HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rangers 2006 NHL Draft talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2006, 05:10 PM
  #26
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majoritystorm
I'm not big on Jordan Staal. I have him rated 6th out of Kessel, Mueller, Toews, Frolik, Backstrom, NOT TO MENTION ERIC JOHNSON. Although to me its not that Staal is not on par with them talent wise I just think he won't help immediately and is more of a proyect than the other guys. He needs work all over. But the size and skill is there.
needing more time to develop isn't a problem as long as you think he'll develop into a top guy. you don't draft looking for the best 18 year old, you look for the guy that is gonna be the best nhlers down the road and sometimes that means looking 3-4 years down the road...

and given our current situation, assuming that making the playoffs means that atleast some of our current guys will be re-signed, plus guys in hartford ready for promotion plus other nhlers available via free agency or trades. the odds would be against an 18 year old making the rangers out of camp next year regardless...so we're in the position to be able to give him another year of juniors (like we did with marc)...

that said though, if we are picking #1 then i might also argue against jordan staal being better than those others...but the way things are shaping up our pick is gonna most likely be in the 24-30 range. so if we can make a deal to jump up and get one of the top 7 players (without giving up too much in the deal of course) i'll be doing backflips...

NYR469 is offline  
Old
02-12-2006, 05:16 PM
  #27
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue
thanks...i've seen all those goal clips. but honestly i'm not sure someone other than a professional scout can really learn that much from watching them...at least i can say that i can't. i mean he's playing against guys who mostly won't be playing in the NHL. from what i can see he seems to have good hands and a knack for finding the puck. but that's about all i can learn from those videos. does he play both ends of the ice? is he physical? does he excel at faceoffs? without watching entire games i wouldn't be able to tell about any of those. but i have heard Sam and JD say he's possibly the most talented of the Staals, which is great praise.
Well as long as the Staal (or Staals) we end up with are really good then who cares which one is better than the others. You still have to look at them as individual players and not as a set.

Zil is offline  
Old
02-12-2006, 06:27 PM
  #28
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,275
vCash: 500
I think eventually, we'll have to trade him. Unless Henrik hits the skids, but I doubt it. He's a very mature goalie (henrik is) and it's obvious he can handle the workload/stress/spotlight of playing in NYC.

So we keep Montoya...then what? Just like Beezer and Richter, it caused problems and did nothing for the Rangers in the playoffs. Yes it's nice to have a solid back-up for a star like Lundqvist, but you don't spend a top-6 pick for a goalie who'll play 15-20 games a year.

Give Lunds another year to try and repeat what he is doing this season. Just to be safe. If Montoya has another standout season in the AHL....move him for all you can. There are plenty of teams in the NHL who are in need of goaltending.

There's no reason to have two studd goalies on one team. In fact, no team in recent memory has WON a Stanley Cup while rotating goalies in the playoffs.

GWOW is offline  
Old
02-12-2006, 07:05 PM
  #29
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,729
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
I think eventually, we'll have to trade him.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that. however, there should be no rush to trade him.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
02-12-2006, 07:58 PM
  #30
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,745
vCash: 500
The 2000 draft was classified as a weak draft which is one of the reason why Neil Smith included the Rangers first and third round picks in 2000 in the Pavel Brendl trade

In that draft year,Alexander Frolov,Anton Volchenkov,David Hale,Brad Boyes,Steve Ott,Bryan Sutherby,Justin Williams and Niklas Kronwall were all selected between #20-30

In 2002,the Rangers traded their first round pick in the Pavel Bure trade because it was called a weak draft.It was the #10 pick.Florida flipped with Calgary at #9

Keith Ballard,Steve Emminger,Alexander Semin,Chris Higgins,Denis Grebeshkov,Anton Babchuk,Alexander Steen,Cam Ward,Hannu Toivonen and Jim Slater went after #10

Banchuk,Steen,Ward,Toivonen and Slater went between #20-30 in 2002

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
02-12-2006, 10:57 PM
  #31
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
I think the time to move Montoya is either this off season, or you have to wait until he's in the NHL and ready to be a #1 goalie. Right now, he's all potential. Teams will pay alot for that. He's uncharted waters, and that could be good or bad. You want to make a deal with a team that thinks he has upside. If he gets here and NHL shooters figure him out quickly, we're screwed. We let him rot on the vine and we'd be lucky to get a fraction of the return for him. Look at Buffalo, for example. How long did they have Biron, Noronen, and Miller all waiting? Well, they waited everyone out. Now Miller has emerged as the dominant guy, and do you heaar anyone talking about Noronen? Do you think they could move into the top 5 by trading Biron? I don't. I think a team like Florida would bite BIG TIME on Montoya. They are going to move Luongo, and they need a goalie. Not only that, but the large Cuban population in Miami makes it a natural fit for Montoya to sell seats. There could also be a deal with Chicago, Montoya's home town. I think he represents what all of the lottery teams need, which is help in goal (except Pittsburgh) and he's 2 years closer to stepping on the ice than anyone getting drafted this year. A GM who is on the hot seat, and all lottery teams GM's always are, may be willing to make a move thinking that if they don't get out of the lottery soon, they will be fired anyway. I normally wouldn't deal him, but I'm leaning towards thinking it may be the right time to do it.

