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.
Exactly. What good does Montoya do us UNLESS something bad happens to Lundqvist?
What some people are failing to realize is that goalies tend to go DOWN in value when they spend an extra couple of years in the organization and move to an NHL level backup before being dealt. This close to his draft year and coming off of an all-star caliber AHL year, teams may still be viewing Montoya on his potential. Goalies more than any other position are subject to the "flavor of the month" syndrome and Montoya may lose value if he sits in our organization trapped behind Lundqvist for two years or so. SO... I say trade him now when you could conceivably land a #1 center prospect for him straight up. 'Cause in two years, he might not be enough to land you someone in the first round, much less the top 8.
And Nich, leave the BS "guess you haven't been watching hockey since 97" or whatever comments on the playground, okay? Really, what does it add to the conversation?
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.
well, I agree that you have to make exceptions sometime. It depends on what the price is. If it's montoya and the 06 #1 and the 06 #2 to move up to #4 then I think your paying too much. If it's a #2 plus Montoya, then i think that might be reasonable. The point is that Montoya is an A level prospect and he alone should be just about enough to get the deal done. I think some of the posters on this board are underrating his value.
it adds to the conversation because as you said we use our assets to put the best team on the ice...we did that from 97 to 2003....always trading youth for people that would get us a better core of 25....and look how that ended up. hence it isn't always about the 25, but more about the next 25 as well.
it adds to the conversation because as you said we use our assets to put the best team on the ice...we did that from 97 to 2003....always trading youth for people that would get us a better core of 25....and look how that ended up. hence it isn't always about the 25, but more about the next 25 as well.
Um, yeah, but doesn't change the fact that it's needlessly dismissive and, frankly, rude.
Besides, now that I understand what you were trying to say, there're a couple of big flaws with that reasoning:
1)What about 1994 when we traded away kids for vets that helped us win the Stanley Cup? (By the way, for the record I wasn't in favor of all of those trades.)
2)The proposed trade in this thread is NOT prized prospect for damaged Eric Lindros. It's shift value from a position where you already have significant young talent (G) to a place where you have no 1st line caliber young talent (C).
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.
And if your franchise goalie turns out to be a one-year wonder like Carey, what then? Now you have no franchise goalies and are forced to go out and draft one again, in hopes that he can be as good as Montoya.
Trading Montoya makes no sense whatsoever. He needs to hone his skill in Hartford for one more year, and then serve as Henke's understudy for another two years. Only at that point, will you have an idea of who is the better NHL goaltender. It makes no difference to me which one of them is our backstop for the next decade, but I would prefere to keep the better one.
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.
Yes, Toews is more of a crapshoot right now. But, I'm going to cut this scouting staff a break right now. If they feel that Toews could be a special player, and that Montoya is the price they are willing to pay for him, I'm willing to trust their judgement. What the saying in football..."if you think you have two #1 QB, you don't have any"... same goes for #1 goalies. At some point, Montoya's value goes down. Right now, Montoya has proven he can play at the AHL level, and in fact, be an All-Star. The year he makes the Rangers, he becomes a young backup that the Rangers are going to be forced to move.
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.
i'm not dissing Al, but to what extent has he really shown he can compete at a high level? he has played reasonably well on the wolfpack, but the few times i have actually seen him play on other stages he's been downright terrible. do people still generally think he has more upside than Lundqvist at this point?
And if your franchise goalie turns out to be a one-year wonder like Carey, what then? Now you have no franchise goalies and are forced to go out and draft one again, in hopes that he can be as good as Montoya.
Trading Montoya makes no sense whatsoever. He needs to hone his skill in Hartford for one more year, and then serve as Henke's understudy for another two years. Only at that point, will you have an idea of who is the better NHL goaltender. It makes no difference to me which one of them is our backstop for the next decade, but I would prefere to keep the better one.
Yes, but you could say the same thing about Montoya. For example, apparently he looked like crap at the all star game. And don't forget that Henke also looked world-class at the highest possible level LAST year - just because it wasn't in North America, doesn't mean it's not legit.
Have trust in your scouts, make informed decisions and then make the moves in which you have the most confidence. At the end of the day, every possible decision (including holding on to a player) is a bit of a crap shoot. Again, I'm not saying take wild risks (and if they did trade Montoya, I would certainly advocate spending 2 or 3 picks on goalies later in the draft), but make the moves to field the best 25 man squad.
A squad with a top five goalie/capable backup combo at G plus a true 1st line center as #1 C is better than a squad with top five goalie/top five goalie combo at G plus a capable backup as #1 C.
