HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Would you waive Lundmark?

View Poll Results: Would you waive Lundmark?
Yes. 3 4.23%
No. 62 87.32%
Who cares? Lundmark sucks. 6 8.45%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2004, 01:50 PM
  #1
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Would you waive Lundmark?

It's been decided that normal waiver rules will apply to all players in the case of a lockout. If there is a lockout, would you waive Lundmark so he can play in Hartford during the lockout and risk losing him for nothing?

Things to keep in mind:
  1. Lundmark will make $1.1 mil next year.
  2. Any team that claims a player off waivers must keep that player on their NHL roster.
  3. If a team waives a player that they claimed off waivers, the original team has the right of first claim and can send the player to the AHL without clearing waivers.

The real heart of the question is: do you think that another GM (one who is desparate for scoring forwards) would look at Lundmark's upside and decide it is worth the risk for having him sit on the shelf for however long the lockout is?

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 01:56 PM
  #2
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,260
vCash: 500
No, absolutely NO.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:07 PM
  #3
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,903
vCash: 500
Lundmark would not pass through waivers. Another team would pick him up.

NFITO is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:09 PM
  #4
barnaby63
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Long Island
Posts: 860
vCash: 500
No way. Rather have him just be in scrimmage situations than risk losing him for nothing to play in "real" games.

barnaby63 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:46 PM
  #5
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
It's been decided that normal waiver rules will apply to all players in the case of a lockout. If there is a lockout, would you waive Lundmark so he can play in Hartford during the lockout and risk losing him for nothing?

Things to keep in mind:
  1. Lundmark will make $1.1 mil next year.
  2. Any team that claims a player off waivers must keep that player on their NHL roster.
  3. If a team waives a player that they claimed off waivers, the original team has the right of first claim and can send the player to the AHL without clearing waivers.

The real heart of the question is: do you think that another GM (one who is desparate for scoring forwards) would look at Lundmark's upside and decide it is worth the risk for having him sit on the shelf for however long the lockout is?
I am not a big fan of Lundmark but he is young and will hopefully improve. I would rather give him more time to develop. We are rebiulding and the team will no dought be going no where any way for a few years it will be a perfect opertunity for him. and for us posters to put the debate we have been having on him to rest won's and for all.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:47 PM
  #6
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
No way....not ever.....

Lundmark while coming off a pretty bad year, has admitted it and I think if he can get in a whole season worth of playing time (hopefully at one position) I think he'll prove he's going to be a dependable 2nd liner in time.

As has already been said, there is NO WAY he passes through waivers.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 02:58 PM
  #7
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,452
vCash: 500
No, No, a thousand times NO.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:00 PM
  #8
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidClown
Lundmark while coming off a pretty bad year, has admitted it and I think if he can get in a whole season worth of playing time (hopefully at one position) I think he'll prove he's going to be a dependable 2nd liner in time.

As has already been said, there is NO WAY he passes through waivers.
Yah, IF he can get a whole season in. If the lockout runs a complete season, then where does his career stand?

Today, I probably don't waive Lundmark. But as a lockout stetches into weeks and months, I have to wonder just what happens to this kid as he falls further out of game shape and without game experience at such a formative point in his career. I think we reach a point where not letting him to play will ultimately have the same effect as not having him here at all, so you've got to take the risk of sending him down.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:09 PM
  #9
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,447
vCash: 500
I don't see how that would make any sense

granted, he hasn't lived up to expectations, but in all fairness he's not really been given the linemates on a regular basis to really show what he can do.

I'd love to see him on a line with other offensive players, but as of yet Sather's cronies have yet to do that.

Waiving him would be a total waste of an asset and like I said above, I don't see how that would make any sense.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:12 PM
  #10
little a from da bx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
It's been decided that normal waiver rules will apply to all players in the case of a lockout. If there is a lockout, would you waive Lundmark so he can play in Hartford during the lockout and risk losing him for nothing?

Things to keep in mind:
  1. Lundmark will make $1.1 mil next year.
  2. Any team that claims a player off waivers must keep that player on their NHL roster.
  3. If a team waives a player that they claimed off waivers, the original team has the right of first claim and can send the player to the AHL without clearing waivers.

The real heart of the question is: do you think that another GM (one who is desparate for scoring forwards) would look at Lundmark's upside and decide it is worth the risk for having him sit on the shelf for however long the lockout is?
NO I WOULDNT, but what NYR does is there problem.
no offense but that is a pretty ridiculous question , nyr has no youth as it is, and lundmark does have potential. why just give him up,why would you even make this poll??? is my question

little a from da bx is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:15 PM
  #11
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by little a from da bx
why just give him up,why would you even make this poll??? is my question
The question is not whether you'd give him up, it's whether he's better off playing in Hartford during a lockout or rotting in front of his PX2. Of course, to play in Hartford, he'd have to first clear waivers.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:26 PM
  #12
little a from da bx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
The question is not whether you'd give him up, it's whether he's better off playing in Hartford during a lockout or rotting in front of his PX2. Of course, to play in Hartford, he'd have to first clear waivers.
well would u think it is a wise decision to do that i mean in all honesty, i dont think the avg person would agree to do so. yes its a tough choice but i wouldnt like to see NYR take a chance on losing him, he will be picked up. plus the kid can find someone to train with and keep him self busy. maybe he goes to europe who knows?i think he played horrible last year and somewhat they year b4 but, he needs a legit shot and some real steady linemates and to stay at one position and get time everywhere at even strentgth pk and pp then i think in a couple years nyr will see what the kid has. he needs atleast 2 years this year and next if nothing by then, hope some of these prospects we have are ready to go and moves lunds for whatever we could get a 2nd rounder.

little a from da bx is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:35 PM
  #13
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
Yah, IF he can get a whole season in. If the lockout runs a complete season, then where does his career stand?