SML is offline  
Old
02-12-2006, 11:32 PM
  #32
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
The 2000 draft was classified as a weak draft which is one of the reason why Neil Smith included the Rangers first and third round picks in 2000 in the Pavel Brendl trade

imagine if we had those pics now Brendl was a great Ranger and had a great NHL career

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 06:51 AM
  #33
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
A big problem for me with trading Montoya is we have little depth at the position. If Lundqvist were to get hurt or if something like what happened to Blackburn we'd be starting from scratch--and looking for the new Mike Dunham. From the little I've seen of Holt this year he has a long way to go. Yeah he might turn into the next Labarera with 4 or 5 years in the minors. Instead of best player available we could use our 2nd's and 3rd's this year to address the problem but we could do that without trading Al and at least have a comfort zone in that area--and then make a trade. From the comment by Brown it's apparent that they'll try to move up---but not necessarily for the other Staal. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

eco's bones is online now  
Old
02-13-2006, 07:16 AM
  #34
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
you DO NOT trade Montoya. we have a weak amount of telented Goalies in the system, that being said, you don't trade the best one...especially for a guy who "might" be the real deal, when Al is already that.

you draft forwards, and hope you come out with a gem or two...that is all

Nich is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 08:28 AM
  #35
Lundqvist102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 745
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Lundqvist102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich
you DO NOT trade Montoya. we have a weak amount of telented Goalies in the system, that being said, you don't trade the best one...especially for a guy who "might" be the real deal, when Al is already that.

you draft forwards, and hope you come out with a gem or two...that is all


Lundqvist102 is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:07 PM
  #36
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich
you DO NOT trade Montoya. we have a weak amount of telented Goalies in the system, that being said, you don't trade the best one...especially for a guy who "might" be the real deal, when Al is already that.

you draft forwards, and hope you come out with a gem or two...that is all
Completely disagree. He's a wasted asset. You make your moves to create the best 25 man (or whatever the new limit is) squad to win the Stanley cup, not to be in the best position in case something dreadful happens. And we do have an NHL ready goaltender in case something tragic happens to Lundqvist - his name is Kevin Weekes and I believe he's under contract for one more year.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:13 PM
  #37
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
 
Rabid Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murica
Country: United States
Posts: 19,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr5186
Not to mention the bloodlines.
You mean like Brent Gretzky? I know Jordan Staal stands a great chance of being a very good NHL player, but I wish people wouldn't rely so much on the bloodlines angle to predict future success.

Rabid Ranger is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:15 PM
  #38
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan
Completely disagree. He's a wasted asset. You make your moves to create the best 25 man (or whatever the new limit is) squad to win the Stanley cup, not to be in the best position in case something dreadful happens. And we do have an NHL ready goaltender in case something tragic happens to Lundqvist - his name is Kevin Weekes and I believe he's under contract for one more year.
Please, I don't want to think about something happening to Lundqvist, especially in the middle of the Olympic break.

Zil is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:28 PM
  #39
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
If the interview with Ranger scout Mike Brown is to be taken with any seriousness, it sounds like Toews and NOT Staal could be the target of a draft day deal involving Montoya.

jas is online now  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:30 PM
  #40
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan
Completely disagree. He's a wasted asset. You make your moves to create the best 25 man (or whatever the new limit is) squad to win the Stanley cup, not to be in the best position in case something dreadful happens. And we do have an NHL ready goaltender in case something tragic happens to Lundqvist - his name is Kevin Weekes and I believe he's under contract for one more year.
so you trade him to move up in the draft? thats a direct contradiction......

and please, you build your system to give you the best 25 man roster. not to trade away....if you disagree, then you must have not watch hockey from 97 till this season.....

