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