HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

How were the rangers built?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-25-2006, 03:19 PM
  #76
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
There were plenty of teams that had the opportunity to tear it completely down and start over. The Rangers took advantage of the fact that everyone knew there'd be a salary cap and cost-certainty in the new NHL.
And they had the most payroll to unload to stock up so there was an advantage whether you see it or not. It's not like teams with 20-35m dollar payrolls can unload 20m at a trade deadline. And teams in contention do not unload.

If I recall correctly it went from 70m+ to about 38m by the time it was over. I did not see other teams with payrolls above fifty million (maybe Washington) unloading like that because it was an opportunity to tear it down and start over, of course they unloaded Jagr on the Rangers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Other teams added more salary and gutted their organization's future. Don't point to the Rangers' "cash advantage", the same moves could have been made by half the teams in the league, but they didn't. Borderline playoff teams chose to try and stock up even though they knew they had no chance of advancing far in the playoffs.

The only advantage the Rangers had was the smarts of Sather and Maloney to pull it off..
Half the clubs in the league were not operating at a payroll over 70m
so the cash advantage has to be acknowledged because you had more to unload then any other club and that helped stock the prospect pool with picks. As for the smarts of Sather (last I looked he was the only gm) his record operating in Manhattan speaks for itself so why bother going there? In fact he was so unsure of his direction he added Jagr, increasing payroll then when it was clear the club was not going to contend went upstairs as fast as he could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
That's completely false, and a poor assumption on your part. First off, Jagr was never serious about playing in Omsk. He said that in the papers just to please the Russian fans.
Why would he say anything to please anyone when he did not have to say a single word? How do you know what he was or was not serious about. In fact most of what he did say pleased no one and the more he said the worse things became.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2116505
"The situation changes by the hour," Jagr's personal trainer Marian Jelinek was quoted as saying in the daily Blesk.

It's complicated. I want to hear the opinions of both clubs. It should be solved within three weeks," Jagr told the daily Mlada Fronta Dnes, adding money was not the main factor in making a decision.
"My heart is pulling me toward Omsk but reason is making me lean toward [New York] ... I really liked it in both places."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
He had a contract with the NHL and there was no possible way he could play for anybody else but the Rangers while his contract was still in effect. If Messier came back Jagr would still be here, he had no other choice. If he returns to Omsk after his contract with the Rangers expires that's one thing, but while his contract is in effect he has to honor it and play for the Rangers or retire.
Apparently at the time he saw it differently and felt he had options, otherwise why bother in the first place?

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:21 PM
  #77
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Couple of comments on the comments:

I do think NYISLES1 brings up a worthwhile point with regard to the impact/influence Messier had on previous NYR teams, coaches and lockerooms. That is not a swipe at the guy - clearly he is one of the greats of the game and frankly, still demonstrated offensive skills at age 43 superior to those of some players half his age. But by virtue of who he was, he cast a long shadow over any team. When he retired, I think it's fair to say that the atmospherics for NYR did too. (And again, please do not misinterpret that as meaning that he was a bad guy or that insufferable, overused term "a cancer". Simply a matter of group/team/organization dynamics changing.) And I'm sure it made things "easier" for Renney this season.

***

Regarding Montoya: Got a good chuckle at the comment made by a few posters that "had Sather known Lundqvist was going to become...." Helllloooooo? Second guess, anyone? Sure. And if I knew tonight's lottery numbers....

Regardless, it's a huge mistake, IMO, to suggest that it was a dubious pick because "NYR will never get a player of equal value" (i.e., a #6 pick). What they got - and retain to this day - is a huge organizational asset. To be sure, there will be a right time to decide what to do with that asset, and at some future juncture, you reach the point of diminishing returns.

That said, the idea is not that Montoya, if/when traded, has to return a player of value equal to a #6, whatever that is.

Let's say, hypothetically, Montoya is part of a trade next season for some rickety 34 year old vet dman - who happens to be the missing piece to get NYI the Cup.

Wonder if anyone will then question the pick.

Assets.


Last edited by Trottier: 03-25-2006 at 03:47 PM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:36 PM
  #78
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
Blah. Montoya is not a bad pick. Talking about drafts in hockey within 3 years is too premature. It is only a bad pick if he doesn't pan out. There is no telling what the value for a young, potentially good goaltender will be in the future. It may be 2 or more years before he is traded. I could care less about what the Sabres got for Noronen... he hadn't played a minute all year. And it seemed to work out for them keeping all their goaltenders when Miller went down. Rolosson got a 1st round pick. I think Montoya can get at least that plus another pick.

As far as Jessiman, he may or may not be struggling but big men take longer to develop. See Bertuzzi. He was definitely drafted too high but if he pans out its a decent pickup. I could give a damn if he struggles in the AHL after missing 1 year due to injury. I'll worry about him in a couple of years.

Back to the topic, the major difference is the atmosphere. They removed most of the overpaid, complacent veterans. They brought in guys with a good work ethic that are hungry. This team works hard on almost every night, something previous Ranger teams almost never did. You can't underestimate the value of desire and hard work.


Last edited by DutchShamrock: 03-25-2006 at 03:38 PM. Reason: typo
DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:40 PM
  #79
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,314
vCash: 500
The Rangers success comes from team chemistry and the coaching of Renney and the rest of his staff. All the players fit into his system perfectly. Also Jagr being happy and surrounded by his czech friends helps out a lot too. As we look a year or so forward, we will see some of the moves that were pulled off by Sather in the "Great Purge of '04" come to life. This season is just the start for the Rangers rebuild. Next season with the probable comings of Jarkko Immonen (From the Leetch trade), Nigel Dawes (A steal from the 5th round i believe?), and possibly Marc Staal the Rangers future looks bright. These are just a few prospects that should be coming up next season. In regards to Montoya, he is not just an organizational asset. He is going to be a trade assest as well. Very few organizations can tout having two future francise goalies. I mean the kid is an allstar in his first year in the AHL. Teams that are lacking in the goaltending department prospect wise are probably biting off at the bit to acquire him. As he gains more experience his value will only increase. Soon (hopefully next season, I don't know Weekes' contract status off the top of my head) he will be Lundqvists backup and gain some NHL experience. If he proves he can play as well in the NHL as he is in the AHL his value will be more then a "#6" draft pick. I will agree with you Islander fans (Can't believe I am) that right now he is more of an organizational asset then a trade asset. As each year goes on and he proves himself more and more, his value will switch from an organizational asset to a trade asset (A trade asset that will bring back a lot more then a #6 pick). The key is just holding on to him as long as possible to increase his value. Plus I am looking forward to a Lundqvist-Montoya combo on the big club. Thats a possible one-two punch that no NHL team has had in years, if not decades.

UAGoalieGuy is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:51 PM
  #80
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UAGoalieGuy
In regards to Montoya, he is not just an organizational asset. He is going to be a trade assest as well.
Apparently you lost something in the translation. What exactly do you think "organizational asset" implies? (And I followed up with a hypothetical trade scenario, in case one didn't get it to begin with.)

Not a big deal, but please read more carefully.

Trottier is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:56 PM
  #81
HVPOLARBEARS19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Country: Israel
Posts: 2,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HVPOLARBEARS19 Send a message via MSN to HVPOLARBEARS19
As a Ranger fan I think that Sather gets too much credit in turning this team around. Basically what happened was there was a huge fire-sale at the end of 2003-2004, basically every player worth anything was dealt. Luckily for the Rangers, some teams over paid (the Leafs for Leetch), as we got Kondratiev, who was later dealt for Sykora (this was a very good deal so I do give Sather credit for that) and Jarkko Immonen who will be in our lineup next season almost certainly. There was a lot of other dumb luck in there too. Prucha showed he could play in camp and gained a spot and a few other players who had been busts have played very well for us. Over the summer we signed Jason Ward who has been nothing but superb for us. He dissapointed in Montreal and was let go, he actually was a former 1st round pick in I believe was 1997 but don't quote me on that. Other guys like Ortmeyer and Dominic Moore have played terrific energy hockey and have killed penalties pretty well. When Weekes got hurt early Lundqvist got the chance to start and he played great and has been the #1 ever since, but Weekes has also played quite well for us. Players like Hollweg also have stepped up and played well, and the team basically looks like the Czech olympic team which helps Jagr.

HVPOLARBEARS19 is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:00 PM
  #82
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Apparently you lost something in the translation. What exactly do you think "organizational asset" implies? (And I followed up with a hypothetical trade scenario, in case one didn't get it to begin with.)

Not a big deal, but please read more carefully.

Sorry about that I was just breezing through all these posts. Kind of annoying reading through 4 pages of posts. I took organizational asset as a prospect thats going to help the team out in the future as a player on the parent club. I didn't take it as far as including trade value in the definition. I didn't take your trade scenario into consideration when I was writing up that post, just trying to state that he will be able to bring back higher value then a #6 pick in a trade (IF he continues to develop as he is now. You never know with goalies plus they tend to develop later then regular players)

UAGoalieGuy is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:12 PM
  #83
Cherepanov 71
Registered User
 
Cherepanov 71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
While at the time of the draft I was not happy about the Montoya pick because I thought we could of gotten a real talent at foward...example..Turkonen(sp), drafted by LA at 11. Right now I am very happy to have two potential #1 goalies in the system(Lundqvist in NHL). The injury to blackburn is a good example of how quickly you can loose great talent, but Montoya also offers you a valueable trading piece. Come this years draft, or maybe next years, the rangers need a potential #1 center, and im pretty sure Montoya will be dealt in some sort of package to move up and get that prospect we need. I think its safe to say the Rangers will try to move up and draft Jordan Staal, the type of player they need.

Cherepanov 71 is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:15 PM
  #84
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HVPOLARBEARS19
As a Ranger fan I think that Sather gets too much credit in turning this team around. Basically what happened was there was a huge fire-sale at the end of 2003-2004, basically every player worth anything was dealt....There was a lot of other dumb luck in there too....
Did these players all just magically show up at the front entrance to MSG one day, on their own?

"Dumb luck" is drafting Prucha? Dumb luck is seeing something in Ward after his failures elsewhere? Dumb luck is engineering the "fire sale"trades of spring '04?

I call that strong management, and player personnel evaluation. There are about 25 other teams who wish their GM had such dumb luck.

Get past the biases. When a team fails the guy at the top gets the blame. When a team succeeds, he deserves the credit. Can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UAGoalieGuy
Sorry about that...
No worries.

Trottier is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:18 PM
  #85
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Did these players all just magically show up at the front entrance to MSG one day, on their own?

"Dumb luck" is drafting Prucha? Dumb luck is seeing something in Ward after his failures elsewhere? Dumb luck is engineering the "fire sale"trades of spring '04?

Funny. I call that strong management, and player personnel evaluation. There are about 25 other teams who wish their GM had such dumb luck.

Get past the biases. Whehn a team fails the guy at the top gets the blame. when a team succeeds, he deserves the credit. Can't have it both ways.

Wow I agree with you again. Although I would praise other people in the management such as don maloney as well as Tim Renney and the rest of the Rangers coaching staff. I am sure they played a huge role in this as well. Not to mention their scouts

UAGoalieGuy is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:34 PM
  #86
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Not a great pick? This is why you're not a scout, nor a GM. You take the best player available, regardless of position. Many teams have this philosophy.
Apparently your not a scout or a gm either and did not agree at all with the philosophy your defending today compared with what posted on draft day 2004:

brought to you by the magic of HF.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=86736
OFFCIAL #6 Thread. Rangers select AL MONTOYA!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Well, it certainly does suck. Olesz and Tukonen were there for the taking.
Schremp and Thelen are still available at number 11. I suspect LA to take Schwarz, but I hope we can trade up to grab Thelen. That would save the day, IMO.
General rule of thumb - first reaction is the most honest one and you have to stand by your views.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Where the discrepancy lies is where these teams have goaltenders ranked on their lists. The Rangers have had a draft show for the past few years where they take a look in the war room, talk to scouts, share info on the process, etc. They showed the Rangers draft list, and they had Montoya as the 4th best player available. The Rangers always stick to their list in the first few rounds, then later in the draft they may stray away from it if a scout is adamant about taking a flyer on a certain player. At 6th overall, the Rangers had a chance to take what they had ranked is the 4th best player available, and they jumped on it. He was the BPA and filled an organizational need at the time, with Blackburn injured and Lundqvist still an unproven commodity in North America. They killed two birds with one stone.

