Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

[Rangers394]

Im glad to have Shesty. At the same time, i look at the goalies leading playoff teams and i see Grabauer, Lehner, Korpisalo, Khudobin, and these other mid-level, journeymen, mid-priced goalies and wonder if paying top dollar for a netminder is even worth it.

Yeah same here. I'm not paying more than 6.5 mil a year for a goalie. If Shesterkin ever becomes 8.5+ million dollar good, trade him for a haul

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yeah same here. I'm not paying more than 6.5 mil a year for a goalie. If Shesterkin ever becomes 8.5+ million dollar good, trade him for a haul

Once you pay more than 7-8% of the cap on a goalie, you are not investing in your team the right way. The difference between an elite goalie and a good goalie is not as noticable as the difference between an elite and good center or defenseman. Invest in positions that win you championships. Goalie isn't that position.

 

[Rangers394]

Once you pay more than 7-8% of the cap on a goalie, you are not investing in your team the right way. The difference between an elite goalie and a good goalie is not as noticable as the difference between an elite and good center or defenseman. Invest in positions that win you championships. Goalie isn't that position.

Which is why i said trade him if he costs too much

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Yeah same here. I'm not paying more than 6.5 mil a year for a goalie. If Shesterkin ever becomes 8.5+ million dollar good, trade him for a haul

Since when do goalies who will need a big contract return a haul?

 

[Rangers394]

Since when do goalies who will need a big contract return a haul?

I don't know and don't care, i stated my opinion about what i think they should do instead of spending almost 10 million on a goalie

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Yeah same here. I'm not paying more than 6.5 mil a year for a goalie. If Shesterkin ever becomes 8.5+ million dollar good, trade him for a haul

I don't disagree, but it's easy to say that now, lol

If he becomes that good and you trade him, then you damn well better have a good plan B/C waiting in the wings. You don't need an elite goalie to win a cup necessarily, but it's near impossible to win with a bad/garbage one.

 

[Siddi]

Not taking the bait and reading any of this. Historically you do nothing more than attack and then repeat everything already posted as if it’s your original idea.

You are so far off base its mind boggling. GSC is a well respected member of this board. You, not so much.

 

[Kovalev27]

I will say it again another week has gone by without a message from Hank to the fan base. Most of the prominent players have done it a while ago already hank always does it. Keep an eye on that it’s telling.

 

[OrlandK]

Telling us that he is drafting his retirement statement?

 

[haohmaru]

I will say it again another week has gone by without a message from Hank to the fan base. Most of the prominent players have done it a while ago already hank always does it. Keep an eye on that it’s telling.

He's weighing his options, for sure. It's retirement or, if the Rangers green light it, play as a #2. He isn't tradeable with that contract even with retention.

 

[Thirty One]

He's weighing his options, for sure. It's retirement or, if the Rangers green light it, play as a #2. He isn't tradeable with that contract even with retention.

The most likely outcome is still a buy-out, IMO.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

The most likely outcome is still a buy-out, IMO.

So dumb to do so. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

 

[haohmaru]

The most likely outcome is still a buy-out, IMO.

That's not an option HE can weigh, though.

 

[NYSPORTS]

[QUOTE="haohmaru, post: 173202754, member: 90065"

He isn't tradeable with that contract even with retention.[/QUOTE]


Now he can’t even be traded “with retention” lol? Considering how much you dismissed to defend Hank in this thread i find your take “stoppable” which you define as “soft” ie.

He’s done

 

[haohmaru]

[QUOTE="haohmaru, post: 173202754, member: 90065"

He isn't tradeable with that contract even with retention.

Now he can’t even be traded “with retention” lol? Considering how much you dismissed to defend Hank in this thread i find your take “stoppable” which you define as “soft” ie.

He’s done[/QUOTE]

Yeah, trading an $8.5M contract at the start of the season, even 50% retained, for a backup goalie isn’t plausible.

The fact that I have to explain this to you speaks volumes.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Telling us that he is drafting his retirement statement?

he should be. Milking the Rangers for every dime after collecting $100 million plus endorsements and opting not to waive his NTC during an obvious rebuild is bordering obnoxious.

Imagine if NY followed hockey as closely as baseball. The two starters rotate from starter to street clothes for the last 20 games while Hank dresses for the bench. Smh

 

[NYSPORTS]

Now he can’t even be traded “with retention” lol? Considering how much you dismissed to defend Hank in this thread i find your take “stoppable” which you define as “soft” ie.

