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

Andrew Ladd

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2005, 07:18 PM
  #1
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,707
vCash: 500
Andrew Ladd

After a great draft year (30 goals and 75 Points in 71 games) for calgary of the WHL, Ladd seems to have a pretty bad year statistically. 19 goals and 45 points in 65 games for the #4 overall pick? Anyone know what happened to him?

I bring this up because Ladd was high on the list of players I was hoping the Rangers would draft. I would also love for him to become available, but I doubt the Canes are anywhere near giving up on him.

McRanger is offline  
Old
08-15-2005, 07:26 PM
  #2
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
The WHL was a little wacky this year.

The backlog of players really brought a lot of scoring down. A GREAT season for someone was actually maintaining numbers close the year before.

I think Ladd suffered through the post draft slump and he got off to a HORRIBLE start. He picked it up as the year went on, but like a few prospects from the '04 draft he has something to prove this year.

It'll be interesting to see how he does.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-15-2005, 07:33 PM
  #3
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
IO always wanted Ladd and feel NYR should have and could havemoved down what ever it was 2 or 3 spots to get him, but chose Over-rated Montoya.

 
Old
08-15-2005, 07:35 PM
  #4
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I think a lot of kids from the '04 draft didnt have the years they could have.

I also think we might see some numbers jump in the CHL this season with guys actually having something to shoot for again and with some NHL ready talent actually playing in the NHL this year instead of languishing in another league.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-15-2005, 09:43 PM
  #5
Sicilian
Registered User
 
Sicilian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Aim 4588
IO always wanted Ladd and feel NYR should have and could havemoved down what ever it was 2 or 3 spots to get him, but chose Over-rated Montoya.
hard to call montoya over-rated yet, seeing as he hasn't played a pro game yet. besides, given what we now know about blackburn and his injury, nabbing another goalie doesn't look bad at all.

Sicilian is offline  
Old
08-15-2005, 11:45 PM
  #6
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,656
vCash: 500
yeah, i would have been happy if we moved up to get him. hopefully montoya works out for us.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 06:47 AM
  #7
BLACKBURN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Aim 4588
IO always wanted Ladd and feel NYR should have and could havemoved down what ever it was 2 or 3 spots to get him, but chose Over-rated Montoya.
I like the way that Ladd is still a good prospect even though he got 45 points in a league that normally has "elite" prospects averaging at least a point per game, usually more. Then montoya whos sv% slipped below the magic 90.0% is suddenly over-rated.

I for one am confident that Montoya will have a solid pro debut and show why he was picked so high. He wont reach his prime until he is 24 or so and after one year lots of posters say a 20 year old is over-rated and not a good prospect. That kind of assesment is very immature, it will be interesting to see people jump back on his bandwagon if hes doing well.

BLACKBURN is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 08:15 AM
  #8
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKBURN
I like the way that Ladd is still a good prospect even though he got 45 points in a league that normally has "elite" prospects averaging at least a point per game, usually more. Then montoya whos sv% slipped below the magic 90.0% is suddenly over-rated.

I for one am confident that Montoya will have a solid pro debut and show why he was picked so high. He wont reach his prime until he is 24 or so and after one year lots of posters say a 20 year old is over-rated and not a good prospect. That kind of assesment is very immature, it will be interesting to see people jump back on his bandwagon if hes doing well.
Dont judge me of being a fan that changes opinions on players by year and performance. For you to say cause his SV % dropped or whatever it was, with me, get your facts straight, cause I was never a Montoya fan. As you are making it out to be.

I never liked Montoya pick and just because his SV % dropped I didnt suddenly change my mind. I dont change opinions on players because of a good or bad season , I like who I like and then when im proven right or wrong I deal with it.

I dont see Montya being an NHL franchise Goalie as I did with Blackburn and do with Lundqvist.

I see Montoya turning out to be a Mike Dunham/Jeff Hackett type goalie, which is good and thats it, just good.

 
Old
08-16-2005, 08:19 AM
  #9
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Aim 4588
IO always wanted Ladd and feel NYR should have and could havemoved down what ever it was 2 or 3 spots to get him, but chose Over-rated Montoya.
Wouldn't it have been moved up?

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 08:36 AM
  #10
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
I'd take a..

Mike Dunham/Jeff Hackett out of Montoya, for sure. Dunham, when healthy, is a very good goalie, although many people forget him keeping this team in games during his first season, and playing well until he was overplayed thereafter.

