HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Trading Lundmark? (merged) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=71269)

DarthSather99 04-16-2004 07:54 AM

Trading Lundmark?
 
I'm not sure what has gotten into some Ranger fans. Most believe he is washed up at the ripe old age of 23. This guy hasn't even approached his prime. Somehow Sather convinced most Ranger fans that he's no good, putting him on the bench and with non experienced and non offensive players.

Sather's agenda from entering the Ranger organization was to clear out all of N. Smith's young players. Sather's biggest problem has been Lundmark. Anytime it was mentioned in the papers of a possible deal of Lundmark, Ranger fans would go crazy. Now Sather has gotten wise, he's devalued Lundmark in the eyes of Ranger fans. He ruined his confidence by benching him repeadily for being aggressive, playing great games while rewarding veterans crappy play. He has changed his position multiple times. At the end of this year he played Lundmark with players with less NHL experience than himself. Hardly a formula for success.

Lundmark is a hard worker that has good skills. Is he a Kovaluchuk, NO! Sather has NOT developed players appropiately since he's gotten here. Lundmark needs a full year of playing with second line minutes, which shouldn't be too hard now.

Now I'm reading that fans want to throw away Lundmark to move up in the draft. We can possibly get the same type player at #6 that we can get at #3. Why throw away Lundmark? #1 pick is untradeable, also #2 to Pittsbuurgh that has plently of prospects. Trading up from Toronto's pick is possible. We can use our pletura of second round picks' for that. After the middle first round this draft gets weak, so use the second round picks to move up.

Lundmark is the perfect age and at the perfect development period to keep on the Rangers. Give this guy until he's at least 26 before you thorw him away.

Many people think R.J. Umberger is a better prospect.. How so? this guy isn't much younger than Lundmark but hasn't even played in the NHL yet. He's got lots of questions about his character and working hard nightly. . Lundmark does NOT! Wake up people.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 04-16-2004 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthSather99
I'm not sure what has gotten into some Ranger fans. Most believe he is washed up at the ripe old age of 23. This guy hasn't even approached his prime. Somehow Sather convinced most Ranger fans that he's no good, putting him on the bench and with non experienced and non offensive players.

Sather's agenda from entering the Ranger organization was to clear out all of N. Smith's young players. Sather's biggest problem has been Lundmark. Anytime it was mentioned in the papers of a possible deal of Lundmark, Ranger fans would go crazy. Now Sather has gotten wise, he's devalued Lundmark in the eyes of Ranger fans. He ruined his confidence by benching him repeadily for being aggressive, playing great games while rewarding veterans crappy play. He has changed his position multiple times. At the end of this year he played Lundmark with players with less NHL experience than himself. Hardly a formula for success.

Lundmark is a hard worker that has good skills. Is he a Kovaluchuk, NO! Sather has NOT developed players appropiately since he's gotten here. Lundmark needs a full year of playing with second line minutes, which shouldn't be too hard now.

Now I'm reading that fans want to throw away Lundmark to move up in the draft. We can possibly get the same type player at #6 that we can get at #3. Why throw away Lundmark? #1 pick is untradeable, also #2 to Pittsbuurgh that has plently of prospects. Trading up from Toronto's pick is possible. We can use our pletura of second round picks' for that. After the middle first round this draft gets weak, so use the second round picks to move up.

Lundmark is the perfect age and at the perfect development period to keep on the Rangers. Give this guy until he's at least 26 before you thorw him away.

Many people think R.J. Umberger is a better prospect.. How so? this guy isn't much younger than Lundmark but hasn't even played in the NHL yet. He's got lots of questions about his character and working hard nightly. . Lundmark does NOT! Wake up people.

A lot of what you say is true. However, I don't really see/hear people here looking to dump him. Instead, I think people are looking at Jamie as part of a potential package to improve the team.

Do I think that Jamie is washed up? No. Do I think that Jamie is a lock for a bright future? No. (I fall somewhere between True Blue and SOS on this one). But its undeniable that he took a step back this season (at least not a step forward.) And I don't think that Jamie made the most of the opportunities that he was given. I think what bothered me the most about Lundmark this season is he never seemed to play with urgency. He did not show the effort that I thought he demonstrated last season.

Bottom line for me: Am I looking to trade him? I guess not. But if the right deal came along, I would not hesitate to include Lundmark in a package.

newf 04-16-2004 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthSather99
I'm not sure what has gotten into some Ranger fans. Most believe he is washed up at the ripe old age of 23. This guy hasn't even approached his prime. Somehow Sather convinced most Ranger fans that he's no good, putting him on the bench and with non experienced and non offensive players.

Sather's agenda from entering the Ranger organization was to clear out all of N. Smith's young players. Sather's biggest problem has been Lundmark. Anytime it was mentioned in the papers of a possible deal of Lundmark, Ranger fans would go crazy. Now Sather has gotten wise, he's devalued Lundmark in the eyes of Ranger fans. He ruined his confidence by benching him repeadily for being aggressive, playing great games while rewarding veterans crappy play. He has changed his position multiple times. At the end of this year he played Lundmark with players with less NHL experience than himself. Hardly a formula for success.

Lundmark is a hard worker that has good skills. Is he a Kovaluchuk, NO! Sather has NOT developed players appropiately since he's gotten here. Lundmark needs a full year of playing with second line minutes, which shouldn't be too hard now.

Now I'm reading that fans want to throw away Lundmark to move up in the draft. We can possibly get the same type player at #6 that we can get at #3. Why throw away Lundmark? #1 pick is untradeable, also #2 to Pittsbuurgh that has plently of prospects. Trading up from Toronto's pick is possible. We can use our pletura of second round picks' for that. After the middle first round this draft gets weak, so use the second round picks to move up.

Lundmark is the perfect age and at the perfect development period to keep on the Rangers. Give this guy until he's at least 26 before you thorw him away.

Many people think R.J. Umberger is a better prospect.. How so? this guy isn't much younger than Lundmark but hasn't even played in the NHL yet. He's got lots of questions about his character and working hard nightly. . Lundmark does NOT! Wake up people.

great post. i agree with most of what you say, although i think you put too much on sather. sure he hasn't developed much nhl talent since he's been here, but players like ortmeyer, tuytin, and blackburn have gotten their chance and proven themselves. bottom line is that its lundmark's job to prove he belongs. you can argue with his ice time and role, but he had enough opportunity to score more than 2 goals and 10 points last year. that's a horrible year, and most of the responsibility for that isn't sather's, its lundmark's

having said that, this coming year is a great opportunity for him, but if he doesn't produce then, i'd have no troubles cutting him loose.

Shadowtron 04-16-2004 09:00 AM

I think you’re reading too much into “The Lundmark Debates”. I don’t recall reading any opinion that claimed he was washed up. The problem is that the opinions of others are stretched towards one extreme or the other. The real facts are that most of us feel the same way about him…the only difference in opinion is who we blame for this and what would we do with Jamie if given the opportunity. I’ve never been a big Lundmark fan. He’s never really thrilled me. The player I thought he was going to be just never showed up. If the right deal came along I’d trade him, without question.

I’ll end this now before the Gestapo come galloping into the thread, whip in hand, warmly reminding all of us what a dead subject this is…

jas 04-16-2004 09:05 AM

People apparently read what they like to believe
 
The criticisms levelled at Lundmark were based upon the feeling this was a kid NOT making the most of an opportunity, which DID arise at the end of the year. He was given opportunity to play. The excuses were gone. The fact of the matter was that he did not step up. Players like Tyutin, Balej, Pock and Murray exhibited a drive that was lacking in Lundmark's game. Does this mean he's a bust. No, but, maybe it does mean that the kid needs to be moved for the better of both him and the franchise. Plus, Sather brought in four centers at the deadline. And, Dominic Moore lurks at Hartford. Very few posters (Son of Steinbrenner notwithstanding) are calling for the kid to be traded. However, given the new depth of the organization at center, I would not be shocked to see him moved on draft day. In fact, I would be surprised if he wasn't moved.

Melrose_Jr. 04-16-2004 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthSather99
Lundmark is a hard worker

If that was a factual statement, there wouldn't be a Lundmark debate.

Jamie hasn't proven that he's an untradeable commodity. That's not to say he should be traded, but his inclusion in any deal does not make it a deal breaker anymore.

Shadowtron 04-16-2004 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jas
The criticisms levelled at Lundmark were based upon the feeling this was a kid NOT making the most of an opportunity, which DID arise at the end of the year. He was given opportunity to play. The excuses were gone. The fact of the matter was that he did not step up. Players like Tyutin, Balej, Pock and Murray exhibited a drive that was lacking in Lundmark's game. Does this mean he's a bust. No, but, maybe it does mean that the kid needs to be moved for the better of both him and the franchise. Plus, Sather brought in four centers at the deadline. And, Dominic Moore lurks at Hartford. Very few posters (Son of Steinbrenner notwithstanding) are calling for the kid to be traded. However, given the new depth of the organization at center, I would not be shocked to see him moved on draft day. In fact, I would be surprised if he wasn't moved.