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 02-13-2006 at 02:02 PM.
And if your franchise goalie turns out to be a one-year wonder like Carey, what then? Now you have no franchise goalies and are forced to go out and draft one again, in hopes that he can be as good as Montoya.
Trading Montoya makes no sense whatsoever. He needs to hone his skill in Hartford for one more year, and then serve as Henke's understudy for another two years. Only at that point, will you have an idea of who is the better NHL goaltender. It makes no difference to me which one of them is our backstop for the next decade, but I would prefere to keep the better one.
Okay, someone remind me when Jim Carey had proven not only at the NHL level but in international competition that he was one of the world's best goalies? That, to me, is where the Lundqvist comparison's to Carey or Blaine Lacher falls apart. Lundqvist has excelled on the world stage, and is now dominating in the NHL. He has a more proven track record than someone like Carey. I'll take my chances with Henke at this point being the franchise goalie, and getting a special player (in Mike Brown's words), like Toews (if that deal is indeed available) for the cost of Montoya. You, TB, are one of the people who complains that the Ranger prospect pool lacks a surefire big time prospect that can play on the top line. If the Ranger scouting department feels that Toews or Staal or Mueller are that type of player, that I would expect them to trade from an area of depth to fill a weakness.
=You, TB, are one of the people who complains that the Ranger prospect pool lacks a surefire big time prospect that can play on the top line. If the Ranger scouting department feels that Toews or Staal or Mueller are that type of player, that I would expect them to trade from an area of depth to fill a weakness.
See, that's just it. Does having Montoya represent "depth", the way that having Suaer, Taylor, Pock, Lampman, Liffiton, Flatt, Guenin & Staal represent depth? I would say, no. To me, there is every bit the possibility that Montoya may even be better than Lundqvist. I am not willing to trade until there is more in the pipeline than Holt. Further, I am not willing to trade Montoya until an educated idea can be formed of whom will be better, him or Henke.
You do not have to tell me about the lack of a "big time prospect that can play on the top line". I bemoan that fact all the time. However, maybe I am just gunshy following the landing of two big time prospects that are sure-fire top liners, namely Brendle & Lundmark.
Montoya represents the real deal to me. Wait for a few years when you have a better idea of who will make the better goalie. If Henke continues to excel at his rate, and Montoya looks like he can even be better, then Henke's trade value will be quite high.
We are supposed to be rebuilding. Let's have patience so that we can go forth into the next decade with our best foot forward. I know that we need a big-time top line prospect. But let's hold off on dealing a kid who could has potential to be the best in the NHL at his position.
Yes, but you could say the same thing about Montoya. For example, apparently he looked like crap at the all star game. And don't forget that Henke also looked world-class at the highest possible level LAST year - just because it wasn't in North America, doesn't mean it's not legit.
BRF,
I understand where you are coming from. Indeed, if I was not so gunshy following all of the trades that wend awry under both Smith and Sather, I would probably advocate the same things as you. I DO think that Henke is legit. But, no, I am not sure. I have (as have you) seen far too many one-year wonders. Let's hold off and see if indeed Henke is the real deal. Let's hold off and wait until we can have a better idea of who is better amongst the two.
See, that's just it. Does having Montoya represent "depth", the way that having Suaer, Taylor, Pock, Lampman, Liffiton, Flatt, Guenin & Staal represent depth? I would say, no. To me, there is every bit the possibility that Montoya may even be better than Lundqvist. I am not willing to trade until there is more in the pipeline than Holt. Further, I am not willing to trade Montoya until an educated idea can be formed of whom will be better, him or Henke.
You do not have to tell me about the lack of a "big time prospect that can play on the top line". I bemoan that fact all the time. However, maybe I am just gunshy following the landing of two big time prospects that are sure-fire top liners, namely Brendle & Lundmark.
Montoya represents the real deal to me. Wait for a few years when you have a better idea of who will make the better goalie. If Henke continues to excel at his rate, and Montoya looks like he can even be better, then Henke's trade value will be quite high.
Two points -
(1) I wouldn't lump Staal (and to a lesser extent, Sauer) in with the likes of Taylor, Guenin, Flatt and Liffiton in terms of depth on the blueline. Staal has the potential to be special. Yes, so does Montoya, as did Lundqvist.