Now, looking back, even with the emergence of Lundqvist, it's still a great pick. Who else should the Rangers have taken at 6th overall? Who, if anybody, has emerged as a top player from the few taken after Montoya? Olesz has had concussion problems and at best looks like a second line player. I don't see first-line upside. Picard? Smid? Valabik? Tukonen? Valabik? Would anybody take any of these guys at this point in time over Montoya? Perhaps Smid, but even that is highly debatable. You tell me who they should have picked instead of Montoya, coming off a fabulous world junior performance where he won the gold medal for USA and with franchise goaltending potential. His play in the AHL has done nothing to make anyone think he wasn't worth the 6th overall pick.
I'll let you tell me who they should have taken once....again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Well, it certainly does suck. Olesz and Tukonen were there for the taking.
Schremp and Thelen are still available at number 11. I suspect LA to take Schwarz, but I hope we can trade up to grab Thelen. That would save the day, IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Because Montoya has potential to be a star in this league. What makes you think just because the Ranges have Lundqvist that they are going to give away Montoya for cheap? What's wrong with having two solid goaltenders in today's NHL? Anything can happen, from fluke injuries to the Jim Carey syndrome to god know's what. A team will give up a lot for Montoya because he is that good.
Nothng wrong with having two solid goaltenders in today's NHL except at some point only one can play and the seventh rounder has the first rounders spot and that's why a team will not have to give up a lot for Montoya because it's the Rangers who will have to make a trade.

Montoya was not drafted with expectations of losing his spot to a seventh rounder. Pittsburgh did not give Andy Chiodo, MA Fluery's job, Milbury did not hand Wade Dubielewicz, Rick DiPietro's job.

I'm not sure he will or will not be a star in this league, that said he's unlikely now to get an opportunity to prove he is a star and if he is the goaltender to be traded they will be moving him at a disadvantage. He had a poor final season in Michigan, a brutal WJC and has been injured this season in the AHL and the seventh round pick has a gold medal and is the clubs starter. Why are they going to call him up to sit aa often as Kevin Weekes next season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Why must they get rid of Montoya? Why can't they have a two-headed monster at the goaltending position? Minnesota did it for a few years and it worked out well for them.
It does not work that way with goaltenders drafted that high, not at Montoya's age and not in this era where UFA comes early.

Were Dwayne Rolsson or Manny Fernandez top rated draft picks? How many NHL teams have they been employed for and how well did Rolosson have to play (note the word play which is something Montoya will not be doing often in Manhattan) to prove he was worth a first round pick in a trade with Edmonton that will be much lower than sixth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
And Ari Ahonen? Come on now. Ahonen could not beat out Scott Clemmensen for the backup spot to Martin Brodeur. He's a borderline NHL player. Comparing him to Montoya is like apples and oranges.
Ari Ahonen was a first round selection in 1999 by the Devils, comparing him at that time to Montoya (who was selected in a weak draft) is a very good comparative because he represents a goaltender who never got a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
General rule of thumb - don't comment on things that you have no knowledge of because it just makes you look foolish. Here you tried to make a point, got called out on it, then tried to wiggle your way out of it by saying it's not the point.
General rule of thumb is I can comment on anything I care to regarding hockey discussion. This is a hockey discussion board and we talk hockey and agree/disagree respectfully. If the best you can do is call my viewpoint foolish apparently you do not have many quality points to offer yourself and that's disappointing because that's not what hockey discussion is about.

Also if your going to spin what I wrote to make it sound like I wriggling out of something it would be nice if you quoted everything written and stood by the points you made in 2004 instead of taking a completely different stance today for your own benefit.

NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:39 PM
  #87
VEGASRANGERFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
Not really, high first round draft picks have nothing to do with why they're succeeding.

1998 - 7th - Manny Malhotra - traded for Rucinsky (who left as a UFA, and later returned) and Roman Lyahenko (R.I.P)

1999 - 4th - Pavel Brendl - traded for Lindros, who left as a UFA

1999 - 9th - Jamie Lundmark - traded for Jeff Taffe - traded for Martin Sonnenberg

2000 - no first round pick - dealt for Bure, who retired

2001 - 10th - Dan Blackburn - retired due to injury

2002 - no first round pick

2003 - 12th - Hugh Jessiman - struggling in the AHL

2004 - 6th - Al Montoya - playing well in the AHL

2005 - 12th - Marc Staal - playing well in the OHL
wow, with the exception of the last 2 (hopefully 3) that's about 6 or 7 straight years of terrible drafts!

VEGASRANGERFAN is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 04:39 PM
  #88
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 9,314
vCash: 500
I don't think NYIsles likes Draft Guru too much

UAGoalieGuy is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 09:06 PM
  #89
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Apparently your not a scout or a gm either and did not agree at all with the philosophy your defending today compared with what posted on draft day 2004:


General rule of thumb - first reaction is the most honest one and you have to stand by your views.
Are you serious? Honestly, are you serious? This is absolutely erroneous. Debate with what was said in this thread, not with comments that were made TWO years ago. I can't believe you would stoop so low to have to spend time digging up comments made two years ago that are completely irrelevant to this debate. This cracks me up.

Did it really bother you that much that I tore your points to shreds that you actually took the time to look up my comments on the day of that draft? Since when is the first reaction the most honest one? Things are said in the moment and in the heat of battle that more often than not are not really meant. This is THE general rule and can be applied to almost anything.

Those were my comments made at the moment of the selection, when everyone is caught up in the hype and the whirlwind of the NHL draft. But who cares. The points I made were the ones expressed in this thread. If you can't debate them, that's your fault and shows your inability to have a discussion on this subject. You need to pull up comments from two years ago in order to make a poor attempt at heeling the wounds that I have opened by destroying your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Nothng wrong with having two solid goaltenders in today's NHL except at some point only one can play and the seventh rounder has the first rounders spot and that's why a team will not have to give up a lot for Montoya because it's the Rangers who will have to make a trade.

Montoya was not drafted with expectations of losing his spot to a seventh rounder. Pittsburgh did not give Andy Chiodo, MA Fluery's job, Milbury did not hand Wade Dubielewicz, Rick DiPietro's job.
You have this huge misconception that the Rangers won't get a good return on Montoya. They don't have to deal him. They can keep and pay for two top goaltenders, that's their perogative. Most likely they will wind up trading Montoya, but it's not a given. They're not going to trade Montoya for cheap just because they HAVE to make a trade. When they make a trade, they'll get something in return that they are happy with. Maybe it won't be the same value as a 6th overall pick as you say, but tell me now, what exactly is the value of a 6th overall pick? That's not for you to decide.

