Imo Buy low on this guy..but I don't think losing hoglander is worth it. I would trade a 2nd or klimiovich with a small add. We need a depth guy like that to fill in and who knows what he could turn into.
Proposal: Would you do Hoglander for Lundkvist?
- Thread starter NYVanfan
- Start date
- Status
Shareefruck
Registered User
Nona Di Giuseppe
Registered User
Absolutely not.
Even if he reaches his potential, he's not the type of dman the Cancuks needs, even if he is a right shot.
Nona Di Giuseppe
Registered User
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,338
- 20,196
Well that's just silly.
Son of Petter
Who wants to walk with Elias?
I’d love to target Lundkvist but he should be able to be had for less than Hogs. He was very highly ranked as recently as last season and I think he acclimates better to NA hockey in his 2nd year. Perfect buy low opportunity here rn.
Josepho
i want the bartkowski thread back
I don't think it's that weird. I don't think he's a good player or good fit. I'd much rather throw some sort of young-ish player like Burroughs who can actually play defence in that spot.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,338
- 20,196
If you can get him absolutely free and try him out, try to get him to Abbotsford etc. Why not.
HockeyWooot
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2020
- 2,344
- 1,925
No.
If a young dman with upside in return it’s probably someone who has demonstrated they can perform at the NHL level but dealing with inconsistency/deep blueline ahead of them/out of favour with coach and due for a change of scenery.
Nils Lundqvist isn’t one of them. Would be more of a Sandin or Kylington before last year.
I don’t think any of the above are who we should be after.
If a young dman with upside in return it’s probably someone who has demonstrated they can perform at the NHL level but dealing with inconsistency/deep blueline ahead of them/out of favour with coach and due for a change of scenery.
Nils Lundqvist isn’t one of them. Would be more of a Sandin or Kylington before last year.
I don’t think any of the above are who we should be after.
Wry n Ginger
Water which is too pure has no fish
The only guys on the Canucks roster (players that have a chance on being regulars that is) I would trade for him are Dickinson or Pearson.
No interest in Lundquist on my end. Yes he's a RD, but he's an offensive-minded RD (and from what I hear, a mediocre one at that). The Canucks need a top 4 calibre defensive-minded RD that can complement one of Hughes or OEL.
David Bruce Banner
Nude Cabdriver Ban
Bitz and Bites
Registered User
DiPietro or Karlsson are what I’d offer but that’s about it. We don’t currently need a player like Lundquist unless we have plans to trade Rathbone but that makes no sense unless we swap him for a different type of Dman.
I’d rather wait for the right kind of RHD and see what we have with Rathbone.
I’d rather wait for the right kind of RHD and see what we have with Rathbone.
A more even trade might be Hoglander and Rathbone, for Lundquist and Kratsov......Rathbone probably has more upside than Lundquist, but Kratsov would be probably be an upgrade on Hoglander.
But I have doubts either team would be bullish on this deal.
But I have doubts either team would be bullish on this deal.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,673
- 10,667
Hard No. Like a multitude of others have expressed here, Nils Lundkvist just isn't at all what the Canucks should even be "taking a flyer" on. We've already got our own guy in a very similar profile and situation with Rathbone, where it's going to continue to be hard to even fit him in. Would be completely impossible to fit both, or even give them the opportunity they would need to have a hope of thriving. We're already basically in that situation with one of "that player" trying to establish themselves.
Like, if you're trading for Lundkvist, you may as well just make it a swap for Rathbone, since there's no real plausible way to give them both an opportunity at the same time. But even that swap, i'd want a small add on the Rangers end tbh, even considering whatever marginal (but pragmatically irrelevant) benefit there might be in Rathbone's RHS. But i'd doubt the Rangers have any interest in that anyway.
I do agree that the Canucks situation kind of presses them to take a flyer here and there on RHD prospects with some potential trying to establish themselves, but a very different type of guy. Someone who might be the right sort of fit to play their way in on a bottom-pairing but eventually be a viable fit with OEL/Hughes if they find their footing.
I'd be talking with LAK about their kind of ridiculous overrepresentation of RHD organizationally. From their NHL roster down to the "flyer" guys at the fringes and even top prospects like Clarke. Like, between Doughty/Roy/Clarke/Durzi/Walker/Spence/Grans/Allard, surely they could afford to move one of them. But there are only a few of those i'd trade Hoglander for, and he likely ranks extremely low on the priority list for LA anyway. They're also overflowing with young wingers trying to establish themselves. Maybe if they were into a LHD/RHD balancing swap with Rathbone or something.
The reality is, any "flyer" you're taking on the sort of guy the Canucks actually need on defence...is someone who is going to come with some very serious flaws, or practically on the verge of busting. Not the kind of guy i'd trade a good young player like Hoglander for. Or on the other end of things, they'd be good prospects that Hoglander doesn't get you anywhere near to in value.
They need to be looking out for something like a RHD version of the Wolanin deal they signed. Or the Juulsen thing. Poke around for LHD that might be able to swap sides. But to reiterate, those aren't the sort of "flyers" i'd want anything to do with moving Hoglander for. It'd be more like...swapping Rathbone for someone who "fits" better.
Like, if you're trading for Lundkvist, you may as well just make it a swap for Rathbone, since there's no real plausible way to give them both an opportunity at the same time. But even that swap, i'd want a small add on the Rangers end tbh, even considering whatever marginal (but pragmatically irrelevant) benefit there might be in Rathbone's RHS. But i'd doubt the Rangers have any interest in that anyway.
I do agree that the Canucks situation kind of presses them to take a flyer here and there on RHD prospects with some potential trying to establish themselves, but a very different type of guy. Someone who might be the right sort of fit to play their way in on a bottom-pairing but eventually be a viable fit with OEL/Hughes if they find their footing.
I'd be talking with LAK about their kind of ridiculous overrepresentation of RHD organizationally. From their NHL roster down to the "flyer" guys at the fringes and even top prospects like Clarke. Like, between Doughty/Roy/Clarke/Durzi/Walker/Spence/Grans/Allard, surely they could afford to move one of them. But there are only a few of those i'd trade Hoglander for, and he likely ranks extremely low on the priority list for LA anyway. They're also overflowing with young wingers trying to establish themselves. Maybe if they were into a LHD/RHD balancing swap with Rathbone or something.
The reality is, any "flyer" you're taking on the sort of guy the Canucks actually need on defence...is someone who is going to come with some very serious flaws, or practically on the verge of busting. Not the kind of guy i'd trade a good young player like Hoglander for. Or on the other end of things, they'd be good prospects that Hoglander doesn't get you anywhere near to in value.
They need to be looking out for something like a RHD version of the Wolanin deal they signed. Or the Juulsen thing. Poke around for LHD that might be able to swap sides. But to reiterate, those aren't the sort of "flyers" i'd want anything to do with moving Hoglander for. It'd be more like...swapping Rathbone for someone who "fits" better.
No I would not.
Although Lundquist is a right-sided defensemen, he is an offensive-minded defenseman and so he doesn't fulfill our most pressing need (i.e. a right-sided defensive defenseman that can still move the puck).
I would also keep Hoglander for both the short term and long term because I see him ultimately taking Tanner Pearson's spot on the 3rd line once we're ready to move on from Pearson (obviously, management might see things differently but the way I see it, Hoglander will eventually replace Pearson at some point while Linus Karlsson will graduate to the bigs and take Hoglander's spot on the 4th line).
Although Lundquist is a right-sided defensemen, he is an offensive-minded defenseman and so he doesn't fulfill our most pressing need (i.e. a right-sided defensive defenseman that can still move the puck).
I would also keep Hoglander for both the short term and long term because I see him ultimately taking Tanner Pearson's spot on the 3rd line once we're ready to move on from Pearson (obviously, management might see things differently but the way I see it, Hoglander will eventually replace Pearson at some point while Linus Karlsson will graduate to the bigs and take Hoglander's spot on the 4th line).
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,160
- 16,018
NYR are in no position to take on Dickenson or Pearsons cap...I'd say they are looking for a player like Lundqvist, who is around the same age on a ELC.
I get that Lundkvist had a tough first season in NA last year, but I feel he is getting severely under rated on here.
He has 2 very good seasons in Sweden before last year.
We have Jett Woo as our best RD prospect right now, who play at times in Abby last year. If the price were right, I'd take a shot on developing him for sure. He may not be the best fit for us now, or even down the road, but if he were to develop into a quality young offensive RD, he becomes a pretty valuable asset.
Last year our RHD of Myers, Shenn, Poolman, Burroughs, Hamonic combined for 10 goals, not sure why an offensive minded RD is such a bad fit.
I wouldn't trade Hoglander for him, but I'd certainly welcome the right deal.
He has 2 very good seasons in Sweden before last year.
We have Jett Woo as our best RD prospect right now, who play at times in Abby last year. If the price were right, I'd take a shot on developing him for sure. He may not be the best fit for us now, or even down the road, but if he were to develop into a quality young offensive RD, he becomes a pretty valuable asset.
Last year our RHD of Myers, Shenn, Poolman, Burroughs, Hamonic combined for 10 goals, not sure why an offensive minded RD is such a bad fit.
I wouldn't trade Hoglander for him, but I'd certainly welcome the right deal.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,887
- 14,749
I would rather sign Jake Livingstone and let Myrenberg develop and go after a legit top3 guy to bump guys down the depth chart than waste a tremendous talent like Hoglander who has made the NHL at 21 for a player who hasn't shown jack and doesn't profile as a top3/4 minute muncher
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,080
- 10,006
ChilliBilly
Registered User
So this all brings up an interesting question. If we claim this guy off waivers, (I wouldn't), who all are we going to be waiving ourselves?
Hmm think I will ask this question on the starting lineup thread.
Hmm think I will ask this question on the starting lineup thread.
I feel like a wait-and-see approach is best for Hoglander right now. He had a bad sophomore season, but showed well as a rookie, and he has the compete-level and skill to be a really effective middle-6 winger. So, I find it hard to believe that his value is going to get much lower in the coming years than it is now, but who knows I guess. I'd rather bet on him getting better, and selling high if we go that route.
Canucks would give up on Hoglander at their own peril. I see a lot of Viktor Arvidsson in Hoglander's game. He just needs to get stronger and work on his shot. But he's close to breaking out imo.
LickTheEnvelope
Time to Retool... again...
- Status
