BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Hockey Talk > Channelside

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-08-2008, 11:55 AM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,843
Default

In that case, Lundin might need to be moved.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-08-2008, 12:13 PM
Avery86's Avatar
Avery86 Avery86 is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 4,963
Default

My head is spinning.

Maybe I should just stay in the dark about the Lightning's doings until I come back from England at the end of August .. maybe the dust will be a bit settled by then.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-08-2008, 12:41 PM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 4,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
In that case, Lundin might need to be moved.
That's why I'm confused about signing Hutch. I would have understood the Bolts putting themselves in this situation in order to add a Jason Smith to the D, but Hutchinson? What does he bring that Niskala doesn't already? And why not make a D trade BEFORE you sign an AHLer, thereby alerting every GM that you now have to make a trade? The only way this works from an asset-management standpoint is to package Lundin with, say, Ouellet (I still think Jokinen stays to center the 3rd line for awhile) in a trade.
__________________
“Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-08-2008, 12:53 PM
chad's Avatar
chad chad is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,092
Default

The only reason I see for the Hutch signing is it's directed at NF, but in order to get him to sign they give him a 1-way deal. If your Hutch, you're either in the NHL with TB, picked up by somebody, or are right back in the AHL. You don't have much to lose and you're getting the same amount of money in the A as you would in the NHL.

And from TB's point of view, he wasn't a marquee signing if they lose him, but bully for TB if he goes to NF and gives their D corp the puckmover they need.

I totally agree, though. For a bunch of physical hockey loving owners, a D corp with that many non people-movers is confusing. Smaby still seems like the most desired option for the No.6 spot.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:00 PM
CTLightning26 CTLightning26 is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,504
Default

yeah, getting overlaoded here.
gotta dump kuba if your bringing in another puck mover.
i would have hoped that smaby would at least be no. 7. doesn;t look good now.
but a lot could change.
please no sydor!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:02 PM
the_narrow_way's Avatar
the_narrow_way the_narrow_way is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 5,076
Default

Some of the moves so far have been questionable, but if they lose/trade Lundin, *sigh*, I'm really going to be disappointed.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-08-2008, 01:03 PM
Sotnos's Avatar
Sotnos Sotnos is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Posts: 13,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_narrow_way View Post
Some of the moves so far have been questionable, but if they lose/trade Lundin, *sigh*, I'm really going to be disappointed.
Same here, I love his smarts.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-08-2008, 03:16 PM
RSchmitz's Avatar
RSchmitz RSchmitz is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,770
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolthed View Post
And be subject to waivers?

Something doesn't add up here. DC reports in his blog today that Lundin also would be subject to waivers because he played 81 games last season ...

hmmm, we basically have 8 defensemen w/ 1 way contracts then.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-08-2008, 03:59 PM
bassassin's Avatar
bassassin bassassin is offline
Johnny Shortside
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 1,442
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotnos View Post
Same here, I love his smarts.
Agreed would hate to see him be traded/waived/lost.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-08-2008, 04:06 PM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 4,938
Default

I think Chad's right. If Lundin would have to be subjected to waivers then I would imagine he's our No.7 dman (or traded), while Hutchinson and Niskala get to battle throughout training camp to see who stays and who goes to the AHL/Europe/some other team.

Kuba-Ranger
Carle-SOB
Picard-Niskala/Hutch
Lundin

Maybe the OK Hockey really likes Kuba, Ranger and Picard as a two-way dmen, but I'd feel a little better about this D if a gritty, defensive dman like Rhett Warrner were in the mix. Perhaps they could sign him and trade Kuba? Point is you look at these seven or eight guys and there's really only one truly physical dman (SOB). If Lundin is subject to waivers, you'd have to assume Smaby will be in Norfolk.
__________________
“Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
artyukhin, goertzen, hutchinson

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.