And tell me how Montoya lost his job to a seventh rounder? Again, your statements are absolutely irrelevant. What job did Montoya have that he lost? Kevin Weekes lost his job to Henrik Lundqvist, NOT Al Montoya. Lundqvist is two years older, had tons of experience internationally at a high level and against men. The Rangers knew he'd be further along in his development at this point in time than Montoya. Montoya's not ready for the NHL, he's still two years away. And by that time, Lundqvist will be 26 and who knows where his game will be by that time. He could be a two-time Vezina winner, or he could be a Jim Carey. Montoya never lost his spot to a 7th rounder, because it was NEVER his spot in the first place.

You keep making this mention of the seventh rounder beating out the first rounder. Speaking of seventh rounders beating out first rounders, Henrik Lundqvist was taken 205th overall in 2000. That's 204 spots after your prized child Rick DiPietro was selected. Henrik Lundqvist is one of the top goaltenders in the NHL today. He's 2nd in goals against, 3rd in Save%, won a gold medal for his country and has his team in first place in their division. The Rick on the other hand is 34th in goals against, 26th in save % and his team is outside the playoffs. Not to mention his country was knocked out in the quarterfinals. What a shame that the Rick has allowed a 7th rounder to perform better than himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
He had a poor final season in Michigan, a brutal WJC and has been injured this season in the AHL and the seventh round pick has a gold medal and is the clubs starter.
A poor final season in Michigan? Perhaps his numbers were not as good as the two years prior, but since when is a 2.52 goals against average "poor"? Look at DiPietro's 3.14 GAA, if 2.52 is poor, then what is a 3.14? And for goaltenders, the one stat that really matters is wins. Montoya was 30-7-3 his final season in Michigan. He obviously was doing something right to win 30 of 40 games.

He wouldn't be the first top prospect, and definitely not the last, to have a poor showing at the WJC. There are a myriad of reasons for his sub-par performance, but the fact is he was phenomenal the year before and has a gold medal to show for it, and that's all that matters.

He's battled the injury bug this season a bit, but his numbers are still well worth noting. He's 20-5-1 with a 2.54 GAA and a .910 save percentage. That's phenomenal numbers for a rookie goaltender in a professional league. This guy just wins game, plain and simple. This guy's been a winner at every level he's been at. He has played in 26 games of record and has won 20 of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
It does not work that way with goaltenders drafted that high, not at Montoya's age and not in this era where UFA comes early.
This new era is new territory for everyone involved. We haven't had enough time yet under this new CBA to see how things will turn out. You can make your own assumptions as to how you see things playing out, but that doesn't mean it's exactly what is going to happen. Who's to say Montoya will leave as a UFA when he turns 27? It's too early to speculate. We're talking about 6 years down the road. The Rangers have 6 years before they have to make a decision before risking losing him for nothing. That's a ton of time to figure out their goaltending situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Were Dwayne Rolsson or Manny Fernandez top rated draft picks? How many NHL teams have they been employed for and how well did Rolosson have to play (note the word play which is something Montoya will not be doing often in Manhattan) to prove he was worth a first round pick in a trade with Edmonton that will be much lower than sixth.
You totally missed the point. The point was it has been proven that a team can have two quality goaltenders that can split time, be happy and be successful. All this about high picks and what not is nonsense. All I'm talking about is it's possible for teams to have two quality goaltenders, as it has been done before.

"note the word play which is something Montoya will not be doing often in Manhattan" - Are you sure of that? Can you really predict the future? How about telling me what tonight's lotto numbers are, if you are so smart and feel confident making definitive statements about the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Ari Ahonen was a first round selection in 1999 by the Devils, comparing him at that time to Montoya (who was selected in a weak draft) is a very good comparative because he represents a goaltender who never got a chance.
There couldn't be a worse comparative ever made. Ahonen was drafted 27th overall in his draft year; Montoya was drafted 6th. There's a big difference right there. Not to mention that Ahonen was NEVER viewed as a bluechip prospect and a potential franchise goaltender. He didn't have a gold medal and a dominating performance at the WJC under his belt, nor two excellent seasons at a top collegiate program like Michigan.

Ahonen's draft year was weak, that is a fact. It's way too early to call the 2004 draft a weak draft. Most of the players are still in junior, college or the minors. But any draft that produces the likes of Ovechkin and Malkin can NOT be considered a weak draft. Experts who said the 2004 Draft was weak at the time were referring to the dip in talent after the first round. The top talent was on level with past years; it was the depth of 2004 that gurus and experts said was weak.

Your reason for this comparative is because Ahonen "represents a goaltender who never got a chance." Again, Montoya is 21 and in his first pro season. Why are you so adamant in your belief that he will never get a chance? You don't know that for sure, you don't know what will happen. Quit making these definitive statements where you think you know for sure what will happen, because they really are laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
General rule of thumb is I can comment on anything I care to regarding hockey discussion. This is a hockey discussion board and we talk hockey and agree/disagree respectfully. If the best you can do is call my viewpoint foolish apparently you do not have many quality points to offer yourself and that's disappointing because that's not what hockey discussion is about.

Also if your going to spin what I wrote to make it sound like I wriggling out of something it would be nice if you quoted everything written and stood by the points you made in 2004 instead of taking a completely different stance today for your own benefit.
I have no quality points? That's hilarious. I have to waste my time to prove time and time again how ridiculous your points are. Every point you have made is irrelevant and off-base. You needed to go and pull up comments I made two years ago to try and gain some leverage in this discussion because you were being torn to pieces.

How about following this general rule of thumb: debate with the opinions that are at the head of this debate and what is stated in this thread, not comments that were made two years ago that are completely erroneous. Talking about spinning what is said. You felt the need to bring up erroneous information to try and gain some sort of leverage here, because it pains you deeply to lose a debate to a Rangers fan on any subject.

Your hatred and bias towards the Rangers is the worst kept secret on these boards. Everybody knows it, it's evident in almost every post. If you want to have a healthy debate/discussion, do it objectively and without bias. You have yet to demonstrate the ability to do that when it comes to a discussion about the Rangers.

You know what's really disappointing? After of all of this, the best you could do was bring up comments made two years ago that were in the heat of the moment and completely irrelevant to this discussion at hand and the points that were made. If you can't debate with the points at hand, don't debate at all. Save yourself the embarrasment.

Owned again.


Last edited by Draft Guru: 03-25-2006 at 09:22 PM.
Draft Guru is online now  
Old
03-25-2006, 09:14 PM
  #90
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGASRANGERFAN
wow, with the exception of the last 2 (hopefully 3) that's about 6 or 7 straight years of terrible drafts!
While our first round picks haven't been something to write home about, our picks in later rounds have been quite impressive.

In the 2001 draft alone, we pick up Tyutin, Garth Murray, Bryce Lampman, Marek Zidlicky and Ryan Hollweg in round 2 or later.

Lundqvist was a 7th round pick in 2000, Moore was a 3rd round pick in 2000, Prucha was an 8th round pick in 2002, etc.

Our first rounds, however, have been on the upswing since Renney and Maloney took over the draft operations.

Draft Guru is online now  
Old
03-25-2006, 10:46 PM
  #91
Garbs
Registered User
 
Garbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,821
vCash: 500
I imagine blindfolds were involved for awhile there.

Garbs is offline  
Old
03-26-2006, 03:29 AM
  #92
Milpool
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRL
i think this team will be a final 4, great goaltending, tons of skilled forwards, great role players and i love the acquistion of ozo, he fits this team perfectly.

so how did sather turn a laughing stock of a franchise to a cup contender?

what trades, signings etc. built this team?
Well, Jagr's the best scorer in the league when he cares, and he's found his mojo again, so there's one point. Dumping the egos of the past was also important. Lindros, Fleury, and even Messier were hurting the team more than they helped it these past few years. Replacing them with a good coach and a bunch of young enthusiastic kids willing to buy into his system usually yields good results - the fact it took so little time is impressive. Late round drafting also seemed to be a strong point for the Rangers. Finally, some rather clever signings by Sather (prior to this season I never thought I'd say that) like Straka & Nylander, the emergence of Lundqvist, and a lot of luck. Imploding the team and starting again was the best thing Sather could do, and as you can see, it couldn't have worked out much better.

Milpool is offline  
Old
03-26-2006, 03:42 AM
  #93
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,983
vCash: 500
Mod fight! Mod fight!

Can you warn each other?

Transported Upstater is offline  
Old
03-26-2006, 07:54 AM
  #94
NYIsles1*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,539
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Are you serious? Honestly, are you serious? This is absolutely erroneous. Debate with what was said in this thread, not with comments that were made TWO years ago.
Your here talking about draft philosophy and how teams must take the BPA and defending the process and telling us up and down the line how it's supposed to work. So what's not relevant about the fact that you said the exact opposite about this player and your philosophy the day he was selected?

I remember how upset folks were when Montoya was drafted and curious if your viewpoint was consistent or you were here defending a pick based on the laundry they now wear and it took a minute to find out.

Seems like your little more a salesman defending any player in the teams laundry and of course your entitled to but there is nothing irrelevant about the fact you do not believe yourself in the philosophy your claiming is the correct one.

Why not just tell the truth and write from the beginning you did not like where they took a goaltender with that pick but it's worked out because you got a good goaltender in the end? Other folks who were Ranger fans did. Montoya seems like a good kid and a solid prospect, why bother with the sales spin where the prospects have to be defended to the point your upset with anyone making any comment that is not absolutelty positive like you did with Jessiman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Those were my comments made at the moment of the selection, when everyone is caught up in the hype and the whirlwind of the NHL draft. But who cares. The points I made were the ones expressed in this thread. If you can't debate them, that's your fault and shows your inability to have a discussion on this subject. You need to pull up comments from two years ago in order to make a poor attempt at heeling the wounds that I have opened by destroying your position.
There is no debate or discussion if you cannot stand by the philosophy your claiming is the way things should be done, between your comments on Jessiman defending him to a point you have to sell his development, you telling us what Jagr was doing when you have no idea of the man's thought process was makes you sound like someone wrapping themselves up in the teams flag to defend anything they do. My position is the 2005-06 Rangers are a very good team, deserve plenty of credit for what they have done and it's not necessary to spin every single point to prove to others they may have made a decision that could backfire, enjoy what Lundqvist has done and see what happens with Montoya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
You have this huge misconception that the Rangers won't get a good return on Montoya. They don't have to deal him. They can keep and pay for two top goaltenders, that's their perogative. Most likely they will wind up trading Montoya, but it's not a given. They're not going to trade Montoya for cheap just because they HAVE to make a trade. When they make a trade, they'll get something in return that they are happy with. Maybe it won't be the same value as a 6th overall pick as you say, but tell me now, what exactly is the value of a 6th overall pick? That's not for you to decide.
The only one with a misconception here is you. I never wrote they would not get a good return, I wrote they would not get value equal to that of a sixth overall pick and that's the difference. Thank you for agreeing with my point that they most likely will have to trade Montoya because you do see what I see, even though nothing is a given buit it's more than fair speculation. As for what I decide this is a hockey message board, neither one of us decide anything, we talk hockey and were both entitled to our perspective, just would be nice to see your perspective be consistent.

Are you going to say next year Montoya was a terrible pick, let me know so I can fit my consistent philosophy with your changing philosophy depending on the day of the week. Talk about spin?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
And tell me how Montoya lost his job to a seventh rounder? Again, your statements are absolutely irrelevant. What job did Montoya have that he lost? Kevin Weekes lost his job to Henrik Lundqvist, NOT Al Montoya. Lundqvist is two years older, had tons of experience internationally at a high level and against men. The Rangers knew he'd be further along in his development at this point in time than Montoya. Montoya's not ready for the NHL, he's still two years away. And by that time, Lundqvist will be 26 and who knows where his game will be by that time. He could be a two-time Vezina winner, or he could be a Jim Carey. Montoya never lost his spot to a 7th rounder, because it was NEVER his spot in the first place.
What's irrelevant about my statement that Montoya may have to be traded, you speculated about the same thing yourself? We'll see what happens but if Lundqvist is as good as both of us seem to think he is the seventh rounder will win the job in the long-term over the sixth overall pick and the club will be dealing from weakness because Montoya commands a first rounders contract and the Rangers cannot carry a backup making that much to sit in the NHL long-term.

When teams use sixth overall picks on goaltenders, it's alway for the future of the franchise, not for competition with lower round picks or marginal veterans. Seems like Montoya is no longer the future of the Rangers franchise in goal if things stay as they are. All other teams work those franchise goaltenders in and clear the way for that goaltender to get an opportunity for the same reasons LaBarbera was dumped so Montoya could have a starters job somewhere if he did not make the club in camp.

Sure looks like he lost his spot from here. Lundqvist keeps this up and Montoya will never see a starting job on the Rangers, congrats you got a quality goaltender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
You keep making this mention of the seventh rounder beating out the first rounder. Speaking of seventh rounders beating out first rounders, Henrik Lundqvist was taken 205th overall in 2000. That's 204 spots after your prized child Rick DiPietro was selected. Henrik Lundqvist is one of the top goaltenders in the NHL today. He's 2nd in goals against, 3rd in Save%, won a gold medal for his country and has his team in first place in their division. The Rick on the other hand is 34th in goals against, 26th in save % and his team is outside the playoffs. Not to mention his country was knocked out in the quarterfinals. What a shame that the Rick has allowed a 7th rounder to perform better than himself.
Is this what your reduced to when you cannot make a quality discussion?
DiPietro is not the topic so why bring him up. All I have done is praise Lundqvust and what he has done because it's well-deserved while talking about Montoya perhaps having to be traded. Your only proving you have no point if you have to take the discussion to shots at the Isles because you have nothing else and need to get your digs in at DiPietro (who's had a great second half) too bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
He wouldn't be the first top prospect, and definitely not the last, to have a poor showing at the WJC. There are a myriad of reasons for his sub-par performance, but the fact is he was phenomenal the year before and has a gold medal to show for it, and that's all that matters.
Everything matters, his draft year, his poor performance at the WJC and the outstanding play the previous year at the WJC and his season at Hartford this year, all the positives/negatives, absolutely everything and it's why he did not get every single opportunity to win the job on a team that supposedly was rebuilding in
05-06. To dismiss anything again sounds like you simply selling the laundy, not how the player in the laundry performs.

For someone who talks about philosophy and how organizations evaulate how things work you display an alarming lack of objectivity when it comes to how things really work behind the scenes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
He's battled the injury bug this season a bit, but his numbers are still well worth noting. He's 20-5-1 with a 2.54 GAA and a .910 save percentage. That's phenomenal numbers for a rookie goaltender in a professional league. This guy just wins game, plain and simple. This guy's been a winner at every level he's been at. He has played in 26 games of record and has won 20 of them.
You really have to stop listening to Dolan's salesman on MSG because you sound like the people forced to spin the truth to sell the product to stay employed and you have to do your own homework. Nice to quote numbers but more important to know what's really happening and what folks around the club are saying.

http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-wolfpack0326.artmar26,0,3749408.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports
Tigers Tee Off Early On Montoya

A lackluster start and shaky goaltending by Al Montoya helped
Bridgeport score four goals in 6:21 of the first period on the way to
a 6-3 victory before 5,592 at the Civic Center. The six goals tied the most the Pack allowed this season, and Montoya was pulled for the fifth time in 14 starts. He was 7-0-1 with five no-decisions since a 2-1 loss to Providence Jan. 20, but was replaced four times.

"They were a little more emotionally prepared to play, and Monty once
again had a dreadful start," Pack coach Jim Schoenfeld said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
This new era is new territory for everyone involved. We haven't had enough time yet under this new CBA to see how things will turn out. You can make your own assumptions as to how you see things playing out, but that doesn't mean it's exactly what is going to happen. Who's to say Montoya will leave as a UFA when he turns 27? It's too early to speculate. We're talking about 6 years down the road. The Rangers have 6 years before they have to make a decision before risking losing him for nothing. That's a ton of time to figure out their goaltending situation.
Seems reasonable but even now it's tough to see Montoya getting an opportunity, especially in a capped-league where a goaltender who likely signed a deal at the rookie cap level and has bonus clauses will want his opportunity sooner than later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
You totally missed the point. The point was it has been proven that a team can have two quality goaltenders that can split time, be happy and be successful. All this about high picks and what not is nonsense. All I'm talking about is it's possible for teams to have two quality goaltenders, as it has been done before.
Thirty teams, find me a situation where this senario worked long-term recently and let's not go with Esche-Nittymaki because that's who is the best goaltender for that stretch of games, the days of Smith-Resch or Beezer-Richter seem to be over for good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
"note the word play which is something Montoya will not be doing often in Manhattan" - Are you sure of that? Can you really predict the future? How about telling me what tonight's lotto numbers are, if you are so smart and feel confident making definitive statements about the future.
Definitive statements? No. Reasonable speculation? Yes. You wrote the same thing about Montoya perhaps being traded so apparently you have the same speculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
There couldn't be a worse comparative ever made. Ahonen was drafted 27th overall in his draft year; Montoya was drafted 6th. There's a big difference right there. Not to mention that Ahonen was NEVER viewed as a bluechip prospect and a potential franchise goaltender. He didn't have a gold medal and a dominating performance at the WJC under his belt, nor two excellent seasons at a top collegiate program like Michigan.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1999e.html
Ok, goaltender Brian Finley was drafted sixth over by Nashville in 1999 (same as Montoya), to this day he had played one career NHL game for the Predators organization.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=00031770

He never got a chance either, not as a starter or a backup. Not with Dunham or Vokun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Your reason for this comparative is because Ahonen "represents a goaltender who never got a chance." Again, Montoya is 21 and in his first pro season. Why are you so adamant in your belief that he will never get a chance? You don't know that for sure, you don't know what will happen. Quit making these definitive statements where you think you know for sure what will happen, because they really are laughable.
How many times in this thread did I write anything can happen and there are no absolutes? Adamant is your word, nothing is definitive but there is reasonable speculation the same that brought you to write: Most likely they will wind up trading Montoya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
I have no quality points? That's hilarious. I have to waste my time to prove time and time again how ridiculous your points are. Every point you have made is irrelevant and off-base. You needed to go and pull up comments I made two years ago to try and gain some leverage in this discussion because you were being torn to pieces.
I'm not sure what we get for winning or losing discussions at HF, I never looked at them in that manner but it's not much to ask if the person your having a discussion with can at least be honest enough to stand by their philosophy, after you fail to do that there is not much left because it's over before it starts and no one get's anything out of it.

How can you have a quality point when you make claims like this, we know nothing about how Jagr thinks and why he said what he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
That's completely false, and a poor assumption on your part. First off, Jagr was never serious about playing in Omsk. He said that in the papers just to please the Russian fans.
After that your reduced to agreeing with me on Montoya possibility being traded, have to take slams at DiPietro, the Islanders and myself because that's all you have left?

I know all my points were on-base from Messier to Jagr to Montoya to Lundqvist to how well the Rangers have done this season. Some were positive, others not so and absolutely the Rangers deserve a lot of positive discussion, it's been well-earned.

But not spin. Unfortunately you seemed to take on ANYONE in this thread who wrote anything you did not like. A quality point is one you stand by, not one you change to get what you call leverage, discussing hockey is not about leverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Talking about spinning what is said. You felt the need to bring up erroneous information to try and gain some sort of leverage here.
I took your own words to see if the point you were making was one you really thought, apparently not. Nothing erroneous about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Your hatred and bias towards the Rangers is the worst kept secret on these boards. Everybody knows it, it's evident in almost every post. If you want to have a healthy debate/discussion, do it objectively and without bias. You have yet to demonstrate the ability to do that when it comes to a discussion about the Rangers.
Frankly I have little to write about the Rangers this season that cannot be positive because they have earned it by their play and deserve the praise as quickly as they got the criticism back when they were struggling and that's why there is a thread like this. If the topic is what turned this around and I bring up Messier's absense it's fair to say I'm entitled to that viewpoint and I think it's a fair and reasonable one and I'm sure I'm not alone in that viewpoint.

Anything else take please it off the board so folks can keep talking hockey, I'm not interested in continuing this any further.


Last edited by NYIsles1*: 03-26-2006 at 09:39 AM.
NYIsles1* is offline  
Old
03-26-2006, 09:09 AM
  #95
Cake or Death
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draft Guru
Your hatred and bias towards the Rangers is the worst kept secret on these boards. Everybody knows it, it's evident in almost every post. If you want to have a healthy debate/discussion, do it objectively and without bias. You have yet to demonstrate the ability to do that when it comes to a discussion about the Rangers.

You know what's really disappointing? After of all of this, the best you could do was bring up comments made two years ago that were in the heat of the moment and completely irrelevant to this discussion at hand and the points that were made. If you can't debate with the points at hand, don't debate at all. Save yourself the embarrasment.

Owned again.
In all honesty, are you kidding me? I am a Rangers fan myself. But your own immense bias toward the Rangers, and the red and blue tinted glasses you see through when you defend everything in the Rangers favor, leaves you little room, in my opinion, to call anyone else biased.

And as I am a mod/admin at three other hockey boards, I have to question some of your comments. At my other boards, our objective as mods is to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we expect of members, not take personal jabs and passive-agressive stabs at other mods, or say "owned again."

We also, publicly at least, try to support one another, not attempt make each other look like idiots. Nothing personal against you, but at my other boards, we have a hidden mod area and that is where we work these things out. That's where we take our jabs at one another. Or through private messages. And to be honest, I am not even singling you out, as I have seen shaky mod-directed comments from a few other mods.

If you guys have these issues, can you not work them out somewhere that is not public? Doing it in public forums does not make a great impression of the boards, and on some level, however slight it may be, it undermines the moderators here.

I don't mean to attack you or anything, but I simply don't think public forums is the place for mods to be going at it like this. I also think you are failing to see your own immense bias, but if you care to look, this thread on its own is littered with it.

 
Old
03-26-2006, 09:41 AM
  #96
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Your here talking about draft philosophy and how teams must take the BPA and defending the process and telling us up and down the line how it's supposed to work. So what's not relevant about the fact that you said the exact opposite about this player and your philosophy the day he was selected?

Seems like your little more a salesman defending any player in the teams laundry and of course your entitled to but there is nothing irrelevant about the fact you do not believe yourself in the philosophy your claiming is the correct one.

Why not just tell the truth and write from the beginning you did not like where they took a goaltender with that pick but it's worked out because you got a good goaltender in the end? Other folks who were Ranger fans did. Montoya seems like a good kid and a solid prospect, why bother with the sales spin where the prospects have to be defended to the point your upset with anyone making any comment that is not absolutelty positive like you did with Jessiman.
It doesn't matter what I said then, this is what I'm saying now and this is what I believe in. Perhaps my philosophy has changed over time, but generally as one grows older one grows more wiser. Excuse me for knowing a tad bit more now than I did two years ago. Is that a sin? I'm telling you what my philosophy is, and you're telling me it's not. Believe whatever you want to believe, pal.

I'm not a salesman. I follow this team daily. I know more about them and their prospects and their situation then you will ever know. Therefore, I feel it's my responisibility to take offense to these false assumptions and misconceptions expressed by fans of other teams. I don't defend everything the Rangers do or will ever do, but I will defend what I believe in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
There is no debate or discussion if you cannot stand by the philosophy your claiming is the way things should be done.
I told you what my philosophy is, and I'm standing by it. Have I changed my philosophy in this thread? No I haven't. You've tried to spin it as I have changed my philosophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
The only one with a misconception here is you. I never wrote they would not get a good return, I wrote they would not get value equal to that of a sixth overall pick and that's the difference.
I asked you to tell me what exactly is the value of a 6th overall pick that they should expect in return. You failed to answer that, showing that you obviously have no clue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Thank you for agreeing with my point that they most likely will have to trade Montoya because you do see what I see, even though nothing is a given buit it's more than fair speculation. As for what I decide this is a hockey message board, neither one of us decide anything, we talk hockey and were both entitled to our perspective, just would be nice to see your perspective be consistent.
Again, I said the team probably will wind up trading Montoya, based on what we've seen from Lundqvist, BUT it is not definite and not a sure thing. You keep making it out to sound like it's a sure thing and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Are you going to say next year Montoya was a terrible pick, let me know so I can fit my consistent philosophy with your changing philosophy depending on the day of the week. Talk about spin?
This is hilarious. Show me where my philosophy has changed depending on the day of the week pal. My philosophy is consistent with my beliefs right now. In a few years, maybe I will change my philosophy. Is that against the rules? Do people not make changes over time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
All other teams work those franchise goaltenders in and clear the way for that goaltender to get an opportunity for the same reasons LaBarbera was dumped so Montoya could have a starters job somewhere if he did not make the club in camp.

Sure looks like he lost his spot from here.
Again, your facts are wrong. Labarbara was not "dumped", the Kings swooped in and offered him a one-way NHL contract, which he took and ran. Us failing to re-sign him was not dumping him, as you say.

And again, the starting job was never Montoya's in the first place! How could you lose something that isn't yours? Tell me that please, I'm dying to know! Coming into training camp the Rangers very well knew that Weekes and Lundqvist would be the goaltenders in New York, and Montoya would be in the AHL. So what has Montoya lost??

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Is this what your reduced to when you cannot make a quality discussion? DiPietro is not the topic so why bring him up.
You keep making it known that a 7th rounder beat out a 1st rounder, when that's really irrelevant. That 7th rounder was more further along in his development and older at this point in time than the 1st rounder. The 7th rounder hasn't beaten out the 1st rounder in anything just yet. When Montoya is ready for prime time, then we shall see. The inclusion of DiPietro was to show how stupid your point was in relation to 7th rounders beating out 1st rounders. I could have used any 1st round goalie as an example, but I chose DiPietro because he's someone you would know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
it's why he did not get every single opportunity to win the job on a team that supposedly was rebuilding in 05-06.
The organization never had any intentions of holding a competition for spots in New York. It was Weekes and Lundqvist all the way. He wasn't ready and thus was never given any opportunity. The Rangers were rebuilding, but rebuilding with Weekes and Lundqvist at the helm. They had the luxury of being able to develop a goaltender at the minor league level, and not be forced to rush him into the NHL much like the Islanders did with DiPietro. And we've all seen how that turned out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Nice to quote numbers but more important to know what's really happening and what folks around the club are saying.
The Rangers have been very happy with Montoya's development. Sure, he's had a few bad games but he's a first year pro. Since when do first year pro's not struggle at times with the adjustment? Is it a sin to have a few bad games? Overall, his numbers are excellent, and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Definitive statements? No. Reasonable speculation? Yes. You wrote the same thing about Montoya perhaps being traded so apparently you have the same speculations.
The way you wrote everything, you sure do make it sound like it's definitive statements. I wrote that sure, it's a possibility he might be traded, I acknowledge that, but I did not make definitive statements like you chose to do, like you're an expert on this situation or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl1999e.html
Ok, goaltender Brian Finley was drafted sixth over by Nashville in 1999 (same as Montoya), to this day he had played one career NHL game for the Predators organization.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=00031770

He never got a chance either, not as a starter or a backup. Not with Dunham or Vokun.
Again your lack of knowledge shows itself. Now you're trying desperately to salvage your argument and you're trying to make a foot fit in a glove. Finley's situation is entirely different. He has battled injury problems all through his development. He lost a good portion of his final season in junior and his first year of pro hockey to injury. For a young goaltender, development time is crucial. Finley lost two years and development time and thus that is two years he can't get back, and is two years behind schedule. Again, this comparative is apples and oranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
I'm not sure what we get for winning or losing discussions at HF, I never looked at them in that manner but it's not much to ask if the person your having a discussion with can at least be honest enough to stand by their philosophy, after you fail to do that there is not much left because it's over before it starts and no one get's anything out of it.
My philosophy is what I say it is. It is you who is trying to portray that I have changed my philosophy according to something I've posted TWO years ago. Shall I go through all your posts from years ago to to see if you have said the same things? I think I'll save my time. Thanks anyway. It's not much to ask of you to debate with what I'm saying now, not with some quick comments I made on the day of the draft two years ago. But apparently it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
After that your reduced to agreeing with me on Montoya possibility being traded, have to take slams at DiPietro, the Islanders and myself because that's all you have left?
There's a lot more in my arsenal, more than you will ever know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
But not spin. Unfortunately you seemed to take on ANYONE in this thread who wrote anything you did not like. A quality point is one you stand by, not one you change to get what you call leverage, discussing hockey is not about leverage.
So why did you take the time to go look up my comments two years ago then? If it wasn't to gain leverage, than what was the point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
As for bias you made me a topic of discussion instead of discussing the point abd had to employ the word foolish (which has no place anywhere here) because you had little else to make a good discussion with. It's disrespecful and you even have to take your digs at the Islanders who have no place here in the discussion proving your own bias.
You made yourself a topic of discussion by making definitive statements on a situation that you really don't know much about. I employed the word foolish because it was appropriate. You made a point, were called out on it, then tried to wiggle out of it. That was foolish.

And you wanna talk about disrespectful? Respect is something that you have to earn, and so far you have yet to do so. You have never shown any respect towards another Rangers fan on this board, ever. Look in the mirror first. You have a bias that is unlike any I've ever witnessed in my 10 years on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYIsles1
Anything else take please it off the board so folks can keep talking, not really interested in continuing this any further regardless of what you write here.
I don't see anybody else talking or trying to have a continuing discussion on this topic. Don't start something unless you have the intention of finishing it. You're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk too. You can go ahead and walk away from what you started if you'd like. It would just show the type of man you are. I guess you want to prevent any further damage being done to your reputation.


Last edited by Draft Guru: 03-26-2006 at 09:49 AM.
Draft Guru is online now  
Old
03-26-2006, 09:44 AM
  #97
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,955
vCash: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExtremeHockeyFan
I don't mean to attack you or anything, but I simply don't think public forums is the place for mods to be going at it like this. I also think you are failing to see your own immense bias, but if you care to look, this thread on its own is littered with it.
I don't see it as mods going at it. He is a poster of this site and so am I. He has a position, and I have a position. We are having a debate. The fact that we are both mods is irrelevant. I'm not allowed to be involved in any debates because it looks bad? If you want to look at this as a mod fight, that is your perogative.

Draft Guru is online now  
Old
03-26-2006, 10:33 AM
  #98
gobolt7
Registered User
 
gobolt7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida.
Country: Ireland
Posts: 11,254
vCash: 500
This has run its course.

Closed.

gobolt7 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 07:55 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.