View Single Post
09-07-2006, 02:28 PM
Kris King's Ghost
Edge's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,814
vCash: 500
I'm reading what he writes and in my opinion not twisting it in the least.
Honestly, I do not believe you are. Simply because I've seen it in my own discussions with you and I've seen you do it multiple times. I find TB having similar arguments with you that I have, in which his opinion is stated multiple times and twisted to the point where you're essentially arguing him on a point he is not making.

In your zeal to advocate not trading Montoya now I think it is you that fails to see that he is quite clearly consistently placing Montoya on a pedestal and downplaying what Lundqvist has accomplished. He couldn't be more explicit in this regard.
There is nothing that is downplaying Lundqvist, the reason the conversation goes back to Montoya is simply because he is the one who is being looked at to be traded.

All of Lundqvist's accomplishments are treated with a sort of "Yes, but....." logic. With Montoya, in his opinion, the sky is the limit. He never expresses that with Lundqvist despite the fact that it would be next to impossible to have a more accomplished resume than Lundqvist has already assembled.
The problem is you keep comparing a 24 year old Lundqvist to a 21 year old Montoya. What has been repeatedly mentioned is where they both were at 20/21. So the question becomes, if Montoya at the same age is right where Lundqvist has (maybe even a little ahead) how is it so impossible that he won't become as good or even little better? That's where the problem comes in.

The other problem is that examples have been provided or similar goalie situations in which the latter goalie did turn out to be better, despite some VERY impressive accomplishments early in the career.

Unfortunatly, just like the history of trades involving 20/21 year old goalies, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that as a point. If we can't acknowledge what has already been seen, than the debate starts to fall apart. Once again I see that happening, and this wasn't even a discussion that I was engaged in with you.

To read him you'd think Montoya is quite possibly the next Hasek. He also downplays the accomplishments of Lundqvist in the NHL by saying it was only for a very short while. Then he pooh poohs Lundqvist's international accomplishments and extols the greatness of Montoya in the AHL, a league vastly inferior to international competition.
He hasn't pooh pooh's anything from Lundqvist, the difference is that most of us can see and KNOW what Lundqvist has done. All TB has said is that he'd like to see just what Montoya CAN become.

I think the argument of too short a time to make judgement has been fairly made for BOTH goalies. Lundqvist with all of 50 NHL games and Montoya with all of 40AHL games. That is a point that has honestly been hammered home repeatedly, again and again.

And the AHL isn't vastly inferior to the average european league at all. If anything the AHL tends to feature a greater number of future NHL'ers and former guys.

Comparing what both guys did at 20/21 in the respective league's is VERY reasonable.

To me there is a tremendous disparity in how he judges them with the central argument being Montoya is younger. That's wonderful that he is younger but so are a thousand other players out there. This need to put Montoya at the same level, and in his case, sometimes at a higher level is confounding to me. Like I've said earlier I think it's part of the syndrome of hoping to see the next "coming" while not appreciating in the least that you have already struck gold.
The comparison and the younger comments come from a comparison to where Lundqvist was at the SAME age. That is what people are referring to. Comparing where both goalies were at 20/21 is a VERY reasonable argument. Comparing a 24 year old and a 21 year is not.

It's obvious to everyone now that I disagree with you and TB on this stuff so instead of taking verbal swings at me i.e. saying that I'm twisting his words, why not step back and admit that this all stems from our differences on if Montoya should be considered a current trade option.
The problem is that in almost every conversation you have, you have several problems with the argument you're presenting.

A. It fails to acknowledge and address the opposing view, but instead argues within it's own points and pre-established parameters.

B. It often fails to acknowledge the historical proof that is presented. It counters that with simple opinion. Opinion is great, but there has to be some degree of evidence presented to support that belief.

C. Whether intentional or not, it does twist the opposing views. Thus the person you're arguing ends up repeating themself and you end up kind of never really acknowleding what they are saying to you. Unfortunatly this is a problem I've seen several times. It has nothing to do with the opposite view, it has everything to do with how you're presenting that view.

Put that argument aside and tell me that the two of you don't consistently speak of the vast potential of Montoya and really never take the same stance with Lundqvist.
On the contrary we often talk of Lundqvists accomplishments. The difference is in the way people approach those accomplishments.

Lundqvist plays 50 games and people are ready to hang his jersey from the rafters.

Montoya plays 40 games and people can't wait to make a trade.

People see Lundqvist, they know what they've got already. There's very little to point out that people haven't seen. He's one of the top goalies in the league, in a nutshell anything else is just repeating the same thing.

You know why the vast potential of Montoya is mentioned?

Because people see similar things, at a similar age to what Lundqvist did. In some cases they see a little more. So after seeing the way Lundqvist turned out after what he accomplished by the age of 21, people are VERY interested in what Montoya will do have seeing what he also accomplished by the age of 21.

Simply put people place Montoya right on the same level, maybe even a hair ahead of where Lundqvist was after his 21st birthday. Just like they wouldn't have traded Lundqvist after what he accomplished at the same point, it doesn't make sense to trade a player who has done as much or a little more at the same point in development.

Take a look a the general opinion of Montoya now after turning 21 and compare it to 2003 when Lundqvist was coming up. THAT is why people want to wait and see and why their certainly is a possibility that Montoya could be even better.

Even if we don't believe his accomplishments aren't as good as Lundqvist, we can't argue that it's very far behind. In as much if Lundqvist is (for aguments sake) the third best goalie in the NHL and Montoya round out at the 8th, Montoya's value would still be higher than it is now. How do we figure that? About 75 years of NHL history, in writing and in action that shows 20 year old goalies don't bring back much. So if they don't bring back much and there is no indication from anyone that the trend is about to change, what is really to gain by moving him?

Yes hypothetically if teams did that and there was a player to be had for Montoya than we could go down that the path. But there have never been deals of that nature and there don't appear to be any now so how the hypothesis becomes pretty darn useless because it never happens.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote