HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kings need Montoya - What's a good deal to get it done?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-19-2007, 10:07 PM
  #1
LAKings4ever
Registered User
 
LAKings4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
Kings need Montoya - What's a good deal to get it done?

Since NYR has Lundqvist...Montoya is not the goalie of the future any longer. The Kings REALLY need a goalie, so what is a good proposal. The Rangers are in the better position an over small payment is not out of the question. I would start with:

Tukonen (RW) + Zatkoff (G) + 3rd round 2008

It is our #7 + #14 prospects for your #1 that won't be a factor for your organization...we are #1 in prospects, so I give our guys higher value compared to other prospects.

I am not like most posters looking for a rip off deal, just what will get it done...so the board is open...if more is needed, what would it take?

Thoughts?

LAKings4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:10 PM
  #2
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 6,038
vCash: 500
I'm sorry don't you guys have Bernier?

McNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:11 PM
  #3
RangersMoogle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
Country: American Samoa
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangersMoogle Send a message via MSN to RangersMoogle
I imagine the Rangers will wait 'til Henke's locked up in a long term deal before they do anything with Monty.

RangersMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:20 PM
  #4
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,780
vCash: 500
Something tells me that if the Rangers were to ship Monty to LA, they would be looking for a roster player in return, what with the fact that they are in "win now" mode. Unfortunately, the only Kings roster players that I would be interested in would more than likely not be available (Frolov, Brown - Kopitar is clearly out of the question), and the Rangers don't have the cap space to accommodate them anyway.

I loved Tukonen on his draft day but I'm starting to think that the amazing chemistry that that Finnish line showed during the WJCs led to many people seriously overrating these players. I would be very disappointed if Lauri was the key piece the Rangers got in return for trading Montoya.

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:21 PM
  #5
abev
HFBoards Sponsor
 
abev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Lubomir, please.

__________________
Fantasy sports betting at FakePuppy - Pick moneylines, over/unders and spreads. Totally free.
abev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:29 PM
  #6
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Jack Johnson. Id be willing to add to get him.

my proposal would be

Montoya, Dawes, a 2nd and a 3rd for Jack Johnson.


probably not enough to get it done, but it would be a good starting point.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:46 PM
  #7
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
how about Montoya, Dawes, Jessiman, and a 2nd for Kopitar and Johnson

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:53 PM
  #8
bagh
Registered User
 
bagh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by inferno272 View Post
Jack Johnson. Id be willing to add to get him.

my proposal would be

Montoya, Dawes, a 2nd and a 3rd for Jack Johnson.


probably not enough to get it done, but it would be a good starting point.
That would be really really nice of them, but I doubt they'd ever consider trading Johnson.

At this point, I think I'd much prefer picks over players. The pick we might be able to control for longer than a prospect. Also, we might not be able to squeeze in a roster
player if the cap number is too high and the picks might be easier to trade at the deadline than prospects because the picks give teams more flexibility and we all heard the hype about this draft class.

I figure trade a roster player plus decent picks for salary cap reasons.

bagh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 10:55 PM
  #9
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,885
vCash: 500
How bout we don't trade Montoya because after Lundqvist this team looks very thin in goal...

Imagine trading Montoya then losing Lundqvist long term? Who would be the starting goaltender?

The return RIGHT NOW for Montoya might not be worth pulling the trigger..The Kings need a goalie you fans can ponder what's fair value (no doubt Jort is going to come in and ruin the fair value fun) for Montoya but I doubt the Rangers trade him...


Last edited by Son of Steinbrenner: 08-19-2007 at 11:03 PM.
Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 11:01 PM
  #10
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,401
vCash: 500
is AM a RFA next summer or the year after?

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 11:22 PM
  #11
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,598
vCash: 500
There may come a time to trade Montoya, but I'm confident that time is not now.

Pass.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2007, 11:57 PM
  #12
Carlos Ranger
Zucc-a-Rella
 
Carlos Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 50
Montoya & Dawes for Frolov & 2nd rounder.

Any deal would have to include a LW with 1/2 line potential. Or a top dman, but I'd pass on Lubo.

or, how about Montoya, Cherepanov (who SHOULD have been taken at #4), 3rd rounder for Frolov & Johnson?


