View Single Post
Old
04-14-2007, 12:18 PM
  #55
Sather Hater
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
To add one other thing about the trading Montoya idea. Some people might think that Lundqvist much like Brodeur will be able to go 70 games season in and season out for the next 10-15 years and that may be the case but one should look a little closer at Martin IMO who is built solid as a rock and also look at the fact that he's had few significant injuries--in fact I can't even think of one off the top of my head. Henrik had some injury problems last year--though not big ones--they came at the most inopportune of times--heading into the playoffs. In this respect Montoya--represents our depth--not Weekes and not Valiquette and not Holt--they are stopgaps--but they are not serious game in and game out goalies who are going to take the team anywhere. It may be that Montoya will be traded in the next couple years but we should take the time to find out just how good he can be and we should make sure we get the best return possible and we should have some other serious goaltending prospect in the system before we even think of that.
Vancouver, Calgary, NJ, etc all seem to get by without an above average backup (although I would make a pitch for an adequate backup if this trade did happen - if the price was right, and keep Valley around for Hartford, and use a mid or later round pick in this years draft on a goalie).

When you consider the Rangers biggest need in the prospect department is future 1st line forwards it seems like a perfect swap. To me the point is moot anyway, with what goalie's typically get in return I don't think Montoya could land the Rangers a top 5 pick in the draft.

Sather Hater is offline   Reply With Quote