This is the truth….

I think this post generally speaks for everyone.

JR#9* 04-16-2004 09:30 AM

Jamie's value is too low to justify trading him at this point.

What we have to hope is that with legit 2nd line minutes and another yr under his belt he takes a big step forward but for this to happen a few things have to take place IMO.

-He needs to be on the wing and he needs to stay on the wing.I don't see him as an effective center.His speed and skill can be utilized better and he won't have size and strenght issues when dealing with down low coverage like a centerman has to do.

-He absolutely needs to get stronger on his skates.This is his biggest flaw and it's suprising for such a good skater to be knocked off the puck as easily as he is.He has trouble in the corners when digging for the puck and he seldom is the guy who emerges with it.That needs to change.

It's way too early to give up on the kid and I think he is dedicated and works hard but it's time that the results start reflecting that hard work and desire.

His heart and head are in the right place IMO, now we just need results.

007 04-16-2004 09:42 AM

Earlier in the season I thought that Jamie should be a winger, as well. I thought that he'd be more sheltered from opposing checkers out there, which would limit his liabilities with getting knocked off the puck.

Now, though, I think that he really does belong at center, more for mental than physical reasons. Every time I watch him play at center, he seems so much more comfortable than on the wing. It seems to me that Jamie's natural instincts are to play in the middle of the ice, not off to one side or another.

Fletch 04-16-2004 10:20 AM

Umberger's a better prospect...
 
in people's minds because they have yet to see him play. He has not gone through an NHL season in which he scored 2 goals in 56 games while averaging nearly 13 minutes per night.

Is Jamie washed up? Can't say that about a 23 year old, but he has to prove himself. He didn't prove better than many other youngsters this past season. I don't care that he was drafted as a #1 pick, it's a moot point 5 years later.

But to be honest, I'm not giving the kid until he's 26 years old. At some point even a youngster needs a change of scenery and may blossom somewhere else. There's only so much time you can spend on one kid. He needs to pick it up next season, for sure.

Dgrohl8 04-16-2004 12:00 PM

Jaime will be fine he will turn into a top 2 line forward and hopefully they put him on the wing, everyone talks about rebuilding give him a chance to prove himself next year instead of getting rid of him too soon and making another Zidlicky type mistake

Barnaby 04-16-2004 02:11 PM

In a nut shell his work ethic and heart is questionable. He's not the type of player I like or someone I'd want to build around. His point total doesn't bother me as much as his lack of heart or development does. If he had 8 goals, but made some plays, and won the corner battles then I would be more then happy with him, but he hasn't.

With that said I wouldn't give the guy away, but if I received a fair offer, then I'd make the move. I'd rather get something now then wait another year and get nothing. With a change in scenery he could probably be a decent 2nd line winger.

Fletch 04-16-2004 02:23 PM

I think, Barnaby..
 
that inconsistent may be a better term than saying he lacks desire and heart. I think we've seen some good hustle from Jamie. On the forecheck, on the backcheck, etc. He doesn't, however, play too well in traffic and I would say that's his size, but he's not that small. But I do think the kid tries hard, but often times is overwhelmed and can look lost.

charliemurphy 04-16-2004 02:30 PM

The changing of the scenery began at the end of the trade deadline and will continue to change.
The next two seasons will be a scenery change.
Lundmark has not exactly been developed in the most ideal (saying it lightly) environment.
Would I be surprised if he's dealt in some sort of package (along with Poti, which is another case altogether) during the draft. No.
Do I wanna see him stay and form into an eventual 2nd line winger, as you say? Under the right coaching staff, conditiong, and disciplined system. Absolutely.
All I know is that Sather needs to make some big moves over the next two seasons and I know don't want to see Jamie Lundmark playing in a different sweater for a team, certainly not as 2nd line winger. Even if he's "decent".
Granted we have lots of prosepcts and draft picks now but how many 1st and 2nd line prospects and draft picks do we have?

Barnaby 04-16-2004 02:39 PM

Lundmarks problems are Lundmarks problems.

I dislike Sather as much as anyone else, but Lundmarks short comings have not been the fault of Sather.

For those of us that remember - he started the year with Holik which is where our most talented player (Jagr) ended up. Could Lundmark have been put in a better situation in the mid-season when he was playing with D-Lac and Ortmeyer? Sure. Don't forget the kid didnt exactly force his way up the depth chart.

I would be willing to use him in an effort to move up if the right offer came along. I think we need guys with Murray-Ortmeyer work ethics, not guys that seem to be stuck in neutral.

I dont hate Lundmark.... I was thrilled with him even a year ago, but he hasnt shown me the desire. He'll probably be a decent player somewhere, but I dont think it'll be here.

skunk 04-16-2004 06:38 PM

Lundmark stinks. End of story. Anybody who has a clue on trying to evaluate talent can see Lundmark is lazy, not fast enough for his size and his mind is slow and stupid. He has no ability to think quick enough on the NHL to produce. The Rangers would be wise to deal this bust for anything they could get.

True Blue 04-16-2004 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skunk
Lundmark stinks. End of story. Anybody who has a clue on trying to evaluate talent can see Lundmark is lazy, not fast enough for his size and his mind is slow and stupid. He has no ability to think quick enough on the NHL to produce. The Rangers would be wise to deal this bust for anything they could get.

Wow. What an astute appraisal of a 23 year old. Praytell, what was your opnion of Bertuzzi after his first few years in the league? After all anyone who has a clue on trying to evaluate talent could see the Bertuzzi was slow, lazy, and stupid. For that matter the same thing can be said of Mark Tinordi. And, man, that what a collasal bust that Pronger kid turned out to be. I hear that Guerin kid is out of the league becuase all he did was run around his first year. And man, good thing that Scott Stevens guy was run out of the league becuase ALL he did was take stupid penalties.
Here's the thing. I have defended Jaime here on more than one occasion. No, he is probably not going to be a superstar. And he is probably not quite as bad as the above assessment. He has good wheels and a good shot. He has trouble playing in traffic. And yes, players like Ortmeyer and Murray and even Pock showed a good deal of hustle at times more than he did. However, I still say that he needs to be given a shot on the top 2 lines for a period of 10-15 games without the fear that the first penalty or turnover will land him on the bench. That's the one thing that Ortmeyer seemed to enjoy more than Jaime did. For whatever reason, Jed's mistakes were tolerated and Jaime's weren't.
At the end of the year, the last several games he looked fairly good playing w/ Balej. Give Jaime a shot on the top 2 lines next season. If he makes mistakes, fine. If he plays well, fine. But play him at center or play him at wing, but just play him at one position. And allow for him to play with other talented players, not just the future grinders. Give him a chance to prove or disprove everyone's theories. THEN if at the end of the 10-15 games, he does not show any kind of promise, THEN you can make an educated decision about him.

skunk 04-16-2004 06:56 PM

Just look at the difference in Jed's effort compared to Lundmark's. Just look at the difference between Balej's quick hands and quick thinking in the offensive zone compared to Lundmark's.

Lundmark has been a complete disaster as a Ranger. He's a total bust for a 9th round pick. He has no physical part to his game. He can't score. He can't play great defense. He doesn't do anything well.

Bertuzzi was 230 to 240 pounds. You can afford to put up with a lot of growing pains with a player that big. Lundmark is 5'11 and 190. There isn't much point of keeping a guy like him who can't do anything really well but shoot when he can't even score. There were many players that got less ice time then him that scored MUCH MORE.

Edit: skunk, make your points without insulting other people.

skunk 04-16-2004 07:02 PM

On Lundmark
 
It never ceases to amaze me how Ranger fans cut this guy slack. He isn't a power forward like Guerin or Stevens. Or a physial defenseman like Stevens was or like Chara is now.

Everybody knows you have to wait a long time with big power players as they often take a long time to develop. However, they can always hit and play physical which is good for the playoffs.

Lundmark is a non physical factor and never will be. He isn't any good on the PK unit. He isn't a great passer. He isn't great in the corners. He isn't even a great skater from what I've seen. The only thing I see him do is shoot it well which is worthless because his mind doesn't understand how to get open on the NHL level.

This guy was the 9th pick in the draft and hasn't shown any ability that he can score 15 goals by 24. Considering he stinks in almost every other aspect of the game that isn't good enough.

True Blue 04-16-2004 08:16 PM

"Lundmark has been a complete disaster as a Ranger. He's a total bust for a 9th round pick. He has no physical part to his game. He can't score. He can't play great defense. He doesn't do anything well. "

Complete disaster? Total bust? Fairly strong words, no? It is not really worth it to go into the many reasons why any of it is not true, however, just answer a question. Were Bertuzzi and Tinordi thought of as busts at one time? Simple question.

"You can afford to put up with a lot of growing pains with a player that big. Lundmark is 5'11 and 190. "

So you can put up with "stupid and lazy" play from a guy that weighst 230? You'll make a good coach one day.

And if you think that Lundmark has been poor defensively, you're just not watching. He was a very good penalty killer for us.

DarthSather99 04-16-2004 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skunk
It never ceases to amaze me how Ranger fans cut this guy slack. He isn't a power forward like Guerin or Stevens. Or a physial defenseman like Stevens was or like Chara is now.

Everybody knows you have to wait a long time with big power players as they often take a long time to develop. However, they can always hit and play physical which is good for the playoffs.

Lundmark is a non physical factor and never will be. He isn't any good on the PK unit. He isn't a great passer. He isn't great in the corners. He isn't even a great skater from what I've seen. The only thing I see him do is shoot it well which is worthless because his mind doesn't understand how to get open on the NHL level.

This guy was the 9th pick in the draft and hasn't shown any ability that he can score 15 goals by 24. Considering he stinks in almost every other aspect of the game that isn't good enough.

Your absolutely right. Ortmeyer was outstanding and Murray looked like Peter Forsberg compared to Lundmark. Since your using stats (in another thread) to cut up Lundmark. Ortmeyer played MORE games than Lundmark but had the same amount of goals, 4 less assists and a -10 compared to Lundmnarks -8. Oh yes, SO much better. Garth Murray played 20 games last year and had, UM 1 goal and a -5, OH YES, SO much better than Lundmark. Don't give me that Ortmeyer and Garth Murray showed more energy. They were checkers, of course you would notice them more.

I remember Lundmark being the best forward on the Rangers earlier this year in some games and then the next game he'd be on the fourth line playing 5 minutes a game. How can one motivate oneself to play hard when you play your heart out and then get punished for it, diminishing your ice time. Play aggressive and make a mistake and your coach benches you. Your team plays bad and the next game your coach benches YOU.

Another problem Lundmark had as well as every other Ranger is HORRIBLE coaching. No player knew their role, had a role or knew what position they'd be playing from night to night. I know every player had the same circumstances but young players need coaching more than veterans.How many different coaches did Lundmark have his last three years?

Most of the players that were traded at the deadline flourished with their new team. Why is that? The new teams play a system and each player gets assigned a specific role. Dumb F%ck Sather doesn't get that. Did ANY player have a good year on the Rangers the last few years? NO! So then how do you expect a player like Lundmark to flourish under a regime that Sather runs. Take a look at Malhotra, he just about outscored Kovelev (in goals MM 12, Kovelev 14)who is regarded as one of the elite offensive players in the NHL. The same Malhotra who couldn't buy ice time here in NY. He flourishes under a system that allots him a role and gives him ice time regardless of a mistake he may make for playing aggressively.

When a player like Lundmark looks lazy and doesn't score it's easy to point at him and say he stinks. When the rest of the team that has 10-15 year veterans, is playing equally as poorly, taking lazy penalties and showing no interest on any shift maybe there's something behind the scenes that isn't right. Someone like you doesn't notice this of course.

I sure would hate to have someone like you running a company of mine. Lundmark has talent and you can't see that. You watch TV and don't see him on your screen often so you say he stinks. You look at the box score and don't see his name so this confirms for you that he stinks. I don't care where he was drafted, the fact is that he does have speed, he does have a good shot, he can create scoring chances. I have seen him do it in the past. Scouts draft players that high in a draft because they do have those skills. Whether or not a organization lets that player develope that talent is the real question here.

vbox81 04-16-2004 09:44 PM

To add my .02 after reading so many caustic writings, I think Lundmark needs to be given a bye into the next season. We should all be able to agree on a few basic points:

- He never got a consistent chance to play with good players from a single position
- He, at times, seemingly lost his drive while rarely doing well in traffic

Combined, this tells me that he has talent (somewhere in that human is a real live hockey player) but never had the confidence to let it out.

As I read in a different thread, give him Balej on one side and a bigger guy on the left or put him on the wing with the 2nd line. On the first day of the season tell him this: "This is your line and role until the All-Star game. Prove that you belong there by then."

Is he washed up? No. Is he getting on his last chance in a Ranger uniform? Absolutely. Get something in return while his youth is still valuable.

Shadowtron 04-16-2004 10:10 PM

Skunk, let me be the first to say: Don't get too attached to this place. If this is highest level of conduct you can produce, I dont see you hanging around too much longer.

RANGER#11 04-17-2004 12:27 AM

Because of his age I would be willing to give him a free pass for last year but he really needs to show something this year or send him packing. I just don't think he is anything special and is a wast of time. But that is just my humble opinion. :dunno:

Melrose_Jr. 04-17-2004 06:55 AM

Guys, I'm BEGGING you to stop starting new Lundmark topics that rehash the same old arguments over and over again.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.