(2) I have more faith in this scouting staff right now that you do. if this staff decides that the orghanizaion iscomfortable where Lundqvist is at and can eventually take this team AND that Toews (for example, again I'm using Rich Brown's words) can be a special player, and they are willing to use montoya to get him, I'm going to trust them right now. For better or worse, this the staff that decided that Tyutin was a potential top D man (e gets closer to it every day), Prucha is a quality player (there's a top six forward), Jason Ward could have value, Blair Betts could be a legitimate checking center, Marc Staal was a quality prospect, and young players like Greg Moore and Jarrko Immonen are quality prospects that should be targeted. (Throw in that Rockstrom was probably responsible for the selection of Lundqvist, and he's still here.) Many of the Ranger prospects are developing beyond previous expectations...Moore and Dubinsky, for example. So, while you may be gunshy, I'm a lot more trusting of their opinion right now. And, while Renney has his flaws, I have long had faith in his ability to judge talent. I give him credit for the acquisition of Betts, and the selections of Prucha and Staal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
We are supposed to be rebuilding. Let's have patience so that we can go forth into the next decade with our best foot forward. I know that we need a big-time top line prospect. But let's hold off on dealing a kid who could has potential to be the best in the NHL at his position.
So how is trading for a potential #1 center in the upcoming draft, (which is what I'm discussing), who may also be one of the best at his position, not continuing to rebuild. If you told me you didn't want to part with Montoya for, say, Brad Richards, I could see your point. But, trading one potential franchise player at a position where you believe you already have one for a potential franchise player at a position where you don't have one would fall exactly in with the philosophy of rebuilding. And, don't use Milbury and the trade of Luongo to FLA, and then selecting DiPietro as an example. Neither Kvasha nor Parrish were ever seen as potential franchise players. In fact, you could argue that Kvasha and Parrish were the lesser of the players to be moved in that deal. Milbury gave up a MORE developed #1 goalie, a future #1 center and a chance to select a top line forward, (Heatly or Gaborik), for an unproven #1 goalie, a 2nd line forward on a good team (Parrish) and, well, Kvasha.
BU withstood it, and Roche was there to counter. Both of the winger's goals were pretty - he threaded the needle with a backhander for his first and fired home a slapper for his second off a nice Pete MacArthur pass.But maybe an even more impressive difference in Roche's recent play has been his defensive effort. On one occasion Friday, when defenseman Sean Sullivan pinched in on the left side of the BU offensive zone, Roche sensed that the puck was coming out and slid back to take Sullivan's spot in the neutral zone. He scooped it up, retreated and then restarted the Terrier rush
(1) I wouldn't lump Staal (and to a lesser extent, Sauer) in with the likes of Taylor, Guenin, Flatt and Liffiton in terms of depth on the blueline. Staal has the potential to be special. Yes, so does Montoya, as did Lundqvist.
I agree that Staal is head and shoulders above the rest of the defensive prospects and Sauer is next in line. They, along with Tyutin, give us "quality depth". The others, until they show any differently, just give us depth. However, there is not equivalent in goalies to any of those guys right now. Montoya has as much, if not a better chance, than Staal to be a star in the league.
Quote:
So, while you may be gunshy, I'm a lot more trusting of their opinion right now. And, while Renney has his flaws, I have long had faith in his ability to judge talent. I give him credit for the acquisition of Betts, and the selections of Prucha and Staal.
You are absolutely right. That could be the reason why you would make such a trade and I would not. After a decade's worth of mistakes, errors and further drafting embarassments, I would rather hold off on trading a franchise-type goalie.
Quote:
So how is trading for a potential #1 center in the upcoming draft, (which is what I'm discussing), who may also be one of the best at his position, not continuing to rebuild.
Because, IMO, the rebuild short-circuits if Henke falters next year and suddenly you are left with Holt as your heir-apparent.
Quote:
But, trading one potential franchise player at a position where you believe you already have one for a potential franchise player at a position where you don't have one would fall exactly in with the philosophy of rebuilding.
I do not mind doing exactly what you are advocating, just not right now. In fact, I expect exactly something like that to get done. I would just rather wait a few years before I feel comfortable in making the choice of whom to trade.
This upcoming draft seams weaker in terms that there seems to be an enigmatic view of the prospects after the top lets say 8. The more I think about it, its wiser to keep Montoya right now although previously I might have advocated a deal into the top picks of this draft but might as well wait for next year's draft. There might be the potential number one center the rangers crave for in this draft and hope they get it but right now I wouldn't be too content of dealing Montoya. Maybe a more surefire number one center in next years draft.
Right now, the Rangers youth lies from the net and out. With Lundqvist playing extremely well (above expectations for some)and Montoya in net the future is bright. Whatever Montoya turns into he's an asset for this organization and is playing well in the AHL. He's still young and very confident and the value will depend on Montoya's play. So far and thats all you can see...is that hes showing he can play at the higher level, next step is the NHL.
We have to hope that Lundqvist can perform this well for more than just this year. If he has a very average season next season, many people are going to be like, "That's why he was an 8th rounder". I do think that Lundqvist is the real deal and has been playing really well but let's not judge him solely on this season. We have to hope he can do this for the years ahead. Look at Andrew Raycroft...he's being chased out of Boston now and nobody wants him. Obviously, if you compare Raycroft and Lundqvist each in their rookie seasons, Lundqvist' performance is much better. So yeah, that's a tough comparison but I'm just throwing it out there.
If Lundqvist has a solid season next year and Montoya plays well in the AHL, I would consider dealing Montoya. There's no need to rush Montoya out of here just yet.
I remember watching the Blueshirts Inside/Out (the first season) and Dean Lombardi, then the GM of the Sharks, loved the Rangers pick of Roche.
I read before that this team weakness is the top six forwards while its true to an extent there are prospects like Brandon Dubinsky, Ryan Callahan, Cliche, Helminen, Ryan Rusell, Dawes that are slowly creeping into that category but I do agree that right now there is no clear cut top line players. Even Prucha before was not even in top ten of the Rangers prospect list. Look what he has turned into. So far he is showing he can be a capable 2nd line player maybe later on will turn into a first line player but definitely top six. Im just saying that this players whom Rangers critics have said BEFORE were 3rd and 4th line players, look what they are turning into. I understand the sentiment of being realistic but at the mean time look at what this bunch of prospects are doing.
Within the last eight drafts Simon Gagne (22, 1998), Scott Gomez (27, 1998), Martin Havlat (26, 1999), Alexander Steen (24, 2002), Marek Svatos (227, 2001), Jarret Stoll (36, 2002), PETR PRUCHA (240, 2002) and Henrik Zetterberg (210, 1999) have all come pick 20 and later. That's just established NHL forwards and I'm sure that I'm missing people. I'll take my chances with our pick and hold onto Montoya for at least another year.
OK, and I might agree with you that hanging onto Montoya made more sense IF this was Henke's first year at the top level or goalies maintained their value. But all of you who are saying that we need to hold on to Montoya for one more year are ignoring:
1) The fact that Henke is now on his 2nd year of playing at the absolute pinnacle of his sport. How many years does he have to put up in a row before you would consider him safe?
2) While waiting for Henke to put up yet another year, odds are that Montoya's value drops. The further he gets away from his draft year, the less sexy he is to other teams. And that's assuming that he stays on top of his game (and let's face it, we've seen more inconsistency from him over the last two years than we have from Henke). I'm not saying that this is right or fair, it's just what happens to AHL/backup goalies even when they have truckloads of talent. So while we're making Henke take another year to prove himself (unnecessarily), Montoya is no longer enough to trade into the top 10 picks next year.
Besides, my understanding was that although the overall draft class is weak, it's strong at top of the first round centers. And there are no top 10 pick worthy netminders. This is the ideal situation in which to deal Montoya. Is this dynamic expected to be repeated next year as well?
Edit: Zil, correct me if I'm wrong, but while all of those players are no doubt great, none of them is a true first line center along the lines of a Joe Sakic/Peter Forsberg/Mike Modano.
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 02-13-2006 at 04:31 PM.
Besides, my understanding was that although the overall draft class is weak, it's strong at top of the first round centers. Is this expected to be true of next year as well?
I think it's been proven that all of that strong draft/weak draft stuff is crap. Otherwise most of the guys I listed would not have been available so late in the draft. In retrospect most drafts come out pretty even and I trust our European scouts.
I think it's been proven that all of that strong draft/weak draft stuff is crap. Otherwise most of the guys I listed would not have been available so late in the draft. In retrospect most drafts come out pretty even and I trust our European scouts.
I agree...if a team has good scouts within the organization, they can draft well. We've been great in the later rounds and that's why I believe that with our 1st round pick this year, we should just pick the best available forward or defenseman. There's no need to take a chance with a project when we have later picks for that. That's why I loved the Staal pick so much...it was the best available defenseman and we didn't mess around by picking someone who has question marks.
Lets remember that the scouts aren't always brilliant with those "surefire" prospects at the top of drafts. For example in Jagr's draft he went fifth after Owen Nolan, Petr Nedved, Keith Primeau and Mike Ricci. Granted Primeau turned out to be pretty good, but Jagr is clearly the best of that five by a wide margin. Lets not forget Brendl and Lundmark too quickly.
to Renney about the selection
