Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[haohmaru]

Hmmm



The only thing? So every comment I've ever made is "Strawman argument, strawman argument, strawman argument." Wow. How'd I pull that off for over 3,700 comments?

The only that's clear is YOU both don't know what it is based on your comments here (and your continued use of/defense of this dishonest discussion tactic). Not surprising. Honest debate doesn't seem to be something either of you are familiar with. But much like denying reality itself, I guess it's all you have to rely on. Not the strongest of foundations for your stances but it seems you've convinced yourselves it's working so have at it.

Like I said - you have NO idea what a strawman argument is. The above just proves it.

In my post above - who is the opponent that I'm making arguments for that they haven't made? Who's mouth am I putting words into? Who is the subject of this "strawman"?

The answer is NO ONE. And I certainly wasn't talking to YOU.

Or are you making the argument that literally no one has ever said Lundqvist is overpaid because he lets in soft goals, his save % has dipped, his GA is higher, or he has less wins than he usually does? Because that would be quite false.

Even that is immaterial because it's not what it was about at all.

No, sir, my sentence above was absolutely (and clearly) sarcastic and directed at no one. It can't be a strawman. Look it up. Learn something.

Speaking of honest discussion - I've read every post of yours in this thread about "overpaid" Lundqvist and I'll still stand by what I said before - you've made no compelling or factual argument about why he's overpaid, statistically or otherwise. If you want to have an honest discussion, then do some homework and let us all know how you arrived at this conclusion.

On second thought, don't. It'd be a lot of work for you and I'd still disagree with you when you factor in all of the specific reasons I've given as to why our opinions about this differ.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Like I said - you have NO idea what a strawman argument is. The above just proves it.

In my post above - who is the opponent that I'm making arguments for that they haven't made? Who's mouth am I putting words into? Who is the subject of this "strawman"?

The answer is NO ONE. And I certainly wasn't talking to YOU.

Or are you making the argument that literally no one has ever said Lundqvist is overpaid because he lets in soft goals, his save % has dipped, his GA is higher, or he has less wins than he usually does? Because that would be quite false.

Even that is immaterial because it's not what it was about at all.

No, sir, my sentence above was absolutely (and clearly) sarcastic and directed at no one. It can't be a strawman. Look it up. Learn something.

Speaking of honest discussion - I've read every post of yours in this thread about "overpaid" Lundqvist and I'll still stand by what I said before - you've made no compelling or factual argument about why he's overpaid, statistically or otherwise. If you want to have an honest discussion, then do some homework and let us all know how you arrived at this conclusion.

On second thought, don't. It'd be a lot of work for you and I'd still disagree with you when you factor in all of the specific reasons I've given as to why our opinions about this differ.

Ooooooh so you posted that 10 W, comment to absolutely no one, about absolutely no one and it had literally nothing to do at all with the conversation I was having...even though the conversation was discussing his stats and quality of play and there'd be literally no other reason to post that then as a strawman used to disqualify my actual point?

 

[haohmaru]

I actually posted it in reaction to Ori's post about our D while watching the game last night. I posted about being "overpaid" in the GDT, too. That wasn't directed at you either.

But, if you'd like to talk about his stats and quality of play, I'm all ears.

 

[haohmaru]

16th in wins. 7th in losses. Nearly 3 GAA. Possibly going to have more losses than wins this season. Not an 8 M performance imo.

Is this what you're talking about? Interesting.

I could see how you'd think it was, but I'm still not certain that it's a strawman argument even if it were directed at you. I guess you could make the argument that you haven't specifically stated what your criteria is for an 8M "performance" but clearly enhancing those statistics would (which my sarcastic response would on some of them - not losses or save %) is an argument you actually really are making.

Still not a strawman, IMHO. Even if it were directed at you and it wasn't.

 

[kovazub94]

I suggest you guys make it a private discussion. It’s been going on for weeks now and totally polluted this thread as it seems neither one of you is willing to let it go.

 

[haohmaru]

I guess my simple response to using statistics like W/L/GA as a measure of a goalie's worth is that it's just way to simplistic to evaluate what you're getting.

If a goalie stops 9/10 breakaways and another goalie stops 97/100 shots from the other goalie's crease, which goalie is better?

If a goalie has the TB Lightning D in front of him or the AHL Rangers in front of him, which is more likely to have better numbers, lower quality scoring chances, lower shots, lower GAA, higher save %, more wins, less losses, etc...

Are you going to sell more Anti Raanta jerseys or more Henrik Lundqvist jerseys?

If Henrik Lundqivst is holding a charity event or Kinkaid is holding an event, which will likely generate more $, more media, more interest?

If you're selling hair gel in a commercial, are you going to use Cam Ward or Henrik Lundqvist?

When you think of the Rangers, who is the face of the franchise? Name other NHL teams where the first player you think of on that team is their goaltender.

My point here is there's more to value in a contract than just numbers and even those numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.