He’s done

Yeah, trading an $8.5M contract at the start of the season, even 50% retained, for a backup goalie isn’t plausible.

The fact that I have to explain this to you speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]

lol, your take changes as quickly as Miami weather.

Never mind the stats, he’s not done. lol He’s just not worth one measly year at 50% retention to any other team lol. The Rangers need him to dress on the bench while the starters rotate around him from the ice to street clothes.

 

[nyr2k2]

he should be. Milking the Rangers for every dime after collecting $100 million plus endorsements and opting not to waive his NTC during an obvious rebuild is bordering obnoxious.

Imagine if NY followed hockey as closely as baseball. The two starters rotate from starter to street clothes for the last 20 games while Hank dresses for the bench. Smh

I really don't think it's about "milking the Rangers" out of anything. I honestly believe he thinks he can play and wants to do so. Not at all uncommon for fading stars to hang on past their expiration date out of pride and inability to recognize their diminished abilities.

Given he's owed $5.5M this year and most players pay an effective tax rate of between 40-50 percent, and more than that with the additional fees he's subject to, and he's probably looking at $2.5-$3.0M in actual earnings. I really don't see him sticking around to be miserable as a backup for that kind of money, given what he has earned in his career and that he would have other money-making opportunities the second he retires from the NHL.

 

[NYSPORTS]

I really don't think it's about "milking the Rangers" out of anything. I honestly believe he thinks he can play and wants to do so. Not at all uncommon for fading stars to hang on past their expiration date out of pride and inability to recognize their diminished abilities.

.

i think he wants to play too. We’ve read quotes about him going home and working on both his mental and physical game. We’ve seen the whiffs on goals, riding the bench, the other quotes about how “Tough this year” has been, etc.

He knows the Rangers are building a powerhouse and is desperately trying to find that magic so he doesn’t miss out.

This whole scenario is painful. We know he wanted to stay with the Rangers even though the entire roster outside of Kreider is gone. The writing didn’t have to be interpreted on a wall b/c it was written on a letter to the fans. Unlike then, now there is a replacement for him. Two in fact. Meanwhile, JD has a sit down and spoke to Hank last offseason and again at the conclusion of this season.

With that said, with a replacement here and all of the above taking place the ONLY reason Hank is in uniform is a contract. Otherwise, he’s gone. Knowing this, delusion or not or whatever, if he hangs on knowing it’s only his contract keeping him here after collecting over $100 million plus endorsements and holds the Rangers accountable, yes, Hank is milking the Rangers.

(And will all their operating income we know companies, including sports teams, can put somebody on their payroll/employ and pay them X over multiple years)

 

[NYRangers0723]

He's weighing his options, for sure. It's retirement or, if the Rangers green light it, play as a #2. He isn't tradeable with that contract even with retention.

. Agreed. I hope its retirement. I think his time has come and he could play back home if he wants. Plus I really don’t want to trade Georgiev just to keep Hank for one more year

 

[haohmaru]

lol, your take changes as quickly as Miami weather.

Never mind the stats, he’s not done. lol He’s just not worth one measly year at 50% retention to any other team lol. The Rangers need him to dress on the bench while the starters rotate around him from the ice to street clothes.

My take has been consistent throughout: don't buy him out, trade Georgiev for assets, play him as a backup. Nothing's changed except you trying to distort it to fit whatever "done" argument you're trying to make.

The same reason he's not tradeable is the same reason you want him to hang up his skates: his cap hit. That does not equate to he's incapable of being a backup in the NHL.

 

[haohmaru]

. Agreed. I hope its retirement. I think his time has come and he could play back home if he wants. Plus I really don’t want to trade Georgiev just to keep Hank for one more year

Georgiev's aspirations aren't to be a career backup either so something will have to give at some point.

 

[NYSPORTS]

My take has been consistent throughout: don't buy him out, trade Georgiev for assets, play him as a backup. Nothing's changed except you trying to distort it to fit whatever "done" argument you're trying to make.

The same reason he's not tradeable is the same reason you want him to hang up his skates: his cap hit. That does not equate to he's incapable of being a backup in the NHL.

hilarious

 

[haohmaru]

hilarious

Consistent

 

[bobbop]

Georgiev's aspirations aren't to be a career backup either so something will have to give at some point.

No more than two years down the road. At that point, it becomes time to monetize the asset or lose him for nothing the following year.

And who really wants an unhappy backup for three years?