Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

[NYSPORTS]

Carrying a 8.5 million cap hit for a backup goalie in the upcoming season, given the flat cap, is not a possibility. Adding in the Shatty cap hit we would be at almost 20% of "dead" space just for a backup goalie. It is ridiculous to try to justify that. We have to figure out how to sign ADA, Lemiuex, Strome, etc. which is going to be a challenge in the best of circumstances.

thank you

 

[haohmaru]

Cap hit is a different topic then Henrik’s viability as a # 2.

And, again, you’re not saving 3M because you need another goalie to take his place. I’d rather have more flexibility in 2021-22 than next season.

See Jane fall.

 

[haohmaru]

Carrying a 8.5 million cap hit for a backup goalie in the upcoming season, given the flat cap, is not a possibility. Adding in the Shatty cap hit we would be at almost 20% of "dead" space just for a backup goalie. It is ridiculous to try to justify that. We have to figure out how to sign ADA, Lemiuex, Strome, etc. which is going to be a challenge in the best of circumstances.

You’re signing all of those guys with the 1.5M you’re saving? Good luck.

 

[OrlandK]

You’re signing all of those guys with the 1.5M you’re saving? Good luck.

Obviously not but 1.5 million (2% of the cap) in an already cap strapped situation is still huge. It's a functional bottom six forward. A lot of UFA's & RFA's are going to have to take discounts compared to the "normal" market due to the flat cap.

 

[haohmaru]

Just so we’re clear - his retirement would be the best thing for the franchise but not necessarily for him. We’ll see.

 

[haohmaru]

Obviously not but 1.5 million (2% of the cap) in an already cap strapped situation is still huge. It's a functional bottom six forward. A lot of UFA's & RFA's are going to have to take discounts compared to the "normal" market due to the flat cap.

The Rangers are screwed, cap wise, next year no matter what. I’d rather deal with the pain now than extend it even further - particularly with a flat cap for the foreseeable future. Maybe we’ll get lucky and Staal will hang up his skates.

 

[OrlandK]

The Rangers are screwed, cap wise, next year no matter what. I’d rather deal with the pain now than extend it even further - particularly with a flat cap for the foreseeable future. Maybe we’ll get lucky and Staal will hang up his skates.

That would be great but highly unlikely. All evidence indicates that Staal still enjoys playing and there is an apparent role for him in the upcoming season as the Rangers don't really have a LHD prospect ready to take a regular turn in 20-21.

The King is in a different situation. Hank was already beaten out by Georgiev last year for the back up position. And there is little indication that he enjoys being a backup at this point. It's fairly obvious that he will not be back. The only issue is whether he retires or hurts the team by forcing a buyout - which is his right but under current circumstances would surprise me.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Cash strapped at approx $13 million in need of cash to resign players

vs

Plenty of cash at approx $40 million in surplus to resign RFA

Yeah, let’s add to the $40 million rather than a year in which the Rangers need it.

Good work.

 

[haohmaru]

Cash strapped at approx $13 million in need of cash to resign players

vs

Plenty of cash at approx $40 million in surplus to resign RFA

Yeah, let’s add to the $40 million rather than a year in which the Rangers need it.

Good work.

Yeah, you have all of six players signed in 2021-22. Nice job. They’ll need a lot of cash then too - especially cash that is paid to players that aren’t playing.

We can agree to disagree. Again. As usual.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Yeah, you have all of six players signed in 2021-22. Nice job. They’ll need a lot of cash then too - especially cash that is paid to players that aren’t playing.

We can agree to disagree. Again. As usual.

lol, you actually think those RFA are going to chew up all that cash?

the thread speaks for itself. It’s you vs everybody.

