Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[Hi ImHFNYR]

What the heck are you talking about? Lundqvist's networth has been twice as much as any other goalie. He has been the face of the franchise, combined with consistently preventing goals over his career more than any other goalie in the league, bar none. Every game, more than everyone. Do you understand the importance of consistency? Why is this even a discussion?

Is a 36 year old Lundqvist worth $8.5m of the cap hit? Compared to what he has done for this franchise, yes, especially compared to all the other failures that were supposed to help him carry the burden. He still decides the outcome of games on his own and even at his age, he gives everything to never allow a goal.

Compared to what the management has done to what Lundqvist has done, I think the franchise should pay him $20m, if it was possible. If there was someone ever there worthy of shaving off millions of Lundqvist's contract; he was never there for 12 years and counting. No player for 12 years have ever proven to be worthy of carrying the franchise alongside Lundqvist. None.

And you ask why he earns $8.5m? Because he has been outstanding at his position, is the best goalie of this era and has received very poor management help to reach his goal of a cup to New York. In my opinion, he carried a flawed team towards a cup further than even Hasek could.

As for now, he's not worth $8.5m a year in his senior years. But that's the debt for his service when he performed higher than his salary, by far, when it really mattered. He WAS the team in the playoffs, every year. That's not acceptable in any way for a team.

To the ridiculous notions of Lundqvist being average, are you for real? Which team have you watched for the last decade, you imbecile? His career performance is ridiculously impressive, considering the circumstances he has - and do - perform in. The teams have been pathetic in many cases and not just worthy of a playoffs - or a cup - in all of them. But they had Lundqvist.

Even $ather has been quoted on stating Lundqvist is as important to NYR as Gretzky was to Edmonton (which was a bad quote, because Edmonton was kind of fine without Gretzky, which NYR never would've been without Lundqvist).

And you whine about his salary when the management admits total defeat, while Lundqvist still refuses to lose a single game? And you ask where the fault is? Hmmmmmm.

Based on this last page of discussion it's unclear who this is directed to. If it's me then you just built a monument to strawmen. I'm assuming it's gt be to someone else.

To your 20 M point. I get it. I don't disagree, if you feel that emotionally attached that you're ok with overpaying him that much then I get it. He'd still be overpaid. Maybe there's a good reason in your mind to cripple the team cap wise and to overpay him considering what he's done, carrying the franchise. But he'd still be overpaid. That's all I'm saying. He's slightly overpaid and will likely be more overpaid as his play could drop.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Based on this last page of discussion it's unclear who this is directed to. If it's me then you just built a monument to strawmen. I'm assuming it's gt be to someone else.

To your 20 M point. I get it. I don't disagree, if you feel that emotionally attached that you're ok with overpaying him that much then I get it. He'd still be overpaid. Maybe there's a good reason in your mind to cripple the team cap wise and to overpay him considering what he's done, carrying the franchise. But he'd still be overpaid. That's all I'm saying. He's slightly overpaid and will likely be more overpaid as his play could drop.

The point is, at this stage of his career, what he's still doing on the ice, it's not exactly a primary concern for this franchise what Hank is paid or not. You are bitching about an overpayment for the only player who is worth an overpayment, for the last 30 years of this franchise. That is the perspective I'm trying to understand. So he's overpaid at the end of his career. What a rejoice compared to the other 40 "franchise" schmucks who weren't even worth their initial payment, for eternity. f***ing hallelujah there was actually a player that performed! And this is your focal point of the progress and future of this franchise? Ok. It's pretty weird, if you ask me. It's not emotional, it's logical perspective. Is Lundqvist and his contract the reason why this franchise couldn't succeed? So what are we even discussing here? That he at his overpaid contract is ruining the tank?

 

[haohmaru]

Being overpaid is subjective. To YOU he is not overpaid. I never said anything about market value. Brad Richards went for market value too, doesn't make him any less overpaid when his play dropped off.

You're not overpaid if you being paid "market value". You pay what the market bears and that's what the player is "worth". In Lundqvist's case, you can make the argument that he would've gotten MORE on the open market that what the Rangers ended up paying him, in which case he's actually making less than he would have if he jumped ship.

And let's not be so simple to just base "OMG HE'S OVERPAID!! HIS GAA IS ____ " or "HIS SAVE % IS ___"

There's a lot more to it than that. He's got a shit team in front of him. Especially now. Easily the worst team since he's been a starter.

There's merchandising to consider - Lundqvist is always in the top 10 jersey sales of all NHL players. Think the Rangers don't get a cut of that?