Nich is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:39 PM
  #41
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
If the interview with Ranger scout Mike Brown is to be taken with any seriousness, it sounds like Toews and NOT Staal could be the target of a draft day deal involving Montoya.
I know its not you right now, but just to get this out there...Toews' potential is not just a third line center. The way it seems like around here is that he didn't produce big numbers at the WJC and isn't outpointing Kessel so he must not be a legit offensive threat. Believe this: Toews was an offensive force on his Shattuck team, so the production is there in his past. For me I take a look at Toews and just think. He's not really dominating right now so that must mean (1) take a narrowminded view on his status as a prospect and say he's gonna stay at this level and not progress (2) or factor in freshman adjustment, previous HS dominance, and believe he'll take that step up in sophomore year with experience, physical growth, and comfort. I take number 2. Unless of course NYR pulls a VAN and takes him out of college like VAN did with Kesler.

People should know his offensive game isn't chopped liver just because he's a heady, instinctive centerman. Actually, that just makes me believe the Rangers are looking at him. The same way we've gone for Korpikoski, Staal, Sauer etc cerebral types seem like the theme.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:45 PM
  #42
MidnightRanger
Registered User
 
MidnightRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MidnightRanger
I wouldn'


Last edited by MidnightRanger: 02-13-2006 at 12:50 PM.
MidnightRanger is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:45 PM
  #43
Anthony Mauro
DB Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich
and please, you build your system to give you the best 25 man roster. not to trade away....if you disagree, then you must have not watch hockey from 97 till this season.....
So you think every prospect in the Rangers organization should be held on to and planned around for future plans? If we use that logic, we're looking at Immonen, Dubinsky, Olver, Ryan down the line as our centers. All offense. No defensive centers, no checkers.

You do trade away expendable assets...because thats what prospects and picks along with the players are...Assets. If you can do anything to improve your team now without mortgaging the future, you make that move. You trade Kondratiev for Sykora to add offensive punch.

Anthony Mauro is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:46 PM
  #44
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
I know its not you right now, but just to get this out there...Toews' potential is not just a third line center. The way it seems like around here is that he didn't produce big numbers at the WJC and isn't outpointing Kessel so he must not be a legit offensive threat. Believe this: Toews was an offensive force on his Shattuck team, so the production is there in his past. For me I take a look at Toews and just think. He's not really dominating right now so that must mean (1) take a narrowminded view on his status as a prospect and say he's gonna stay at this level and not progress (2) or factor in freshman adjustment, previous HS dominance, and believe he'll take that step up in sophomore year with experience, physical growth, and comfort. I take number 2. Unless of course NYR pulls a VAN and takes him out of college like VAN did with Kesler.

People should know his offensive game isn't chopped liver just because he's a heady, instinctive centerman. Actually, that just makes me believe the Rangers are looking at him. The same way we've gone for Korpikoski, Staal, Sauer etc cerebral types seem like the theme.
I didn't hear the interview, but I'll again allow PIZZA to describe the Ranger mindset in regards to Toews - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=4...&postcount=376

Quote:
Feels there are six or so real special players in the draft and that Jonathan Taveras (sic) is the real special one in the group. He said he hesitated to say it, but that he thought he saw in Taveras (sic) a Gretzky like anticipation.
Where have we heard that kind of talk before? As we've noticed (and you are correct to point), the Ranger management has been targetting certain types of players since the 2001 draft - Korpikoski and Staal are prime examples of their mindset. If they have the opportunity to trade Montoya to get the player they want for future #1 center, and Toews is that player, then I hope they make such a deal.

jas is online now  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:50 PM
  #45
MidnightRanger
Registered User
 
MidnightRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 1,439
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to MidnightRanger
I wouldn't trade Al because it's too early, and our Goalie pipeline behind him is rather weak. Lundqvist is great but a rookie. I want to see him do it for a while before I crown him NY Ranger Goalie of the future. I don't know if I have a Patrick Roy or an Andrew Raycroft in my hands. Not only that, but I want to see Montoya up here in a Ranger uniform and see how he handles the NHL for a year as Henrik's backup. If he is even Mediocre he will net us a lot more gold than if we trade him now. Write it down.

I don't know what the rush is this year to get a top 5 pick and trade Montoya for it, especially this love affair that most people on this board have with Jordan Staal. I was into the hype until I saw him play and he was pitiful in faceoffs and looked like he really needs ALOT and I mean ALOT of time in the minors to round his game. And he is a power forward type. While more talented than a guy like Jessiman, that is how long it's going to take to see him here. I don't believe in rushing prospects but I want to see a young player up here sooner than that. And even if Staal looks great and amazing as a PROSPECT and oozes POTENTIAL it does not mean he'll reach it and if I am going to trade Montoya RIGHT NOW I want a surer thing. And based on what I've seen from his raw play, not to mention the astronomical expectations he'll have in NY which will be ten times as big as anywhere else, and his brother also being a Ranger, not to mention his other brother is already a young star it is added baggage for a young player that needs to develop in peace to reach his potential. Forget it, I see Staal as a Ranger as too much of a problem not worth trading Montoya for.

