Proposal: Nylander for Lindholm
- Thread starter connormcmuffin
- Start date
dracom
Registered User
So your solution to our aging centers is to give up our 24 year old top pairing D who we have no replacement for, and to get back a winger. And yes, he is a winger, not a center. Until he actually shows success for a significant time as a center, he's a winger and not a franchise winger at that. You made a bad proposal for both teams, accept it.
Spazkat
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2015
- 4,361
- 2,277
Even if the Ducks C is the issue, a player like Lindholm would only go for a bona fide 1C on a similar contract. Not a winger, that used to play C in lower leagues and has a few games at C in the NHL.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,387
- 35,704
Pretty sure getz had a higher ppg the last 2 seasons over tavares and matthews, on a team with a much worse offense
connormcmuffin
Registered User
- Feb 17, 2018
- 1,080
- 424
He plays center just fine. MVP at world championship, filled in great when Matthews was injured. Excellent underlying numbers. He can play transition to center. Again you offer nothing but bias and posturing.
dracom
Registered User
And what are you doing exactly?
Again, until Nylander is a center full time in the NHL; he is not a NHL center. Same with Rakell, he grew up playing center and started his NHL career as a center, but he's found success as a winger so that's what he is. Even IF he can, giving up our 24 year old top pairing D for a 22 year old 60ish point winger who MIGHT be able to play center to be the guy to replace an actual elite center in Getzlaf is just a bad idea. You've also completely ignored that Nylander is a RFA while Lindholm is signed long term to a little over 5 mil (so again, value goes to Lindholm). Just accept you made a bad proposal and move on.
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 20,090
- 8,583
Anaheim gave up 16 goals in 4 games not much of a difference. They also scored only 4 goals in 4 games. Toronto gave up goals, but they also won 3/4 games. Furthermore, the tough series with the Leafs is the main reason they lost badly to Tampa Bay. No disrespect to Lighting Fans, I am not trying to guarantee that Boston would have or should have won the series, only that it should have been much more competitive with the quality of the Boston team.
dracom
Registered User
well, 8 of those goals did come from one game (ugh). And our offensive production was bad due to RC coaching and the Sharks knowing how to shut down RC's outdated coaching system.
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 20,090
- 8,583
McFlyingV
Registered User
The value here really isn't close at all. There is no world where Anaheim gives up Lindholm for Nylander.
dracom
Registered User
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 20,090
- 8,583
It does no doubt, on the other side of the coin, the coach only has his team to coach. Did the team make they playoffs because of the coach or despite the coach? As you say " It's almost like coaching has an effect on how a team plays or something..."
connormcmuffin
Registered User
- Feb 17, 2018
- 1,080
- 424
Oh so we're still talking about me and not either player? Ok, cool.
He can win MVP is a tournament full of NHL players, he played in a one spot to fill in for Matthews but the Leafs decided to develop him on the wing given Matthews, Kadri and Bozak only play center. Teams routinely have players develop on the wing. So you being upset that he isn't a 'full time center' isn't relevant to Nylander being able to play center.
'60 pointish winger', broke 60 points in every full year on an ELC with exceptional underlying numbers screaming breakout and if we discount underlying numbers (which for Nylander you are being clearly are) then Lindholm should be held to that standard, and if not for fancy stats Lindholm is ugly on paper. It's a case of you having it both ways to devalue Nylander.
'Just accept you made a bad proposal' Four times and counting... I'm not invested in my proposal happening... I happy with both teams not doing it but will defend the value in a discussion. I could care less about your personal opinion on either talent because you offer nothing other than 'look at other posters saying no'
Hey, btw, would you trade rosters
Thats goaltending and a poor team game. Defense happens when the other team has the puck.
And having a top pairing defenceman would help that. To help stabilize the defensive zone.
X2 this is why Nylander can solve our center issues once and for all. But no Lindholm is our franchise Defenseman. And he’s worth more than Nylander. If the NHL was like the NFL he would have been franchise tagged. Lindholm isn’t leaving anytime soon.
dracom
Registered User
The team made the playoffs mostly due to Gibson, the D, Getz and Rakell imo, RC coaching didn't drag the team down then. But once in the playoffs where you're playing one team, the sharks coach figured out how to practically neutralize our offensive game; they completely shutdown our transition game through the neutral zone. That's on RC for not figuring out how to work around another coaches strategy. It's not all on the quality of team on the ice.
Oh so we're still talking about me and not either player? Ok, cool.
He can win MVP is a tournament full of NHL players, he played in a one spot to fill in for Matthews but the Leafs decided to develop him on the wing given Matthews, Kadri and Bozak only play center. Teams routinely have players develop on the wing. So you being upset that he isn't a 'full time center' isn't relevant to Nylander being able to play center.
