Confirmed with Link: Rangers Extend Steven Kampfer (2 Year/2 Way)
- Thread starter Joey Bones
- Start date
Matz03
Registered User
I can't imagine Clendening comes back, shame since he's competent enough for at least a 6th D spot, him and AV obviously don't get along.
If the Rangers were to trade a Klein or Holden then having another depth D in place makes sense and it's a two-way deal. If they move one of above D ahead of expansion draft, then again makes sense to have another qualifying contract to expose.
I preferred Clendening but Kampfer has a Hunwick vibe, so I guess ok for depth D.
If the Rangers were to trade a Klein or Holden then having another depth D in place makes sense and it's a two-way deal. If they move one of above D ahead of expansion draft, then again makes sense to have another qualifying contract to expose.
I preferred Clendening but Kampfer has a Hunwick vibe, so I guess ok for depth D.
Made Dan
Registered User
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,689
- 1,480
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 44,854
- 40,364
Why? It is a 2-way deal, easy to bury if he clears waivers and it's not as if we have a stacked D-corps in Hartford
eco's bones
Registered User
Clendening is a player who probably should have played more for us during the regular season but to me if we're talking playoffs he's No. 8 right now. I wouldn't be playing him ahead of Girardi or Klein and it's not that Montreal is the most physical team but they bulked up at the trade deadline and they were bringing it last night and teams like Columbus and Washington will too.
Clendening is a good puck mover but he's kind of Stralman-lite and he's not going to get away with nearly as much as Stralman without paying a price. Just an opinion.
I would go with the same lineup. See what happens and if necessary make changes in game 3.
Clendening is a good puck mover but he's kind of Stralman-lite and he's not going to get away with nearly as much as Stralman without paying a price. Just an opinion.
I would go with the same lineup. See what happens and if necessary make changes in game 3.
Given that they can waive him/send him to Hartford without taking a cap hit, what's the problem? I'd actually prefer we give these fringe guys two year deals more often. That way if they end up taking off we don't lose them the following season.
This costs a contract spot and nothing else.
A RHD 7th defenseman who looked like he could hold his own in limited time with limted minutes on a 2 year 2-way deal is good move. Cheap. You know what you are getting because he has been in the organization. Better than trying to find someone in free agency.
trilobyte
Regulated User
That's a decent deal. Never hurts to have a known quantity, who fits his ranking well, to call if needed. Money well spent in my opinion.
The second year is an insurance mark against waivers. Makes it easier to send down a good player that can fill this type of role.
It should make the Rangers 8-9 deep. Force guys to compete or sit.
I thought he gave a lot of good spirited shifts. Even against better players.
It's not like he got smoked every time so, it is fitting.
It should make the Rangers 8-9 deep. Force guys to compete or sit.
I thought he gave a lot of good spirited shifts. Even against better players.
It's not like he got smoked every time so, it is fitting.
Mac n Gs
Gorton plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,590
- 12,855
I said it in the other thread, but I wonder if that has anything to do with them wanting to bring back Chris Summers as their AHL vet. They have a ton of lefties down in Hartford, but not many RHD. Could be wrong though since Summerrs is kinda their de facto captain at the moment.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
To me, this screams "Not going to re-sign Summers, so we'll have a vet for Hartford who can also act as a emergency D in a pinch if we need him for a game or two."
Miller Time NYR
Registered User
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. The pack were trash this year if Kampfer is the defensive vet I'm more than ok with that, this has no influence on our NHL roster, why clendenings name has been brought up is beyond me.
- Sep 1, 2010
- 9,796
- 7,666
I dont expect Kampfer in New York except in a pinch
i wont mind if Clendenning comes back, likely as 7th D
i think maybe its also likely NYR qualify Clendening
but then swap him for some else's similarly "still young and promising, but not proven" RFA
Honestly it's all good as he's a depth call up . They signed him then dumped him to add Duclair to the roster . Rangers owe him lol. Won't affect the cap anyway
AV likes him said as much yesterday. Said we've got 7 veteran dmen and if you add kampfer in with what he's shown us in his skating and ability to move the puck that's another option. Zero mention of Clendening who prob is done with us and last on the depth chart the rest of this playoff.
Coaches don't trust a player like Clendo.
There are things he does when it comes to reverses, and turnovers that coaches hate, because Clendo hung onto the puck too long or was going to get hit.
If you want an example of what people wish Clendo was, you look at Vatenen. At least he can skate out of the way and make a play.
There are things he does when it comes to reverses, and turnovers that coaches hate, because Clendo hung onto the puck too long or was going to get hit.
If you want an example of what people wish Clendo was, you look at Vatenen. At least he can skate out of the way and make a play.
