MESSAGE BOARDS TOOLS:  Search | Members | User Control Panel |   | Login 


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:34 am 
User avatar
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 4869
Location: Portland, OR
MikeH wrote:
aeroclearica wrote:
MikeH wrote:
Quote:
Say what you want about Montoya and his potential but he's had a bad year, he's oft-injured and his trade value had diminished a lot in the past year.


Even if this is the case (which I don't buy his diminished value), why would you trade someone with tremendous upside for spare parts? I don't buy David LeNeveu having near the upside that Montoya has. Of course the Rangers goalie coach will say he likes him. What's he supposed to say, "Uhhh, we got this clown. He's no good."? LeNeveu has not shown he deserves to be in the NHL at all, and is almost two years older than Montoya.

BTW, Montoya still managed a .908 save percentage and a 16-8-3 record for Hartford this year despite him being in the midst of a "bad year".

I think Al needed a change of scenery more than anything. Hank blocking him was not a good situation for either party and I respect the Rangers giving Al a chance somewhere else. Only problem for Al is I do not think Phoenix is too good for him either. Time will have to tell on this one.


Maybe you trade a goalie with "tremendous upside" for spare parts because that's all you can get? Just because you think he has a future as a #1 goaltender somewhere doesn't mean that GMs around the league do. What does it say that the one GM that Sather got to bite was none other than former Assistant GM of the Rangers, Don Maloney. Maybe LeNeveu doesn't have the potential that Montoya does, but who's to say that Al's shown that he deserves to play in the NHL? Now I agree that a change of scenery doesn't hurt and maybe he turns into the goalie that you think he will, but there is no question that his value has diminished from say at least a year ago. Why else would the Rangers only net a 4th liner, a career AHL'er and a goalie who might never sniff the NHL, when last year he was the centerpiece in packages for top fowards.


I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.


Al Montoya, whatever potential he might have, had no future in the Rangers organization. He was never going to unseat Henrik as the goaltender. What's the point of holding onto him and continuing to force him to play in Hartford or sit on the bench in New York? His value, if anything, would continue to diminish and it's unfair to him as a person.

They should have traded a year or two ago. It was clear at this point that the Rangers had no need for him which is not a great position to be in trade-wise.

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted them to do then. Should they have just kept him on the Wolfpack with the goal to win a Calder Cup and then see him walk and get absolutely nothing in return? What exactly was the advantage of keeping him?

_________________
did you ever wake up with bullfrogs on your mind?
tadpoles swimming up and down your spine?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:41 am 
User avatar
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 4869
Location: Portland, OR
Softwhere wrote:
MikeH wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.

Mike this is Sather we are talking about. Outside of the Avery deal, the only thing Sather knows how to do is spend money. How else do explain giving two good-very good players Superstar type money?

Give it another couple years and Sather will have this team back in the same place as it was before the lockout. In fact, if it wasn't for the lockout and the salary cap that came as a result, the Rangers would still be the Knicks of the NHL.

BTW, I do have to give Sather credit for bringing in Tom Renney, who I think is a very good coach.


Those two superstar players happened to be key components on two of our bigger rivals. It's not like he went out with the intention to just sign anybody, the idea was to hurt the competition in the process.

Beyond that, your analysis of Sather would have been accurate a few years ago, but with the salary cap in the NHL he has changed (some might say changed back) to the better, smarter Sather. Dubinsky, Staal, Dawes, Henrik, these are all young guys brought up through the system who have the chance to be a great foundation for years to come. And the Avery move was beyond brilliant, I know he's bat-sh*t crazy, but he's also the heart of the team and in many ways should probably be wearing the C.

Also, Renney is a horrible coach. He mixes lines like he's playing three card monte, never allowing any consistency, doesn't seem to have much control over the locker room, plays too conservatively at times, and often looks clueless. With the amount of talent on this Rangers team they should have, AT LEAST, 10 more points in the standings.

Best coach in the NHL, for my money, is Nolan, what he's been able to do with close to no talent for two straight years out on the Island is amazing.

_________________
did you ever wake up with bullfrogs on your mind?
tadpoles swimming up and down your spine?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:35 pm 
Offline
Prospect

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:32 pm
Posts: 244
Your Icon wrote:
Softwhere wrote:
MikeH wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.

Mike this is Sather we are talking about. Outside of the Avery deal, the only thing Sather knows how to do is spend money. How else do explain giving two good-very good players Superstar type money?

Give it another couple years and Sather will have this team back in the same place as it was before the lockout. In fact, if it wasn't for the lockout and the salary cap that came as a result, the Rangers would still be the Knicks of the NHL.

BTW, I do have to give Sather credit for bringing in Tom Renney, who I think is a very good coach.


Those two superstar players happened to be key components on two of our bigger rivals. It's not like he went out with the intention to just sign anybody, the idea was to hurt the competition in the process.

Beyond that, your analysis of Sather would have been accurate a few years ago, but with the salary cap in the NHL he has changed (some might say changed back) to the better, smarter Sather. Dubinsky, Staal, Dawes, Henrik, these are all young guys brought up through the system who have the chance to be a great foundation for years to come. And the Avery move was beyond brilliant, I know he's bat-sh*t crazy, but he's also the heart of the team and in many ways should probably be wearing the C.

Also, Renney is a horrible coach. He mixes lines like he's playing three card monte, never allowing any consistency, doesn't seem to have much control over the locker room, plays too conservatively at times, and often looks clueless. With the amount of talent on this Rangers team they should have, AT LEAST, 10 more points in the standings.

Best coach in the NHL, for my money, is Nolan, what he's been able to do with close to no talent for two straight years out on the Island is amazing.


Renney is not a horrible coach, come on. Sure he jumbles his lines a ton, but I don't think it goes unjustified. Give him credit for the Avery-Dubi-Jagr line because if he stood pat this line never would've flourished. Also, he did a good job of having Dubinsky play on the 3rd line to get his game together and raise his confidence and now he's playing on the top line because of it. I don't know why you would insist that he doesn't have control of the locker room either (what, because Marek Malik snubbed him at some point?). I feel like every time this team hits a rut and Renney challenges this team to respond, they always rise to the occasion. Consistency being an issue or not, he's probably the best coach we've had since Keenan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:43 pm 
Offline
Prospect

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:32 pm
Posts: 244
MikeH wrote:
Hey, hey, hey. Let's not bring Blair Betts into this. I have a soft spot for him.

:lol:

And the trade worked out well for the Flames too. Simon was a good enforcer for us and I do not think Betts would have gotten any playing time in Calgary.


I forget, was that the year the Flames made it to the finals? Agreed that it was a good deal for both sides. Simon was good for the Rangers too, hard to believe what's happened to him since.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:35 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Franchise Player

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Posts: 3623
Location: Shea
Your Icon wrote:
MikeH wrote:
aeroclearica wrote:
MikeH wrote:
Quote:
Say what you want about Montoya and his potential but he's had a bad year, he's oft-injured and his trade value had diminished a lot in the past year.


Even if this is the case (which I don't buy his diminished value), why would you trade someone with tremendous upside for spare parts? I don't buy David LeNeveu having near the upside that Montoya has. Of course the Rangers goalie coach will say he likes him. What's he supposed to say, "Uhhh, we got this clown. He's no good."? LeNeveu has not shown he deserves to be in the NHL at all, and is almost two years older than Montoya.

BTW, Montoya still managed a .908 save percentage and a 16-8-3 record for Hartford this year despite him being in the midst of a "bad year".

I think Al needed a change of scenery more than anything. Hank blocking him was not a good situation for either party and I respect the Rangers giving Al a chance somewhere else. Only problem for Al is I do not think Phoenix is too good for him either. Time will have to tell on this one.


Maybe you trade a goalie with "tremendous upside" for spare parts because that's all you can get? Just because you think he has a future as a #1 goaltender somewhere doesn't mean that GMs around the league do. What does it say that the one GM that Sather got to bite was none other than former Assistant GM of the Rangers, Don Maloney. Maybe LeNeveu doesn't have the potential that Montoya does, but who's to say that Al's shown that he deserves to play in the NHL? Now I agree that a change of scenery doesn't hurt and maybe he turns into the goalie that you think he will, but there is no question that his value has diminished from say at least a year ago. Why else would the Rangers only net a 4th liner, a career AHL'er and a goalie who might never sniff the NHL, when last year he was the centerpiece in packages for top fowards.


I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.


Al Montoya, whatever potential he might have, had no future in the Rangers organization. He was never going to unseat Henrik as the goaltender. What's the point of holding onto him and continuing to force him to play in Hartford or sit on the bench in New York? His value, if anything, would continue to diminish and it's unfair to him as a person.

They should have traded a year or two ago. It was clear at this point that the Rangers had no need for him which is not a great position to be in trade-wise.

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted them to do then. Should they have just kept him on the Wolfpack with the goal to win a Calder Cup and then see him walk and get absolutely nothing in return? What exactly was the advantage of keeping him?


If you hold onto him it's more than likely that you could of gotten more than what you did. He's 23 years old and its not unusual for a goalie to take time to develop. Where's the harm in holding onto him for a couple years, let him ride pine at MSG, and having a more than capable back-up for Hank?

_________________
Run it up, Herman! Leave no doubt!
-Coach Yoast


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:32 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Veteran Presence

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 4869
Location: Portland, OR
MikeH wrote:
Your Icon wrote:
MikeH wrote:
aeroclearica wrote:
MikeH wrote:
Quote:
Say what you want about Montoya and his potential but he's had a bad year, he's oft-injured and his trade value had diminished a lot in the past year.


Even if this is the case (which I don't buy his diminished value), why would you trade someone with tremendous upside for spare parts? I don't buy David LeNeveu having near the upside that Montoya has. Of course the Rangers goalie coach will say he likes him. What's he supposed to say, "Uhhh, we got this clown. He's no good."? LeNeveu has not shown he deserves to be in the NHL at all, and is almost two years older than Montoya.

BTW, Montoya still managed a .908 save percentage and a 16-8-3 record for Hartford this year despite him being in the midst of a "bad year".

I think Al needed a change of scenery more than anything. Hank blocking him was not a good situation for either party and I respect the Rangers giving Al a chance somewhere else. Only problem for Al is I do not think Phoenix is too good for him either. Time will have to tell on this one.


Maybe you trade a goalie with "tremendous upside" for spare parts because that's all you can get? Just because you think he has a future as a #1 goaltender somewhere doesn't mean that GMs around the league do. What does it say that the one GM that Sather got to bite was none other than former Assistant GM of the Rangers, Don Maloney. Maybe LeNeveu doesn't have the potential that Montoya does, but who's to say that Al's shown that he deserves to play in the NHL? Now I agree that a change of scenery doesn't hurt and maybe he turns into the goalie that you think he will, but there is no question that his value has diminished from say at least a year ago. Why else would the Rangers only net a 4th liner, a career AHL'er and a goalie who might never sniff the NHL, when last year he was the centerpiece in packages for top fowards.


I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.


Al Montoya, whatever potential he might have, had no future in the Rangers organization. He was never going to unseat Henrik as the goaltender. What's the point of holding onto him and continuing to force him to play in Hartford or sit on the bench in New York? His value, if anything, would continue to diminish and it's unfair to him as a person.

They should have traded a year or two ago. It was clear at this point that the Rangers had no need for him which is not a great position to be in trade-wise.

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted them to do then. Should they have just kept him on the Wolfpack with the goal to win a Calder Cup and then see him walk and get absolutely nothing in return? What exactly was the advantage of keeping him?


If you hold onto him it's more than likely that you could of gotten more than what you did. He's 23 years old and its not unusual for a goalie to take time to develop. Where's the harm in holding onto him for a couple years, let him ride pine at MSG, and having a more than capable back-up for Hank?


The harm lies in that he's (to my knowledge) a restricted free agent at the end of this season, at which point some team in desperate need of goaltending would offer to overpay him and the Rangers would be crazy to match (considering they'd end up paying NHL starting goalie money for essentially their third string goalie at the moment). So he'd likely walk away at which point depending on the size of the contract, the Rangers would get a specified draft pick in return. It wouldn't have even been as good as the deal they got...

This way they probably avoid him going to a team within the conference or division (I assume that the Coyotes will try their best to sign him to an extension) and get some extra help in areas they need for this year on top of it.

It sucks but they were in a bad spot here.

_________________
did you ever wake up with bullfrogs on your mind?
tadpoles swimming up and down your spine?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:28 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Franchise Player

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Posts: 3623
Location: Shea
Your Icon wrote:
MikeH wrote:
Your Icon wrote:
MikeH wrote:
aeroclearica wrote:
MikeH wrote:
Quote:
Say what you want about Montoya and his potential but he's had a bad year, he's oft-injured and his trade value had diminished a lot in the past year.


Even if this is the case (which I don't buy his diminished value), why would you trade someone with tremendous upside for spare parts? I don't buy David LeNeveu having near the upside that Montoya has. Of course the Rangers goalie coach will say he likes him. What's he supposed to say, "Uhhh, we got this clown. He's no good."? LeNeveu has not shown he deserves to be in the NHL at all, and is almost two years older than Montoya.

BTW, Montoya still managed a .908 save percentage and a 16-8-3 record for Hartford this year despite him being in the midst of a "bad year".

I think Al needed a change of scenery more than anything. Hank blocking him was not a good situation for either party and I respect the Rangers giving Al a chance somewhere else. Only problem for Al is I do not think Phoenix is too good for him either. Time will have to tell on this one.


Maybe you trade a goalie with "tremendous upside" for spare parts because that's all you can get? Just because you think he has a future as a #1 goaltender somewhere doesn't mean that GMs around the league do. What does it say that the one GM that Sather got to bite was none other than former Assistant GM of the Rangers, Don Maloney. Maybe LeNeveu doesn't have the potential that Montoya does, but who's to say that Al's shown that he deserves to play in the NHL? Now I agree that a change of scenery doesn't hurt and maybe he turns into the goalie that you think he will, but there is no question that his value has diminished from say at least a year ago. Why else would the Rangers only net a 4th liner, a career AHL'er and a goalie who might never sniff the NHL, when last year he was the centerpiece in packages for top fowards.


I guess I just don't understand why they traded him. I think if you hold onto him, you would be able to get more in the future. He appeared to have more value for the Rangers if he stayed a Ranger. Especially when this was all they could get, because they didn't get much.


Al Montoya, whatever potential he might have, had no future in the Rangers organization. He was never going to unseat Henrik as the goaltender. What's the point of holding onto him and continuing to force him to play in Hartford or sit on the bench in New York? His value, if anything, would continue to diminish and it's unfair to him as a person.

They should have traded a year or two ago. It was clear at this point that the Rangers had no need for him which is not a great position to be in trade-wise.

I'm not sure exactly what you wanted them to do then. Should they have just kept him on the Wolfpack with the goal to win a Calder Cup and then see him walk and get absolutely nothing in return? What exactly was the advantage of keeping him?


If you hold onto him it's more than likely that you could of gotten more than what you did. He's 23 years old and its not unusual for a goalie to take time to develop. Where's the harm in holding onto him for a couple years, let him ride pine at MSG, and having a more than capable back-up for Hank?


The harm lies in that he's (to my knowledge) a restricted free agent at the end of this season, at which point some team in desperate need of goaltending would offer to overpay him and the Rangers would be crazy to match (considering they'd end up paying NHL starting goalie money for essentially their third string goalie at the moment). So he'd likely walk away at which point depending on the size of the contract, the Rangers would get a specified draft pick in return. It wouldn't have even been as good as the deal they got...

This way they probably avoid him going to a team within the conference or division (I assume that the Coyotes will try their best to sign him to an extension) and get some extra help in areas they need for this year on top of it.

It sucks but they were in a bad spot here.


If he signs a big offer sheet, so be it. Take the draft picks. I think the picks would amount to more than what the Rangers got.

If he signs a small offers sheet, match it.

I don't see how this trade helped the Rangers at all.

_________________
Run it up, Herman! Leave no doubt!
-Coach Yoast


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


SUPPORT NYFS VIA OUR NETWORK OF SITES: FIND AN AA MEETING | FIND A JOB NEAR YOU | SUICIDE DEPRESSION ADDICTION HELP | BOOK REVIEWS EDITORIAL | LOCAL DOCTORS HOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE | HOME REPAIR CONTRACTOR BUILDER AC HEAT | LOCAL LIVE MUSIC OPEN MIC JAM | FIND YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND WHERE TO VOTE | WOMEN VETERANS HELP SUPPORT AND RESOURCES | THE SOULCIALISTS LIVE LOCAL PIANO MUSIC TREASURE COAST | PET FRIENDLY PARKS HOTELS | SOLAR WIND RENEWABLE POWER | FILE TAX RETURN ATTORNEY | 4G SEO SMART PHONES TABLET WEB | BIRTHDAY PARTY RENTAL CHARACTERS | HOMES APARTMENTS FOR SALE OR RENT NEAR YOU | SPORT COURT GYM FITNESS CLUB TRACK FIELD | GOLF BEACH RESORT HOTELS RESTAURANTS BED BREAKFAST | HEALTH LIFE AUTO HOME INSURANCE QUOTE | METRO BUS TRAIN SUBWAY AIRPORT HELIPORT | VETERAN TIPS CRAFT DIY RECIPES | ATM BRANCH CONSOLIDATION STUDENT CREDIT LOAN RATES | LOCAL NEWS AND RSS FEEDS | CHRISTMAS BLACK FRIDAY BACK TO SCHOOL SALE | LATEST E NEWS ON MOVIES TV GAMES GIFTS BOOKS | LAST MINUTE ANNIVERSARY BIRTHDAY HOUSE WARMING GIFTS NEAR YOU | LOCAL ARTS CRAFTS SUPPLY STORE | LOCAL HEALTHY HEART DIABETIC RESTAURANTS AND STORES | CHURCH TEMPLE MOSQUE OR PLACE OF WORSHIP NEAR YOU | LOCAL LINKS TO RESTAURANTS AIRPORTS DRUG STORES | DRUG OXY OPIATE ALCOHOL PHYSICAL REHAB | SUICIDE HOTLINE DANIELLE COLBERT PHOTO MUG SHOT | © Untraditional Media

The%20Soulcialists