My feeling going in was that the Rangers were a bubble team (they were) and they'd have to rely on their aging superstar goalie to carry them across the finish line (again) and get knocked out of the playoffs early. And, honestly, if the Rangers didn't sell at the deadline I think they would've squeaked in again even with the multitude of injuries and it's likely Hank would've been the primary reason.

But, we'll never know. Down year for him, big down year for the team. Hopefully we can put it together quick enough for him to win a Cup.

 

[haohmaru]

I suggest you guys make it a private discussion. It’s been going on for weeks now and totally polluted this thread as it seems neither one of you is willing to let it go.

Yeah, I agree. The post above will be my last on the subject.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I suggest you guys make it a private discussion. It’s been going on for weeks now and totally polluted this thread as it seems neither one of you is willing to let it go.

It was let go for days. Nev made a comment about it so since there was literally nothing actually going on in this thread to pollute I figured I'd reply and cont the convo.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Is this what you're talking about? Interesting.

I could see how you'd think it was, but I'm still not certain that it's a strawman argument even if it were directed at you. I guess you could make the argument that you haven't specifically stated what your criteria is for an 8M "performance" but clearly enhancing those statistics would (which my sarcastic response would on some of them - not losses or save %) is an argument you actually really are making.

Still not a strawman, IMHO. Even if it were directed at you and it wasn't.

If you were to take that post and claim that I'm saying he needs 35 W a 2.00 GAA and a .930% (Insanely good numbers that can't be reasonably expected and I'd be a fool to say it) then in that hypothetical I believe 100% that you'd be building a straw man. But fine agree to disagree

You say you weren't responding to me. So fine I believe you but people were doing that to me repeatedly so I think I made a reasonable assumption here even if I was wrong about where u aimed that response.

I have NO problem if anyone feels it's all the D's fault, I'll disagree and discuss it but I wouldn't get annoyed or be my prick sarcastic self. When I think I'm constantly having words put in my mouth I get a little bit less friendly in my responses.

Edit:
I also did mention a plethora of legit points like cups, age, decline, etc in one post. No one ever responded to any of it

 

[Tyler Durden]

You think Lundqvist plays out rest of the season this week or Pavelec will get a start?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Firing AV and bringing in a defensive-minded or puck possession coach are the only things that will stabilize Henrik's career and keep him fresh enough to provide elite goaltending for the rest of his deal.

Keeping AV does nothing for Henrik. He will continue to be pelted no matter how young, quick or skilled the defensemen in front of him are.

If they bring back AV, then they should trade Lundqvist. Simple as that. Henrik will buckle playing for him another year and waive any restriction.

While I don't agree with paying a goalie $8.5 mil a year, they owe it to the guy to bring in a fresh set of eyes and get the most of what still appears to be a decent, playoff-caliber roster.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't think they need a defensive minded or a possession coach to help Lundqvist.

A coach who does not send 3 players to chase the puck behind their own net when the other team only has one or two players there would suffice. A coach who can actually get the team to not flee the zone as first reaction would also be better. Perhaps one who would just play the most talented players at the same time?

It comes down to what they are ending up building, if they go without the premier skater talent, which looks to be the case, then they should be able to fit more talent under the cap down the depth chart, use that to build a roster where there is no 4th line. They are still going to have a 3rd pair, there just are not enough good D available to make both a 1st and two 2nd pairs but that does not mean they can't at least have a good 3rd pair.

Management needs to figure out what they are building, then get a coach that can facilitate it, not worry about Lundqvist as that will take care of itself if they both build a good roster throughout and have a coach who actually plays the best players available.

 

[nevesis]

Hank has a message...



https://nypost.com/2018/04/02/lundq...medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

 

[lilphildub]

Hank has a message...



https://nypost.com/2018/04/02/lundqvist-sends-loud-message-rangers-will-not-hit-bottom/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

With the the amount of parody in the league and a new coach, I think this team can make the playoffs next year. Problem is they probably won't get far and then are stuck with mid to late first rounders. With the picks of Andersson and Chytil I trust them to make good picks if they are higher but its hard to get a true breakout player you need to draft top 5. Might not happen until Henrik is gone unfortunately for a true rebuild

 

[Irishguy42]

With the the amount of parody in the league and a new coach, I think this team can make the playoffs next year. Problem is they probably won't get far and then are stuck with mid to late first rounders. With the picks of Andersson and Chytil I trust them to make good picks if they are higher but its hard to get a true breakout player you need to draft top 5. Might not happen until Henrik is gone unfortunately for a true rebuild

The league is definitely a parody of NA sports

 

[tailgunner]

maybe if you didn't let a weak wrist shot from the blueline go in during OT in game 3 of the ECF in 2015, you might have a cup by now.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

maybe if you didn't let a weak wrist shot from the blueline go in during OT in game 3 of the ECF in 2015, you might have a cup by now.