He's the face of the team. The guy in the TV commercials. The guy doing the interviews. The guy being called to the carpet to answer the tough questions. The guy without the "C" that 's the guy who's really the "C". One of the greatest Rangers of all time. Instant HOF'er. Instant 30 to the rafters guy. A model citizen to fans and their kids.

All of this stuff has value, including $ value. Look beyond the stats. This shouldn't even have to be said.

Lundqvist isn't f***ing Brad Richards. Jesus.

 

[nevesis]

Some amazing stats here regarding Hank's recent workload and how it relates to the rest of his career.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You're not overpaid if you being paid "market value". You pay what the market bears and that's what the player is "worth". In Lundqvist's case, you can make the argument that he would've gotten MORE on the open market that what the Rangers ended up paying him, in which case he's actually making less than he would have if he jumped ship.

And let's not be so simple to just base "OMG HE'S OVERPAID!! HIS GAA IS ____ " or "HIS SAVE % IS ___"

There's a lot more to it than that. He's got a **** team in front of him. Especially now. Easily the worst team since he's been a starter.

There's merchandising to consider - Lundqvist is always in the top 10 jersey sales of all NHL players. Think the Rangers don't get a cut of that?

He's the face of the team. The guy in the TV commercials. The guy doing the interviews. The guy being called to the carpet to answer the tough questions. The guy without the "C" that 's the guy who's really the "C". One of the greatest Rangers of all time. Instant HOF'er. Instant 30 to the rafters guy. A model citizen to fans and their kids.

All of this stuff has value, including $ value. Look beyond the stats. This shouldn't even have to be said.

Lundqvist isn't ****ing Brad Richards. Jesus.

. "you're not overpaid if you're paid market value". I think you're purposely ignoring the obvious answer here.

Of course there's a strawman about GAA in your response. Why wouldn't there be an utterly dishonest strawman in there?

" Lundqvist is not Brad Richards" THATS what you took away? Holy shit. Just wow.

Hes overpaid imo. Im also ok w overpaying him for a variety of reasons including things you mentioned. Still overpaid though. Dont like it? Too bad. I explained my rationale. You utterly failed to understand or respond to most of what i said.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

The point is, at this stage of his career, what he's still doing on the ice, it's not exactly a primary concern for this franchise what Hank is paid or not. You are *****ing about an overpayment for the only player who is worth an overpayment, for the last 30 years of this franchise. That is the perspective I'm trying to understand. So he's overpaid at the end of his career. What a rejoice compared to the other 40 "franchise" schmucks who weren't even worth their initial payment, for eternity. ****ing hallelujah there was actually a player that performed! And this is your focal point of the progress and future of this franchise? Ok. It's pretty weird, if you ask me. It's not emotional, it's logical perspective. Is Lundqvist and his contract the reason why this franchise couldn't succeed? So what are we even discussing here? That he at his overpaid contract is ruining the tank?

Youre bitching bc you can't handle that i said he's overpaid. I pretty clearly said im ok w him being overpaid. Wish he wasn't. It annoys me SLIGHTLY on occassion he didnt take a little less considering his likely drop off in play from the ages of 35-40. But im overall fine w him being overpaid a little. That's bitching? Nah. It's not. You just need to learn to deal w differing opinions. Well u dont NEED to. You can keep ranting bc you hate hearing that lundqvist is overpaid.

 

[Irishguy42]

Do people not realize that you can't change AAV mid contract? He was not overpaid at all during the start of the deal, which is all that matters. He earned a contract this big. GMs almost always know that the player isn't going to be "worth the AAV" of the deal when they hit the final few years.

If you actually look at the salary structure, you'll see that he's been getting a salary reduction every year of the deal (minus the first year, which was $8M in signing bonuses + $3M salary). It's not like he's making $8.5M a year lol.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Do people not realize that you can't change AAV mid contract? He was not overpaid at all during the start of the deal, which is all that matters. He earned a contract this big. GMs almost always know that the player isn't going to be "worth the AAV" of the deal when they hit the final few years.

If you actually look at the salary structure, you'll see that he's been getting a salary reduction every year of the deal (minus the first year, which was $8M in signing bonuses + $3M salary). It's not like he's making $8.5M a year lol.

If he was making 6.5 aav to start and 6.5 now and 6.5 in the future id say its a perfect, sweetheart of a deal. He's not and as a result I'm not. He's overpaid over the life of his contract

 

[nevesis]

It annoys me SLIGHTLY on occassion he didnt take a little less considering his likely drop off in play from the ages of 35-40.

