HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Sturm waived, then claimed by Washington

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2011, 04:30 PM
  #151
swany
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
I'm still totally cool with Hemsky as well, mainly because that won't involve Schenn and it's a player that both Smyth and Stoll have played with.

This is the one Hemsky play I'll never forget. As ridiculous as that EN whiff was... you've still got to put the puck in the net at the other end.

Did you guys notice it was Stoll to Smyth to Hemsky, could be a good thing.

swany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 04:56 PM
  #152
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,528
vCash: 6115
It's obviously to make space. If it was just roster size, then Martinez or Harrold would have went down, Harrold needing to be waived of course.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 04:59 PM
  #153
Defgarden
Registered User
 
Defgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loma Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Someone in hammonds comments brought up a good point, why not just send down Martinez for a day or two? Unless it is space, but...

well, I dont know.

Defgarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:00 PM
  #154
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 107,528
vCash: 6115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Knoll View Post
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.
Aren't players who are on waivers Friday, stay on waivers until Monday?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:02 PM
  #155
Alternate Jersey
Registered User
 
Alternate Jersey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defgarden View Post
Someone in hammonds comments brought up a good point, why not just send down Martinez for a day or two? Unless it is space, but...

well, I dont know.
martinez is playing on saturday. i dunno why they couldn't just have drewiske play again, but they want to play a-mart.

Alternate Jersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:30 PM
  #156
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Aren't players who are on waivers Friday, stay on waivers until Monday?
This is the closest thing to clarification I have read:

"A player clearing waivers does not automatically mean he’s destined for the minors, and it does not automatically mean a corresponding move is coming. In fact, by itself, it means nothing, other than that a team has flexibility in terms of what to do with the player. In the Kings’ case, they’re at the 23-man roster limit. If they make a trade, and end up with 24 active players, they would need to make a short-term move until the roster-limit rule vanishes on March 1. If Sturm clears, the Kings could send him down to create that roster space, if needed. Anyway, this is multi-faceted so I hope that made sense. Here’s what Sturm said after practice today about the situation, followed by Murray’s thoughts"

__________________
Danny Duberstein is good at two things ...
Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:30 PM
  #157
no name
Registered User
 
no name's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 11,639
vCash: 500
I think this says more about Sturm's terrible play since in his tenure as a King, coupled with his injury concerns.

no name is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:32 PM
  #158
jimmy1100
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
It's obviously to make space. If it was just roster size, then Martinez or Harrold would have went down, Harrold needing to be waived of course.
It's not cap space. Courtesy of capgeek.com 's daily tracker for the LA Kings:

Max Acquisition Space - $18,195,129

Definition of Max Acquisition Space: "The full-season cap hit(s) that can be added to the current roster on the selected date. If applicable to the selected team, long-term injured reserve is factored into the total. However, this total does not factor in potential bonus cushion deductions."

This is because we are 142 days into a 186 salary-day season.

Sturm was placed on waivers for roster flexibility. Period. It may indicate an upcoming trade. It may indicate nothing at all. But it was definitely NOT done to create salary cap room (unless we are trading for 2 or 3 superstars, which isn't likely).

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:33 PM
  #159
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no name View Post
I think this says more about Sturm's terrible play since in his tenure as a King, coupled with his injury concerns.
The thing that never made sense was that he was acquired as a stopgap at LW, weeks after Parse had been injured (not that Parse was a sure bet even if he were healthy), yet he was a couple weeks from playing and months from playing effectively even if there were not setbacks.

Some knowledgeable hockey people have asked, well, who else was available? The Devs were already in really bad shape and Langenbrunner got moved shortly after Sturm does. The price was a higher but still basically marginal. Langenbrunner is a RW, not a LW, but they were already playing Brown at LW by that point and have done so since, too. I don't think Langenbrunner would have averted the two long slides but he would have been more effective than Sturm and been a quality veteran presence in the locker room to boot.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:39 PM
  #160
no name
Registered User
 
no name's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 11,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Knoll View Post
The thing that never made sense was that he was acquired as a stopgap at LW, weeks after Parse had been injured (not that Parse was a sure bet even if he were healthy), yet he was a couple weeks from playing and months from playing effectively even if there were not setbacks.

Some knowledgeable hockey people have asked, well, who else was available? The Devs were already in really bad shape and Langenbrunner got moved shortly after Sturm does. The price was a higher but still basically marginal. Langenbrunner is a RW, not a LW, but they were already playing Brown at LW by that point and have done so since, too. I don't think Langenbrunner would have averted the two long slides but he would have been more effective than Sturm and been a quality veteran presence in the locker room to boot.
I think it was one of those things where there wasn't really any downside. If he couldn't cut it, it wouldn't cost assets. If he was 75% of his typical career he was a big upgrade over everyone else.

I just don't appreciate Murray serving him everything on a platter despite the fact that he didn't earn a thing. In fact, he deserved to be scratched the majority of the games played, yet Murray kept running him out there to ruin productive lines. He even did the things Murray hates, like constantly leaving the zone without the puck, and not attempting to play the game hard far too many times.

no name is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:40 PM
  #161
jimmy1100
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by no name View Post
I think this says more about Sturm's terrible play since in his tenure as a King, coupled with his injury concerns.
I would agree with this. Sturm being waived for roster flexibility should indicate the following things about other players on the Kings. For example -

Alex Martinez - Want him with the big club
Drewiskie/Harrold/Westgarth - Do NOT want to risk exposing them to waivers

Remember - we got Sturm for NOTHING. Which means that he's likely to clear waivers but, more importantly, it means he has little to no trade value. Martinez, Drewiskie and Harrold all have trade value and would likely be picked up off waivers.

Even if Sturm is grabbed off waivers, we aren't really losing an asset that we paid anything for.

Again, I would only look at this move as a move to increase roster flexibility. It's the (in DL's eyes) lowest waiver/asset risk that could be used to create said flexibility.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:43 PM
  #162
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Knoll View Post
The thing that never made sense was that he was acquired as a stopgap at LW, weeks after Parse had been injured (not that Parse was a sure bet even if he were healthy), yet he was a couple weeks from playing and months from playing effectively even if there were not setbacks.

Some knowledgeable hockey people have asked, well, who else was available? The Devs were already in really bad shape and Langenbrunner got moved shortly after Sturm does. The price was a higher but still basically marginal. Langenbrunner is a RW, not a LW, but they were already playing Brown at LW by that point and have done so since, too. I don't think Langenbrunner would have averted the two long slides but he would have been more effective than Sturm and been a quality veteran presence in the locker room to boot.
Yeah, I don't understand the Sturm acquisition. Whenever its debated, some Kings fans answer unfailingly is "we got him for nothing, so that means its a good deal."

Well, no its not. We acquired a guy who wasn't even ready to go, who isn't even a better option than the players we already have in the system. Now he's taking up a roster spot that we need in order to trade for somebody at the deadline. If you need a player to help your team in the midst of your playoff push immediately.. Why would you go trade for a player who can't even PLAY right away?

And on top of that your excuse is going to be "give him some time?"



Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:48 PM
  #163
TonySCV
Moderator
One More Time
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.
That makes no sense.

__________________
"In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened." - Vin Scully being clairvoyant in 1988.

The Los Angeles Kings - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions
TonySCV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:49 PM
  #164
jimmy1100
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Yeah, I don't understand the Sturm acquisition. Whenever its debated, some Kings fans answer unfailingly is "we got him for nothing, so that means its a good deal."

Well, no its not. We acquired a guy who wasn't even ready to go, who isn't even a better option than the players we already have in the system. Now he's taking up a roster spot that we need in order to trade for somebody at the deadline. If you need a player to help your team in the midst of your playoff push immediately.. Why would you go trade for a player who can't even PLAY right away?

And on top of that your excuse is going to be "give him some time?"



Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.
What?!?!

Exactly what was the negative aspect of acquiring Sturm? What was the ABSOLUTE WORST THING that could happen? A roster spot is lost? That's what is being taken care of now. We paid nothing for him. If he helped - YAY!!! If not, oh well. Didn't cost anything and can be discarded just as easily as he was acquired.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:49 PM
  #165
123slam
Registered User
 
123slam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.
We lost so much in that trade, man. Never should've happened.

123slam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:51 PM
  #166
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Nothing is a better option than Sturm is/was.


Last edited by TonySCV: 02-25-2011 at 06:27 PM. Reason: inflammatory comments removed
two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:52 PM
  #167
Duc620
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Yeah. I remember the good old days BEFORE the terrible sturm hit....

Duc620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:52 PM
  #168
Tikkanen
Pest
 
Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,291
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Tikkanen
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Yeah, I don't understand the Sturm acquisition. Whenever its debated, some Kings fans answer unfailingly is "we got him for nothing, so that means its a good deal."

Well, no its not. We acquired a guy who wasn't even ready to go, who isn't even a better option than the players we already have in the system. Now he's taking up a roster spot that we need in order to trade for somebody at the deadline. If you need a player to help your team in the midst of your playoff push immediately.. Why would you go trade for a player who can't even PLAY right away?

And on top of that your excuse is going to be "give him some time?"



Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.
It's been proven that players coming off the type of surgery Sturm underwent need a full offseason of training to recover. There is a huge difference between re-habbing and training. Lombardi continues to gamble on these types of players and has been burned short term on every one of them. Pavlov's dog learned faster.

Tikkanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:54 PM
  #169
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
If LA was to lose Sturm, it would be addition by subtraction.

RonSwanson* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:55 PM
  #170
jimmy1100
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post

Nothing is a better option than Sturm is/was.
Explain your comment. What NEGATIVE impact did the Sturm acquisition have that cannot be corrected by waiving Sturm (which takes all of 24 hours) ?

You know why you didn't answer that? Because there isn't an answer to that question.

I can tell you how NOTHING was NOT better. IF (big IF) Sturm had jumped right back to 20-goal form. Bam, that's better than NOTHING.

Now try answering my question? What did we lose that we cannot get back that negatively impacts the team?


Last edited by TonySCV: 02-25-2011 at 06:28 PM. Reason: inflammatory comments removed
jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 05:55 PM
  #171
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 8,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
It's obviously to make space. If it was just roster size, then Martinez or Harrold would have went down, Harrold needing to be waived of course.
Make space for what? I'm no math major but there is roughly 25% of the seaseon remaining and 25% of a $10m in annual salary would be $2.5m prorated for the remainder of the season. The Kings would have to be taking on an enormous amount of salary if they were just trying to make some more CAP room. That doesn't seem likely.

If it was for roster space, couldn't they have just left Sturm on the IR for an extra week? I don't know what the legality of that is. Also, assuming the really don't want to get rid of Sturm, they could have moved Martinez to the minors until tuesday. Maybe they just don't think there is a chance in hell that anyone is going to claim him so they figured why bother with Martinez?

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 06:02 PM
  #172
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy1100 View Post
It's like YOU don't read - HOW? Explain your comment. What NEGATIVE impact did the Sturm acquisition have that cannot be corrected by waiving Sturm (which takes all of 24 hours) ?

You know why you didn't answer that? Because there isn't an answer to that question.

I can tell you how NOTHING was NOT better. IF (big IF) Sturm had jumped right back to 20-goal form. Bam, that's better than NOTHING.

Now try answering my question? What did we lose that we cannot get back that negatively impacts the team?

Take your time...I've got all day...

There are a few negative things about the Sturm trade, and NOTHING positive. Nobody will claim Sturm so he probably will still be in the line up potentially for the rest of the season. Unless TM wakes up and just healthy scratches him, which he wont because he has this false belief that because Sturm is a "seasoned veteran" that he helps the team. He doesn't.

Negative things about getting Sturm:

- He's not very good right now at all by any means, and he's in the line up.

- He takes ice time away from players that can actually HELP us i.e. Loktionov/Moller.

- We all know he won't be sent to Manchester OR be claimed, therefore, binding us from icing the best possible hockey team we can ice.

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 06:07 PM
  #173
lafan13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
There are a few negative things about the Sturm trade, and NOTHING positive. Nobody will claim Sturm so he probably will still be in the line up potentially for the rest of the season. Unless TM wakes up and just healthy scratches him, which he wont because he has this false belief that because Sturm is a "seasoned veteran" that he helps the team. He doesn't.

Negative things about getting Sturm:

- He's not very good right now at all by any means, and he's in the line up.

- He takes ice time away from players that can actually HELP us i.e. Loktionov/Moller.

- We all know he won't be sent to Manchester OR be claimed, therefore, binding us from icing the best possible hockey team we can ice.
The rosters expand on monday, we can hold more then 23 players....

Sturm would be great asset on our 3rd or 4th line come playoff time.. or he can sit in the press box. Point is, it wont matter because rosterlimit is gone after the deadline.

lafan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 06:07 PM
  #174
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 8,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Its almost like you guys don't read..

Nothing is a better option than Sturm is/was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adevandry View Post
If LA was to lose Sturm, it would be addition by subtraction.
As much as you guys don't value his play, depth is something that will be pretty important moving forward. The Kings have absolutely no one else to use on the left side which is why the Kings were desperate enough to trade for him the first place. Who else are they going to put in his spot IF he is claimed and the Kings don't make a move for a left wing? Dwight King? Scott Parse? I'm sure you guys probably feel the same, if not, worse about him. Somebody else from Manchester?

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-25-2011, 06:14 PM
  #175
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
Yeah, I don't understand the Sturm acquisition. Whenever its debated, some Kings fans answer unfailingly is "we got him for nothing, so that means its a good deal."

Well, no its not. We acquired a guy who wasn't even ready to go, who isn't even a better option than the players we already have in the system. Now he's taking up a roster spot that we need in order to trade for somebody at the deadline. If you need a player to help your team in the midst of your playoff push immediately.. Why would you go trade for a player who can't even PLAY right away?

And on top of that your excuse is going to be "give him some time?"



Bottom line: I hate everything about the Sturm trade.
I miss nothing!

DIEHARD the King fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.