I can't get past some people watching 13 years of one of the best Rangers ever, and boiling it down to flaming garbage like this.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Hank has a message...



https://nypost.com/2018/04/02/lundqvist-sends-loud-message-rangers-will-not-hit-bottom/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

Hopefully Lundqvist can spot the difference between a team actively trying to lose vs. a young team that just stinks....because this franchise could be headed towards the latter in the immediate future.

 

[nevesis]

I can't get past some people watching 13 years of one of the best Rangers ever, and boiling it down to flaming garbage like this.

You can't fix stupid.

 

[haohmaru]

“It’s important that the guys who are here for the first time understand they need to compete.
That is what we expect here. If [our veterans] had seen that the front office was encouraging tanking, that would not have been appreciated, absolutely not. You want to be a part of a group that’s doing everything it can to win, no matter what the circumstances. In the event you don’t see that from everyone, there are people here who will let it be known that isn’t acceptable. That’s your job."

I think it's pretty clear he doesn't want a culture of losing that's looking for excuses (young, inexperienced, raw) instead of trying to win every game. It's a great attitude.

 

[haveandare]

“It’s important that the guys who are here for the first time understand they need to compete.
That is what we expect here. If [our veterans] had seen that the front office was encouraging tanking, that would not have been appreciated, absolutely not. You want to be a part of a group that’s doing everything it can to win, no matter what the circumstances. In the event you don’t see that from everyone, there are people here who will let it be known that isn’t acceptable. That’s your job."

I think it's pretty clear he doesn't want a culture of losing that's looking for excuses (young, inexperienced, raw) instead of trying to win every game. It's a great attitude.

It's very clear unless one is looking for a reason to chase Hank out of town so we can lose even more. The idea that management doesn't or won't like what he's saying is nonsense - that's exactly the kind of attitude they look for in new players. He's saying even though the team is rebuilding the players need to do everything they can to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong or bad about that at all.

 

[Edge]

I think we've almost come to forget just how amazing the body of Lunqvist's career truly is, and how rare of a talent he is.

 

[haohmaru]

He's probably the most consistent goalie of all time

People forget that Hasek was 38-11-6 with a .913 save % at the ripe old age of 42. Henrik still has some tread on the tires especially if the system (hint: NOT AV) benefits him.

 

[The S5]

I guess my simple response to using statistics like W/L/GA as a measure of a goalie's worth is that it's just way to simplistic to evaluate what you're getting.

If a goalie stops 9/10 breakaways and another goalie stops 97/100 shots from the other goalie's crease, which goalie is better?

If a goalie has the TB Lightning D in front of him or the AHL Rangers in front of him, which is more likely to have better numbers, lower quality scoring chances, lower shots, lower GAA, higher save %, more wins, less losses, etc...

Are you going to sell more Anti Raanta jerseys or more Henrik Lundqvist jerseys?

If Henrik Lundqivst is holding a charity event or Kinkaid is holding an event, which will likely generate more $, more media, more interest?

If you're selling hair gel in a commercial, are you going to use Cam Ward or Henrik Lundqvist?

When you think of the Rangers, who is the face of the franchise? Name other NHL teams where the first player you think of on that team is their goaltender.

My point here is there's more to value in a contract than just numbers and even those numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.

My feeling going in was that the Rangers were a bubble team (they were) and they'd have to rely on their aging superstar goalie to carry them across the finish line (again) and get knocked out of the playoffs early. And, honestly, if the Rangers didn't sell at the deadline I think they would've squeaked in again even with the multitude of injuries and it's likely Hank would've been the primary reason.

But, we'll never know. Down year for him, big down year for the team. Hopefully we can put it together quick enough for him to win a Cup.

Really tired of the "win Hank a Cup" nonsense. The guy, for years, has been the highest paid player at his position. Anyone feeling sorry for him is way off base.

Its a team game. Sometimes, your team just isn't good enough to win it all. Hank isn't the first player to not win a Cup and won't be the last. I'm sure he'll be fine.

How about, as fans, we cheer for the logo on front and winning a championship for the fans that support and pay the teams salary?

 

[haohmaru]

Really tired of the "win Hank a Cup" nonsense. The guy, for years, has been the highest paid player at his position. Anyone feeling sorry for him is way off base.

Its a team game. Sometimes, your team just isn't good enough to win it all. Hank isn't the first player to not win a Cup and won't be the last. I'm sure he'll be fine.

How about, as fans, we cheer for the logo on front and winning a championship for the fans that support and pay the teams salary?

As fans, I'd think our priority is always to win a Cup. I just hope that Henrik is on a Rangers team, cheered for and supported by Rangers fans, that does it.

And, it's really not about "feeling sorry" for anyone. There are certain great players you'd like to have seen, or see, win a championship because of the legacy that precedes/preceded them. Ovechkin, Gartner, Bure, Park, Ratelle, Sedins, etc... Hall of Fame careers missing one thing.