Imagine you're Henrik Lundqvist, and you just spent the first 8 years of your career giving blood, sweat and tears to the organization and helping them get to multiple deep rounds of the playoffs, winning a Vezina, and beginning to set all time Rangers goalie records, and some NHL records, you're a star NHL goaltender, face of the franchise and one of the most marketable assets for the NHL.

You get to the negotiating table with your agent, and you sit there and say...

"You know, I really should take less money because I most likely will have a drop in play 6-8 years from now."

"Forget what I did before, and forget what I will continue to do for the next 4-5 years. Let's just focus on what most likely will happen in the last remaining years of this contract."

I mean, cmon man...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Imagine you're Henrik Lundqvist, and you just spent the first 8 years of your career giving blood, sweat and tears to the organization and helping them get to multiple deep rounds of the playoffs, winning a Vezina, and beginning to set all time Rangers goalie records, and some NHL records, you're a star NHL goaltender, face of the franchise and one of the most marketable assets for the NHL.

You get to the negotiating table with your agent, and you sit there and say...

"You know, I really should take less money because I most likely will have a drop in play 6-8 years from now."

"Forget what I did before, and forget what I will continue to do for the next 4-5 years. Let's just focus on what most likely will happen in the last remaining years of this contract."

I mean, cmon man...

Imagine being paid handsomely your entire career, being one of the top paid goalies in the world pretty much every year you played in the league and then getting overpaid the last few years of it. No wait, don't imagine it bc its happening now. For the thousandth time. I get WHY you are ok w him being overpaid but he IS overpaid. Now...and likely moreso going forward.

 

[haohmaru]

. "you're not overpaid if you're paid market value". I think you're purposely ignoring the obvious answer here.

Of course there's a strawman about GAA in your response. Why wouldn't there be an utterly dishonest strawman in there?

" Lundqvist is not Brad Richards" THATS what you took away? Holy ****. Just wow.

Hes overpaid imo. Im also ok w overpaying him for a variety of reasons including things you mentioned. Still overpaid though. Dont like it? Too bad. I explained my rationale. You utterly failed to understand or respond to most of what i said.

Here we go with the strawman crap again. You think he's overpaid? That's fine and you're entitled to your opinion. I think you're completely off your rocker with that and that's my opinion and I'm equally entitled to that as well. Not going to back and forth for 20 pages again about opinions. You rationale is garbage. That's my opinion. Carry on.

 

[Mikos87]

Some amazing stats here regarding Hank's recent workload and how it relates to the rest of his career.

"System"

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Funny that's what i said when YOU used a strawman. Maybe learn to have an honest discussion without using fallacies. You have no argument and you know I'm right so you resort to simply calling my argument "garbage" and publicly announce you're leaving the discussion instead of just, yknow... not coming back to the discussion. Thanks for trying though!

 

[Doctyl]

It’s not like we were going to put the 2 million we could’ve saved by playing hardball with Hank to good use. Like seriously what were we going to do with that? Not buyout Girardi?

 

[RempireStateBuilding]

Funny that's what i said when YOU used a strawman. Maybe learn to have an honest discussion without using fallacies. You have no argument and you know I'm right so you resort to simply calling my argument "garbage" and publicly announce you're leaving the discussion instead of just, yknow... not coming back to the discussion. Thanks for trying though!

> "learn how to have a discussion"
> "YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT, AGREE WITH ME!!!!"

If there was a player across the last 25 years that has been Rangers property that I would overpay for, it would be Hank. He's dragged this team kicking and screaming through hellfire year in, year out. He's earned every cent he gets from this organization.

 

[East Coast Bias]

It’s not like we were going to put the 2 million we could’ve saved by playing hardball with Hank to good use. Like seriously what were we going to do with that? Not buyout Girardi?

Instead of signging Grabner, we could have put that extra 2m into a higher cap wing. Like a Hagelin, Belesky, Joel Ward, Jamie McGinn.

Game changer tbh

 

[Siddi]

If he was making 6.5 aav to start and 6.5 now and 6.5 in the future id say its a perfect, sweetheart of a deal. He's not and as a result I'm not. He's overpaid over the life of his contract

I dont think you know what the definition of overpayment means. Do you even realise how insane it is for him to sniff at his career average sv% while playing behind a team full of AHL players?

I would argue that he is underpayed for what is expected of him.

 

[nyrage]

There has been a lot of chatter over the past couple of days about Vasilevsky and Holtby suffering from workload fatigue. That should make everyone appreciate Lundqvist even more. He's a lot older and has been doing it for many more years. A competitor like no other.