On Ladd...seems as though Getzlaf had a pretty poor season too. Not sure what the real implications there are...meaning if either was floating the other's boat a bit higher.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 08:43 AM
  #11
Mr. Lack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dumont, NJ
Posts: 333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC Aim 4588
IO always wanted Ladd and feel NYR should have and could havemoved down what ever it was 2 or 3 spots to get him, but chose Over-rated Montoya.
I'm not upset that the Rangers didn't trade up, but I do think it would have been better if they chose Olesz over Montoya. At the time of last years draft, they had a good idea about how good Lundquist was playing and that he would eventually come over. I know it is more prudent to draft the best player available and not for need, but I think Olesz might have just been that player.

I remember reading something about how the Rangers removed someone from consideration at the last minute from their board. I think it was speculated that it was Olesz.

Any truth to that and for what reason?

Mr. Lack is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 08:53 AM
  #12
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
They had a good idea...

but it's tough to put all your eggs in one basket. Having a North American prospect in goal, to go along with a Swedish goalie prospect isn't the worst thing.

As for Olesz...how did he do last season? His numbers didn't particularly improve (total points), but I'm sure there wasn't much ice time to go around. He did have the same amount of points as our favorite homesick defenseman, Martin Richter.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 09:43 AM
  #13
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but it's tough to put all your eggs in one basket. Having a North American prospect in goal, to go along with a Swedish goalie prospect isn't the worst thing.

As for Olesz...how did he do last season? His numbers didn't particularly improve (total points), but I'm sure there wasn't much ice time to go around. He did have the same amount of points as our favorite homesick defenseman, Martin Richter.
I like Montoya too, but I feel we could have done something different. With Lundqvuist looking like a stud in EUR, all we needed was some quality depth. Montoya seems like overkill LOL. Picking a guy like Jeff Glass in the third round and then having Lundqvuist, Holt, Glass along with Labarbera is respectable. Unless the guys an absolute beast of a goalie IE Lehtonen or Fleury, I subscribe to the goalies in the later rounds/throw a bunch at the wall to see if they stick. Lundqvuist turned out all right.

People should use Olesz's WJC performance before critiquing his Czech mens league production. His playing time could have been weak because of the lockout, and that may be the reason for the same statistical output. But he did very well at the U20.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 10:06 AM
  #14
kovalev27hf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 433
vCash: 500
same thing with korpikoski he got very little icetime but reports were that he played extremely well.

kovalev27hf is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 10:13 AM
  #15
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Wouldn't it have been moved up?
Im sure you know what I meant.

Moving up is the term but I meant moving down #wise like we had #6 and Ladd went at #3 or #4.

 
Old
08-16-2005, 10:22 AM
  #16
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Mike Dunham/Jeff Hackett out of Montoya, for sure. Dunham, when healthy, is a very good goalie, although many people forget him keeping this team in games during his first season, and playing well until he was overplayed thereafter.

On Ladd...seems as though Getzlaf had a pretty poor season too. Not sure what the real implications there are...meaning if either was floating the other's boat a bit higher.
Ok, now what I hade wrote in my post , if you noticed is the word FRANCHISE, and I did say Dunham and Hackett were good golaies, very good, IMO , No.

Turco is very good, Esche is very good, Richter is franchise, Belfour is franchise. IMO.

So with the #6 overall I wouldnt be happy with a Mike Dunham type goalie, now if Holt became a Dunham, great he was a 6th rounder or something, but with the #6 overall I expect alot more than just a good or as you put it very good goalie similar to Dunham.

I for one think b4 Dunhams injury he was very good in NY and seemed to want to keep playing while injured but never said so to anyone. But Dunham isnt a goalie that will win you a championship.

 
Old
08-16-2005, 10:25 AM
  #17
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
Balej...

I think the Rangers Brass, rightly or wrongly, thought that Montoya was that beast, given his prior year in Michigan and his international play. It seems as though Sather's building from the net out and is content with picking up forwards in later rounds who aren't star material, but who are potential solid forwards who aren't type-casted as top line, second line, etc. With the number of picks this team had in the last two years through the first two rounds, Sather went with what he thought was the BPA and created some depth in prospects.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 10:31 AM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
If Holt became Dunham...

that would be some sort of home run. There are few franchises goalies out there at any given time. And, the teams that surround them help them become franchise. I'm not sure one would call Osgood a franchise goalie, but he won a Cup. Before last season I'm not sure if Khabibulin was a franchise goalie, but he won a Cup. Many would consider Cujo a franchise goalie, but he's never won a Cup and can't find a team.

Point it, there are likely few 'franchise' goalies out there. There are goalies that are very good and are capable of consistently getting good teams into the playoffs. And there are also goalies who can have that one magical run and win the Cup, only to see his teams never emerge out of the second round again.

Point is, even with the #6 overall pick, a goalie turning into a healthy Dunham isn't that bad, cosidering so many top ten picks do not amount to much. Holt turning into a Dunham is a home run.

