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

Future goalie trade

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-25-2005, 02:13 PM
  #26
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleed blue 94
quite simply if washington offered AO for henrik would you do the trade?
And we have Montoya? Without a doubt.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
12-25-2005, 07:40 PM
  #27
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Who here would like to wake up to find the Rangers had traded Patrick Roy while keeping Curtis Joseph?
Apparently there are some that would. Every month a new thread seems to show up trading Montoya for whatever. I really don't get it. He's a major part of our rebuild and voted on by the posters here as our No. 2 prospect. I actually had him at No. 1. I know some people have decided that Lundqvist is the man but even so Montoya is off to a very nice start and when he's 23 like Lundqvist is now he might be just as good. At the same time ***** can happen like a career ending injury to Henrik--it's not like this hasn't happened before to us.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
12-25-2005, 08:04 PM
  #28
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
VBK was not left unprotected in the expansion draft by the Rangers.The Rangers traded him to Vancouver for Doug Lidster because they were only allowed to protect one goaltender in the 1993 expansion draft.As long as there are no more expansion drafts,there is no real reason to trade a goaltender unless it's to fill another need and not worry about protecting one goalie in an expansion draft
You're right, though the gist of what I was saying is the same, and I absolutely agree with you.

007 is offline  
Old
12-25-2005, 11:10 PM
  #29
jumptheshark
Give the dog a bone
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,479
vCash: 1850
ask those who left that chear the NYI about trading Loungo when they drafted Ricky D---how the heck does mad mike keep his job is beyond me

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
12-25-2005, 11:47 PM
  #30
RANGERDIEHARD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 929
vCash: 500
I brought up this same hypothetical situation on these boards about 2 months ago...and got crucified for suggesting such a thing. Now that people have seen Lundqvist play more it looks like the consensus has shifted a bit.
I can understand how people are reluctant to part with either goaltender, fearing that they will trade away a potential superstar. Lundqvist looks more like the real thing and the fans have taken a liking to him...then you have big Al who is a bit younger and has tons of potential. So what do we do? Why not wait three years and see who the better goalie is and then trade the other. In a perfect world that would be great...but we don't live in a perfect world. Truth is as of right now we have 2 goalies who are viewed by many as being #1 NHL starters for years to come but no one will know who the better is for several years. Meanwhile we are trying to develop a team for the future and we lack scoring forwards....along with that comes the 06' draft which will feature a few forwards that will go directly to the top of our prospect ranking if we draft them. Now I know what a luxury it is to have not 1, but 2 quality goaltenders in your system...and then I also know the concern of who will be scoring goals for this team once Jagr and his czech mates retire. Now I'm not talking about getting a third line grinder in return; I'm talking about a player who would have the potential to be a 30 + goal scorer for us for years to come. If I was GM and the right deal came along this summer, I would trade Al to move up in the draft.

RANGERDIEHARD is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 01:24 AM
  #31
Entrancemperium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
I brought up this same hypothetical situation on these boards about 2 months ago...and got crucified for suggesting such a thing. Now that people have seen Lundqvist play more it looks like the consensus has shifted a bit.
I can understand how people are reluctant to part with either goaltender, fearing that they will trade away a potential superstar. Lundqvist looks more like the real thing and the fans have taken a liking to him...then you have big Al who is a bit younger and has tons of potential. So what do we do? Why not wait three years and see who the better goalie is and then trade the other. In a perfect world that would be great...but we don't live in a perfect world. Truth is as of right now we have 2 goalies who are viewed by many as being #1 NHL starters for years to come but no one will know who the better is for several years. Meanwhile we are trying to develop a team for the future and we lack scoring forwards....along with that comes the 06' draft which will feature a few forwards that will go directly to the top of our prospect ranking if we draft them. Now I know what a luxury it is to have not 1, but 2 quality goaltenders in your system...and then I also know the concern of who will be scoring goals for this team once Jagr and his czech mates retire. Now I'm not talking about getting a third line grinder in return; I'm talking about a player who would have the potential to be a 30 + goal scorer for us for years to come. If I was GM and the right deal came along this summer, I would trade Al to move up in the draft.
It's a tough one for sure, Al could very well be better than Henrik who knows? But I see your point. Earlier I posted the question "would you trade Montoya and a first round pick in the lower twenties to move up to the top six?" I think that maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea since like you pointed out that we don't have a star prospect.

