Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[OnlyTruth]

The other contracts have nothing to do with it. In this nhl, 8.5 is too much for a goalie. We are paying for who he is and what he's accomplished and that's fine..i want him finishing his career here but fact of the matter is it's too much for a goalie AND he didn't give us a dime of a home town discount if you ask me. Also fine, but some like to claim he would've gotten 10+ on the market.

Totaly agree that he is over paid and was a financial burden on a team for a very long time. I blame Sather and also naive fans for the hype.

I said it before and I will say it again, Rangers will never win the cup with him. He is average at best and it specially showed in the playoffs. A few years ago, the cup could have been ours at least 2 times, but he got out played by the opposition goalie every time.

 

[nevesis]

Totaly agree that he is over paid and was a financial burden on a team for a very long time. I blame Sather and also naive fans for the hype.

I said it before and I will say it again, Rangers will never win the cup with him. He is average at best and it specially showed in the playoffs. A few years ago, the cup could have been ours at least 2 times, but he got out played by the opposition goalie every time.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I’m glad you’re not the one making this decision because your idea of preserving your ROI would result in creating a friction between the organization and Hank.

Very clear from your posts that you worry about a few draft spots more than Hank’s legacy. I’d love to see Gorton calling 30 win streak “silly” to Hank’s face and the lash back he (deserving) would get.

Are you seriously so ignorant that you think we should continue to play 36 year old player as much as he wants to be played for the sake of keeping him allegedly happy? That's absurd. As players age, you need to manage their time. This isn't rocket surgery. I'm perplexed how you think this is even questionable.

And yes. I worry about the Rangers more than an individual player. I'm a Rangers fan. Perhaps you are a Hank fan. Just so you're aware, the team existed before him and will exist after him. Dunno if you knew that.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

He would have. Have you checked Price's new contract?

Who gives a shit what Price would get? Whatever some other team would pay Price doesn't mean Hank's contract, at 36 years of age, is awful. I get that you're a fan of paying players on past accomplishments without taking into account their ages and mileage, though.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Before his new contract

08-09: $6.875m of a $56.7m cap = 12.1% of team cap

After his new contract

14-15: $8.5m of a $68m cap = 12.5% of team cap
15-16: $8.5m of a $71.4m cap = 11.9% of team cap
17-18: $8.5m of a $75m cap = 11.3% of team cap

It's almost like the position is one of the least valuable on any given team. And an aging goaltender making 8.5M is an awful cap hit for a team.

We all get that you're a goalie. You don't have to keep explaining it to us with these continual hot takes where you overvalue the position.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Georgiev has played really well in the three games he's played so far. He has a .930 save % and he saw a lot of rubber. IMO playing him right now ain't exactly trying to tank. The Rangers depending on their compete level any given night could come out with a win against at least most teams. IMO he should at the very least get 6 of the remaining 16 games. I would actually like to see them do 8 each.

I would prefer the bold. Or even give Costanza 10 of them. Or we can just keep riding Hank into the ground for no reason.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I admire your tenacity but it is not worth it. Know your audience and move on, save yourself the headache and effort.

As to whether or not Hank should sit, I believe that you should always ice the best team in order to give the team the best chance to win on any given night. We have enough pieces to trade for a higher draft pick and the city itself is a big lure for impact UFAs to complement our young core.

Yeah, lets waste assets when we wouldn't have to.

I should bring a scheme like this up to my boss.

Waste always goes over well.

 

[kovazub94]

Are you seriously so ignorant that you think we should continue to play 36 year old player as much as he wants to be played for the sake of keeping him allegedly happy? That's absurd. As players age, you need to manage their time. This isn't rocket surgery. I'm perplexed how you think this is even questionable.

And yes. I worry about the Rangers more than an individual player. I'm a Rangers fan. Perhaps you are a Hank fan. Just so you're aware, the team existed before him and will exist after him. Dunno if you knew that.

Go talk to your kid like that or maybe get some carbs in your body - your diet seems to impact your reading comprehension besides making you miserable.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Go talk to your kid like that or maybe get some carbs in your body - your diet seems to impact your reading comprehension besides making you miserable.

I was unaware of the fact that my knowledge about how the human body functions as it ages was a sign of "anger".

Maybe you shouldn't say ridiculous things such as the idea that we should somehow think that an alleged consummate professional like Hank would bitch and moan and create problems if they told him that they wanted to preserve him for the coming seasons. What is Hank? Is he a good teammate who will do anything for the Rangers? Or is he an aging star that still wants to play like he's 25? You're trying to play it both ways.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. The team needs to worry about a 36 year old breaking down much more than they do his ego (that you and others continue to say doesn't exist - although it's interesting to see you use it as a crutch, here).

I mean, either the guy cares more about the team and the team's future or he cares more about his legacy. This is a pretty simple equation. I don't think that Hank would complain much if they told him that they wanted to preserve his body going forward for another run or two. If he did, that'd be the sign of a pretty cruddy teammate who just wants to hit some random mark to me. Granted, I choose to think that Hank is above that. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

As far as I'm concerned, the Hank contract will start to look bad in one year. Maybe he'll retire at some point, but in any case, he deserves every penny and tbh he's still worth it. The team and system around him simply suck. I've come to accept the Hank softies a long time ago and his diva-ness too. He's the King and gave us the best chances at a Cup.

Also he seems to have adapted his game to his age and capabilities (after couple of months into the season.) If Allaire an Hank continue to be smart, he can easily deliver on 2 of the remaining 3 years.

 

[haveandare]

Totaly agree that he is over paid and was a financial burden on a team for a very long time. I blame Sather and also naive fans for the hype.

I said it before and I will say it again, Rangers will never win the cup with him. He is average at best and it specially showed in the playoffs. A few years ago, the cup could have been ours at least 2 times, but he got out played by the opposition goalie every time.

Literally everyone but like 3 people on this forum recognize that he's a hall of famer and one of the best goalies of his generation if not the best.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

As far as I'm concerned, the Hank contract will start to look bad in one year. Maybe he'll retire at some point, but in any case, he deserves every penny and tbh he's still worth it. The team and system around him simply suck. I've come to accept the Hank softies a long time ago and his diva-ness too. He's the King and gave us the best chances at a Cup.

Also he seems to have adapted his game to his age and capabilities (after couple of months into the season.) If Allaire an Hank continue to be smart, he can easily deliver on 2 of the remaining 3 years.

It's already a bad contract. Hank has had a very average year overall. He had some really awful hockey in the beginning. Then he went on one of the most insane runs I have ever seen from any goalie ever for a bit of a stretch. And then he started trending towards good-but-not-great again.

We need to move on from paying past performances. At least Gorton is showing us that's his game. Trading McD was evidence of that. It's a positive step forward.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Literally everyone but like 3 people on this forum recognize that he's a hall of famer and one of the best goalies of his generation if not the best.

Does anyone actually disagree with this? I can think of one dude, but I think even he says that Hank is a HOFer.

 

[kovazub94]

I was unaware of the fact that my knowledge about how the human body functions as it ages was a sign of "anger".

Maybe you shouldn't say ridiculous things such as the idea that we should somehow think that an alleged consummate professional like Hank would ***** and moan and create problems if they told him that they wanted to preserve him for the coming seasons. What is Hank? Is he a good teammate who will do anything for the Rangers? Or is he an aging star that still wants to play like he's 25? You're trying to play it both ways.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. The team needs to worry about a 36 year old breaking down much more than they do his ego (that you and others continue to say doesn't exist - although it's interesting to see you use it as a crutch, here).

I mean, either the guy cares more about the team and the team's future or he cares more about his legacy. This is a pretty simple equation. I don't think that Hank would complain much if they told him that they wanted to preserve his body going forward for another run or two. If he did, that'd be the sign of a pretty cruddy teammate who just wants to hit some random mark to me. Granted, I choose to think that Hank is above that. Perhaps I am wrong.

Go back and read my original post. I opened by saying that Georgiev should get his fair share of games this season. I even agreed with your own suggestion that Hank should get about 60% of remaining games. What I said will not happen is a FULL SHUTDOWN of Lundqvist in order to gain a few spots in the lottery. You have to read first before you start typing replies.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Go back and read my original post. I opened by saying that Georgiev should get his fair share of games this season. I even agreed with your own suggestion that Hank should get about 60% of remaining games. What I said will not happen is a FULL SHUTDOWN of Lundqvist in order to gain a few spots in the lottery. You have to read first before you start typing replies.

I read it multiple times. I'm discussing this nonsense, among other things: "because your idea of preserving your ROI would result in creating a friction between the organization and Hank".

Interesting that you completely failed to address that. And then you're other quip about draft position or something, but you've already failed to address numerous points of contention, so I won't even bother rehashing that since you'll ignore it once again.

I get that you're trying to have it both ways (and I get that you think that Hank's 30 wins thing is somehow overly relevant to . . . something), but that doesn't really work on here.

HTH, though.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

It's already a bad contract. Hank has had a very average year overall. He had some really awful hockey in the beginning.

Yes early adaption issues and again, the team sucked balls. I truly believe that considering inflation-adjusted stats, i.e. consider a higher sv% with a better team and system, Hank has a good/brilliant year. Flashes of utter greatness. The support is totally gone, at least until Spoon and 'Nam showed up.

Then he went on one of the most insane runs I have ever seen from any goalie ever for a bit of a stretch. And then he started trending towards good-but-not-great again.

He trends between God => Hank => goofy GA/occasional meltdown => God ... 8.5 is fine to me honestly. Teams pay their best player this money. Hank is our best player for years now, and even this year to some extent.

We need to move on from paying past performances. At least Gorton is showing us that's his game. Trading McD was evidence of that. It's a positive step forward.

The contract itself is immovable. Period.

On the other side we have Georgiev and Shesty which both will cost under a million for the next 3 years. Shesty's ELC should be a 2 year (max.) contract, correct me if I'm wrong. I read that it depends on the prospects age. Shesty signing with us at 23? He's too old to get a 3year ELC. Anyhow we can and most probably will have to keep the contract until the last year, where Hank might retire. But we'll have capable young goalies to overcome that.

I truly believe that Hank would retire the last year, if he's convinced he can't play. If he's convinced he can play, he'll deliver.

 

[kovazub94]

I read it multiple times. I'm discussing this nonsense, among other things: "because your idea of preserving your ROI would result in creating a friction between the organization and Hank".

Interesting that you completely failed to address that. And then you're other quip about draft position or something, but you've already failed to address numerous points of contention, so I won't even bother rehashing that since you'll ignore it once again.

I get that you're trying to have it both ways (and I get that you think that Hank's 30 wins thing is somehow overly relevant to . . . something), but that doesn't really work on here.

HTH, though.

My reply to your ROI comment (that you quoting above) was not my original post. Have the last word, I'm done.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yes early adaption issues and again, the team sucked balls. I truly believe that considering inflation-adjusted stats, i.e. consider a higher sv% with a better team and system, Hank has a good/brilliant year. Flashes of utter greatness. The support is totally gone, at least until Spoon and 'Nam showed up.

He's had a good year (not bad, not great). Flashes of brilliance are there, but not sustained other than that one main stretch.

He trends between God => Hank => goofy GA/occasional meltdown => God ... 8.5 is fine to me honestly. Teams pay their best player this money. Hank is our best player for years now, and even this year to some extent.

I'd argue that most teams are going to be moving away from paying for past accomplishments. You want to pay for future accomplishments as cheap as you can. Sather's problem was that he was a fool and paid for the past with both term and AAV. He so royally f***ed up that it's not even funny.

The contract itself is immovable. Period.

No disagreements.

On the other side we have Georgiev and Shesty which both will cost under a million for the next 3 years. Shesty's ELC should be a 2 year (max.) contract, correct me if I'm wrong. I read that it depends on the prospects age. Shesty signing with us at 23? He's too old to get a 3year ELC. Anyhow we can and most probably will have to keep the contract until the last year, where Hank might retire. But we'll have capable young goalies to overcome that.

I truly believe that Hank would retire the last year, if he's convinced he can't play. If he's convinced he can play, he'll deliver.

