im sorry, this value is so far off. Landeskog is worth wayyyy less than nylander

By how much? I agree that Nylander > Landeskog but I don't think they are that far apart.

Is he though?

- Points were about equal last year
- Landeskog had more hits, block shots and a better TK/Gv ratio
- Nylander is going to command a lot of money while Landeskog is locked up at $5.5 for the next 3 years.
- Age difference is only 3 years (Landeskog being older)

I'm sure I could look deeper into it, but just from a quick look, IDK that I'd say Landeskog is worth "wayyyy" less than Nylander

And all those reasons, are why Colorado should and would not make this trade. AGAIN IT IS ALL ABOUT CAP SPACE

I'm actually with the leafs fans on this one. I think Landeskog is wildly overrated.

Nylander is 4 years younger than Landeskog and if you look at when players peak that means Ladeskog is at his peak while Nylander won't reach that for another 2-3 years.

Landeskog has reached above 60 points twice in 7 seasons while Nylander has done it twice in 2 complete seasons.
Landeskog had 54 take aways and 31 give aways while Nylander was 15th in the entire league with 68 take aways and had 54 give aways. (while Landeskog had a better differential, its skewed since Nylander is a playmaker and many of his give aways are passes to slot and other such plays.)
Nylander will command a higher salary, because he's way better.

Colorado should jump at this and the Leafs will have zero interest in this, unless other enticing pieces are added. A 3 year contract at 5.5 million is cost savings for sure but its not worth it for TO since the downgrade offensively is pretty major.

Hockey Reference has Landeskog at 25 and Nylander at 22.



That is correct. Landeskog though has also only had two season with less than 50 pts. One being the lockout year and the other being when COL was one of the worst teams in the NHL. Why do I bring this up? because you know you'll get 50+ point out of Landeskog along with a 3-zone game. Would I give up 10ish points for a 3-zone player? 100% I would.



Ok so we agree that Landeskog has a better Tk/Gv differential...awesome.



Well its pretty clear that you're a Toronto fan and from my encounter with most Leafs fans, they are extremely biased.

I look at the players and objectively try to determine their value. While Landeskog is a fine player, he's a 50-60 point winger. Those aren't exactly that hard to find. Nylander is a 60 point winger who hasn't yet reached his potential. TA/GA differential is a misguided look at the stat. Certain players have far more GA because they have the puck more and try to make plays in the Offensive zone way more than others. Nylander being a playmaker will always have more GA than guys who are more shooters. So while we agree that Landeskog has a better differential, that is kind of irrelevant. Nylander is great at getting the puck back from the other team. 15th in the entire NHL at 21 years old.

For their age, look at date of birth. Nylander is 3 and a half years younger than Landeskog. In 4 more seasons, it is a very safe bet that Nylander surpasses everything that Landeskog has done in his career. This isn't so much a bias as it is a well researched stance based on a lot of information that is readily available.

So Landeskog is a 50-60 point winger which isn't hard to find....Nylander is a 60 point winger and by your own statement "50-60 point wingers" are not hard to find.

The rest of the stuff is nit picky type stuff. When we start breaking age down to days, I'm out because that's just dumb. I get it, as a Leafs fan you're high on Nylander. As someone who doesn't root for either team, I just don't think Nylander is "wayyyy better" than Landeskog. Landeskog is the more complete player in the 3-zone game and gives you the same/similar production to Nylander. Could Nylander become a 70,80,90 point guy? maybe, but right now he's a 60 point guy. I'd be more worried about Toronto with Landeskog than I would Nylander.

You are pulling pieces of information and bending them to your will and ignoring the big picture. Landeskog will be 26 in a month, he's played 7 seasons in the NHL. Its highly unlikely that he is going to become more than he has shown so far, which is a lot (I like the player, he really is a great guy to have on your team), however a guy who is 22 and has only played 2 full seasons has a high likelihood to improve and blossom.

Every person on here is the same. I like this player so I'll say whatever it takes to justify my stance and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

But there is no guarantee that Nylander will be more than he is now. The idea that Nylander is "wayyyy better" is predicated on a "likelihood" that he'll improve and blossom. So basically Nylander is wayyyy better because of how he may or may not progress over the next few years.

As for the last comment, I like both players. They bring different elements to the game. I'm not a fan of either team, so honestly I don't have a dog in the fight. The only evidence you've brought is that Nylander is younger and might be better as he gets older. That's not evidence, that's hopes and wishes.

I believe you mentioned something about not being a big stats guy, if you wanted to look at a analysis of right wingers based on a wide criteria of statistics read this article.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/definitive-ranking-nhls-top-20-right-wingers-three-seasons/

Nylander is one of the best player makers in hockey. Given time to develop further (again he is only 22), the sky is the limit on what he can be as a player. He's already one of the best there is at taking the puck away in the offensive and neutral zones.

I actually never said I wasn't a big stats guy lol. Anyways, you're point to that fact that he's 22 and "the sky is the limit" as a player. Again you're basing his value on what he could be vs what he currently is. You can keep come back with this and that and he could be this or that, but at the end of the day I just don't see him being "wayyyy better" than Landeskog.

According to the article I just posted, Nylander is already the 9th best RW in the league. Landeskog did not make the top 20 for his position.

Lol ok? So because one article (from a Canadian site) ssas he's the 9th best, its gospal? Listen, you think one way on the value between Nylander/Landeskog and I think another. Your not going to change my opinion (no matter how many times you reference the same article) and I won't change yours because of something your read in an article....and that's fine.

Dude, I watch a tonne of hockey. I have seen Nylander and Landeskog play a lot, I like them both but its clear which player is the more talented one. Nylander is going to be a star, Landeskog is a great player.

1st - Don't call me dude, it makes you sound....well I can't actually say it without getting an infraction.

2nd - Its great that you watch a lot of hockey. I'll be honest through, I'm not sure why how much hockey you say you watch is relevant? Do you think if say you watch a tone of hockey that suddenly I'll think "well this guy must know what's he's talking about because he says he watches a lot of hockey". Again you have your opinion on the two and I have mine. For some reason you just can't seem to accept this and want to keep going around in circles until you change my mind. The problem is that's not going to happen, so what are you really trying to accomplish here?

How our discussion has went.

Me: I have these thoughts and allow me to present this supporting information.

You: I'm going to ingnore your information and say stats aren't everything and then chide you for using the word dude (I am assuming you were going to say that makes me sound like an idiot but I think you feel that way about anyone who disagrees with you).

Yeah I'm the problem here.

-Actually I didn't ignore your information. I read the article you sent. It was interesting, but still didn't change my opinion. I also never said stats aren't everything, in fact in my first post I referenced how they compared statistically last year in a handful of categories.

-I didn't chide you about calling me dude, I just ask you not to call me dude.

-Lastly, no where in my post did I say you were the problem. I'm not the problem either (as you are trying to imply). We both just have a different view on the subject. Again, for whatever reason you are unwilling to accept that. With that being said, you're more than welcome to try and continue this, but you'll be talking to yourself. You know where I stand and I know where you stand. Could we go back and fourth, round and round? sure, but in the end we'll be exactly where we are at this moment.

You will see this year. He can be a point per game guy if he gets PP1 time