Entrancemperium is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 01:27 AM
  #32
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz
Way to early to even THINK about trading one of them...
Mucho Ditto.

Pizza is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 01:53 AM
  #33
RANGER#11
Registered User
 
RANGER#11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norfolk, New York
Posts: 642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackburn2727
I know its early, but as we all know we will have to trade one of our highly touted goalies eventually. It is most likely going to be Montoya. But which ever it is, he will most likely be traded to Washington, because they dont have a future number one goalie in the system and they have they can easily afford to trade some prospects in return considering that they have such an abundance of them. Just wondering what everyone else thinks.
I hope that they keep them keep them both. We do not to trade either and it will be fun to watch them develope.

RANGER#11 is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 05:59 AM
  #34
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entrancemperium
It's a tough one for sure, Al could very well be better than Henrik who knows? But I see your point. Earlier I posted the question "would you trade Montoya and a first round pick in the lower twenties to move up to the top six?" I think that maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea since like you pointed out that we don't have a star prospect.
The problrm is that a trade like that only a few month from when its made can look really bad, Montoya looks strong in HFD and its possible that was a really good pick. If management belives that Montoya atleast can become a solid NHL goalie we should hang on to him untill he gets some NHL experience because then it might be possible to deal him straight up for a young good player or for a high pick.

Every one uses Buffalo as a example of how hard its to trade a goalie, but I am not that impressed by Biron and Noronen. Neither have potential or current skill to become elite goaltenders, thats why they are so hard to deal. If Montoya gets into the NHL and is used sparely as a backup goaltender and keeps it up, posting solid stats ect, I am betting that with some luck we could be able to get a great return for him.

Ola is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 06:06 AM
  #35
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
I brought up this same hypothetical situation on these boards about 2 months ago...and got crucified for suggesting such a thing. Now that people have seen Lundqvist play more it looks like the consensus has shifted a bit.
I can understand how people are reluctant to part with either goaltender, fearing that they will trade away a potential superstar. Lundqvist looks more like the real thing and the fans have taken a liking to him...then you have big Al who is a bit younger and has tons of potential. So what do we do? Why not wait three years and see who the better goalie is and then trade the other. In a perfect world that would be great...but we don't live in a perfect world. Truth is as of right now we have 2 goalies who are viewed by many as being #1 NHL starters for years to come but no one will know who the better is for several years. Meanwhile we are trying to develop a team for the future and we lack scoring forwards....along with that comes the 06' draft which will feature a few forwards that will go directly to the top of our prospect ranking if we draft them. Now I know what a luxury it is to have not 1, but 2 quality goaltenders in your system...and then I also know the concern of who will be scoring goals for this team once Jagr and his czech mates retire. Now I'm not talking about getting a third line grinder in return; I'm talking about a player who would have the potential to be a 30 + goal scorer for us for years to come. If I was GM and the right deal came along this summer, I would trade Al to move up in the draft.
This is more understandable. Trading Montoya now for a less than elite return is not a good idea. By summer we may have a better idea of what we have with him. The thing is though the goalie position is a position we're going to have to build up over the summer as we don't have a lot in the bank at this position. It's hard to believe that Al is going to come in and duplicate what Henrik has done already this year but Al has played great in the AHL in his first year as a pro. Weekes has played well so far but he does not have a long term future with this team--at least to me he shouldn't. He's replaceable and potentially replaceable next season. As far as Jagr and his czech pals---I believe Jagr will not be traded this year as the team looks like it has a very legitimate chance to make the playoffs. Nylander (not a czech) is signed for another year and I wouldn't expect him to bring back a lot in a trade. I can see them resigning Rucinsky. Players like Straka and Rucchin are very replaceable. Immonen should replace one of them.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 10:05 AM
  #36
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones
This is more understandable. Trading Montoya now for a less than elite return is not a good idea. By summer we may have a better idea of what we have with him. The thing is though the goalie position is a position we're going to have to build up over the summer as we don't have a lot in the bank at this position. It's hard to believe that Al is going to come in and duplicate what Henrik has done already this year but Al has played great in the AHL in his first year as a pro. Weekes has played well so far but he does not have a long term future with this team--at least to me he shouldn't. He's replaceable and potentially replaceable next season. As far as Jagr and his czech pals---I believe Jagr will not be traded this year as the team looks like it has a very legitimate chance to make the playoffs. Nylander (not a czech) is signed for another year and I wouldn't expect him to bring back a lot in a trade. I can see them resigning Rucinsky. Players like Straka and Rucchin are very replaceable. Immonen should replace one of them.
You're bang on for next years assumption. I was thinking the exact same thing. We have Jagr, Nylander, and Prucha locked up for the top 6. We should resign Rucinsky. Let go of Rucchin and give Immonen his shot there. I love Straka but let him go and watch Dawes, Helminen, Korpikoski, G. Moore fight it out for that spot. Or do it the way we did it with Prucha. Play someone like Ward with Immonen and say Rucinsky, with Dawes on the fourth line and slowly work him in.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 10:14 AM
  #37
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RANGERDIEHARD
the 06' draft which will feature a few forwards that will go directly to the top of our prospect ranking if we draft them ... I'm talking about a player who would have the potential to be a 30 + goal scorer for us for years to come.
Those prospects are in every draft class. That being the case, there is no reason to trade for a prospect in the class of '06 or '07. There is no reason to trade Montoya or Lundqvist at all until we see which is the better netminder. Top prospects will always be waiting.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 10:45 AM
  #38
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
I would hang on to both goalies for now. If you offered Lundqvist in a trade on draft day, what do you think you could get? I think you get nothing LESS than a package with the centerpiece being a top 5 pick. Now I am not suggesting we do that, I just think his value is as high as any goalie in the league, given his play this season, his age, and his low cap hit. Why is there any reason to think Montoya couldn't be in the exact same position a year from now? I think his trade value will be higher once he is a known commodity. He looks great against AHL shooters, but we all know (LaBarbera) that doesn't mean anything when you face NHL shooters. I would let Montoya play the rest of the year in Hartford. Look for a place to move Weekes either at the deadline or in the offseason. I would keep Weekes for the rest of the year, but if there is a team desperate for a goalie at the deadline due to injury, I would move him, and call up Montoya. Otherwise, Lundqvist starts next season as the #1 and bring Montoya in to back him up, like a 70/30 split in games played. Once other teams see what the kid is about, they'll be more apt to give up assets to get him.