The problem is that you miss out on a cheap contract. The whole great aspect of ELCs is that they are cheap. If either of those guys establishes himself as the heir apparent, you then look at a more expensive bridge deal (since it's a dubious proposition that either would take a longer term deal at a cheap cost). So the contract screws us in that manner, too.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

My reply to your ROI comment (that you quoting above) was not my original post. Have the last word, I'm done.

Just keep ignoring the discussion points, kov. It's easier.

Your initial post was just dismissive arrogance towards people who think planning for the future is more vital than individual accomplishments. The irony is my post that you're still bitching about didn't even involve you. It wasn't addressed to you at all.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

The problem is that you miss out on a cheap contract. The whole great aspect of ELCs is that they are cheap. If either of those guys establishes himself as the heir apparent, you then look at a more expensive bridge deal (since it's a dubious proposition that either would take a longer term deal at a cheap cost). So the contract screws us in that manner, too.

Context wise, the situation Sather left, the contracts he signed. The attempt to remedy that mess, looks great so far.
I agree that the contract prohibits us to go for some other piece in FA. And all of it sucks.

I really don't want a NFL-cap dump-kinda trade, where we give up a pick in other for a team to pick up Hank.

Hypothetical:
By some misfortune a contender loses their starting goalie.
Hank agrees to be traded.

Hank (50% retained) +

For what? Who would do this?

All of this shouldn't even cross our minds. He'll end his career here. We'll see his number go up and he'll be inducted. And couple of years from now he'll watch the future Rangers win the Cup.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I said it before and I will say it again, Rangers will never win the cup with him. He is average at best and it specially showed in the playoffs. A few years ago, the cup could have been ours at least 2 times, but he got out played by the opposition goalie every time.

What this guys last account name?

"OnlyTruth"

"Objectivity&Justice"

Ironic moronity.

We lacked scoring and the teams were carrying couple of anchor's. Tarasenko and we'd all be happy and jolly.

 

[eco's bones]

I would prefer the bold. Or even give Costanza 10 of them. Or we can just keep riding Hank into the ground for no reason.

I would too. It is Henrik's team but it's also Hayes' team and Zucc's team and Staal's team. In any case I think Henrik shouldn't be the decision maker on whether he plays or not---that should always be the coaching staff and I agree that Henrik's done enough already to keep the team afloat. He decided he wanted to stay on and and part of staying on means he needs to accept how things are going to be as the team moves into unchartered territory.

 

[NYRFAN218]

It's already a bad contract. Hank has had a very average year overall. He had some really awful hockey in the beginning. Then he went on one of the most insane runs I have ever seen from any goalie ever for a bit of a stretch. And then he started trending towards good-but-not-great again.

We need to move on from paying past performances. At least Gorton is showing us that's his game. Trading McD was evidence of that. It's a positive step forward.

He was bad in October and obviously had the rough stretch recently but it's really tough to say he's had an average year overall when he's playing behind this defense. I wonder how much him carrying the team from November to January played into him imploding recently.

I guess what I'm saying is if they put an even average defense in front of him this year that his stats are probably better across the board. Up until that horrible stretch he had, he was at about a 924 save percentage behind the worst D in the league.

The contract itself isn't good and I overall agree that a lot of money shouldn't be allocated to the position but I just find it tough to get worked up over his contract when he's consistently the team's best player and there's so many other wastes of space in terms of salary on the team.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I would too. It is Henrik's team but it's also Hayes' team and Zucc's team and Staal's team. In any case I think Henrik shouldn't be the decision maker on whether he plays or not---that should always be the coaching staff and I agree that Henrik's done enough already to keep the team afloat. He decided he wanted to stay on and and part of staying on means he needs to accept how things are going to be as the team moves into unchartered territory.

Well said. I don’t get how some can both praise his leadership and commitment and then be so quick to see him get angry at the team. It just can’t be both.

 

[eco's bones]

Well said. I don’t get how some can both praise his leadership and commitment and then be so quick to see him get angry at the team. It just can’t be both.

I don't mind Henrik flipping out now and again but with a younger team he's going to need to keep his flipping out to occasionally here and there and not make it a regular habit. The last month or two have really tested him on that and his overall demeanor has not been that great. I think it's been somewhat better with all the new D that we have now though. Most of these guys are going through learning curves and are going to make a lot of mistakes. It's 'big picture' time for him.