 

[TominNC]

He's not under contract in 21-22 so it leaves you 8.5M to spend (7 if you count AG's projected raise)

I'm supporting the buy out so that gives us 1.5 to spend in 20-21, but then ties up 1.5 (while freeing the 5.5) in 21-22

 

[haohmaru]

It doesn’t free up anything in 21-22. Lundqvist isn’t signed then. It’s irrelevant. That money is there with or without a buyout. Maybe we’re just talking past each other here, IDK.

if the Rangers want to sign Sttome ADA etc... they’re going to have to be a whole lot more creative than buying out Lundqvist.

 

[SA16]

If Hank is getting bought out I would not do it until the second buyout window (assuming it's a similar schedule to a normal offseason just compressed). We would get one from qualifying Strome and it would give us more time to see what our cap situation is after free agency and extensions and such. Sucks for him but oh well you have to do what's best for the team. He'd hardly be the first player to be bought out in that window. Because if it gets to the point where the second buyout window is open and we don't need the cap space at that point (or an offer for Georgiev comes up) I would then just not buy him out.

 

[Tawnos]

If Hank is getting bought out I would not due it until the second buyout window (assuming it's a similar schedule to a normal offseason just compressed). We would get one from qualifying Strome and it would give us more time to see what our cap situation is after free agency and extensions and such. Sucks for him but oh well you have to do what's best for the team. He'd hardly be the first player to be bought out in that window. Because if it gets to the point where the second buyout window is open and we don't need the cap space at that point (or an offer for Georgiev comes up) I would then just not buy him out.

That's true. It's just, for me, I'm not buying him out for the cap space.

 

[SA16]

That's true. It's just, for me, I'm not buying him out for the cap space.

I'm not buying him out unless it is absolutely necessary. There is zero disadvantage until waiting to the second window to make that decision. The only reason not to would be to do him a favor to have a better chance to find a new team but you really need to do what is best for yourself. If it comes to the second window and there is no taking for Georgiev, no surprise retirements like Staal or Lundqvist, and we are X over the cap and it's the only choice then it's the move to make.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm not buying him out unless it is absolutely necessary. There is zero disadvantage until waiting to the second window to make that decision. The only reason not to would be to do him a favor to have a better chance to find a new team but you really need to do what is best for yourself. If it comes to the second window and there is no taking for Georgiev, no surprise retirements like Staal or Lundqvist, and we are X over the cap and it's the only choice then it's the move to make.

And that's a fair take. I just think there are enough reasons to buy him out, regardless of the cap. As I've thought about this since the season, for me it is absolutely necessary that Hank isn't part of the team next year. You can wait until the second buyout window in order to explore trading his contract, provided he okays that. The cap implications are secondary to me.

At root, there are three reasons I don't want him here next year.
-I think that even in a backup role, Hank's personality is going to suck up a lot of oxygen. The team is psychologically ready to move on from him. I don't know that I'd feel the same without the #1 pick. It's actually not dissimilar to how the Rangers would've been better off with Messier being gone earlier than he was. As long as Messier was there, it was his team.
-At the same time, I tend not to believe a player at any position is the real deal until he plays a certain number of NHL games. So, while I have confidence in Shesterkin, at the same time I'm not ready to make a move that could possibly result in us not having a starting goalie 2 or 3 years from now. Georgiev should still be here, and traded before the expansion draft next year if he further proves his capability at the NHL level and Shesterkin proves his ability as well.
-And last, you have to wonder if another year older means a further diminished player in Hank... and he turns into someone who isn't even capable of playing backup, which is the role envisioned for him if we keep him. This is the least of the three reasons, because you can always go out and get a backup if you have to, but it's still a concern.

And keep in mind, this whole conclusion I've come to makes me sad.

 

[haohmaru]

The Rangers past mismanagement of buyouts is catching up with them next year. And the year after. You buyout Lundqvist and then we're at 4M+ in dead space again in 2021-22 which is 5% of your projected cap.

The Shattenkirk buyout was a mistake. The Girardi buyout was a mistake. We keep doing the same thing over and over again.

Package Georgiev, a 3rd, and Brendan Smith for a prospect to a cap floor team.