Stay put and gold will fall to us. I whole heartedly trust this scouting staff we've had the last 3 years to find a gem. Not only in the first but in the second round too.


Last edited by MidnightRanger: 02-13-2006 at 12:55 PM.
MidnightRanger is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:54 PM
  #46
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
So you think every prospect in the Rangers organization should be held on to and planned around for future plans? If we use that logic, we're looking at Immonen, Dubinsky, Olver, Ryan down the line as our centers. All offense. No defensive centers, no checkers.

You do trade away expendable assets...because thats what prospects and picks along with the players are...Assets. If you can do anything to improve your team now without mortgaging the future, you make that move. You trade Kondratiev for Sykora to add offensive punch.

no not every, but if you only have one good prospect at a position, use common sense and realize you'll have to end up drafting another one to replace the one you just lost. and who are the other good prospects behind Al at his position? Holt??? he had a good camp, and has not had a good year since.

you can't compare our Center prospects to our Goalie prospects just because it suits you, especially when you even say that they are all offensive and we have no checkers, implying we need some of those prospects too....we only have ONE quality goaltending prospect. and if you want to talk about wasted assets, it would be a waste to unload a prospect before it reaches it's peak value...which Al hasn't done in only 1/2 a season in the AHL.

and we have the best depth at D....hence the trade of a d-man....hence pocks one week visit with the big club before the trade.

Nich is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 12:57 PM
  #47
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
So you think every prospect in the Rangers organization should be held on to and planned around for future plans? If we use that logic, we're looking at Immonen, Dubinsky, Olver, Ryan down the line as our centers. All offense. No defensive centers, no checkers.

You do trade away expendable assets...because thats what prospects and picks along with the players are...Assets. If you can do anything to improve your team now without mortgaging the future, you make that move. You trade Kondratiev for Sykora to add offensive punch.

This is the misconception some people have about building a farm system. Not every prospect, even if they are good, is going to be a Ranger for life. Some of these players will be important to the Rangers by being assets which are used to strengthen the Rangers in areas of weakness. Trading Montoya doesn't preclude the rangers from drafting a quality goalie in this year's draft. If Weekes begins to pick up his game (as he has lately) and remains a solid backup and quality teammate, then he could be here for another three years or so. If Lundqvist is the real deal, then Montoya does not have a place in the Rangers' future. And, here is where Montoya's value might not get any higher than right now - goalies take a longer to develop than forwards. A team like Florida, Chicago or perhaps even Washington might have a need for a top notch goalie prospect. But, Montoya is now two years closer than any goalie available in the upcoming draft, and has proven himself at least on the AHL level. But, as Lundqvist firmly embeds himself as THE franchise goalie, teams are going to have the edge on the Rangers, since the Rangers will eventually have to deal Montoya. Also, who/what has more value right now - Marc Staal or a top five pick in the upcoming draft?

jas is online now  
Old
02-13-2006, 01:03 PM
  #48
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
This is the misconception some people have about building a farm system. Not every prospect, even if they are good, is going to be a Ranger for life. Some of these players will be important to the Rangers by being assets which are used to strengthen the Rangers in areas of weakness. Trading Montoya doesn't preclude the rangers from drafting a quality goalie in this year's draft.
This is true, but trading away those assets doesn't make sense untill you know what those assets are. Nobody here beleives that both Montoya and Henrik are going to be here long term, but right now there is no need to move Montoya. Chances are he'll spend another ear in the AHL and then come up and be Lunqvist's back up. That gives the organization 2 years before they have to make a move, and it gives them two years to evalute who they want to keep.

xander is offline  
Old
02-13-2006, 01:07 PM
  #49
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
This is true, but trading away those assets doesn't make sense untill you know what those assets are. Nobody here beleives that both Montoya and Henrik are going to be here long term, but right now there is no need to move Montoya. Chances are he'll spend another ear in the AHL and then come up and be Lunqvist's back up. That gives the organization 2 years before they have to make a move, and it gives them two years to evalute who they want to keep.
But, if they place a higher premium on getting a player like Toews (just for example), and the cost is Montoya, I hope they make that deal. I'd rather have 1 franchise goalie and 1 franchise center, than 2 franchise goalies and NO franchise centers.

jas is online now  
Old
02-13-2006, 01:26 PM
  #50
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
but Al is worth more because he has at least shown to some extent that he can play at a high level....towes is still a crap shoot.

Nich 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 04:20 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.