Speculation: Is Henrik really in the driver's seat?

[SML]

I'll start by saying that Lundqvist is arguably the best player to have put on the Ranger sweater.

But is he really in as good a position as people make it out to be?

He makes a ton of money, and as an upcoming UFA, the thought has been that he is going to write his own check.

But really, this team has shown it plays arguably as well with a John Doe like Talbot as it does with him.

THe question is this:

Who can write him a high level check without wrecking their own salary structure?

Do any of those teams have a better chance of winning than the team he is on?

Does the team actually do itself a favor by letting Henrik hit UFA and then putting in an offer? Because the number of teams who:
A: Need a goalie
B: Can afford these crazy numbers
C: Can add a 7M+ contract without having to rip their team apart
leaves you with who, exactly, in the market for his UFA services?

Is it worth our cap space to pay him 7M+ when the difference is looking like 1 to 1.5 GAA per game? Does that money go further if you allocate it elsewhere?

I liken this situation to World War One.

All of the best and most experienced military geniuses were taught Cavalry charges.
Then they invented the machine gun (the salary cap)
As a result, the people making the decisions, were working from the old rules
(build from the goal out)
but they failed to realize than those tactics were obsolete.
And the tactics they employed failed terribly.

So, how much can someone reasonably expect to offer him, and who the hell is actually going to step up and do it?

Is this the reason why he appears to be not be quite the player we are used to seeing this year? Does he know it too?

Who would really offer the contract he wants with a better chance to win?

Click to read more...

 

[TheRightWay]

Seven games from Cam Talbot does little to change the importance that Henrik Lundqvist has had to this organization for almost a decade now and it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise. You're trying to speculate on contract negotiations which is naive because we have no idea what he wants, what the Rangers are willing to give, and what his agent & Sather have agreed upon thus far.

 

[zuckera1]

6 years, 9 million per and no more than that. I'll give him an additional million for two less years of term (when he'd be 39 and 40).

 

[LeetchisGod]

6 years, 9 million per and no more than that. I'll give him an additional million for two less years of term (when he'd be 39 and 40).

No goalie is worth $9 million in today's nhl. Look at the goalies who have been winning cups lately. The position isn't as important as it used to be. You don't need a Roy, Brodeur or Hasek caliber goalie to win anymore.

 

[Calad]

No goalie is worth $9 million in today's nhl. Look at the goalies who have been winning cups lately. The position isn't as important as it used to be. You don't need a Roy, Brodeur or Hasek caliber goalie to win anymore.

Most teams in the post lockout era had a damn good goalie. Chicago is the exception, not the rule

 

[zuckera1]

No goalie is worth $9 million in today's nhl. Look at the goalies who have been winning cups lately. The position isn't as important as it used to be. You don't need a Roy, Brodeur or Hasek caliber goalie to win anymore.

So he's worth 8 for 8 years instead? If you don't give him more than 8 per, you'll need to give him the max deal or he's gone. I'd give him an additional million for a slightly shorter deal. That 1 million wouldn't make a huge difference throughout the 6 years of the contract. However, having a 39-40 year old Hank making 8 million who's a shell of himself would hurt the team significantly

 

[Savant]

Most teams in the post lockout era had a damn good goalie. Chicago is the exception, not the rule

Yes. But look at their cap hits at the time they won the Cup.

To answer OP, Hank absolutely is in the driver's seat. The Rangers need Lundqvist more than Lundqvist needs the Rangers.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

To answer OP, Hank absolutely is in the driver's seat. The Rangers need Lundqvist more than Lundqvist needs the Rangers.

This. He WILL be resigned, and handsomely.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

6 years, 9 million per and no more than that. I'll give him an additional million for two less years of term (when he'd be 39 and 40).

NINE per!?!? No.

 

[mike14]

Yes. But look at their cap hits at the time they won the Cup.

To answer OP, Hank absolutely is in the driver's seat. The Rangers need Lundqvist more than Lundqvist needs the Rangers.

While I believe the Rangers are going to pay Lundqvist almost whatever he wants, I do have to question this.

We've had Lundy for 8 seasons now and haven't won anything (not his fault), yet every year we lament how we were just 1 or 2 pieces away but couldn't fit those players under the cap. If we give him $8m per aren't we just doing the same thing over and over again?

Hiller, Halak and Elliott (among others) are currently slated to be UFAs and you also have potential goalie logjams in Tampa and other places. Make some good moves at the deadline and pick up one of those goalies for around $5m and you have your starter plus backup for less than the cost of Hank right now with a cap that is almost certain to go up. Yeah, they aren't as good as Hank, but does that matter if it lets you re-tool your team to score more than 2 a game (not likely in Ranger-land)?

 

[NYRFANMANI]

As far as I am conserned anything over 7 mil is a ridiculous overpayment.

