And so if he gets claimed I guess we go with Richardson on the first line? I don't understand why we would risk it in the first place? Only reason I see him getting placed on waivers is because Lombardi knows someone will claim him
And so if he gets claimed I guess we go with Richardson on the first line? I don't understand why we would risk it in the first place? Only reason I see him getting placed on waivers is because Lombardi knows someone will claim him
i'm confused, too. if he clears waivers, then what's changed? nothing? or can we just send him to manchester whenever we want then?
edit: and i thought there were re-entry waivers to be cleared, too? i mean, that's what's going on with rivet...
Last edited by Alternate Jersey: 02-25-2011 at 03:06 PM.
Lol seriously...I don't get it either...I guess it means DL is hoping sturm gets claimed? Because if he doesn't we still have 23 guys on the roster....idkidkidk?
Who isn't helping the Kings have to go simply and plain.
Alone the idea to help other teams out of caphell and get nothing in return is retarded.
The Bruins have a damn fine team now.
We got the garbage and the Bruins got the capspace to sign great guys.
But why put him on waivers NOW.. The deadline isn't until Monday.. Orrrrr wait, if someone's put on waivers on the weekend, they can't get officially claimed until Monday, ok that part makes sense. Why risk it though? You go from having a 1st liner to potentially losing him via waivers and then scrambling, not having anyone other than Richardson or whoever else. There must be a deal in place and he knew someone would claim Sturm, I just don't get it.
But why put him on waivers NOW.. The deadline isn't until Monday.. Orrrrr wait, if someone's put on waivers on the weekend, they can't get officially claimed until Monday, ok that part makes sense. Why risk it though? You go from having a 1st liner to potentially losing him via waivers and then scrambling, not having anyone other than Richardson or whoever else. There must be a deal in place and he knew someone would claim Sturm, I just don't get it.
i was under the impression that he could be claimed over the weekend...
I swear Helene Elliott is legitimately technologically retarded, she always tweets random **** like
I don't know who she's talking about, or if she means to DM this to someone, but it's so annoying, she's so old. The LA Times needs some new blood, not an old ***** who covers both Kings & Ducks
That was an answer to someone else who thought Clifford could only go back to Juniors
The thought of it being a "risk" around here to put Sturm on waivers is ridiculous. Putting somebody on waivers who isn't helping us AT ALL right now is not a "risk" especially when you figure we have two better and more useful players in Moller and Loktionov just waiting for a call up (And deserve one.)
If Marc-Andre Cliche gets called up, I will be LIVID.
I want Ales Hemsky. With Hemsky and Loktionov both in the line up our offensive creativity (which is something we need) SKY ROCKETS.
Can someone explain why they need roster flexibility for the deadline? I understand the roster expands after the deadline so that makes a call up unlikely. They also don't need the cap space because as somebody pointed out the Kings could afford a max contracted prorated for the rest of the year. That leaves the prospect of a trade the only likley scenario. Even if the Kings were to acquire a player for non-roster assets, couldn't they jusy waive someone when the trade is made?
Hammond says Sturm is still practicing and will likely play Saturday and Monday, I believe this effectively gives him a status similar to waiver-exempt players vis-a-vis trade.
In other words, he won't go to Manchester until after the deadline if at all from the sound of things.
__________________
Danny Duberstein is good at two things ...
i was under the impression that he could be claimed over the weekend...
Yeah, he could be claimed tomorrow because we put him on waivers today. But let's say we put him on waivers tomorrow then he couldn't be claimed until Monday (I might be wrong)
Can someone explain why they need roster flexibility for the deadline? I understand the roster expands after the deadline so that makes a call up unlikely. They also don't need the cap space because as somebody pointed out the Kings could afford a max contracted prorated for the rest of the year. That leaves the prospect of a trade the only likley scenario. Even if the Kings were to acquire a player for non-roster assets, couldn't they jusy waive someone when the trade is made?
The only way this makes sense is if they are calling up Loki for Monday and since Sturm was never assigned he can be added after the trade deadline and it doesn't count as a call up. That would still leave them three call ups with Sturm and Loki already in LA. (Loki could replaced with some one else but I would hope it was him.)
The thought of it being a "risk" around here to put Sturm on waivers is ridiculous. Putting somebody on waivers who isn't helping us AT ALL right now is not a "risk" especially when you figure we have two better and more useful players in Moller and Loktionov just waiting for a call up (And deserve one.)
If Sturm sucks so much that he has to be waived, then why is he playing on the 1st line?
I think we're looking into this way too much, kind of like when Rich Clune was assigned to Ontario last year, everyone thought for sure a trade was coming through but he was assigned there because it's closer to LA than Manchester is
go read jewels from the crown.... logical speculation on the Sturm waiver trick.
Lokti is still too young and undeveloped physically to play during the last 20 games... did you see some of the hits against the boards last night!?! ..... he's gonna get hurt.
I tend to think he won't be claimed. He's coming off major surgery and already missed a dozen games since his return. He still is owed $1 million or so and I imagine mosts teams will conclude it's too risky. That said, it only takes one team to put in a claim and he's gone.
There's no way DL did this just to potentially open up a roster spot. He must be prepared to lose Sturm. If that happens, it means all the remaining forwards will play tomorrow. It's not a big deal for just one game. But there has to be a deal (or two) that he is ready to make.
Teams at the trade deadline, who are distracted by their own attempted trade efforts, are not going to go out of their way to pick up and pay a recently twice-injured player who is not exactly young and has a relatively large salary for just the last 20 games.
DL knows this, which is why he is taking a (fairly safe) chance at choosing Sturm to be the one to give him very temporary roster flexibility.
DL wants to get added roster room to make a trade, but he also doesn't want to actually lose anybody.
Sturm is playing well enough, and has enough potential as a useful player for the Kings to keep him, but given the circumstances, he is too scary to other teams for them to take a chance at claiming him.
I'm sure we will see him in the game vs Colorado after the 9 am waiver deadline passes.
Whatever trade comes as a result of all this is not likely to be merely a small one. Lombardi would not take such a gamble, even as minor as this one is, unless a biggie was around the corner.