'60 pointish winger', broke 60 points in every full year on an ELC with exceptional underlying numbers screaming breakout and if we discount underlying numbers (which for Nylander you are being clearly are) then Lindholm should be held to that standard, and if not for fancy stats Lindholm is ugly on paper. It's a case of you having it both ways to devalue Nylander.
'Just accept you made a bad proposal' Four times and counting... I'm not invested in my proposal happening... I happy with both teams not doing it but will defend the value in a discussion. I could care less about your personal opinion on either talent because you offer nothing other than 'look at other posters saying no'
Hey, btw, would you trade rosters
The point you're completely ignoring is for us to trade our 24 year old #1D, we want a clear #1C in return; that's not Nylander since he's not a clear #1C no matter how much you try to sell him as one.
Underlying numbers are great when they can show support for something that is actually happening (like Lindholms showing him being a top shutdown D, which he is). Nylanders numbers show he might break out, but it's not a guarantee it will happen,it could but he could also continue to be a 60ish point winger. Lindholm has proven to be a top pairing shutdown D, Nylander has proven to be a very good 60ish point winger.
You can defend the value, you're just wrong. Also, Leafs are my second team so I've seen plenty of Lindholm and Nylander to have an opinion on them.
What does trading rosters have to do with anything? Do I want a team that's tanked to be good and was gifted a free elite C or a team that's been a constant contender that's starting a transitional phase?Not comparable situations at all. What a petty question, lol.
82Ninety42011
Registered User
Take the names away for a second. Who would ever trade a 1D for a 1W seriously??
Leafs at Knight
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 20,090
- 8,583
Ok well,I don't quite believe you, but the Ducks think enough of RC to keep him on this season. As for the other stuff why are you claiming that I am selling Nylander? Do you not follow along? I said "
I am not certain it is a joke, but one for one wouldn't happen even if all things were equal and we based it on position. D holds more value than wing especially a young top pairing winger." check my post history.
Also Toronto wasn't gifted Matthews they were the worst team in the NHL they would have got him regardless of the lottery. The same as Potivn, Hawerchuck. Lafleur, Lemieux all went to the team who finished last in the NHL. Besides, why does that logic only apply to Matthews. McDavid went to Edmonton despite Buffalo having a worse record. Winnipeg wasn't the second worse team and they got Laine, Philadelphia and New Jersey Chicago for Kane were "gifted" their player in your logic. Kariya was gifted in a more tangible way than you can say Matthews was.
I have never suggested trading rosters- you just did.
Also Toronto wasn't gifted Matthews they were the worst team in the NHL they would have got him regardless of the lottery. The same as Potivn, Hawerchuck. Lafleur, Lemieux all went to the team who finished last in the NHL. Besides, why does that logic only apply to Matthews. McDavid went to Edmonton despite Buffalo having a worse record. Winnipeg wasn't the second worse team and they got Laine, Philadelphia and New Jersey Chicago for Kane were "gifted" their player in your logic. Kariya was gifted in a more tangible way than you can say Matthews was.
I have never suggested trading rosters- you just did.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,319
- 6,567
connormcmuffin
Registered User
- Feb 17, 2018
- 1,080
- 424
Name a 'clear' 1C Nylander's age Lindholm is worth? They don't exist because Lindholm isn't in that tier. That's not a discussion.
The point you're ignoring (this is the fifth time I'm saying it) is that I'm not selling anything I give no ****s if the Leafs don't have Lindholm, he's far from the ideal I'd want to for Nylander, it's just fair value so I posted it.
Nylander's underlying numbers are comparable to Marners, it was a heated discussion which had better other the last two years and they accurately predicted Marner's breakout as they will Nylander, it's the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statistics. Nylander will eventually hit the next tier. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise which you do in every post and why I find this amusing.
Again you have this weird tunnel vision to degrade Nylander and insist on his ceiling is hit despite his number and age. I understand you're offended I put both these names in a trade proposal but I don't really that your offended by it and offense isn't persuasive.
I was just reminding you of the question you ducked in a previous post because you can't argue in good faith. Employing your own tactic to make a point.
go4hockey
Registered User
Like any #1C? Or a #1C around Nylanders age?
#1Cs Below age 24:
McDavid, MacKinnon, Barzal, Matthews, Barkov, Eichel. That's it. There is no way Lindholm is in the value range of these guys.
The next tier over is Draisaitl, Monahan, Keller, Larkin then Nylander and Point.
^Sorted by PPG, potential centers under 24.
There really isn't that many guys under 24 which can project to be a center better than Nylander. Lindholm is more valuable, but you could do a whole lot worse than this.
Hell, you go to to Under 26 centers (before UFA years) and all you would be adding is Scheifele and Rakell before Nylander so.
Last edited:
