The case for Jamie Lundmark.
View Single Post
10-13-2003, 04:52 PM
Join Date: Oct 2002
Originally Posted by
When we talk about possible return for Mike Comrie, this guy comes up alot, so often in fact that it's easy to skip by him. However, imo he might be the best player available to Edmonton in any deal. Here's my reasons:
1. These teams trade often
This would have to be considered an understatement. In fact, Lowe's obsesssion with NY state is alarming (Hamrlik, Carter, Niinimaa, Poti, Markkanen, Pisa, Hecht, who am I missing?) but his return has been pretty good (Brewer, Dvorak, Isbister, Torres, York, Deslauriers, Stoll). Seems to me a struggling NY team might look better with a 1-4 center depth chart that reads Nedved, Comrie, Holik, Messier.
2. Lundmark hasn't been mishandled by the Rangers
Unlike Blackburn and a host of other prospects, the Rangers had Lundmark finish out his junior career, then he played a season in the AHL. He has been brought along slowly.
3. He's 6 feet and can play center
Lundmark isn't a hard body, but he does have size, 6-0 and 195. When he was given legit pt by the Rangers last season (in January), he went 6-2-8 in 11 games.
4. He's still flying under the radar.
If we make a list of quality players in the NHL right now, many if not most spent their first season or two in the NHL just getting used to the speed and physical style in the league. By year three, many players break out and become so valuable another team is unable to acquire them. How often have we said "the Oilers should have traded for Patrick Marleau when they could get him", or "Shane Doan took three years to develop, they should have traded for him when they had a chance". I'm not saying Lundmark is going to be an 80 point man or a 30 goal scorer, but he scored 27 as a 20 year old rookie in the AHL, and that has to count for something (igor? am I right?)
5. He's 22
Young and good. Helluva combination if you ask me. He hasn't scored yet this season, and the Rangers are off to a poor start (0-2) against opponents they should be killing.
I don't think Lundmark is enough on his own, but what about something like:
Lundmark, NYR's 1st round pick in 2004
Comrie, EDM's 2nd round pick in 2004
or maybe the right to flip picks in 04 or 05. It worked with Boston.
No. No. and...No. Here's the problem LT with that line of reasoning....the oilers are giving a known commodity up for an unknown. We are giving the 32 goal 23 year old up for a question mark, and that is simply unnaceptable. When we trade comrie, it has to be for known return. By known return, I mean someone who has proven they can score in this league(or if there a defensmen, proven they can play). The person also should be, in best case scenario, young. But this "let's trade a 23 year old dynamite point producer for a prospect who's done squat" doesn't work in my books. We have the power. We have the leverage. All we have to do is sit and wait...if they don't come up with a good young player, forget it. We have enough forward depth as it is. We should not feel forced into anything. Lundmark is a nice young player, but if were talking comrie, start blackburn. It's that simple.
Obviously if someone offers us an uber prospect for comrie( stall, bowmesteer, speeza) we take it, but lundmakr is not on that list. I pray that K. Lowe doesn't follow the "let's give away the best young player we've had in ten years for someone who may be good in the future but just needs a shot". I'd rather let him sit, or pay him what he wants, than to see us get a poor return. This trade scenario is unique in recent history because comrie's contract, even if we gave in, is not so much that many, if not all, teams wouldn't take it on. All we need to do is wait until there's suffcient interest out there....maybe it will be in december, maybe it won't be until the deadline, but I can assure you, someone will come up with a good offer. And if they don't, he stays and rots.
And let's, for arguements sake, look at lundmark in terms of the criteria you laid out, 1 through 5.
1) The fact that these two teams trade together has no bearing on whether or not we should trade with them again. Every player is unique, every trade is different, and the fact that "we've traded with them before" doesn't ensure we will get quality back this time. In fact, our recent dealings with the rangers have been still very questionable. This one seems to come from left field a bit...
2) In a sense, he has been mishandled. Certainly not to the extent that other prospects have, but he plays on the fourth/third lines with little PP time and usually slugs as linemates. Last year he was brought up, would play 4th line minutes for a month, than be sent down. They jerked the kid around, up and down, round and round. It certainly isn't the worst prospect management we've seen, but it certainly didn't help him. The fact that "he hasn't been abused" is not the line you want your GM to say when he describes the return he got after he's just traded away a 23 year old 32 goal scorer.
3) He hasn't played center yet at the NHL level for any extended period of time. Not saying he can't, but it's not like he'll slide right in on the second line. Also, 6'0 and 195 is big for the oilers, but average for the league. He's no bigger than marty reasoner. If size is the criteria for judging/trading for a player, than we might as well just trade comrie for chagd kilger and say...look, we have a big center. I know I'm stretching your arguement a bit, but the point is that his size is a minor advantage, but is still not ideal in any sense.
4) I think that most hockey savvy people know that if given the right playing time he still has the talent to break out, but the flip side of that is he never turns out, that comrie goes on to score 40 on broadway, and viola, we're screwed. I agree with getting prospects before they breakout, but you don't trade 23 year old 32 goal scorers for them(unless their names are spezza or horton) without a signifcant amount more coming your way.
5) Comrie's 23 and has already done many, many more things in this league than lundmark has. Production versus age speaks for itself when comparing the two players. The value difference between the two is enormous.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by mamettt