News Article: Lundqvist quotes from Breakup Day

[GOAT AINEC]

Henrik is 35 years old now. He was great against Montreal but his game took a dip against the Senators. His game wasn't the only one to have had a drop-off. Girardi wasn't as good against the Senators as he was against Montreal and neither was Nash. They are older players too and older players are ones that you look first to replace. I'm separating Staal who was just bad from beginning to end.

Henrik's a Hall of Fame goaltender--of that there is no doubt. I have my doubts though that he's ever going to win a Stanley Cup at his age unless the Rangers have another goalie that they are once in a while willing to insert into a playoff game. IMO if Raanta had taken a game or two--Henrik might have been better for it. It's counter intuitive to how the team's history with him as goalie and counter intuitive to how a lot of Rangers fans would react. Even so--he's getting older and the results aren't getting better and looking at this series--if the Rangers had played Raanta in game 2 and/or game 5 it could have been a better result for us.

Management's loyalty to him is apparently more important than winning.

With Raanta I'm confident Rangers would have won in 5 or 6. At the very least he couldn't have been any worse..

 

[Revel]

Management's loyalty to him is apparently more important than winning.

With Raanta I'm confident Rangers would have won in 5 or 6. At the very least he couldn't have been any worse..

If Rannta had played and was on his game, I'll comfortably agree that we would have won in 6. That said, I don't regret starting Hank. You have to start Hank. Hank is our guy...our #1. It's really not up for debate. The result is something I feared might happen, but it is what it is.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Management's loyalty to him is apparently more important than winning.

With Raanta I'm confident Rangers would have won in 5 or 6. At the very least he couldn't have been any worse..

If Rannta had played and was on his game, I'll comfortably agree that we would have won in 6. That said, I don't regret starting Hank. You have to start Hank. Hank is our guy...our #1. It's really not up for debate. The result is something I feared might happen, but it is what it is.

Give me a break. There is literally no way to know that.

Henrik was the only reason we won round 1 and he was amazing in the game 1 loss of this series. You really think Raanta should've started game 2? Even in hindsight that's a ridiculous thing to say. And the implication that we win the series easily with a goalie whose only playoff experience is coming in games in relief, who also hadn't played in a game in almost a month. Give me a break.

When hindsight and hyperbole meet you get thoughts like yours. Yeah, sure, the ONLY thing preventing us from winning the series was Henrik. Totally 100% his fault we lost. That's what your logic is saying btw. Ridiculous.

 

[Revel]

Give me a break. There is literally no way to know that.

The two games we did win, Hank had very little work. Any Rangers Goalie would have gotten the W in those games.

You'll also note that I stated "If Rannta had played and was on his game". If he wasn't on his game, then anything could have happened. One thing is for sure, though, Hank had plenty of goal support in Games 2 & 5 AND let in goals that a big-game Goalie shouldn't allow. Those two games were winnable by a Goalie who is on his game.

Henrik was the only reason we won round 1 and he was amazing in the game 1 loss of this series.

Hank was great against the Habs and great in Game 1 vs the Sens. No problem with that.

You really think Raanta should've started game 2? Even in hindsight that's a ridiculous thing to say.

I'll skip this. Not meant for me.

And the implication that we win the series easily with a goalie whose only playoff experience is coming in games in relief, who also hadn't played in a game in almost a month. Give me a break.

I pretty much addressed this at the Top. It wouldn't have taken a superhuman effort to stop some of what got past Hank in games 2 & 5...or even the 4th goal in Game 6 that went between his wickets.

When hindsight and hyperbole meet you get thoughts like yours. Yeah, sure, the ONLY thing preventing us from winning the series was Henrik. Totally 100% his fault we lost. That's what your logic is saying btw. Ridiculous.

Not the only reason. I've said throughout the forums that everyone has to take some blame, but it's really tough for me to get over the fact that when we put up 9, Hank gave up a combined 11 goals in games 2 & 5... several of those goals being soft.

____________________________________

As a compromise - Would you agree that Hank could have bailed us out of the series without necessarily standing on his head?

 

[nyrleetch]

Management's loyalty to him is apparently more important than winning.

With Raanta I'm confident Rangers would have won in 5 or 6. At the very least he couldn't have been any worse..

Habs beat us with Raanta in net.

Sens beat us too. You can say game 3 and 4 that Lundqvist didn't have to do anything, Raanta could have given up an easy goal.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Imagine of half the team had half the hate for losing that Lundqvist has. They would be unbeatable.

This is why I have this big problem with Stepan pulling his ridiculous "RELAX, WE GOT THIS!" stunt.

This team has struck me as complacent on more than just one occasion. When they get scored on they just hang their heads and skate over to the bench and then "oh well, **** happens".

There does not seem to be any effort to correct mistakes or emotionally battle against adversity.

I'm not asking for anyone to drop down on their knees Willem Dafoe style and scream: "WHYYYYY!!???" , I'm just asking for at least the illusion of a sense of urgency.

It's as if these guys are emotionally numb and do not respond to anything negative.
So when a guy, who actually displays that passion and then gets yelled at by Stepan to "RELAX" well then I'm sorry you have lost me because this team is way too ****ing relaxed.

 

[eco's bones]

Henrik was not great in the Tampa series two years ago. He was not great against the Pens last year. He was great against the Canadiens this year but not great against the Senators. He's an aging goaltender still capable of being great for stretches but expecting him to sustain it over 4 playoff series required to win a Stanley Cup is expecting too much and if we're going ahead with that to the end of his contract term and every he's older and older we're expecting too much.

IMO the Rangers are going to need to platoon him more in the regular season--get him into the 50 game range and be willing to use a backup in the playoffs or we're going to be sitting ducks. He's not the best goalie in the league anymore.

Going ahead we need to get Shesterkin ASAP and if Tyler Wall has another season next year like he did this year I'd be signing him too. It's time to seriously think about the Rangers post-Lundqvist.

 

[bathgate]

Henrik was not great in the Tampa series two years ago. He was not great against the Pens last year. He was great against the Canadiens this year but not great against the Senators. He's an aging goaltender still capable of being great for stretches but expecting him to sustain it over 4 playoff series required to win a Stanley Cup is expecting too much and if we're going ahead with that to the end of his contract term and every he's older and older we're expecting too much.

IMO the Rangers are going to need to platoon him more in the regular season--get him into the 50 game range and be willing to use a backup in the playoffs or we're going to be sitting ducks. He's not the best goalie in the league anymore.

Going ahead we need to get Shesterkin ASAP and if Tyler Wall has another season next year like he did this year I'd be signing him too. It's time to seriously think about the Rangers post-Lundqvist.

Spot on comments. If the team does take a step back next year, management shoukd approach Hank about a trade to a contender

 

[Tawnos]

Henrik was not great in the Tampa series two years ago. He was not great against the Pens last year. He was great against the Canadiens this year but not great against the Senators. He's an aging goaltender still capable of being great for stretches but expecting him to sustain it over 4 playoff series required to win a Stanley Cup is expecting too much and if we're going ahead with that to the end of his contract term and every he's older and older we're expecting too much.

IMO the Rangers are going to need to platoon him more in the regular season--get him into the 50 game range and be willing to use a backup in the playoffs or we're going to be sitting ducks. He's not the best goalie in the league anymore.

Don't forget that Lundqvist played in the World Cup too.

 

[orland]

Henrik has been so great and the cornerstone of this franchise for so long but the reality is he is past his prime. He had a poor regular season - bottom half statistically for starting goalies. Played well against a Montreal team that struggled to score all season. Ottawa played a pretty defensive style yet scored way too many goals. The Rangers scored 4 goals twice in Ottawa and lost both games. No question the defense was the biggest problem but if Henrik played like he did in his prime we would have easily gotten past a middling Ottawa team. There were soft goals in each of the losses.

Going forward his contract is a major problem. He is by far the highest paid goalie in the league and is never going to be a Vezina level goalie again. If really wanted to help the team he would waive this NMC so we could protect Raanta. No way Vegas is going to pick him when they are going to have some very good alternatives at much better price points.

 

[Crease]

Henrik was not great in the Tampa series two years ago. He was not great against the Pens last year. He was great against the Canadiens this year but not great against the Senators. He's an aging goaltender still capable of being great for stretches but expecting him to sustain it over 4 playoff series required to win a Stanley Cup is expecting too much and if we're going ahead with that to the end of his contract term and every he's older and older we're expecting too much.

IMO the Rangers are going to need to platoon him more in the regular season--get him into the 50 game range and be willing to use a backup in the playoffs or we're going to be sitting ducks. He's not the best goalie in the league anymore.

Going ahead we need to get Shesterkin ASAP and if Tyler Wall has another season next year like he did this year I'd be signing him too. It's time to seriously think about the Rangers post-Lundqvist.

I agree eco. If he figures out how to get his aging body better prepared for the long season (and he says he's learning) then great. If not, platoon him. I'd be perfectly happy if he played 50-75% of the games throughout the regular season and playoffs, played Game 7 of the Finals, and lifted the Cup first.

 

[Fugazy]

I agree eco. If he figures out how to get his aging body better prepared for the long season (and he says he's learning) then great. If not, platoon him. I'd be perfectly happy if he played 50-75% of the games throughout the regular season and playoffs, played Game 7 of the Finals, and lifted the Cup first.

He mentioned in his breakup day interview that he fully understands that he is getting up there in age and needs to start preparing his body better during the offseason. I trust Hank is starting to come to grips with what will be required of him moving forward into the last stages of his career.

 

[eco's bones]

The other thing is he's had an aging defense around him....and has been seeing more rubber because of it. In some respects he's not that different from Klein, Girardi and Staal--those three are just farther along in their declines but it's a matter of degree. Henrik had the worst sustained stretch of his career for a good month or so this season. He's been getting banged up in the last couple years as well. The Rangers seriously are going to need to find a starting caliber goalie and get him up to speed and have him in place within the next two-three years. Shesterkin is the most likely candidate. Tyler Wall had a fantastic college freshman season. I think we have two potential No. 1's there. Huska is a serious prospect as well.

 

[Inferno]

problem is henrik seems to play like crap when he rests more...and the more he plays the more he gets on these rolls where you dont want to sit him.

its a tough situation...i hope the next coach of the rangers..when AV is hopefully fired...can walk that line.

of course if its AV..he'll say hes going to play 50, but play him in 70 because everythign that comes out of that jackwads mouth is BS

 

[Grifter3511]

World class all through. Imagine if half the team held themselves to the same standard and effort.

Lundqvist saw the most high scoring quality chances of all goalies in the playoffs after two rounds, but that doesn't stop him from accepting he wasn't good enough, because the team didn't win. He didn't have his best playoffs, but he wasn't exactly bad either. The simple fact is, NYR is currently not good enough if their goalie doesn't stand on his head every game. That's troublesome to say the least.

Imagine of half the team had half the hate for losing that Lundqvist has.They would be unbeatable.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Grifter3511]

I agree eco. If he figures out how to get his aging body better prepared for the long season (and he says he's learning) then great. If not, platoon him. I'd be perfectly happy if he played 50-75% of the games throughout the regular season and playoffs, played Game 7 of the Finals, and lifted the Cup first.

I am not blind to his age, nor to the eye test that reveals he has begun to let in goals that he would more often than not stop previously. But I can't help but wonder/dream/pine/lament what his numbers would look like if the defense in front of him was not an abortion.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Henrik was not great in the Tampa series two years ago. He was not great against the Pens last year. He was great against the Canadiens this year but not great against the Senators. He's an aging goaltender still capable of being great for stretches but expecting him to sustain it over 4 playoff series required to win a Stanley Cup is expecting too much and if we're going ahead with that to the end of his contract term and every he's older and older we're expecting too much.

IMO the Rangers are going to need to platoon him more in the regular season--get him into the 50 game range and be willing to use a backup in the playoffs or we're going to be sitting ducks. He's not the best goalie in the league anymore.

Going ahead we need to get Shesterkin ASAP and if Tyler Wall has another season next year like he did this year I'd be signing him too. It's time to seriously think about the Rangers post-Lundqvist.

And how great was the team against Tampa? How great was the team against Pittsburgh? How great was the team against Ottawa? How great was the team against anyone not named the Atlanta Trashers in the last 10 years? Always clawing and scraping themselves to just be an inch better than their opponents, always relying on their goaltender to carry the passengers on the team, that are usually a bunch.

Now when Lundqvist doesn't stand on his head 4/5 series, the team is doomed. Because NYR isn't exactly LA Kings, who won with a goalie (Quick) who posted a .912 save percentage when they won the cup. Imagine if this team had any actual team carriers besides Hank. Some actual star player who usually delivers. Zuccarello is a semi star, McD too, but then? No one. Absolutely no one. How many cup winners have you heard of with one, one legit franchise player? Almost none? That's right. Great odds the NYR try to go against here.

But sure, the problem was we didn't play Raanta according to some. Because that was the problem. Ridiculous. Henrik Lundqvist faced more high quality chances than any other goaltender after 2 rounds. Just like every year when NYR goes into the playoffs. Great team, eh?

As for letting Lundqvist go, I think Lundqvist is - and has been - stupid staying with this franchise if he really wants to win a cup. But he obviously cares more about living in New York. Maybe some NYR fans should appreciate that a little bit more. NYR drafted Lundqvist in the 7th round, so it's not like he had any reason to stay loyal. But he did. Apparently that is worth rotten tomatoes by some, because he didn't pretty much single handedly bring the team a cup during his career, because really, the teams NYR faced in the playoffs, a ton of them were better most of the time, but NYR still won, because Lundqvist stood on his head.

So now you want to deal him (yes, please?). Like that would help the NYR winning another cup. That won't happen for another 25 years anyhow. The entire NYR management culture is an entertainment business foremost, not a competitive hockey club. You are customers foremost, not fans. That's the usual backlash for big hockey franchises in big cities for long periods of time.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Look at this chart and how many times Lundqvist is near the top. Specifically look at the High Dangers Shots Against column. Top TOP 5 most HDSA are all against Lundqvist.

He has propped up this franchise for literally his entire career. He's made everyone who ha played defense here look better; Girardi and Staal owe their contracts to Hank.


Now instead of thinking it'd be fair to improve the D and make it easier on Hank, because even a regressing Hank can be a top goalie with a decent defense in front of him, people would rather blame him and talk about trading him. Crazy.

 

[Miamipuck]

Look at this chart and how many times Lundqvist is near the top. Specifically look at the High Dangers Shots Against column. Top TOP 5 most HDSA are all against Lundqvist.

He has propped up this franchise for literally his entire career. He's made everyone who ha played defense here look better; Girardi and Staal owe their contracts to Hank.


Now instead of thinking it'd be fair to improve the D and make it easier on Hank, because even a regressing Hank can be a top goalie with a decent defense in front of him, people would rather blame him and talk about trading him. Crazy.

The high danger area shots aren't really close, it's amazing how many of those the Rangers have allowed in those rolling periods.

When Hank hits he retirement home those guys should be forced to change his adult diapers. That's how much they owe him for their careers.

 

[Revel]

That chart represents shot attempts, and not shots that actually got through to Hank. A lot of those years represent the shot-blocking era. I'm sure Hank would still promulgate that chart, but he would probably be reigned in a bit closer to the pack.

Regardless, I don't think I've seen anyone *****ing about Hank's past performance. He's a HOFer...we all know that. But what does that have to do with the team going forward? How is Hank's performance in 2012 gonna lead us to the promised land when 2017 Hank is not the same Goalie?

Maybe you can say we owe him something for past performance. If that's what you mean, then just come right out and say it. But don't tell me he's good now because he was good then. This season and the Ottawa series tells me different.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

That chart represents shot attempts, and not shots that actually got through to Hank. A lot of those years represent the shot-blocking era. I'm sure Hank would still promulgate that chart, but he would probably be reigned in a bit closer to the pack.

Regardless, I don't think I've seen anyone *****ing about Hank's past performance. He's a HOFer...we all know that. But what does that have to do with the team going forward? How is Hank's performance in 2012 gonna lead us to the promised land when 2017 Hank is not the same Goalie?

Maybe you can say we owe him something for past performance. If that's what you mean, then just come right out and say it. But don't tell me he's good now because he was good then. This season and the Ottawa series tells me different.

Uh, I did say it. I said the team owes it to him to finally put a good defense in front of him. If you put a good defense in front of a regressing Lundqvist, he will be fine as he personally regresses, possibly even better than in the past. I think 12 seasons of subpar defense with Hank masking deficiencies and making them better, now if he can't do all of the heavy lifting anymore the front office owes it to him to put a better defensive group in front of him.

And I think even if he's getting worse, if we get 85% Lundqvist behind a better D group, that will be as good or even possibly than 100% Lundqvist behind awful D ever was.

 

[Revel]

Uh, I did say it. I said the team owes it to him to finally put a good defense in front of him. If you put a good defense in front of a regressing Lundqvist, he will be fine as he personally regresses, possibly even better than in the past. I think 12 seasons of subpar defense with Hank masking deficiencies and making them better, now if he can't do all of the heavy lifting anymore the front office owes it to him to put a better defensive group in front of him.

And I think even if he's getting worse, if we get 85% Lundqvist behind a better D group, that will be as good or even possibly than 100% Lundqvist behind awful D ever was.

Fair enough. I've seen you defending Hank at every turn and generally bringing up past performance as a reason for why he shouldn't be held even partially accountable for anything that occurred during the Ottawa series. At least that's the impression I've gotten. You also have had trouble acknowledging that Hank let in several soft goals in pivotal games during the Ottawa series. It's always someone else's fault entirely. Acknowledging that he's 85% of what he used to be is a start.

 

[Bluenote13]

I don't think he's done, Hasek and Roy both had uncharacteristic Seasons when they're turned 35 only to go on and play the next few seasons with better numbers.

Of course they did have championship-caliber teams in front of them......

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Fair enough. I've seen you defending Hank at every turn and generally bringing up past performance as a reason for why he shouldn't be held even partially accountable for anything that occurred during the Ottawa series. At least that's the impression I've gotten. You also have had trouble acknowledging that Hank let in several soft goals in pivotal games during the Ottawa series. It's always someone else's fault entirely. Acknowledging that he's 85% of what he used to be is a start.

No, I completely agree that he didn't have a good series against Ottawa. He was great in game 1, didn't do much in 3 and 4. He was awful in games 2 and 5 giving up a couple bad goals that he should've stopped in each, seemed to be fighting it and lack of focus in both games (not helped by particularly bad D). Game 6 he was just average.

Overall an uneven and not great series. I've stated such before. I never said it's always someone else's fault entirely. I place a fair amount of blame on Hank often and the Ottawa series I definitely think he was a problem, the D and AV were bigger ones to me, but still if Hank was as good as he was vs Montreal, we sweep that series.

I just defend Hank and push back against the notion that if Raanta started we definitely would've won both games 2 and 5 and moreso against the idea that Hank is a detriment to the team now and that his contract is an albatross. Neither of those things are true.

His deal is inflated, but he is the one guy on the roster I'm okay with overpaying. I also think, like I said, that even a regressing Hank can still be good enough to win and even steal series, he just can't be expected to prop up garbage defenses like in past years. Basically the sentiment from Larry Brooks' Lundqvist column the other day is how I feel. Improve the defense to be good and even a diminished Hank can be good enough to win a Cup.

I just push back and defend Hank because I see people taking it too far the other way IMO.

 

[Revel]

No, I completely agree that he didn't have a good series against Ottawa. He was great in game 1, didn't do much in 3 and 4. He was awful in games 2 and 5 giving up a couple bad goals that he should've stopped in each, seemed to be fighting it and lack of focus in both games (not helped by particularly bad D). Game 6 he was just average.

Overall an uneven and not great series. I've stated such before. I never said it's always someone else's fault entirely. I place a fair amount of blame on Hank often and the Ottawa series I definitely think he was a problem, the D and AV were bigger ones to me, but still if Hank was as good as he was vs Montreal, we sweep that series.

I just defend Hank and push back against the notion that if Raanta started we definitely would've won both games 2 and 5 and moreso against the idea that Hank is a detriment to the team now and that his contract is an albatross. Neither of those things are true.

His deal is inflated, but he is the one guy on the roster I'm okay with overpaying. I also think, like I said, that even a regressing Hank can still be good enough to win and even steal series, he just can't be expected to prop up garbage defenses like in past years. Basically the sentiment from Larry Brooks' Lundqvist column the other day is how I feel. Improve the defense to be good and even a diminished Hank can be good enough to win a Cup.

I just push back and defend Hank because I see people taking it too far the other way IMO.

There's really not much here for me to rail against. The only opinion you have that I can pick on is that his contract is not an Albatross. I think it is. 8.5 mil is a serious chunk of cap, and for that money you expect elite play. Paying a goaltender 8.5 mil AAV until he's 40 is lunacy from a compete perspective, but I guess we were afraid of losing him...and admittedly he probably does increase revenue. I'm sure we knew that ultimately the team's compete level would be hurt by it, but that time has probably come a bit quicker than we expected... unless this season is an outlier and he returns to form next season (Don't think his reflexes are going to revert, though).

I probably shouldn't single out Hank's contract so much...as G and Staal are not living up to their contracts...but Hank's contract is an outlier in the Goaltending world. It's obscene. G and Staal didn't have obscene contracts from the get-go. They just declined rapidly.

In the end, like has been a popular theme on the boards for the last few weeks, sometimes you have to pay through the nose for early performance and expect that you will get less return on your investment as the player ages. I just wish Hank didn't loot us for as much as he did. The extra 1.5 mil or so that he makes over what I feel he should make can be the difference when it comes to trying to sure up the Bueline.