SML is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 11:30 AM
  #39
barrel_master
Amber Heard
 
barrel_master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML
I would hang on to both goalies for now. If you offered Lundqvist in a trade on draft day, what do you think you could get? I think you get nothing LESS than a package with the centerpiece being a top 5 pick. Now I am not suggesting we do that, I just think his value is as high as any goalie in the league, given his play this season, his age, and his low cap hit. Why is there any reason to think Montoya couldn't be in the exact same position a year from now? I think his trade value will be higher once he is a known commodity. He looks great against AHL shooters, but we all know (LaBarbera) that doesn't mean anything when you face NHL shooters. I would let Montoya play the rest of the year in Hartford. Look for a place to move Weekes either at the deadline or in the offseason. I would keep Weekes for the rest of the year, but if there is a team desperate for a goalie at the deadline due to injury, I would move him, and call up Montoya. Otherwise, Lundqvist starts next season as the #1 and bring Montoya in to back him up, like a 70/30 split in games played. Once other teams see what the kid is about, they'll be more apt to give up assets to get him.
I agree with pretty much everything you said... honestly, I think we can get a lot... more then just moving up in the draft.

barrel_master is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 11:37 AM
  #40
OleOleOleOleBureBure
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 236
vCash: 500
Here is my take

i hope montoya continues having a good year in hartford. it is very obvious that lunquist is the goalie for the next 10 years here. if you are still not convinced of that than all you need is more time to realize this fact. i hope that montoya's good season in hartford triggers a trade to tampa, where i am not sure if they can afford vinny at ~6.5M, st.louis at ~5.8M and now Richards coming up as an RFA. I am hoping its richards coming this way and not st.louis. we would have to give up more than just montoya but i think its really doable. they need a young goalie. i would give richards St.louis money in a heartbeat in he ever came to NYR.