Fletch is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 02:34 PM
  #19
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 Fletch
Mike Dunham/Jeff Hackett out of Montoya, for sure. Dunham, when healthy, is a very good goalie, although many people forget him keeping this team in games during his first season, and playing well until he was overplayed thereafter.

On Ladd...seems as though Getzlaf had a pretty poor season too. Not sure what the real implications there are...meaning if either was floating the other's boat a bit higher.
Ironically enough it was actually playing together that seemed to hurt them. I remember telling people over and over before the 04 draft that they werent linemates. Then this year when they did play together and both had a bad year suddenly Getzlaf's bad season was because of Ladd, yadda yadda yadda.

What ended up happening this year is the Hitmen put too many eggs into one basket and teams just pretty much through everything but the kitchen sink at the one top line.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 02:40 PM
  #20
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Bottom line is they drafted the player they wanted and if he becomes an asset thats great. Obviously if they felt a forward or defenseman was just as good they would have taken them, but that wasn't the case.

If someone has a 100 dollar bill in front of you and four 20 dollar bills you don't take the four 20's just because you need the change.

Montoya is an A-Rate prospect and every one in the league knows that. It's amazing sometimes around here. We overrate okay prospects and when we actually have an A prospect we look for every reason to be miserable about it. This board needs a serious dosage of prosac =)

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 02:44 PM
  #21
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Bottom line is they drafted the player they wanted and if he becomes an asset thats great. Obviously if they felt a forward or defenseman was just as good they would have taken them, but that wasn't the case.

If someone has a 100 dollar bill in front of you and four 20 dollar bills you don't take the four 20's just because you need the change.

Montoya is an A-Rate prospect and every one in the league knows that. It's amazing sometimes around here. We overrate okay prospects and when we actually have an A prospect we look for every reason to be miserable about it. This board needs a serious dosage of prosac =)
I wouldn't say that's relegated to this board only. Look where he is located on the HF Top 50. His stock seems to have among NHL watchers (as opposed to insiders in the league.)

jas is online now  
Old
08-16-2005, 02:50 PM
  #22
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
I wont even comment on the HF top 50 at this point and HF has its own opinion.

The HF lists have always been very fickle at best and usually based off a season's performance and that was the case even back when i wrote for them.

Does Montoya have something to prove? You bet, but the thought of him being less of prospect then he was 12 months ago is insane.

One need only look as far as THN lists to see how much they are really worth in the long run. Which is one reason i try to avoid them almost as much as player comparisons.

Edge is offline  
Old
08-16-2005, 03:03 PM
  #23
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
I not arguing with you about Montoya. My guess is the perception is that there are a few new shiny prospects added to the league, and Montoya, wasn't where he was coming off his previous year. I'm sure the Rangers prefer to have Montoya under the tutelage of Allaire.

jas is online now  
Old
08-16-2005, 03:09 PM
  #24
NYC Aim 4588
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
that would be some sort of home run. There are few franchises goalies out there at any given time. And, the teams that surround them help them become franchise. I'm not sure one would call Osgood a franchise goalie, but he won a Cup. Before last season I'm not sure if Khabibulin was a franchise goalie, but he won a Cup. Many would consider Cujo a franchise goalie, but he's never won a Cup and can't find a team.

Point it, there are likely few 'franchise' goalies out there. There are goalies that are very good and are capable of consistently getting good teams into the playoffs. And there are also goalies who can have that one magical run and win the Cup, only to see his teams never emerge out of the second round again.

Point is, even with the #6 overall pick, a goalie turning into a healthy Dunham isn't that bad, cosidering so many top ten picks do not amount to much. Holt turning into a Dunham is a home run.
Thats what I said, if Holt became a Dunham that is great but if Montoya becomes a Dunham well thats not so great. I understand your post about Franchise goalies etc, but I still feel that a goalie taken #6 overall , I would hope that he would become more a CUJO than a Mike Dunham. I do consider CUJO in his prime way more valuable than Dunham in his. I mean im not saying your wrong and im not saying im right but i am just hoping you are understanding my point. With a top 10 pick or atleast a top 5, Montoya was 6 so i would put him in that category, especially as the first goalie taken so early in the 1st you look for them to be more exceptional than just avg or good/very good.

 
Old
08-16-2005, 03:36 PM
  #25
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 jas
I not arguing with you about Montoya. My guess is the perception is that there are a few new shiny prospects added to the league, and Montoya, wasn't where he was coming off his previous year. I'm sure the Rangers prefer to have Montoya under the tutelage of Allaire.
Personally i think he'll be just fine. More than anything else he has a very good head on his shoulders.

Edge is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:49 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.