Post-Game Talk: #51 - 02/03/20 | stars @ RANGERS

[True Blue]

I'm a huge Hank fan but compiling great stats without a championship is not the same kind of "legacy" so he doesn't get the royal treatment. No one's ego should hold back an organizational rebuild. Thanks for everything, it's time to go.

And now this. Henke was just compiling stats. Got it.

Pray tell, what do you propose happens? Let me guess. Buy out? Yawn......

 

[True Blue]

Has anyone ever rolled their eyes so far back that they couldn't find them afterwards? Advice?

Have you read the last several pages??

 

[True Blue]

The more you have, the more you want.

Whenever someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money.

 

[NYSPORTS]

The more you have, the more you want.

and this ridicule fits b/c this is selfish now

 

[Gresch04]

And now this. Henke was just compiling stats. Got it.

Pray tell, what do you propose happens? Let me guess. Buy out? Yawn......

Great players who don't have a championship legacy have less say...so he should do what's right for the team and accept a trade 2 years ago...yawn

 

[NYSPORTS]

Has anyone ever rolled their eyes so far back that they couldn't find them afterwards? Advice?

not sure what that means yet i'm guessing it has something to do with being sentimental and defensive of anything Hank related.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Appeal to authority? You're one of the few I'll bother to open when I see I get a response from you. You usually stay away from that horse ****.

NHL GMs are idiots when it comes to these contracts for old players

Oh ****. I'm sorry. I didn't include my mandatory disclaimer that I apparently need.

*******THIS IS ALL IN MY OPINION AS A FAN ON A FORUM WHO IS...SURPRISE SURPRISE...NOT A GM BECAUSE I NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO ADMINISTRATION, SPORTS MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS, LEGAL, ETC.

BEFORE YOU READY THE TAR AND FEATHERS I CAN EXPLAIN. I HAPPENED TO START LOVING HOCKEY WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE AND WASN'T CHANGING MY ENTIRE ****ING LIFE TO PURSUE BEING AN NHL GM ON A ****ING WHIM! I HAVE OTHER PASSIONS I FOLLOWED.*********


There. Happy? I didn't know we needed to clarify why we're not GMs but there ya ****ing go. I'm ****ing around here but seriously, man? The "Why are you not a GM" card? Well gawrsh idk mister. Why aren't YOU one? Howzabout we makes a thread thingy dere so we's can talk abouts why none of ya'll are GMs aw-HUCK

As a NYR fan I've seen and suffered through those contracts quite a bit so I let my frustration leak out when talking about it. Where the **** else can I vent about this ****, no one else likes this sport where I am. I can't sit at the damn dinner table and rant about Hank having that extra year. Boss don't want to hear it, co workers don't give a **** and I usually don't even think about hockey anywhere else

I wouldn't have brought up Hank taking 6 years if I thought he'd leave rather than do it.That's my opinion on it. I could be wrong. I think he should've taken the 6 years for the teams sake either way but he didn't and now I express my frustration about it from time to time in a relatively healthy way, here in this lovely, LOOOOVELY ****ing place

Wait, so you were against 8 years?

At least it wasn't 10 like the Angels gave Pujols. But remember, he's done so much for baseball so he's worth every penny :/

 

[Thirty One]

Wait, so you were against 8 years?

At least it wasn't 10 like the Angels gave Pujols. But remember, he's done so much for baseball so he's worth every penny :/

It's not about what they've done for the sport. It's about the two parties coming to an agreement and being bound by it. If Lundqvist outperformed the contract early, he wouldn't be entitled to more money and likewise, the Rangers aren't entitled to him moving aside the moment it becomes convenient for them.

 

[romba]

So we played 3 in 4 nights after a 2 week hiatus. I’m assuming then that our next game will be in 2021, seems like we could all use the break anyway

 

[romba]

Rangers could have told Hank 6 years take it or leave it, and Hank could have left it. Team chose not to risk that and we’re paying for it now. Blame the NYR, not Hank.

 

[egelband]

I don’t think Hank is the problem. Teams can afford one expensive and one cheap goalie.
And I think Hank would be a great backup and mentor for another year or even two, in a vacuum.

Having the extra goalie is the problem on a few levels. It’s eventually going to turn out to be a “good problem” but right now it’s obviously a bit anxiety-inducing.

 

[NYSPORTS]

It's not about what they've done for the sport. It's about the two parties coming to an agreement and being bound by it. If Lundqvist outperformed the contract early, he wouldn't be entitled to more money and likewise, the Rangers aren't entitled to him moving aside the moment it becomes convenient for them.

Nobody said otherwise. As fans we are entitled to call this situation what it is. He's taking up a roster spot b/c he didn't waive his NTC and is now in the way. That reality might roll somebody's eyes to the back of their heads so i hope they get help.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

1) Because management will not buy out a player who is so important to the franchise history as Henke

2) Because Henke has no desire to be traded and play in another city.

3) Why would he agree to a 50% reduction in his contract? Nevermind that a contract cannot even be so altered.

You signed one of the best, if not the best, goalie in the NHL to a market level deal. Want to go back and redo the past? Then there are no runs to the finals or the conference finals.

Then management should quit. The good of the franchise should always come far in front of the feelings of a single player. And who is talking bout a 50% reduction in his contract? You clearly misread what I wrote. We can retain 50% of his salary in a trade if he waives. That way he doesn't suffer the indignity of a buy-out and we accomplish the same thing.

 

[True Blue]

I wouldn't have brought up Hank taking 6 years if I thought he'd leave rather than do it.That's my opinion on it. I could be wrong. I think he should've taken the 6 years for the teams sake either way but he didn't and now I express my frustration about it from time to time in a relatively healthy way, here in this lovely, LOOOOVELY ****ing place

Lighten up, Francis.

I get that this is a message board, but debating things that had absolutely no chance of happening and instead saying what they should have done is a bit odd given that when asked "ok, let's play out the scenario" it is met with crickets.

You can say or post whatever you feel like, but gnashing your teeth about signing a hall of fame goaltender, in the prime of his career to a market level contract is a bit different than re-litigating the Jessiman pick or the Lion or Mouse trade.

 

[True Blue]

Great players who don't have a championship legacy have less say...

What does this even mean?

Do players that have more championships than others matter more?

If not for 1994, would Brian Leetch have "less say"?

so he should do what's right for the team and accept a trade 2 years ago...yawn

But you have not explained the impetus for him to do so. Please do that. Why should he do what you suggest?

 

[True Blue]

Then management should quit. The good of the franchise should always come far in front of the feelings of a single player. And who is talking bout a 50% reduction in his contract? You clearly misread what I wrote. We can retain 50% of his salary in a trade if he waives. That way he doesn't suffer the indignity of a buy-out and we accomplish the same thing.

That is not the way that it works. Management should not quit. And even if we were to take your approach, with the buyouts that they already have, they cannot afford to buy him out. For the long term need of the Rangers for the cap, it is far better not to buy anyone out and have the cap space in two years.

But ALL of that has absolutely that there are things that matter. And treatment of one of the most important members of your franchise in history is one such.

 

[True Blue]

Rangers could have told Hank 6 years take it or leave it, and Hank could have left it. Team chose not to risk that and we’re paying for it now. Blame the NYR, not Hank.

Yes, but given how he covered up the warts of flawed teams, would you then be happy with no trips to Finals or conference Finals? There were years where were it not for him, there is simply no way that they are getting by some of those opponents in the playoffs. It took the stellar play of a hall of famer to do so. Anything less, and it does not happen.

 

[Siddi]

Appeal to authority? You're one of the few I'll bother to open when I see I get a response from you. You usually stay away from that horse ****.

NHL GMs are idiots when it comes to these contracts for old players

Oh ****. I'm sorry. I didn't include my mandatory disclaimer that I apparently need.

*******THIS IS ALL IN MY OPINION AS A FAN ON A FORUM WHO IS...SURPRISE SURPRISE...NOT A GM BECAUSE I NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO ADMINISTRATION, SPORTS MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS, LEGAL, ETC.

BEFORE YOU READY THE TAR AND FEATHERS I CAN EXPLAIN. I HAPPENED TO START LOVING HOCKEY WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE AND WASN'T CHANGING MY ENTIRE ****ING LIFE TO PURSUE BEING AN NHL GM ON A ****ING WHIM! I HAVE OTHER PASSIONS I FOLLOWED.*********


There. Happy? I didn't know we needed to clarify why we're not GMs but there ya ****ing go. I'm ****ing around here but seriously, man? The "Why are you not a GM" card? Well gawrsh idk mister. Why aren't YOU one? Howzabout we makes a thread thingy dere so we's can talk abouts why none of ya'll are GMs aw-HUCK

As a NYR fan I've seen and suffered through those contracts quite a bit so I let my frustration leak out when talking about it. Where the **** else can I vent about this ****, no one else likes this sport where I am. I can't sit at the damn dinner table and rant about Hank having that extra year. Boss don't want to hear it, co workers don't give a **** and I usually don't even think about hockey anywhere else

I wouldn't have brought up Hank taking 6 years if I thought he'd leave rather than do it.That's my opinion on it. I could be wrong. I think he should've taken the 6 years for the teams sake either way but he didn't and now I express my frustration about it from time to time in a relatively healthy way, here in this lovely, LOOOOVELY ****ing place

Public meltdown on a hockey forum is not a good look. Step away from the keyboard or at least disable the CAPS key.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That is not the way that it works. Management should not quit. And even if we were to take your approach, with the buyouts that they already have, they cannot afford to buy him out. For the long term need of the Rangers for the cap, it is far better not to buy anyone out and have the cap space in two years.

But ALL of that has absolutely that there are things that matter. And treatment of one of the most important members of your franchise in history is one such.

Based on what? We can afford to pay him $8.5M but we can't afford to buy him out and spread his cost over two years? The buyout calculator shows a $5.5M hit in 20-21 and a $1.5M hit in 21-22. You're saying we can't afford to pay out $1.5M in 21-22?

If we somehow can't afford $1.5M in 21-22, then we can go back to my original point that everyone should be fired.

We have $2.54M in buyout money on the books for 21-22 before Hank. Zero reason we somehow could not "afford to buy him out."

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Based on what? We can afford to pay him $8.5M but we can't afford to buy him out and spread his cost over two years? The buyout calculator shows a $5.5M hit in 20-21 and a $1.5M hit in 21-22. You're saying we can't afford to pay out $1.5M in 21-22?

If we somehow can't afford $1.5M in 21-22, then we can go back to my original point that everyone should be fired.

We have $2.54M in buyout money on the books for 21-22 before Hank. Zero reason we somehow could not "afford to buy him out."

He probably thought it would spread the hit out evenly across both years. I thought the same thing. Knowing this, I'm all for a buyout and keeping the other two goalies

I also dont think geo is that good though so I'm also fine trading geo and keeping hank next year. Hell if hank stays at this level I'm cool giving him a 1 or 2 year backup G contract

 

[Kovalev27]

I actually don’t think hank makes a great back up at all.

He’s way to emotional constantly yelling at the guys in front of him for one thing that’s not what u need from your back up who just needs to give u a solid chance to win.

he also has said and proven to not play well unless he’s playing a lot. Sitting for long periods while Shesterkin is cruising is not going to be good for him. He’ll continue to struggle in that role.

and finally he’s said it himself he doesn’t seem himself as the best mentor he’s too focused on his own game to take anyone under his wing.

just don’t see how this works for him much longer

 

[True Blue]

Based on what? We can afford to pay him $8.5M but we can't afford to buy him out and spread his cost over two years? The buyout calculator shows a $5.5M hit in 20-21 and a $1.5M hit in 21-22. You're saying we can't afford to pay out $1.5M in 21-22?

If we somehow can't afford $1.5M in 21-22, then we can go back to my original point that everyone should be fired.

We have $2.54M in buyout money on the books for 21-22 before Hank. Zero reason we somehow could not "afford to buy him out."

Based on already having dead cap space. I do not want to have more in a year where the Rangers will be taking meaningful steps forward.

Again though, all of this is meaningless as that will not happen. Nor should it happen.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Based on already having dead cap space. I do not want to have more in a year where the Rangers will be taking meaningful steps forward.

Again though, all of this is meaningless as that will not happen. Nor should it happen.

Basing this on "cap space" is an absurd and nonsensical argument since we save $3M next year that could be put towards retaining players or adding players and take the cap hit of a 4th liner the year after.

I find that argument to be pretty intellectually dishonest, actually, and I think you just didn't realize how the buyout spread the cap-hit. And that's fine. But saying we can't afford to buy him out is flat out untrue and a silly argument.

You know that I like you, TB, and I'm more glad than most that you're back and active on the board. But don't come with an argument like that when you can just give an "oops" and move on.