Not only is Henrik the best Rangers goalie of all time, but he's one of the best of all time. Our only regret is if he never wins a Cup with us, but it doesn't take away from all of his great accomplishments.

 

[TGWL]

NHLPA did a survey that was released today and asked players about the best goalie of all-time (might have been posted in other threads). Anyway, the only current goalie in the top 5 was Carey Price. No Hank.

Which made me think - how many times during his career was the argument for best G in the league "Hank or ____"?

Hank or Rask
Hank or Tim Thomas
Hank or Lou
Hank or Quick
Hank or Bob
Hank or Price
Hank or Holtby

Every couple years a different guy would have a great 2 year streak, then fade off a bit. He had a different couple guys that people were arguing were as good or better every year. This has gone on for over a decade. Some of these guys have had 3 year stretches that were unreal. None of them have done it for 10 years.

The consistency in which he's been elite is unbelievable. Just amazing.

I'd be curious as who they asked. There's a lot of new players in the league, who haven't played against Lundqvist for 10 or so years. If a large percent of the players asked were young players, I can see the list being "Players they grew up watching, and price"

Who were the other 4 goalies? Roy, Hasek, Brodeur?

 

[East Coast Bias]

I'd be curious as who they asked. There's a lot of new players in the league, who haven't played against Lundqvist for 10 or so years. If a large percent of the players asked were young players, I can see the list being "Players they grew up watching, and price"

Who were the other 4 goalies? Roy, Hasek, Brodeur?

Yes + Ken Dryden.

They did have a question on current - who is the toughest goalie to score on?

1- Price, 2- Quick, 3-Rinne, 4-Bob, 5-Holtby

Here's the link

NHLPA Player Poll 2017-18

 

[TGWL]

Yes + Ken Dryden.

They did have a question on current - who is the toughest goalie to score on?

1- Price, 2- Quick, 3-Rinne, 4-Bob, 5-Holtby

Here's the link

NHLPA Player Poll 2017-18

Yeah, I saw that one and i figured how much different would it be depending on which players age bracket they asked.

 

[haohmaru]

Funny that's what i said when YOU used a strawman. Maybe learn to have an honest discussion without using fallacies. You have no argument and you know I'm right so you resort to simply calling my argument "garbage" and publicly announce you're leaving the discussion instead of just, yknow... not coming back to the discussion. Thanks for trying though!

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I didn't say that YOU said you were basing your opinion on GAA or other stats. I said "Let's not base our opinions..." LET US is clearly not referring to YOU or what you've said. As a matter of fact, after scrolling back a few pages, I don't see any substantive compelling argument made by you as to why you think Lundqvist is "overpaid" statistically or otherwise. It's simply your opinion and I completely disagree with it. Period. I've made my case as to why he deserved to be paid. Go back and read it.

 

[kovazub94]

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I didn't say that YOU said you were basing your opinion on GAA or other stats. I said "Let's not base our opinions..." LET US is clearly not referring to YOU or what you've said. As a matter of fact, after scrolling back a few pages, I don't see any substantive compelling argument made by you as to why you think Lundqvist is "overpaid" statistically or otherwise. It's simply your opinion and I completely disagree with it. Period. I've made my case as to why he deserved to be paid. Go back and read it.

Not to take away from your back and forth but for offtopick - I think many people here assign different meaning to the term "strawman". As far as I'm aware "strawman" is something that you start to build-on from.

 

[haohmaru]

Strawman is arguing against a point that your "opponent" didn't make. When I said "let us" it clearly wasn't referring to anything that he said. It was a general statement pointing out that that seems to be fuel (despite the fact that Lundqvist might be the most statistically consistent goalie of all time) for the "overpaid" argument - particularly if other goalies are being paid less and have better stats.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I don't think you know what a strawman is. I didn't say that YOU said you were basing your opinion on GAA or other stats. I said "Let's not base our opinions..." LET US is clearly not referring to YOU or what you've said. As a matter of fact, after scrolling back a few pages, I don't see any substantive compelling argument made by you as to why you think Lundqvist is "overpaid" statistically or otherwise. It's simply your opinion and I completely disagree with it. Period. I've made my case as to why he deserved to be paid. Go back and read it.

And you said it in your response to me using "..." . Either a strawman where you put words in my mouth and argued against it or you did a terrible job communicating.

In your opinion of course what i said wasnt compelling. Nothing would be. I gave more than enough reasoning but your bias is never going to let you see that. Also no shit it's an opinion. I said it was a fact? No.