OleOleOleOleBureBure is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 12:11 PM
  #41
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleOleOleOleBureBure
it is very obvious that lunquist is the goalie for the next 10 years here.
I don't think that's very obvious at all. If Montoya turns out to be the better NHL goalie, he, not Lundqvist, will be the Ranger goalie for the next ten years.

It's amazing to me how many are anointing Lundqvist as the Rangers' goalie of the future when we've not even seen Montoya at the NHL level. I don't know about anybody else, but for my "goalie of the future," I'd like the better of the two, please, not the one who looks good first.

dedalus is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 12:19 PM
  #42
Bacchus
Registered User
 
Bacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dickes B
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleOleOleOleBureBure
i hope montoya continues having a good year in hartford. it is very obvious that lunquist is the goalie for the next 10 years here. if you are still not convinced of that than all you need is more time to realize this fact. i hope that montoya's good season in hartford triggers a trade to tampa, where i am not sure if they can afford vinny at ~6.5M, st.louis at ~5.8M and now Richards coming up as an RFA. I am hoping its richards coming this way and not st.louis. we would have to give up more than just montoya but i think its really doable. they need a young goalie. i would give richards St.louis money in a heartbeat in he ever came to NYR.
Besides what Dedalus already said... You want to trade Montoya for Brad Richards?

Bacchus is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 02:21 PM
  #43
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,731
vCash: 500
That's all true but

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I don't think that's very obvious at all. If Montoya turns out to be the better NHL goalie, he, not Lundqvist, will be the Ranger goalie for the next ten years.

It's amazing to me how many are anointing Lundqvist as the Rangers' goalie of the future when we've not even seen Montoya at the NHL level. I don't know about anybody else, but for my "goalie of the future," I'd like the better of the two, please, not the one who looks good first.
Sometimes, it's better to hang onto the bird already in the bag, rather than going after the two in the bush.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
12-26-2005, 03:51 PM
  #44
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,372
vCash: 500
I agree with most of what SML says. I would say though that Al is going to be better than Labs just on the fact he's much better on his feet.
As far as Bure's contention that Lundqvist is the goalie for the next 10 years--that is an awful long projection and doesn't take into account unforseen factors--(injuries--free agency etc.).
I have to say though that Lundqvist quite possibly could be the Hasek of these next 10 years. Even so goaltender is the most important position--one you should not play around with. You always have to have someone with lots of potential around.

In any case Montoya is in the process of establishing himself and as SML remarked and I agree with--if there is a goalie to be moved this year it is Weekes if there is a team out there that will give us something back that we need. The team may still lack the elite young forward that some would want but there is no guarantee that even with a top 5 that player won't turn out to be a dog--Brendl.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
12-27-2005, 10:11 AM
  #45
Molson Golden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Horseheads, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18
vCash: 500
Given where we are in developing players is there anything wronmg with having two great goalies? Why not keep them both? What happens when you trade one and the other screws up a sholder and is out for the remainder of his career? Sound Familar?
I vote we keep them both!

Molson Golden is offline  
Old
12-27-2005, 05:32 PM
  #46
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Ah yes it'd been about two weeks, knew this thread (for the 9000th) time was bound to come up.

I want the better goalie for my team, PERIOD end of sentence. Trade value and returns is secondary to actually having the better goalie.

With that established, how about we wait a few years and see which one is better.

We're not the first team in the history of hockey to have promising young goalies on the same team at the same time.

This happened with Richter and Beezer and it's happened to many teams before. Beezer won a Vezina at the age of 23 but it was the younger, later arriving Richter who won the cup. In Washington Carey took the world by storm and won a Vezina but Kolzig was there goalie.

There is no formula for this stuff. Whoever arrives first isn't always the one you keep and the one who arrives later isn't less talented. Also the youngest isn't always better because he is younger and sometimes the older prospect wins.

If Lundqvist wins so be it, if its Montoya so be it. I don't see why we have to revisit this topic (literally) every two weeks. I also don't see the point in playing favorites at this point and not just waiting for the better player to emerge.

Either one is tradeable if the right deal comes along, and by that I mean I mean a HELL of a deal! But to assume this has already been decided is insane. Goaltending is a very tricky position to project. I've seen enough hockey to know that the only true judge of talent isn't myself or a scout or a GM but time. The Rangers have the time and aren't in dire of need of a trade, so I say we actually use time as our ally.

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 05:36 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.