34 points season" (<- keyword alert), you felt the need to correct him by saying "*43".
While that guy was wrong, you are wrong too: as proven by math, at current pace Landeskog is on target to have a 38 points season in 72 games.
For Landeskog to have a 43 points season, he would need to score 20 points in the last 28 games of the season, a 0.7142 ppg pace, which is much higher than his current 0.5227 over 44 games.
Math is not an opinion: you are wrong on this. It doesn't seem to me that correlating pace to remaining games should be rocket science... Very basic stuff...

The bulk of your post doesn't need addressing. I see a player who for the 4th straight season will see his points total go lower & generally speaking, a fan base that seems to think he is the bee's knees, yet is OK with trading him.
If he is still this amazing player, young, cost controlled and the captain, you should laugh at the idea of trading him. He should be the cornerstone of your franchise going ahead. You know a "he is not available. Period." thing. Talking about how great he is and still being very open to trade him, makes you guys sound like used car dealers...

That's where you are wrong. Were only willing to trade him if we can get a significant value for him. I am of many fans that don't want him dealt if we can't get better defensively. And by that, it's for a prospect a la Zboril who has much less upside than Carlo and McAvoy. You're the kind of fan that thinks yeah he sucks but were not willing to pay the price your asking for for him and take what were offering you. If you think he sucks that much, why would you guys want him in the first place?

 

[BruinLVGA]

Funny enough, last year he was .71 PPG and the year before that he was .72 PPG. He's capable of scoring at that pace, I just don't see it happening in Colorado this year. Should he get traded to a better team....maybe.

Oh sure. It would still amount to a 43 points season. Not that great a difference.

 

[Ice Crusher]

Oh sure. It would still amount to a 43 points season. Not that great a difference.

And first time in his career when everybody is underperforming. Sure thing we will keep our 43 pts player.

 

[ON3M4N]

Oh sure. It would still amount to a 43 points season. Not that great a difference.

You don't think a 0.2 PPG change doesn't make a great difference? Over an 82 game season that's a 16 point swing.

 

[Foppberg]

I'm not concerned at all with Landeskog and his offense. This team is beyond pathetic. Put him on a competent team and he's 60 + points.

 

[BruinLVGA]

That's where you are wrong. Were only willing to trade him if we can get a significant value for him. I am of many fans that don't want him dealt if we can't get better defensively. You're the kind of fan that thinks yeah he sucks but were not willing to pay the price your asking for for him and take what were offering you. If you think he sucks that much, why would you guys want him in the first place?

I don't think he sucks.

I think that there's reasonable concern that for whatever reason his trend is down. 4 seasons of lower points + goals seem to indicate that.
One of your fans in this thread, who says he watches 70 Avs games a season and has seen Landeskog since his rookie season, posted that he has the feeling that Landeskog could very well turn into a Dustin Brown situation.
The majority of Avs fans in here consider that impossible I guess and are asking for full value, aka 65 points Landeskog price.

For the record, I don't think that the Bruins need Landeskog. Even more so at the cost of a young defenseman who is playing in our top pairing at 20, knowing how badly we needed one and how lucky we were to find one at #37 in the draft.
If I am Sweeney and I hear Landeskog is available and upon inquiring the price is Carlo or McAvoy ++, I politely decline.

 

[BruinLVGA]

You don't think a 0.2 PPG change doesn't make a great difference? Over an 82 game season that's a 16 point swing.

Over 28 games, which is what remains of the Avs season, it's FIVE points. I thought it was evident that I was referring to that.

 

[ON3M4N]

Over 28 games, which is what remains of the Avs season, it's FIVE points. I thought it was evident that I was referring to that.

Nope, if it was I wouldn't have posed the question would I

 

[BruinLVGA]

And first time in his career when everybody is underperforming. Sure thing we will keep our 43 pts player.

38 points.
Maybe he will improve significantly next year, maybe he won't. But here the question is about valuation: Avs fans want 65 points Landeskog's value in a 30ish/40ish points season. Either you keep him or you must take into account that 4 years of decline and 30/40 points =/= full value.

 

[cgf]

On the surface it might look bad, but factoring in the games played it's minimal...

.27 G/GP
.25 G/GP
.32 G/GP
.28 G/GP
.27 G/GP
.25 G/GP

Its been a slow decline, but how much is him and how much is the team? Is he taking less shots? Is he taking lower quality shots?

That looks more like his third season was an outlier, than a slow decline. .27 & .25 his first two years, .27 & .25 his last two, with .28 in the other season. *shrug*

Halls career high is 80 points and Landeskog is 65, better than him , even when he's having a down season??? Hahah keep those homer glasses on bud

...He's not an avs fan...