Last edited by Carlos Ranger: 08-20-2007 at 12:04 AM.
Carlos Ranger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:08 AM
  #13
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
We don't need your crappy prospects. We have plenty of potential 2-3 liners. Cliche was drafted by the Rangers, and he's your #9 prospect. On the Rangers, he would not be in the top dozen. Everyone's reaction to trading him away was, "oh well, he's ok, but we don't really care all that much about Cliche." So what makes you think that we'd want another player who's even with Cliche and someone even worse than him?

Why do "homers" always propose a bunch of crappy prospects for a top prospect and think they'll get away with it? And YOU KNOW your trade offer is terrible, so you think "let me throw in a #3, maybe that will add enough quantity to make my offer not so laughable".

Understand this: If your trade offer for a top prospect doesn't hurt, truly hurt, when you write the names of the people you give up, then it's a horrible offer. Nobody needs your crappy prospects with no more than third line potential.

If you want a top prospect like Montoya, you have to give us a top prospect back, meaning Jack Johnson. I asked NYR fans before if they'd do Montoya for Johnson and most said that LA would need to throw in something.

So if you want Monty, give us Johnson.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKings4ever View Post
Since NYR has Lundqvist...Montoya is not the goalie of the future any longer. The Kings REALLY need a goalie, so what is a good proposal. The Rangers are in the better position an over small payment is not out of the question. I would start with:

Tukonen (RW) + Zatkoff (G) + 3rd round 2008

It is our #7 + #14 prospects for your #1 that won't be a factor for your organization...we are #1 in prospects, so I give our guys higher value compared to other prospects.

I am not like most posters looking for a rip off deal, just what will get it done...so the board is open...if more is needed, what would it take?

Thoughts?


Last edited by Beacon: 08-20-2007 at 12:17 AM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:16 AM
  #14
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureGM97 View Post
how about Montoya, Dawes, Jessiman, and a 2nd for Kopitar and Johnson
Ok, why would someone want Jessiman? Even Dawes and #2 is nothing special. We aren't exactly being real GMs who are nit-picking the final details of a real trade. When people offer picks that are not in the first round or when they offer second-level (or less) prospects, what they mean to say, "I'll give you a bunch of my crap, for your great player"

Monty for Johnson is fair. Dawes and #2 for Kopitar isn't.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:28 AM
  #15
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,878
vCash: 500
Montoya, Lafleur and Bourret for Johnson, Tukonen and Bernier?

NYR keep some goalie depth after Lundy (Bernier is worse than Monty, but better than Laffy). Tukonen would be a downgrade on Bourret, but he's a decent prospect. Johnson would be an excellent prospect who will step in this year as a valuable rookie (as should Staal). With Johnson, Staal, Pasta, and Tyutin will be excellent top 4. Girardi is great for a #5. Plus we have Sauer, Baranka, Pock, etc. who may surprise us and make it as top 4 dmen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
How bout we don't trade Montoya because after Lundqvist this team looks very thin in goal...

Imagine trading Montoya then losing Lundqvist long term? Who would be the starting goaltender?

The return RIGHT NOW for Montoya might not be worth pulling the trigger..The Kings need a goalie you fans can ponder what's fair value (no doubt Jort is going to come in and ruin the fair value fun) for Montoya but I doubt the Rangers trade him...

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:28 AM
  #16
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Is Avery View Post
or, how about Montoya, Cherepanov (who SHOULD have been taken at #4), 3rd rounder for Frolov & Johnson?
Haha, they would have to be high to make that deal. I expect Cherepanov to be as good as Frolov, but that's yet to even be proven. And Montoya for Johnson will never happen, plain and simple. Nice to dream though...

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:32 AM
  #17
elYankee
 
elYankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: La Antigua Guatemala
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKings4ever View Post
Since NYR has Lundqvist...Montoya is not the goalie of the future any longer.
A lot of people seem to think that the Rangers are in a compromised position in terms "not needing" Montoya while Henke's on our team. And so you throw in thinking that he's devalued and your team can maybe get him on the cheap. But the fact is that there's a market for him. Other teams are interested in a top goalie prospect as well (Pheonix just to name one, especially with our boy Maloney out there now.) And a market for a player is going to have more effect than a team simply having a surplus, so whatever he's actually valued at it's that level OR MORE that you're going to have to pay.
IMO that means Johnson, at the least.

elYankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 12:46 AM
  #18
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Monty for Johnson is fair.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 02:15 AM
  #19
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,614
vCash: 500
Montoya needs to play some NHL games and do well before we can go asking for a player like Johnson.

