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

Montoya's stock dropping?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  #26
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,907
vCash: 500
Sell high,

Dont sell low.

If you can get a decent return for him now, like Inferno said, do it.

But don't get rid of him for the sake of using him as a chip. Goalies could bloom late. Keep him in Hartford another year, maybe give a few NHL games to get his feet wet and give him a new challenge.

He might have plateaued because of that. It was tough to get him up into the NHL for a game or two because of the cap , and I think the Rangers might have early on in the season if they weren't hamstrung by that.

But if hes not moved for the right return, fine. Next year the Rangers should have more space to work him into a few game situations. Then if he does well and proves he can play his stock will rise again.

Player development could be a long, tricky process sometimes.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:50 PM
  #27
NYR_Geoff1
 
NYR_Geoff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Penn State
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR_Geoff1
I scratched my head at drafting this guy and still continue to.

I felt that at the time we had other needs than to pick up another goaltender when we drafted him.... Wasn't there anyone else that could have made more sense?

NYR_Geoff1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:53 PM
  #28
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
 
I Am Chariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 14,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR_Geoff1 View Post
I scratched my head at drafting this guy and still continue to.

I felt that at the time we had other needs than to pick up another goaltender when we drafted him.... Wasn't there anyone else that could have made more sense?

Mike Green sure looks good now

I Am Chariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:53 PM
  #29
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR_Geoff1 View Post
I scratched my head at drafting this guy and still continue to.

I felt that at the time we had other needs than to pick up another goaltender when we drafted him.... Wasn't there anyone else that could have made more sense?
What?

Rangers needed a goalie at that time.

Lundqvist was just another low round pick and Blackburn had just been injured.

But the Rangers havent been blessed in the first round thats for sure.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:54 PM
  #30
squishy
Registered User
 
squishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron View Post
Montoya probably would have won the back-up role if he had a lower contract. I think with bonuses he'd be close to $2 against the cap. Personally, I thought he outplayed Valiquette during preseason. How he'd have stood if he stayed is anyone's guess. But my opinion is that his contract kept him off the big squad.
And his contract is up this year. His bonuses are what killed him, and they'll be gone. From what I've been told, his qualifying offer will be somewhere around $730k, which is far more managable than $1.8m.

Montoya definitely has value -- to the Rangers. There is absolutely no reason to trade him at this point. Just about every team that might be looking for a goalie for this season already has big prospect of their own on its way. The Rangers are not going to get anything of great value for him. You can never have enough goaltending depth. Right now, Wiikman isn't under contract with the Rangers. Who's to say he won't see the Lundqvist roadblock and decide to look at other offers over the summer, now that he's shown he can play in North America? That would leave Holt, who hasn't even been able to win a steady job in the AHL, Zabba, who was lent out to another ECHL team because Charlotte had too many goalies, and La Fleur, who's having a craptacular season in juniors and is years away from proving whether he'll be an NHL goalie. You want to toss out the best goaltending prospect in the system for peanuts, just because he's still struggling with consistency?

squishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:57 PM
  #31
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR_Geoff1 View Post
I scratched my head at drafting this guy and still continue to.

I felt that at the time we had other needs than to pick up another goaltender when we drafted him.... Wasn't there anyone else that could have made more sense?
Wolski, Radulov, Drew Stafford, Rob Schremp, Mike Green and Zajac all went in the first round that year. We grabbed Monty and Korpikoski in the first round. Dubi, Byers and Olver in the 2nd.

So yeah, there were some much better choices. Then again, we didn't know of Henrik's potential when we drafted him.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:57 PM
  #32
alkurtz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mahopac, NY
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
The Montoya situation has been totally mishandled by the Rangers. He is retrogressing because he has not been allowed to grow. Though Valiquette has certainly done an admirable job as backup to Henrik this year, the job should have belonged to Montoya. He needed to be playing against NHL competition, not against AHL players again. Think about his mental state: top ten draft pick, two fine years in the AHL and he can't get a sniff in the NHL? He must be totally beaten down and think that no matter what he does, he will never get a shot with the Rangers. With almost any other team he would have already played a good number of NHL games and continued to grow. He is stagnating in the AHL. With Henrik's troubles this year, there was certainly plenty of times to give him a sniff at the job. A bad draft decision to start out with + total mismanagement of his development = another Ranger draft mess. I feel for the guy. Its time for the Rangers to move him and take what they can get for him. It may not be much, but he deserves the chance to make a mark for himself. How long are the Rangers planning to keep him down there...until he is a free agent?

alkurtz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 01:59 PM
  #33
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Wolski, Radulov, Drew Stafford, Rob Schremp, Mike Green and Zajac all went in the first round that year. We grabbed Monty and Korpikoski in the first round. Dubi, Byers and Olver in the 2nd.

So yeah, there were some much better choices.
what the hell is wrong with korpikoski......look at those other players....why isnt he up to at least a ppg in the ahl, isnt this his second year now?

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:06 PM
  #34
I Am Chariot
One shift at a time
 
I Am Chariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 14,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Wolski, Radulov, Drew Stafford, Rob Schremp, Mike Green and Zajac all went in the first round that year. We grabbed Monty and Korpikoski in the first round. Dubi, Byers and Olver in the 2nd.
w/ the possible exception of Mike Green, I'd take Dubi over that crew today

I Am Chariot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:08 PM
  #35
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chariot View Post
w/ the possible exception of Mike Green, I'd take Dubi over that crew today
No argument here. Although I'd probably take any of them over Korpikoski and Montoya, given what we know now of course.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:09 PM
  #36
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR_Geoff1 View Post
I scratched my head at drafting this guy and still continue to.

I felt that at the time we had other needs than to pick up another goaltender when we drafted him.... Wasn't there anyone else that could have made more sense?
at the time drafting him made all the sense in the world, blackburn had just suffered what would be a career ending injury, lundqvist was a former 7th round pick and still a long shot and our 'goalie of the future' after blackburn was jason labarbera.

yes in hindsight it was a bad pick cause we didn't need him but anyone that says they knew back in 2004 that lundqvist would turn out to be the #1 goalie they are full of crap and re-writting history based on what they know now

NYR469 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:14 PM
  #37
007
Olympic nut
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
at the time drafting him made all the sense in the world, blackburn had just suffered what would be a career ending injury, lundqvist was a former 7th round pick and still a long shot and our 'goalie of the future' after blackburn was jason labarbera.

yes in hindsight it was a bad pick cause we didn't need him but anyone that says they knew back in 2004 that lundqvist would turn out to be the #1 goalie they are full of crap and re-writting history based on what they know now
That's true, though as I recall, Montoya was expected to go to Chicago and the Rangers were expecting to pick Ruutu. Despite his injury problems, I would have loved that!

007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:15 PM
  #38
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469 View Post
at the time drafting him made all the sense in the world, blackburn had just suffered what would be a career ending injury, lundqvist was a former 7th round pick and still a long shot and our 'goalie of the future' after blackburn was jason labarbera.

yes in hindsight it was a bad pick cause we didn't need him but anyone that says they knew back in 2004 that lundqvist would turn out to be the #1 goalie they are full of crap and re-writting history based on what they know now
I was very intrigued by Hank...but I think his biggest knock that year was a perceived unwillingness to come to NA.

Shadowtron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:22 PM
  #39
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Listing every other prospect that made the show after the Montoya pick is quite disingenuous in my mind.

If you want to play "what if", it would of been Olesz.

As well posted by Squishy, it was a financial issue that kept Montoya off the team this year. You can take you pick who to blame for that (shanahan, malik, mara, drury, lundqvist etc.)

frozenrubber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:23 PM
  #40
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007 View Post
That's true, though as I recall, Montoya was expected to go to Chicago and the Rangers were expecting to pick Ruutu. Despite his injury problems, I would have loved that!
Ruutu? He was a 2001 pick...confusing it w/ Olesz?

That year, Phoenix tried bluffing the Rangers they were picking Montoya (but didn't and selected Wheeler off the board). The Rangers didn't have to trade up and grabbed Montoya (when Rangers brass knew but it still wasn't completely clear that Blackburn's career was indeed done).

frozenrubber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:25 PM
  #41
NYR_Geoff1
 
NYR_Geoff1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Penn State
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR_Geoff1
I just didn't think it made sense because of all the goaltenders that we did have at the time... but I guess none of them were going to be part of the solution either...

If I remember that year alone we played a bunch of goalies (Dunham, Markannen, McLennan, Valiquette, Weekes) plus we had others...

I actually did look at the year we drafted Lundqvist and noticed that we drafted a goalie before him in the 5th round.... Brandon Snee..... wow... how'd we find this gem before Lundy? lol...

NYR_Geoff1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:32 PM
  #42
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrubber View Post
Ruutu? He was a 2001 pick...confusing it w/ Olesz?

That year, Phoenix tried bluffing the Rangers they were picking Montoya (but didn't and selected Wheeler off the board). The Rangers didn't have to trade up and grabbed Montoya (when Rangers brass knew but it still wasn't completely clear that Blackburn's career was indeed done).
More likely he is mixing Montoya up with Blackburn.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:36 PM
  #43
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishy View Post
And his contract is up this year. His bonuses are what killed him, and they'll be gone. From what I've been told, his qualifying offer will be somewhere around $730k, which is far more managable than $1.8m.
If he is only qualified at $730M, I can easily see another team poaching him as an RFA.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:48 PM
  #44
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squishy View Post
And his contract is up this year. His bonuses are what killed him, and they'll be gone. From what I've been told, his qualifying offer will be somewhere around $730k, which is far more managable than $1.8m.

Montoya definitely has value -- to the Rangers. There is absolutely no reason to trade him at this point. Just about every team that might be looking for a goalie for this season already has big prospect of their own on its way. The Rangers are not going to get anything of great value for him. You can never have enough goaltending depth. Right now, Wiikman isn't under contract with the Rangers. Who's to say he won't see the Lundqvist roadblock and decide to look at other offers over the summer, now that he's shown he can play in North America? That would leave Holt, who hasn't even been able to win a steady job in the AHL, Zabba, who was lent out to another ECHL team because Charlotte had too many goalies, and La Fleur, who's having a craptacular season in juniors and is years away from proving whether he'll be an NHL goalie. You want to toss out the best goaltending prospect in the system for peanuts, just because he's still struggling with consistency?


spot on.

however, i think if a deal comes along where you get true value for the kid, you do it.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 02:52 PM
  #45
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop View Post
If he is only qualified at $730M, I can easily see another team poaching him as an RFA.
Maybe but I doubt it. For Montoya to sign an offer sheet it would probably have to be worth more than a million per year (which he has so far not earned) and the compensation for that is a 2nd rounder.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 03:13 PM
  #46
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
I don't see the kid...

as having much value. He's going on 23 and is splitting time in the AHL. There are a lot of goalies available out there - can't justify why Montoya currently has much value.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 03:51 PM
  #47
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
So what happened to all of the "experts" here that told me that trading Montoya last year was stupid because his value could only rise?

He could become great and people better hope so because now he fetches you next to nothing. This might explain why the announcers at that draft laughed at the ineptness of Sather's pick that year.

Hey, I like to gloat on those rare occasions when I'm proven right against the "experts".

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 04:22 PM
  #48
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Maybe but I doubt it. For Montoya to sign an offer sheet it would probably have to be worth more than a million per year (which he has so far not earned) and the compensation for that is a 2nd rounder.
If someone would poach LaBarbara as an RFA, why wouldn't a team take a chance on Al? Tampa and Chicago are two very likely suspects. The floor for a second round draft pick is $1.5MM. Looking at it objectively, why wouldn't he leave?

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 04:43 PM
  #49
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 500
There's a difference...

between Montoya and Labarbera is Labs' AHL numbers were gaudy and he has NHL experience.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2008, 05:21 PM
  #50
Celestial Black
Registered User
 
Celestial Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
I'd trade Montoya before I got rid of Vally or Wiik. Montoya is not up to NHL level from what I have seen. Especially in preseason where he was quite awful. I believe it was one of the reasons that Vally took back up, much more sturdy.

Celestial Black is offline   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 10:28 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.