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

montoya

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2006, 04:06 PM
  #76
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,418
vCash: 500
Jason Ward...

was signed as a UFA for below what first round picks get on an entry contract. If $$$ equates to value, then he would be far from a first round pick and MTL would've traded him before last season ended for that first rounder.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 06:11 AM
  #77
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Against my better judgement I'm going to allow myself to be suckered into this debate.

When all is said and done, Montoya does not have a high trade value right now. People are very happy with Lundqvist, no one is guranteeing that Montoya is better nor do we even know if he'll get any better.

What is simply comes down to is that he's not going to bring back much of anything on his own. The difference today vs. tomorrow (even if he turns into a complete and utter failure is pretty marginal because the value of 21 year old non-nhl goalies just isn't very high at all.

The debate about how good he'll be is secondary, when all is said and done there's really not much to be had for trading him no anyway.
Now that you've been suckered in, the point is that fans place more value in what they think is coming down the pike than what they have despite the fact that the overwhelming amount of prospects just don't pan out.

I have no clue what we could get for Montoya (neither does anyone else here) and I don't care if we trade him or not. I'm just not flat against it. Rigid trade rules are not necessarily smart rules.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 08:28 AM
  #78
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
the point is that fans place more value in what they think is coming down the pike than what they have despite the fact that the overwhelming amount of prospects just don't pan out.
For the sake of this debate, that is absolutely untrue. Unless I am misreading you, you seem to think that people around here who are against trading Montoya now. seem to simply like the shinier, newer prospect in the minors. That could not be further from the truth. Most, like myself, are not ready to deal Montoya because there is every chance that he could be just as good, if not better than Henke. Right now it is simply too early to tell. Why not wait a few years so that an educated decision could be made? If it turns out that Montoya is on Henke's level, then you can turn around and trade the older, more established, more expensive goalie for a better return.

Personally, I could care less as to which of Henke or Montoya is out "goaltender of the future". I just want to keep the better one. And in the case that they are both equal, then I want to keep the younger/cheaper one. What I DO NOT want is an Islander situation in which Luongo is traded so that Ricky D. can be the starter.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 09:47 AM
  #79
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
94now - I agree somewhat, but I don't think the value holds for five years, or, I should say, it really depends on what's done in those five years and what was expected when the kid was taken originally.
The number is approximate... And in J.Ward case that time has expired by the time of his signing. He carried, however, enough 1st round pick value left to serve as an example.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 09:51 AM
  #80
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
The number is approximate... And in J.Ward case that time has expired by the time of his signing. He carried, however, enough 1st round pick value left to serve as an example.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, you're stating two different things. First you state that Ward's value as a first round pick has expired, then you state that he had enough value to serve as your example. You cannot have it both ways. There is no way that Ward would have fetched a first round pick. As I said, using your example, what team is going to give up a 1st rounder for Hugh Jessiman?

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 09:51 AM
  #81
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
For the sake of this debate, that is absolutely untrue. Unless I am misreading you, you seem to think that people around here who are against trading Montoya now. seem to simply like the shinier, newer prospect in the minors. That could not be further from the truth. Most, like myself, are not ready to deal Montoya because there is every chance that he could be just as good, if not better than Henke. Right now it is simply too early to tell. Why not wait a few years so that an educated decision could be made? If it turns out that Montoya is on Henke's level, then you can turn around and trade the older, more established, more expensive goalie for a better return.
.
Untrue? Not according to bold part of your post that is just subsequent to strong denial.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 10:02 AM
  #82
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
For the sake of this debate, that is absolutely untrue. Unless I am misreading you, you seem to think that people around here who are against trading Montoya now. seem to simply like the shinier, newer prospect in the minors. That could not be further from the truth. Most, like myself, are not ready to deal Montoya because there is every chance that he could be just as good, if not better than Henke. Right now it is simply too early to tell. Why not wait a few years so that an educated decision could be made? If it turns out that Montoya is on Henke's level, then you can turn around and trade the older, more established, more expensive goalie for a better return.

Personally, I could care less as to which of Henke or Montoya is out "goaltender of the future". I just want to keep the better one. And in the case that they are both equal, then I want to keep the younger/cheaper one. What I DO NOT want is an Islander situation in which Luongo is traded so that Ricky D. can be the starter.
Putting aside the Montoya issue for a moment, do you disagree with my contention that fans in general are overwhelmingly focused on prospects (a quick perusal of the threads here should make this unarguable) to the point where they often project them past the current roster?

I love looking at prospects too and I hope they all turn out to be great but that just ain't the way it works. We don't have any Ovechkins or Crosbys in our system yet people are often terrified of letting "gold" get away.

Young players get traded all of the time and the number that turn out to be outstanding is near miniscule. Yet, most everyone the Rangers draft inevitably shows up on a thread here with posters seemingly terrified of losing them, even if their projected upside is fringe 4th liner.

Back to Montoya, will you at least admit that he may not even turn out to be an NHL quality goaltender. Everyone here seems to have him projected somewhere between a #1 and a future hall of famer. May turn out that way but betting against that is the percentage play.

Here is some stuff that I know I will be flamed for but:

I believe that goaltenders are usually the easiest thing to replace.

I believe it is far easier to win a Cup with average goaltending than an average defense or an average set of forwards.

I believe that goaltenders on Cup winners are usually incredibly overvalued and usually not the primary reason for the victory.

I believe that Brodeur is the most overrated goaltender of the last 20 years. He has played in front of incredibly gifted teams with an extraordinary dedication to preventing their team from being scored upon. Almost every NHL goalie can stop an initial shot if not screened. It's the screens and rebounds and general confusion around the crease that is responsible for most goals. No one has faced these situations less than Brodeur has.

I do believe that Luongo is an exception to this and that he will greatly elevate Vancouver's chances.

I realize that Lundqvist may turn out to be a one year wonder but if there was a way to place a wager I'd bet he's the real deal. Montoya might be that someday but I doubt it, just on mathematical probability.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 10:10 AM
  #83
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Untrue? Not according to bold part of your post that is just subsequent to strong denial.
You are trying to twist what is written to fit your assertion. I am not simply enamoured with the newer and shiner prospect. I simply believe that when there is every opportunity that said prospect can become an excellent NHLer, you have to take the time to find out.

Claiming that I am facinated with new, shiny playthings (aside from being insulting, frankly) would be akin to stating that I am projecting Immonen to be the next Sundin or Byers to be the next Tucker.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 10:19 AM
  #84
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Putting aside the Montoya issue for a moment, do you disagree with my contention that fans in general are overwhelmingly focused on prospects (a quick perusal of the threads here should make this unarguable) to the point where they often project them past the current roster?
Yes, I disagree with it. Sure you have those that are ready to proclaim HOF status for those that have yet to play one second in the NHL, but they are not the majority. Most of the vets on this board (in their various ages) take a realistic approach to our prospects. Sure there are the pom-pom waiving fanatics, but just becuase they are "louder" than most, does not mean that their opinion is the majority.
Quote:
I love looking at prospects too and I hope they all turn out to be great but that just ain't the way it works. We don't have any Ovechkins or Crosbys in our system yet people are often terrified of letting "gold" get away.
Off course. There are reasons that there are more failures than successes.
Quote:
Yet, most everyone the Rangers draft inevitably shows up on a thread here with posters seemingly terrified of losing them, even if their projected upside is fringe 4th liner.
If you are trying to compare the Ortmeyer situation to Montoya's, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Quote:
Back to Montoya, will you at least admit that he may not even turn out to be an NHL quality goaltender.
Off course. That is the nature of prospects.
Quote:
Everyone here seems to have him projected somewhere between a #1 and a future hall of famer. May turn out that way but betting against that is the percentage play.
Now you are exaggerating. No one is stating that he is a future Hall of Famer. However, he IS an elite-level prospect. One that has taken HUGE steps forward at every level of development. The odds of him "making it" are more in his corner than virtually every other prospect in the system, not named Staal.
Quote:
I believe that goaltenders are usually the easiest thing to replace.
Average goalies? Yes. Possibile elite? Not so much.
Quote:
I believe it is far easier to win a Cup with average goaltending than an average defense or an average set of forwards.
Virtually every Cup-winning team has won with elite-level goaltending. Even if the goalie in question is not an elite-level goalie, his performance during the Cup run certainly is.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 10:57 AM
  #85
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
As I said, using your example, what team is going to give up a 1st rounder for Hugh Jessiman?
You not gonna get 2007 1st rounder. You're not getting anyone later that 2003 Dratf Hugh was drafted based on expiration date theory of mine. So, let's go from there. Here are the 1st round draftee players (centres only)that could be more or less had for Jessiman right now :

Pouliot - EDM 22nd 2003 (Oilers)
Klepis - SEN 16th 2002 (Caps)
Morris - SJ 27th 2002 (NWU)
Foster -NJD 28th 2001 (Albany)

There's bunch of guys in 2000 draft.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 11:31 AM
  #86
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Now that you've been suckered in, the point is that fans place more value in what they think is coming down the pike than what they have despite the fact that the overwhelming amount of prospects just don't pan out.

I have no clue what we could get for Montoya (neither does anyone else here) and I don't care if we trade him or not. I'm just not flat against it. Rigid trade rules are not necessarily smart rules.
I don't think anyone values Montoya OVER Henke. I think people value seeing what Montoya turns into first. I don't think the majority would take Montoya over Henke right now, but the Rangers also aren't in a situation where they HAVE to make that decision.

And you're right, no one has definitive answers on what Montoya could get. All we have is history as a guide and a pattern that shows it is HIGHLY unlikely we get anything of substantial enough value to warrant such an early.

Again they're not my rules nor did I set the pattern, but there is a very distinct and noticeable pattern throughout history. Obviously if a team wants to throw it out the window they certainly can, but the odds of that are slim.

Is it a definitive answer? Of course not, but it's certainly the overwhelming odds on favorite.

Now if a team is willing to trade a TOP level prospect at another position, I'm certainly open to it. But from everything I've heard (with a million "rumors" I've checked on in then past year) there have been no conversations of substance about Montoya and looking at the NHL from the last two decades I wouldn't say the odds are worth even debating.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 11:53 AM
  #87
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Virtually every Cup-winning team has won with elite-level goaltending. Even if the goalie in question is not an elite-level goalie, his performance during the Cup run certainly is.
Here is one point we 100% disagree on.

Virtually every Cup-winning team has won because their goalie has not been called upon to be the central performer. For eample, on the last 4 Cup winners the goaltender was not even close to the most important player. Is Khabibulin an outstanding Cup winning TB goaltender or a Chicago bust? Did his abilities magically change overnight. Edmonton almost won a Cup with Jussi who I think we can all agree is a below average NHL goaltender.

Goalies win Cups one year and are less than ordinary the next because of the team in front of them not because their abilities have changed. The same cannot be said for outstanding forwards and defensemen. They will continue to be outstanding whether they win a Cup or not.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 11:54 AM
  #88
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Here are the 1st round draftee players (centres only)that could be more or less had for Jessiman right now :

Pouliot - EDM 22nd 2003 (Oilers)
Klepis - SEN 16th 2002 (Caps)
Morris - SJ 27th 2002 (NWU)
Foster -NJD 28th 2001 (Albany)

There's bunch of guys in 2000 draft.
So basically what you are saying is that you can get other players that have also disappointed for the first few years of their careers. That is hardly the same thing as claiming that they have 1st round value.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 11:58 AM
  #89
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Is Khabibulin an outstanding Cup winning TB goaltender or a Chicago bust? Did his abilities magically change overnight.
His performance leading up to that year and that year itself can only be called elite. His story in Chicago is alltogether different.
Quote:
Edmonton almost won a Cup with Jussi who I think we can all agree is a below average NHL goaltender.
Edmonton rode a different goalie to the Finals. One that WAS performing at an elite level.
Quote:
Goalies win Cups one year and are less than ordinary the next because of the team in front of them not because their abilities have changed.
No, some goalies are just uneven. Many have enjoyed a magic carpet ride, just to crash back to reality shortly thereafter.
Quote:
They will continue to be outstanding whether they win a Cup or not.
Forwards and defensemen fluctuate as well. At the "elite" level, these fluctuations are less frequent.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 01:37 PM
  #90
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,418
vCash: 500
Chosen...

Khabibulin was extremely important to the Cup winning Bolts, no doubt about that. Perhaps it was one magical season and one magical playoff, but he played extremely well to help his team win the Cup and was up there in terms of important cogs to the Cup-winning team. Also, Cam Ward played pretty good last season for the Cup-winning 'Canes. The point is, it often takes a great performance by a goaltender to win the Cup. Said goaltender doesn't have to be a perennial elite player, but his performace in the playoffs are typically outstanding.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 01:45 PM
  #91
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
His performance leading up to that year and that year itself can only be called elite. His story in Chicago is alltogether different.
Right. When a great team is in front of him he is "elite". When a bad team is in front of him he is ordinary.

His performance up to winning the Cup placed him as an elite goaltender? That would make him a HOFer. That's where the elite go. I don't think he's going to the Hall. Besides his Cup winning year he is below .500 in the playoffs and barely over .500 for the regular season. He's better than average, not elite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Edmonton rode a different goalie to the Finals. One that WAS performing at an elite level.
Forgetting whether Roloson was performing as an elite goatender or not, they almost won the Cup with Jussi but they lost in 7 games to a better team. If Edmonton had pulled out the series your opinion would be that Jussi performed at an elite level, something he plainly did not do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
No, some goalies are just uneven. Many have enjoyed a magic carpet ride, just to crash back to reality shortly thereafter.
No, almost all goalies are just uneven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Forwards and defensemen fluctuate as well. At the "elite" level, these fluctuations are less frequent.
Precisely what I have been saying. Elite defensemen and forwards are just that no matter who they play with. Supposedly elite goaltenders are almost always only as good as the team in front of them.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2006, 01:50 PM
  #92
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
Khabibulin was extremely important to the Cup winning Bolts, no doubt about that. Perhaps it was one magical season and one magical playoff, but he played extremely well to help his team win the Cup and was up there in terms of important cogs to the Cup-winning team. Also, Cam Ward played pretty good last season for the Cup-winning 'Canes. The point is, it often takes a great performance by a goaltender to win the Cup. Said goaltender doesn't have to be a perennial elite player, but his performace in the playoffs are typically outstanding.
He may have been the third or fourth most important player on that team. The point isn't that "magic" sometimes happens. There is no such thing as magic. It's having a superior effort from the rest of the team.

Do you believe that goalies' fortunes change year to year because of magic or a goalie's change in ability or dumb luck or because he is backstopping different personnel?

My answer to that will almost always be personnel.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:26 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.