Today, I probably don't waive Lundmark. But as a lockout stetches into weeks and months, I have to wonder just what happens to this kid as he falls further out of game shape and without game experience at such a formative point in his career. I think we reach a point where not letting him to play will ultimately have the same effect as not having him here at all, so you've got to take the risk of sending him down.

I agree with what you're saying Melrose, but then let me pose this question. Who do you keep in his place? Keep in mind it's not like we're even contending for the playoffs, there's a small group of solid youngsters and this team is as young as it's been in a LONG while. We're thin up the middle, Lundmark has played in the middle before and I thought (althought I could be completely) wrong Lundmark was a natural center before they told him to go down to the Pack and learn to play wing. I say give him the shot at the number 2 center. It doesn't appear that the Rags are going to sign a legit #1 center so with that doesn't it (by default only) make Holik are #1?

So like I said who do you keep while waiving him to make room?

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:37 PM
  #14
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
The question is not whether you'd give him up, it's whether he's better off playing in Hartford during a lockout or rotting in front of his PX2. Of course, to play in Hartford, he'd have to first clear waivers.

Of course he'd be better of playing in Hartford but I dont' think that's a choice....the same could be said about anyone on the team, it'd be better to have them actually playing rather than not, but there is no way someone doesn't pick him up, if even just to spite the Rangers.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:49 PM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Real tough call...

tough to sit him down for a season, if that's what happens, and it's tough to risk losing him too. I doubt he would clear waivers, but I don't think him being plucked is real clear-cut either, as if there is cost-certainty (i.e., a cap of $31 million), then I don't see anybody in his right mind wanted to pay Lundmark $1.3 million per. But, someone would be willing to take the chance that there isn't a hard cap and take a flyer. I'd vote to not pass him through waivers to attempt to play in Hartford.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 03:50 PM
  #16
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidClown
So like I said who do you keep while waiving him to make room?
I don't intend for him to be playing in Hartford if there's no lockout, or when it's over.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 04:03 PM
  #17
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
I don't intend for him to be playing in Hartford if there's no lockout, or when it's over.
Maybe then we're talking about two different things, I'm thinking of the waiver draft....if you're placing him on the waive list then you're keeping someone else on the protected list.

I know the idea is to somehow get him to Hartford but I don't think all the other teams pass up on him.

LiquidClown is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 04:03 PM
  #18
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I put some common cents together and tell him to go play in europe till this thing cools down. Or I tell him to go play in the upstart WHA.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-09-2004, 04:15 PM
  #19
RangsDave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 110
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangsDave
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO

RangsDave is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 01:38 AM
  #20
Rodent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On your dinner plate
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiak
It's been decided that normal waiver rules will apply to all players in the case of a lockout. If there is a lockout, would you waive Lundmark so he can play in Hartford during the lockout and risk losing him for nothing?
WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!

Are you certain that this was the "final" decision?

A bunch of G/Ms blew their collective stacks when they heard this and the league agreed to back off and reconsider.

Are you saying that Bettman did reconsider and that he rendered the same decision as originally stated?

Rodent is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 06:33 AM
  #21
Thundermare
Registered User
 
Thundermare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I put some common cents together and tell him to go play in europe till this thing cools down. Or I tell him to go play in the upstart WHA.
Isn't WHA DEAD, if not it'll soon be???

That said I think Europe would do him real good ...if there's no NHL of course


Last edited by Thundermare: 09-10-2004 at 06:37 AM.
Thundermare is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 08:20 AM
  #22
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodent
WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!

Are you certain that this was the "final" decision?

A bunch of G/Ms blew their collective stacks when they heard this and the league agreed to back off and reconsider.

Are you saying that Bettman did reconsider and that he rendered the same decision as originally stated?
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/h...-7824064c.html

Quote:
The NHL and NHL Players' Association have resolved the issue of which NHL players can be assigned to the American Hockey League during a lockout, Carolina general manager Jim Rutherford said Tuesday, with younger players eligible to go to the AHL and older, waiver-eligible players required to clear waivers first.

Kodiak is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 04:41 PM
  #23
Rodent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: On your dinner plate
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Thanks, Kody.

Rodent is offline  
Old
09-10-2004, 11:48 PM
  #24
Ocelot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 394
vCash: 500
I would not do it. Some team would pick him up.

Ocelot is offline  
Old
09-11-2004, 08:21 PM
  #25
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,177
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
I mean, no matter how much he sucks, we'd get nothing out of it, and he'd wind up hitting 50 pts with, say the Hawks.

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:02 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.