To a poster who said that Landeskog was on pace for a "34 points season" (<- keyword alert), you felt the need to correct him by saying "*43".
While that guy was wrong, you are wrong too: as proven by math, at current pace Landeskog is on target to have a 38 points season in 72 games.
For Landeskog to have a 43 points season, he would need to score 20 points in the last 28 games of the season, a 0.7142 ppg pace, which is much higher than his current 0.5227 over 44 games.
Math is not an opinion: you are wrong on this. It doesn't seem to me that correlating pace to remaining games should be rocket science... Very basic stuff...

The bulk of your post doesn't need addressing. I see a player who for the 4th straight season will see his points total go lower & generally speaking, a fan base that seems to think he is the bee's knees, yet is OK with trading him.
If he is still this amazing player, young, cost controlled and the captain, you should laugh at the idea of trading him. He should be the cornerstone of your franchise going ahead. You know a "he is not available. Period." thing. Talking about how great he is and still being very open to trade him, makes you guys sound like used car dealers...

Well an NHL season has 82 games, so whether a season refers to what he'd produce in the # of games Landy could still play or what he'd produce in a full 82 game season isn't clearly defined by the use of the term season.

Our fan base is far from OK with trading him, many have accepted that it is very possible...just like we had to accept that a ROR trade was possible, even though most of us wanted to keep him...and so are discussing what it could take. Nobody, other than chet (who hates Landy), will be happy about a Landeskog trade, even if we get McAvoy++. And the only reason any of us would learn to live with it would be because the team would be able to add the much needed potential top end dman in such a deal, not because losing Landy wouldn't hurt our club significantly.

As for his point totals falling, so has the quality of the team around him & the quality of team-mates he's playing with/the quality of team-mates capable of taking some of the toughest defensive minutes from him. And there hasn't been a major change to his production prior to this season, as he started off producing 52 points in 82 games and last season put up 53 points in just 75 games (pacing for just under the 59 points he put up the season before).

Re: landy hitting 43 points in the games left this season; it's not actually that far from the realm of possibility, he's put up 11 points in the 17 games since returning to the lineup for a 0.647058824 pace...which is still below his pace from seasons past but would net him 18 more points this season if it's just maintained, nevermind if he betters it down the stretch as EJ returns to the lineup and some vets are moved out to make room for some hungry kids. And another 18 points would bring Landeskog up to 41 points in 72 games this season.

This on a historically impotent offensive team that leans on him extremely heavily defensively given the lack of other high end two-way forwards.

 

[Ice Crusher]

38 points.
Maybe he will improve significantly next year, maybe he won't. But here the question is about valuation: Avs fans want 65 points Landeskog's value in a 30ish/40ish points season. Either you keep him or you must take into account that 4 years of decline and 30/40 points =/= full value.

And I'm pretty sure there is a team willing to take the risk when our best player will have difficulty to reach 55 pts this season.

 

[Meeqs]

38 points.
Maybe he will improve significantly next year, maybe he won't. But here the question is about valuation: Avs fans want 65 points Landeskog's value in a 30ish/40ish points season. Either you keep him or you must take into account that 4 years of decline and 30/40 points =/= full value.

Lmao bolded and people mistaking his suspensions for "injury history" are my two favorite signs showing people have no idea what they are talking about but want to push their own personal narrative anyways.

 

[tucker3434]

38 points.
Maybe he will improve significantly next year, maybe he won't. But here the question is about valuation: Avs fans want 65 points Landeskog's value in a 30ish/40ish points season. Either you keep him or you must take into account that 4 years of decline and 30/40 points =/= full value.

Full value for a 65 point winger is a lot higher than young player/A prospect+1st+B prospect. We aren't asking for Ekblad. We aren't even asking for Jones.

But we're more than happy keeping him. There's no doubt he'll bounce back next year.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Funny enough, last year he was .71 PPG and the year before that he was .72 PPG. He's capable of scoring at that pace, I just don't see it happening in Colorado this year. Should he get traded to a better team....maybe.

Nope, if it was I wouldn't have posed the question would I

Looking at the part I quoted in your original post, I took it as him going 0.72 over the rest of the season.
Because if instead you meant 0.72 over the course of Landeskog's entire season, that would mean 52 points in 72 games. He would need 29 points in the Avs' 28 remaining games, a 1.03 pace which, on a team playing 0.296 hockey, and with his highest ppg being 0.80 (4 seasons ago) seems a pipe dream.

 

[BruinLVGA]

And I'm pretty sure there is a team willing to take the risk when our best player will have difficulty to reach 55 pts this season.

*Delete (misread the post)*