Confirmed with Link: Blues have signed Joakim Lindstrom

[bleedblue1223]

From what Ive seen from his years in Sweden, he is the better PP-guy compared to Berglund.. WIll be interessting to see if he can live up to that in the Blues too...

They would just fill different roles. If we need to rotate someone in that will be on the puck, then it's Lindstrom, but if we need to stick someone in front of the net, then it's Berglund. That was Berglund's spot in the lockout season, and he thrived.

 

[RR10*]

From what Ive seen from his years in Sweden, he is the better PP-guy compared to Berglund.. WIll be interessting to see if he can live up to that in the Blues too...

Agree. Lindstrom is far more talented and could outproduce him. He's faster, more skilled, better passer and ice-vision, but both can shoot the puck really well.

 

[BlueDream]

Lindstrom is more offensively skilled but I'd still say Berglund is by far the more important all-around player.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

Lindstrom is more offensively skilled but I'd still say Berglund is by far the more important all-around player.

I'm not sure if we've really seen Lindstrom enough to make a full guess, unless of course you saw him overseas.

Berglund is solid but is he really that much more 'important'?? To me, whoever produces more offensively is important, regardless of 2-way ability. Scoring matters on this team.

 

[BlueDream]

I'm not sure if we've really seen Lindstrom enough to make a full guess, unless of course you saw him overseas.

Berglund is solid but is he really that much more 'important'?? To me, whoever produces more offensively is important, regardless of 2-way ability. Scoring matters on this team.

We have plenty of offensive talent on this team now, it's not like Lindstrom is a superstar. And yes by watching him it's pretty clear he's not on Berglund's level defensively.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

We have plenty of offensive talent on this team now, it's not like Lindstrom is a superstar. And yes by watching him it's pretty clear he's not on Berglund's level defensively.

Regardless of what this team has or doesn't have, is Offense or Defense 'more important'? Generally speaking, it's a tough question to answer.

 

[KirkOut]

Regardless of what this team has or doesn't have, is Offense or Defense 'more important'? Generally speaking, it's a tough question to answer.

Who would you rather have on your team, David Backes and Jordan Eberle? One will give you more offense, the other more D. I think it boils down to team needs.

 

[Dbrownss]

With Steen and Stastny, Lindstom can afford to not be a defensive cornerstone. I do somewhat worry about how he's rag dolled off the puck though.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Who would you rather have on your team, David Backes and Jordan Eberle? One will give you more offense, the other more D. I think it boils down to team needs.

I take David Backes 100 times out of 100, regardless of team needs. He does so much more on the whole for the team than Eberle. If Eberle isn't scoring he's useless.

 

[KirkOut]

I take David Backes 100 times out of 100, regardless of team needs. He does so much more on the whole for the team than Eberle. If Eberle isn't scoring he's useless.

Yup which is why I agree with BlueDream's point that Berglund is a more important player for us right now. (Though for the record I bet at least a few teams would pick Eberle -Coyotes, Bruins,Sharks?)

 

[bleedblue1223]

Hanzal vs Eberle would be a better comparison since Backes is still more than capable of 60+ points and 30 goals.

 

[KirkOut]

Hanzal vs Eberle would be a better comparison since Backes is still more than capable of 60+ points and 30 goals.

I used Backes because given the same ice time, I'd expect Lindstrom to slightly outscore Berglund by a similar factor as Eberle outscores Backes

 

[Overkamp]

Lindstrom is more offensively skilled but I'd still say Berglund is by far the more important all-around player.

How? When he feels like playing.

He's too inconsistent to be an "all-around player".

 

[BlueDream]

How? When he feels like playing.

He's too inconsistent to be an "all-around player".

He's solid defensively. How is Lindstrom better?

 

[Overkamp]

He's solid defensively. How is Lindstrom better?

I never said that. The sample size is too small; two games.

How you can claim what you did with that same sample size is a little bit of a stretch. That's all.

Berglund, we've seen his same old song and dance for years. He can be very effective when he uses his size and controls the puck. He is way too inconsistent to be called a more "important" all-around player, however.

 

[BlueDream]

I never said that. The sample size is too small; two games.

How you can claim what you did with that same sample size is a little bit of a stretch. That's all.

Berglund, we've seen his same old song and dance for years. He can be very effective when he uses his size and controls the puck. He is way too inconsistent to be called a more "important" all-around player, however.

Yeah because Lindstrom's track record in the NHL is so good...

Berglund is the better all-around player. There are obviously better players on the Blues but he is more important than Lindstrom. His defensive game is better and he has produced more offensively at the NHL level. Lindstrom literally has nothing on him at this point. Not sure how you're trying to argue that.

 

[Overkamp]

Yeah because Lindstrom's track record in the NHL is so good...

Berglund is the better all-around player. There are obviously better players on the Blues but he is more important than Lindstrom. His defensive game is better and he has produced more offensively at the NHL level. Lindstrom literally has nothing on him at this point. Not sure how you're trying to argue that.

What? I just said the sample size is TOO small. What part of that don't you understand?

The bolded part is just baseless and conjecture. Nothing less, nothing more..based upon your own statement (and mine) that he (Lindstrom) has not played enough games to make that judgement..yet you're doing that anyway.

 

[Lord Helix]

What? I just said the sample size is TOO small. What part of that don't you understand?

The bolded part is just baseless and conjecture. Nothing less, nothing more..based upon your own statement (and mine) that he has not played enough games to make that judgement..yet you're doing that anyway.

What are you trying to argue? That Berglund hasn't been the better NHL player so far in his career? Of course Lindstrom could become a better player, but it's ridiculous to say that Berglund isn't already in the lead by a large margin because he's more proven.

 

[Overkamp]

What are you trying to argue? That Berglund hasn't been the better NHL player so far in his career? Of course Lindstrom could become a better player, but it's ridiculous to say that Berglund isn't already in the lead by a large margin because he's more proven.

Lindstrom is more offensively skilled but I'd still say Berglund is by far the more important all-around player.

Where did he state it's because he's more proven?

I don't state things as fact after watching a guy two games and then making a determination.

His scouting report even says he has a much improving defensive game.

I'm not a Berglund hater either. Not even close, but he is what he is and always will be. The team, in my estimation, gave him a contract that he doesn't deserve. Management sees glimpses (as we do) of a player that can turn it on when he wants but doesn't and won't do it for 82 games; but they think he can, obviously.

We have seen Lindstrom (in his third stint) for two games. That's it.

EDIT: My point is, I am willing to give Lindstrom a little more time before I make that call.

 

[BlueDream]

What? I just said the sample size is TOO small. What part of that don't you understand?

The bolded part is just baseless and conjecture. Nothing less, nothing more..based upon your own statement (and mine) that he (Lindstrom) has not played enough games to make that judgement..yet you're doing that anyway.

Berglund's been in the league for several years now. Also Lindstrom isn't a rookie. Your "small sample size" argument is dog ****. Try harder.