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 02:16 AM
  #20
NYR1724
Registered User
 
NYR1724's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New York, New York
Country: United States
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
I would not call the Kings prospects crappy at all as one poster did. They have some real quality prospects, but I think the Rangers should hold onto Montoya for now. Let him keep developing, I would not mind having a situation where we could put Henke or Montoya in on a given night and really have a chance to win any game.

NYR1724 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 02:30 AM
  #21
Live in the Now
Global Moderator
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,514
vCash: 500
Awards:
Non-factor. Can't wait that long in the current NHL.

Have to get a quality goalie now, wait for Bernier and who knows where the team will be headed. Multiple options = good. And that's why the Rangers shouldn't trade Montoya.

Don't know why anyone's thinking Montoya will fetch Johnson, though. He's untradeable. You don't trade possible franchise defensemen before they get tested on a nightly basis. And that's where Carolina made their mistake, I don't think the Kings are in the same boat. Carolina made that deal to try and strengthen their team for the playoffs and got nothing out of it. The same would happen to us.

Live in the Now is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 03:00 AM
  #22
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Non-factor. Can't wait that long in the current NHL.

Have to get a quality goalie now, wait for Bernier and who knows where the team will be headed. Multiple options = good. And that's why the Rangers shouldn't trade Montoya.

Don't know why anyone's thinking Montoya will fetch Johnson, though. He's untradeable. You don't trade possible franchise defensemen before they get tested on a nightly basis. And that's where Carolina made their mistake, I don't think the Kings are in the same boat. Carolina made that deal to try and strengthen their team for the playoffs and got nothing out of it. The same would happen to us.
i was under the impression that carolina made the trade because they soured on jacks attitude.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 03:07 AM
  #23
Live in the Now
Global Moderator
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,514
vCash: 500
Awards:
Half truth.

They got pissed because he wouldn't come out of college immediately to come play for them (from the things I've read). It's their right, I suppose, after all, they made a pretty big investment in the kid when they drafted him that high, even though his contract wasn't signed yet. For the deal they got, I definitely would have waited for him to come out of college.

3rd line center and a #3 (maybe #2, most likely #3) defenseman for a possible franchise defenseman and a salary dump who will be playing in Russia this season. They had to have been mighty pissed to make that move, or mighty desperate to strengthen their team for a chance at a repeat. I think it was a combination of both.

I forgot to quote the poster who said "what about Bernier", that's what I said non-factor about. He's too far away to worry about right now.

Live in the Now is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 03:13 AM
  #24
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 21,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Half truth.

They got pissed because he wouldn't come out of college immediately to come play for them (from the things I've read). It's their right, I suppose, after all, they made a pretty big investment in the kid when they drafted him that high, even though his contract wasn't signed yet. For the deal they got, I definitely would have waited for him to come out of college.

3rd line center and a #3 (maybe #2, most likely #3) defenseman for a possible franchise defenseman and a salary dump who will be playing in Russia this season. They had to have been mighty pissed to make that move, or mighty desperate to strengthen their team for a chance at a repeat. I think it was a combination of both.

I forgot to quote the poster who said "what about Bernier", that's what I said non-factor about. He's too far away to worry about right now.
regardless, like the joe thornton trade, i cant for the life of me figure out why carolina made THAT trade. i know they asked for marc staal from the rangers straight up, which wasnt going to happen, but im sure the rangers would have made an ancillary offer that HAD to be better than what they got!

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2007, 03:22 AM
  #25
Live in the Now
Global Moderator
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,514
vCash: 500
Awards:
I'm sure they got a lot of better offers (what we, the fans would think as better). Maybe they just liked Gleason a lot. Dunno. Stroke of luck for sure.

Live in the Now is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 03:32 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.