6 years 6 mil is a solid deal for both sides. He is not Gods son, nor Hasek or Roy. The way his game looked last year and this seasson early. His play is on the decline. And I've been saying it for many times now. He can not bring gamechanging saves every game. On the other hand with goalie could ...

9 mil per and this team is toast ...

 

[Chimpradamus]

While I agree Hank would cripple the team financially if he demanded 8-9 mil a season, I have to point out that while Hank has been the best player on the team and MVP since forever, which other guys has he seen on the team, which have been paid more than him? Scott Gomez. Chris Drury. Wade Redden was paid about the same. Marian Gaborik. Brad Richards. Rick Nash. All overpaid except for Gaborik perhaps, Nash hopefully somewhat worth it, at least he's not in the trainwreck party with the others.

Hank should be paid about what he is paid right now. But it's a little bit ridiculous the guy that was drafted and has stayed loyal with these trainwrecks of teams the whole way, instead of going somewhere to try to win a Cup, can't be rewarded for it while all from overpaid to overpaid and downright mediocre mercenaries rob the franchise blind. No, one more error doesn't set things right. Just pointing it out.

 

[Vitto79]

I think the Rangers would do 6 ys 8 per right now but Hank wants more. They HAVE to sign him people

 

[SKjEi o2]

While I believe the Rangers are going to pay Lundqvist almost whatever he wants, I do have to question this.

We've had Lundy for 8 seasons now and haven't won anything (not his fault), yet every year we lament how we were just 1 or 2 pieces away but couldn't fit those players under the cap. If we give him $8m per aren't we just doing the same thing over and over again?

Hiller, Halak and Elliott (among others) are currently slated to be UFAs and you also have potential goalie logjams in Tampa and other places. Make some good moves at the deadline and pick up one of those goalies for around $5m and you have your starter plus backup for less than the cost of Hank right now with a cap that is almost certain to go up. Yeah, they aren't as good as Hank, but does that matter if it lets you re-tool your team to score more than 2 a game (not likely in Ranger-land)?

I absolutely agree with everything you said. Can you imagine how many fans will hate Hank when he's 38 and making 7.5 million a year? I don't want to keep him past 36 and under 7 mil MAX. If he wants any more let him walk or if we aren't in the playoffs trade him to a contender.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Seven games from Cam Talbot does little to change the importance that Henrik Lundqvist has had to this organization for almost a decade now and it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise. You're trying to speculate on contract negotiations which is naive because we have no idea what he wants, what the Rangers are willing to give, and what his agent & Sather have agreed upon thus far.

I don't get what he posted that resulted in you typing the bolded. Was it that he is possibly the greatest Ranger of all time? Or are you referencing other people who have minimized his role because I can assure you those peo...uh well that person has often been told how foolish he is being. Hey is it snowing outside? I can barely see through this thick layer of snow it's like blinding snow out there...ahem anyway....

It's also not naïve to speculate on contract negotiations. Do you have any idea where you're posting? That was the only ridiculous comment I've seen in the thread so far I mean really...

The greatest hockey forum on the internet in the NYR subsection with one of the greatest Rangers players of all time up for a new contract and you think it's ridiculous to discuss and speculate on
A) what that contract will be like?
B) who else could sign him?
C) what his future impact will be?

OP had a good question about which teams would be in the running for him assuming he wants somewhere between 7-8 mil for 5-8 years.

Let's face it the team is in a corner considering how good Hank has been. To have him being paid below Rick Nash may come off as an insult to him. Will he be amenable to a deal that pays him slightly more or equal to Nash per year even if it comes with less years? If he demands an 8 for 8 or god forbid a 9 mil per contract then really who would sign him?

I doubt he wants to move and assume he'll take a 7.5 mil per contract. It increases his current per year salary which I'm sure is a demand of his and also doesn't have him playing second salary fiddle to anyone (sort of I mean it's really close). Even if he were to win a vezina this year an 8 for 8 contract would be a massive risk for any team.
I like 7 years and 7 mil or 6 years and slightly more money.

I'd give him the 9 mil per but then the contract can't go past 4 years

 

[patnyrnyg]

6 years, 9 million per and no more than that. I'll give him an additional million for two less years of term (when he'd be 39 and 40).

That would be absolute lunacy.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Yes. But look at their cap hits at the time they won the Cup.

To answer OP, Hank absolutely is in the driver's seat. The Rangers need Lundqvist more than Lundqvist needs the Rangers.

You are so off, it is not even funny. You can not have a goalie taking max money and taking up that much cap space. If they do, don't be surprised when he never wins a Cup. Goalies are like running backs in the NFL. The difference between the best and 20th best is not nearly big enough to warrant paying for the best. If he wants close to max money, I would rather let him go. Go with Talbot, pick up someone like Ryan Miller at likely less than 1/2 the price and less years, and put the cap space towards improving the skaters.

 

[stealthranger]

Yes. But look at their cap hits at the time they won the Cup.

To answer OP, Hank absolutely is in the driver's seat. The Rangers need Lundqvist more than Lundqvist needs the Rangers.

Its like this...Hank needs the Rangers as the Rangers need Hank. Now a question! Will this under 500 winning percentage stay throughout the year and next which would give the Rangers the idea that Hank is coming to his end. Its a thought that the rest of the league will consider and if he is at sub 500 during contract talk its going to be difficult for Hank to get top notch money from the Rangers and the rest of the league as well.

Hank has obvious focus issues on the ice, he better start getting his team in the win column so there wont be any doubts by any GM.

 

[nyr2k2]

With the inevitable growth of the salary cap in the next few years, we can absolutely afford to give him $7M-$8M. Honestly, $9M wouldn't be that big of a deal in all likelihood, but you have to ask is he worth that?

The "emergence" of Cam Talbot doesn't suddenly make Lundqvist potentially expandable. Seven games is such a small sample size. I've been a big Talbot fan for a couple years now, but even I'm under no illusions of him being an elite NHL goaltender. Lundqvist IS an elite NHL goaltender, even if so far this season his play has just been "good" overall.

 

[Synergy27]

You are so off, it is not even funny. You can not have a goalie taking max money and taking up that much cap space. If they do, don't be surprised when he never wins a Cup. Goalies are like running backs in the NFL. The difference between the best and 20th best is not nearly big enough to warrant paying for the best. If he wants close to max money, I would rather let him go. Go with Talbot, pick up someone like Ryan Miller at likely less than 1/2 the price and less years, and put the cap space towards improving the skaters.

This, this, and this.

Hesitation to drop loads of cash on Lundqvist has nothing to do with the "emergence" of Cam Talbot. It has everything to do with bang for the buck. The difference between the #1 goalie and the #14 goalie is pretty minimal wrt performance, but HUGE wrt $$$. Do any of you guys plays in daily salary capped fantasy leagues? Same principle.

It is very hard to build a balanced lineup, and therefore optimize team performance, with so much money in the crease. He's the best in the game, no doubt, but that's not an advantage when considered in the framework of the modern NHL.

 

[stealthranger]

This, this, and this.

Hesitation to drop loads of cash on Lundqvist has nothing to do with the "emergence" of Cam Talbot. It has everything to do with bang for the buck. The difference between the #1 goalie and the #14 goalie is pretty minimal wrt performance, but HUGE wrt $$$. Do any of you guys plays in daily salary capped fantasy leagues? Same principle.

It is very hard to build a balanced lineup, and therefore optimize team performance, with so much money in the crease. He's the best in the game, no doubt, but that's not an advantage when considered in the framework of the modern NHL.

Cam talbot is part of the Ranger equation and becomes a negotiating factor for Sather

 

[gmerger37]

I'm sorry but for everything hank has done for us "in the past" you can't use that to tie up 8mil+ in salary cap till hank is 40.

It's not like hank was playing for free all those years he was carrying this team so that argument is pretty weak IMO.

I'd rather have a serviceable starter making 4 million and use that free cap space to sign someone who can put the puck in the net.

Hank hasn't looked himself this year and personally I'd rather not have 8 or 9 million dollars tied up in this version of hank for the next 8 years.

 

[nyr2k2]

I love that we're disappointed with Lundqvist, that he's been mediocre, etc, and still has a .918 SV%. We're so spoiled. Talbot has just made it worse. I think some people are in for a rude awakening if Lundqvist were to walk. Fortunately for us, I don't think that happens.

Do fans of other teams take their goalies for granted the way we do?

 

[Xref]

The game has changed. When your goalie is your best player, you are in trouble. You need top end talent to put pucks in the net. When you have players that can break a game with goals, an average NHL goaltender is enough to be successful. I'd rather go in that direction. Trading Hank, Callahan, Girardi for top draft picks/stud prospects is the way I'd go. Goalies are easier to obtain.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm sorry but for everything hank has done for us "in the past" you can't use that to tie up 8mil+ in salary cap till hank is 40.

It's not like hank was playing for free all those years he was carrying this team so that argument is pretty weak IMO.

I'd rather have a serviceable starter making 4 million and use that free cap space to sign someone who can put the puck in the net.

Hank hasn't looked himself this year and personally I'd rather not have 8 or 9 million dollars tied up in this version of hank for the next 8 years.

Because giving Glen Sather more cap space is all that stands in the way of this team and a championship. Get real.

Id be on board with committing to a quasi-rebuild that involved trading Callahan, Girardi, and Lundqvist for solid assets, but that takes the type of commitment that this organization will never show