Isac Lundestrom is already an established NHLer and worst case is a 3rd liner that plays a 200 ft game

Lundkvist has only proven that Braden Schneider passed him on the Rangers organizational depth chart and he isnt NHL ready

Way off there, the most the Ducks offer for Lundkvist is Groulx

MTL would offer Mysak and one of VGK or PIT 4th rd pick for Lundvist but that's it
No room for Kravtsov
One of Ylönen (RW), Mysak (C,LW) or Kidney (C)

Lundqvist may be a top 30 prospect at RD but he has already stumbled making the leap to the NA game, which is often expected of euro players, but getting leap frogged in the order by Schneider is a bad look.

Ducks wouldn't be sending a guy who has shown he can hang in the majors for Lundqvist, but we would send an actual prospect center.

I think that you are overrating his game. He is a solid player but hes gonna be 23 in November, is a career negative WAR player and has only had one "okay" season. 19 goals in 80 games is cool, but to call him a 200 foot player is just not accurate. If he is untouchable then fine, but unless you disagree with what I just stated, then I cant understand how you could accurately say he has a 200 foot game

I encourage you to read my other recent quote, but I am not sure how its " a bad look" for Schneider to play over him. Thats what was expected lol. Of course he cant hang in there when he was behind Fox and Trouba as well.

done!

What?

He has already proven he is at least a 3rd liner. He does play a 200 ft game I watch every Ducks game, I dont understand how you can look at a graph and say he doesnt

Lundkvist is 22 and hasnt shown a single thing in North America, he has very little value, Lundestrom doesnt get moved for less than a first

Rangers will be lucky to get a 4th round pick for him

So your justification for saying he has a 200 foot game is that you watch every game? Even when statistics say otherwise?

Lundestrom is almost 23 and has never surpassed 30 points or 20 goals. He is a career negative WAR player. How could you say he is worth a first?

Are there any quantitative stats or just your (a ducks fan) opinion?

No Im saying he plays a 200ft game because I know what a 200ft game is and I see him play it.

He isnt going to be a big point producer, hes a 200ft forward, thats what he was drafted as and thats wht he has developed into.

If analytics were everything every single team would have the exact same value of every player and they would have a publicly known value at all times. They dont tell the whole story and its foolish to think they do

Look at the linemates hes had, Im really confused why you seem to think being 23 is a negative for Lundestrom but Lundkvist being 8 months younger without any type of progression since hes been drafted isnt?

Hes worth a first because the Ducks spent a first on him and he is developing exactly as expected.

He has already proven to be a capable 3rd liner and will keep getting better, 23 isnt the end of a players development, not every single player is going to be a superstar at 23. Look at Troy Terry from just last year, he had his breakout in his age 24 season

Its okay to admit you misjudged Lundestroms value, Dont just look at some advanced stats and graphs that dont even tell half the story of a player

Lundestrom played the hardest minutes on the team last season as a 22 yr-old, with an assortment of wingers (some more and some less viable). You gotta look a little deeper than some metric like his past WAR numbers.

I think Lundestrom is a core player on the Ducks, I like his game that much. Of course I have a soft spot for 3C Swedes... Sami Pahlsson is one of my all time Duck favorites.

WAR isolates a player from their linemates. Stats prove that he doesnt playa 200 foot game, or at the very least he is below league average at it.

A soon to be 23 YO in his DY+6 season who is entering his 2nd full NHL season is developing as expected? I find it hard to believe that is the case, unless the vast majority of other first rounds are on average way ahead of schedule lol.

Look, you are very very biased. And thats fine. I think Wahlstrom is way better than he actually is, thats part of being a fan. But I also realize that statistics prove that he isnt going to be a 40 goal scorer on his trajectory so I can keep my bias in check.

I am done with this. Unless you can provide stats or even DATA about how his line-mates stunted his point production then id love to have that conversation. But just making a claim w/o evidence is not how you win an arguement

Also Terry was a career 2.7 WAR, coming off of a 1.2 WAR season. There was evidence that he was going to breakout out. Same with Mangiapagne

WAR isolates linemates and who you go up against

It also reduces everything about a player and what he did on the ice down into a single numerical value. What could possibly go wrong with that?

It assesses how a player performs over how the average league player would. Its more complicated than this, but a 40 goal scorer playing with McDavid may not be as good as a 30 goal scorer on Arizona. Same thought here.

Looking at these possible trades, you have a grasp of adequate value in a perfect situation. But in reality, you have a disgruntled player who is unlikely to report to camp without playing-time guarantees, who is now viewed league-wide as a difficult player. So WAR, goal suppression, and all the analytics you can come up with have taken a backseat to this reality.

Right now, I'd gauge that the league sees Lundqvist as valuable as a 2nd round pick.

Lundestrom has SIX TIMES as many games in the NHL than Lundkvist (150 vs 25), and defenders take longer to develop than forwards, so Lundestrom is far, far ahead of Lundkvist in development. Moreover, we already know what Lundestrom is capable of, because he's been fulfilling his promise as he progresses, whereas Lundkvist is an almost entirely unknown quantity. I'm with my friend @Salzy -- the most we'd offer for Lundkvist is Groulx, another 200-foot defensively responsible prospect.

Me, too!!

You say this as if it somehow differentiates Lundestrom from Lundkvist. In fact, it does, but in the opposite direction: this is Lundestrom's third full season and he was drafted five slots ahead of Lundkvist (in the same draft), who is entering his first full season in his DY+6 year with 1/6 the NHL games played that Lundestrom has. Suggesting that Lundestrom is the one of the two of them who is not developing as expected is silly.

You really should see a movie called Trouble With the Curve.

You keep bashing Lundestrom but have yet to provide any reasonable argument as to why Lundkvist has the same value as him?

. . . or provide the name of any forward drafted AFTER Lundestrom who has played more NHL games than Lundestrom or looked more likely than him to succeed in the NHL.

You can't accuse a kid of UNDERperforming if you can't identify anyone who has OUTperformed him so far.

Im literally an Islanders fan lmao. Its crazy how ducks fans have this perception of Lundestrom that he is some great two way player that has proven himself at the NHL level. In the past few years, we have seen him go from 11P in 22GP to 22 in 65 to not even getting a QO. We have seen Comtois go from 33 in 55 to 16 in 52. I just want to get a quantitative based reasoning for Lundestrom to have the claimed value of a first round pick when he has only played one full season in the NHL. Yes 19 goals and 29 points in 80 games is nice, but thats not the value of a first round pick. Especially with how the market has been this year.

FYI, Terry has had great analytics his entire career which is why he "finally" broke out, even tho in reality he was just getting super unlucky to start his career and he finally got the break that he has been waiting for.

@OldNYIfan you are the first person to bring up Lundqvist legitimacy. And TBH, I am not here to vouch for him. I think that he is a very polarizing player for teams to trade for, but I saw a need for RD on the Ducks (Shattenkirk likely walks after this season if not traded, cannot see Klingberg in ANA long term) so it seemed like Drysdale was the only clear cut RD on the team with top 4 upside, (Helleson I LOVE but I think that he has a high ceiling but also a low floor, so getting Lundqvist who has 2RD upside but I also see as a long term 3RD spot provides some security IMO just because we have seen Lundqvist be very solid against men for a while).

Now, I want to say again that I really like Lunderstrom, but the ducks have: Zegras, Mctavish, Terry, Gaucher (who I realllly like), Perreault and Tracey, along with Strome locked up long term and Vatrano who just signed for 3 years at 3.65. I am also going to assume that the Ducks will be like the Senators next offseason and start to take advantage of the two years of McTavish's ELC they will have left, along with having all of the cap space from UFAs in Shattenkirk, Klingberg and Kulikov, so a star FA winger may be in the future.

Thanks so much for wanting to engage honestly and rationally with us Anaheim guys.

I'm not sure that ALL of us think that Lundestrom is a proven NHLer OR worth a first-round draft pick. Personally, I was limiting myself to addressing the contention that Lundestrom for Lundkvist is a reasonable exchange.

When we declined the offer, your response was essentially to say What has he shown so far? and cited stats. (Comments #8 and #11) So your argument had two elements: Lundestrom is over-rated ("A soon to be 23 YO in his DY+6 season who is entering his 2nd [sic] full NHL season is developing as expected?"), therefore Lundkvist has equal value. This position has two flaws: (1) you can't name any forward who has done more than Lundestrom so far, and (2) by the same standards by which you judge Lundestrom, Lundkvist is worse: he's entering his first FULL season in his DY+6 year and has a lot further to go than Isac. Yeah, I agree with you -- if Lundestrom were a bust, then Lundkvist might be a good swap for him. But he's not a bust -- he's essentially nailed down the third-line-center slot on this season's Ducks. In contrast, Lundkvist not only hasn't solidified a position yet; he doesn't even have a TEAM as of right now. Botom line: I think that you can make at least a colorable argument that Lundkvist = Lundestrom in trade value, although I vehemently disagree. I think that the correct position is that Lundestrom > Lundkvist. But I think that it is clearly wrong to argue that Lundkvist > Lundestrom.

Yes, Anaheim needs a fuller RD pipeline. We also need a fuller LD pipeline (maybe only one of Zellweger and LaCombe makes it), and some more strength and depth at RW (maybe only one of Perreault and Colangelo makes it) and LW (maybe only one of Tracey and Pastujov makes it). Los Angeles' experience with fifth-overall pick Alex Turcotte and eleventh-overall pick Gabe Vilardi is a cautionary tale. We Ducks adherents think that Lundestrom is our #3C of the future, but maybe that will be Gaucher. Our point isn't that Lundkvist is cheese; I think we'd all like to have him. Our point (if I can speak for my fellow Anaheim stalwarts) is that Isac is a keeper and we would only want Nils for a cheaper price.

Lundestrom still has some growth to do before he’s actually a 200 ft player. I agree. But again you’ve done nothing but bash Lundestrom when Lundkvist has yet to even really play in the NHL and they were drafted the same year. That’s all I pointed out.

Edit: I just looked up jfresh card for lundestrom. He is a very good defensive player. His 200 ft improvement is offensively which was always his considered his weakness even when he was drafted.

by this analysis Eric Robinson and Sean Kuraly are also respectively worth a 1st each, that would be awesome wouldn't it

Robinson is 27 and Kuraly is 29 (30 in January)

Lundestrom is 23

They aren’t even in the same universe of value