I remember arguing on boards against bringing him in because of his horrible drafting in Edmonton.
Then he comes over, dumps Schneider who desperately wanted to be here even at a lower salary, and instead signs Malakhov.
Schneider is still a good defensemen, better than Malakhov ever was.
Malcontent is actually one of the Isles' greatest disappointments. They had huge hopes for him in his youth.
Originally Posted by Nemchinov13
1. Val Kamensky. Crapped out completely when got to NY.
1a. Vladimir Malakhov - I don't know if we've expected too much from the guy, but he just disappreared. 1st season - 2nd game in - lost for season. And then he didn't do anything.
2. Kovalev. Love the guy to death, but NY is probably wrong city for him.
3. Brendl and Lundmark. For these two (and Hlavac) we've traded Niklas Sundstrom who was one of the best defesnive forwards in NHL, Dan Cloutier who would've spelled Richter when needed, Marc Savard and picks. That's a huge casualty list.
4. Eric Lindros. Not his fault though. Sather's mistake.
5. Stephane Quintal. NY has ruined his career.
6. Tom Poti. Can't believe we've traded Mike York for him.
Honorable mention: Petr Nedved. We've just exchanged one reclamation project for another (Nedved for Kovalev). Except that Kovalev took off.
I can't believe seeing Mike York in this thread. Mike York was one of the hardest working players on the team. His rookie year he was a goal scoring leader on the Rangers. He had a sophmore slump, but then he got back to his 50+ points per season. Can't believe you guys.
If that's the way it will go, how's this: Retirement of Steve Larmer. Look at the Cup winning picture. Everyone is celebrating, but Larmer is still holding his man to the board just to be sure.
After 1995, he retired. We then traded Norstrom and Ferraro for Kurri and McSorley (and Churla) because Neil Smith hoped Kurri would replace Larmer. The two players we got were complete wastes of space and should be on our list of disappointments. Norstrom went on to become an All-Star. We got eliminated in 5 games in the second round.
How much better would the lineup look and how much farther would we have gone if it were:
To me, this line up had the potential to win the Cup. Indeed, we went unbeaten in January 1996 and had the most points in the league as of Feb 1 and for weeks before then.
We had four players who had over a point a game, lots of depth, good goaltending, a tough banging 4th line.
The lineup would essentially have no holes.
All that was lost... because Larmer retired. Oh, and Norstrom would've really helped us for about 12 years, including several as an All Star.
Originally Posted by Coldshot
Verbeek: And this one isn't about his playing, but more of the dissapointment of him scoring 40 goals, and the Rangers not being back the next season. He could have been a HUGE help against Philly in the ECF in 97. Even in the two prior series, we could have won those earlier and had more time for the players who were playing hurt to rest.
i think alot of that had to due with our complete waste of development we had in place
Lundmark was one of the the guys from that era I never really could use that excuse for.
He never really played with the same fire and grit/skills combination as his draft year until it was too late.
He went back to Moose Jaw for his sophmore campaign and his season was a disappointment. We chalked it up to young linemates, but in hindsight, he just didn't step it up.
His third year was hurt by a holdout and while he played good for Seattle, that was probably the year where the potential got downgraded from "Future first liner/potential star" to "Good second line, capable first liner."
By the time he went to Hartford he just wasn't really the same player he was an 18 year old. The grit was lacking, the creativity wasn't there and he seemed to play like he felt he deserved a spot because of where he was drafted.
I think Lundmark was a kid who was given a legit amount of time in juniors and the AHL to succeed but he never looked like that star he was supposed to be. He showed glimpses at the NHL level, but I just don't think he had "it" as it turned out.
People tried to clump him in with Malhotra, but I just never saw it. Malhotra was a kid kid who wasn't developed properly. Lundmark was a kid who just didn't develop.
Savard should have been given time to develop. It's a sin he wasnt'.
The impatient regime wasted a drafted potential irst line C d we could have had.
offensively he beats the pants off gomez.
He was not an underachiever.
Last edited by Sad London Ranger: 05-19-2008 at 11:34 AM.