There has to be a better option than having 13M+ of dead space next year and 4M again the year after. It's awful.

 

[Tawnos]

The Rangers past mismanagement of buyouts is catching up with them next year. And the year after. You buyout Lundqvist and then we're at 4M+ in dead space again in 2021-22 which is 5% of your projected cap.

The Shattenkirk buyout was a mistake. The Girardi buyout was a mistake. We keep doing the same thing over and over again.

Package Georgiev, a 3rd, and Brendan Smith for a prospect to a cap floor team.

There has to be a better option than having 13M+ of dead space next year and 4M again the year after. It's awful.

See, from my perspective, a lot of teams in the league are wasting more than 5% of the cap, whether it's in dead space or overpaying players. It seems to be the nature of the system and it really doesn't much matter to me which one it is.

Just as an example, taken from a random team. Next season, the Minnesota Wild are paying Parise about $2.5m too much for his performance, Zuccarello $2m, Victor Rask $3m, and Devan Dubnyk $2.5m. They've got the equivalent of $10m in wasted cap space. OK, so you want to talk about a good team, rather than a mediocre team like the Wild. The Vegas Golden Knights are overpaying Stastny $2.5m, Fleury $2m (or more?), and have $0.5m going to Tatar in salary retention. Total of $5m in wasted space. Sure, the goal is to not waste any, but that's not really all that common of a situation. The Lightning are a good example of one at the moment.

My point is this: at this moment, the Rangers don't have a single overpaid contract extending into 21-22. Even with a Lundqvist buyout, the Rangers are actually in fantastic cap shape for 21-22. The only wasted cap space they'd have is that just over $4m in buyout dollars. And the year after? Even better. Obviously, barring any bad contracts between now and then.

Yes, next year is a problem. The Shattenkirk buyout does indeed suck, but this kind of thing happens pretty often to teams that are transitioning from one state of competitiveness to another. Signings that seemed well-advised when you're trying to compete no longer seem so when you're trying to build.

 

[Kovalev27]

Hanks going to retire let’s be real here. No one is signing him to be a starter. Not with the talent that’s out there and I can’t think of anyone who would want an ego/shadow that big as their back up if he even were open to it.

I’m sure Frolunda would pay him the actual 1.5 to 2 mil he’d be getting in the nhl next season. He’s too proud to not retire when he sees what his options are

 

[haohmaru]

See, from my perspective, a lot of teams in the league are wasting more than 5% of the cap, whether it's in dead space or overpaying players. It seems to be the nature of the system and it really doesn't much matter to me which one it is.

Just as an example, taken from a random team. Next season, the Minnesota Wild are paying Parise about $2.5m too much for his performance, Zuccarello $2m, Victor Rask $3m, and Devan Dubnyk $2.5m. They've got the equivalent of $10m in wasted cap space. OK, so you want to talk about a good team, rather than a mediocre team like the Wild. The Vegas Golden Knights are overpaying Stastny $2.5m, Fleury $2m (or more?), and have $0.5m going to Tatar in salary retention. Total of $5m in wasted space. Sure, the goal is to not waste any, but that's not really all that common of a situation. The Lightning are a good example of one at the moment.

My point is this: at this moment, the Rangers don't have a single overpaid contract extending into 21-22. Even with a Lundqvist buyout, the Rangers are actually in fantastic cap shape for 21-22. The only wasted cap space they'd have is that just over $4m in buyout dollars. And the year after? Even better. Obviously, barring any bad contracts between now and then.

Yes, next year is a problem. The Shattenkirk buyout does indeed suck, but this kind of thing happens pretty often to teams that are transitioning from one state of competitiveness to another. Signings that seemed well-advised when you're trying to compete no longer seem so when you're trying to build.

The difference between the examples you're putting forward and the Rangers is that those players are, you know, actually playing for the team paying them.

I understand your point. My point is that cap space is not something that should be wasted on guys drinking mai-tai's in Hawaii or playing in Sweden or for some other NHL team. It's horrible asset management - particularly since this cap is locked into place for years. I'd rather have the guy be a backup, get an asset or two back for Georgiev (who has similar numbers), and run the course. We're not winning next year. 1.5M extra this year and 1.5M less than following year isn't going to matter all that much. Maybe we can address our ever present Center problems better in 2021-22 if we have additional flexibility because it sure as shit isn't being fixed in the upcoming season.

If the cap savings were greater I'd be all for buying out Hank and retiring his number and all that jazz. As it stands, it's a complete wash and makes little sense - particularly since the anointed one looks up to him and can probably learn a lot during the course of a season with him without this ridiculous three goalie nonsense that it morphed into.

Can Lundqvist find peace being a back up? I don't know. That's really up to him. If he feels that that role isn't for him then he should gracefully exit the NHL because, at this point, that's all he can be.

 

[Tawnos]

The difference between the examples you're putting forward and the Rangers is that those players are, you know, actually playing for the team paying them.

I understand your point. My point is that cap space is not something that should be wasted on guys drinking mai-tai's in Hawaii or playing in Sweden or for some other NHL team. It's horrible asset management - particularly since this cap is locked into place for years. I'd rather have the guy be a backup, get an asset or two back for Georgiev (who has similar numbers), and run the course. We're not winning next year. 1.5M extra this year and 1.5M less than following year isn't going to matter all that much. Maybe we can address our ever present Center problems better in 2021-22 if we have additional flexibility because it sure as shit isn't being fixed in the upcoming season.

If the cap savings were greater I'd be all for buying out Hank and retiring his number and all that jazz. As it stands, it's a complete wash and makes little sense - particularly since the anointed one looks up to him and can probably learn a lot during the course of a season with him without this ridiculous three goalie nonsense that it morphed into.

Can Lundqvist find peace being a back up? I don't know. That's really up to him. If he feels that that role isn't for him then he should gracefully exit the NHL because, at this point, that's all he can be.

I really don't find any additional value in the fact that those guys are playing for the team. That's just an absurd concept. Wasted cap is wasted cap.

Also, the cap is locked for one year. There are mechanisms for increases in the years after that, though the increases aren't a lot. I believe it's $1m in 21-22.

 

[haohmaru]

I really don't find any additional value in the fact that those guys are playing for the team. That's just an absurd concept. Wasted cap is wasted cap.

Also, the cap is locked for one year. There are mechanisms for increases in the years after that, though the increases aren't a lot. I believe it's $1m in 21-22.

It's no less absurd than assigning an arbitrary cap dollar value to players based on what? Performance? Where are you getting these numbers from? At least it's a body in the lineup that you don't have to replace. That's part of the cost of buying Lundqvist out - not only is it costing you 5.5M it's also costing you whatever the cost of his replacement is and the following year you're getting zero value for your money instead of less value like the guys above.

What if Zuccarello rebounds and pots 70 points next year or Parise finds the fountain of. youth and scores 35 goals? Not likely, but possible. Impossible if the guy you're paying isn't playing.

 

[TominNC]

It doesn’t free up anything in 21-22. Lundqvist isn’t signed then. It’s irrelevant. That money is there with or without a buyout. Maybe we’re just talking past each other here, IDK.

if the Rangers want to sign Sttome ADA etc... they’re going to have to be a whole lot more creative than buying out Lundqvist.

If they buy out Lundqvist there is still 1.5M in cap tied up in 21-22

 

[Rangers394]

Not that is was a mistake because Hank was so good but hopefully we never sign a goalie to an 8.5 million dollar long term deal again. It's just not a position you need to spend almost 10 million on, especially on a long term deal.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Not that is was a mistake because Hank was so good but hopefully we never sign a goalie to an 8.5 million dollar long term deal again. It's just not a position you need to spend almost 10 million on, especially on a long term deal.

Better hope Shesty gets the Gibson contract and not the Hank one then huh?