News Article: Lundqvist quotes from Breakup Day

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,988
12,223
Elmira NY
And how great was the team against Tampa? How great was the team against Pittsburgh? How great was the team against Ottawa? How great was the team against anyone not named the Atlanta Trashers in the last 10 years? Always clawing and scraping themselves to just be an inch better than their opponents, always relying on their goaltender to carry the passengers on the team, that are usually a bunch.

Now when Lundqvist doesn't stand on his head 4/5 series, the team is doomed. Because NYR isn't exactly LA Kings, who won with a goalie (Quick) who posted a .912 save percentage when they won the cup. Imagine if this team had any actual team carriers besides Hank. Some actual star player who usually delivers. Zuccarello is a semi star, McD too, but then? No one. Absolutely no one. How many cup winners have you heard of with one, one legit franchise player? Almost none? That's right. Great odds the NYR try to go against here.

But sure, the problem was we didn't play Raanta according to some. Because that was the problem. Ridiculous. Henrik Lundqvist faced more high quality chances than any other goaltender after 2 rounds. Just like every year when NYR goes into the playoffs. Great team, eh?

As for letting Lundqvist go, I think Lundqvist is - and has been - stupid staying with this franchise if he really wants to win a cup. But he obviously cares more about living in New York. Maybe some NYR fans should appreciate that a little bit more. NYR drafted Lundqvist in the 7th round, so it's not like he had any reason to stay loyal. But he did. Apparently that is worth rotten tomatoes by some, because he didn't pretty much single handedly bring the team a cup during his career, because really, the teams NYR faced in the playoffs, a ton of them were better most of the time, but NYR still won, because Lundqvist stood on his head.

So now you want to deal him (yes, please?). Like that would help the NYR winning another cup. That won't happen for another 25 years anyhow. The entire NYR management culture is an entertainment business foremost, not a competitive hockey club. You are customers foremost, not fans. That's the usual backlash for big hockey franchises in big cities for long periods of time.

IMO when you start blaming certain of his teammates you're saying he can't do it on his own. He can't make up for their mistakes---but the Lundqvist of even 5 years ago could make up for a lot more mistakes than the Lundqvist today.

But did I say trade him?--no. He's not the goalie he was 10 years ago though. What I'm saying is the Rangers need another No. 1 as soon as they can get another No. 1.

FWIW Henrik carried the team on his back in the Montreal series. He was our best player. Against the Senators though it was a different story. He let in a number of goals that he would have stopped 10 years ago. He couldn't sustain the same level in the Montreal series and it makes me think that he can't take the team all the way. IMO he can take the team part of the way and if there's another goalie that can help him he might get all the way.

You might not like it but he's going to be 36 next year and even with Staal and/or Klein and/or Girardi gone and I expect at least two of them will be the Rangers aren't likely to have a better group in front of him. He's running out of time and he's not as good as he used to be. He's a sure bet hall of fame goalie but he's not a sure bet to win a Stanley Cup.
 

Fataldogg

Registered User
Mar 22, 2007
12,380
3,660
Management's loyalty to him is apparently more important than winning.

With Raanta I'm confident Rangers would have won in 5 or 6. At the very least he couldn't have been any worse..

If Raanta played, they probably get eliminated by Montreal in 5.

Lundqvist had an extra gear that series, his team was routinely outplayed, and he played some of the best hockey of his career in that one series. Raanta doesn't have that level.

You are also making a big assumption that Raanta wins Game 2 (most goals were fluke goals, lucky bounces, and deflections directly in front). Raanta or Lundqvist aren't responsible for the coaches mismanagement.
 

Fataldogg

Registered User
Mar 22, 2007
12,380
3,660
IMO when you start blaming certain of his teammates you're saying he can't do it on his own. He can't make up for their mistakes---but the Lundqvist of even 5 years ago could make up for a lot more mistakes than the Lundqvist today.

But did I say trade him?--no. He's not the goalie he was 10 years ago though. What I'm saying is the Rangers need another No. 1 as soon as they can get another No. 1.

FWIW Henrik carried the team on his back in the Montreal series. He was our best player. Against the Senators though it was a different story. He let in a number of goals that he would have stopped 10 years ago. He couldn't sustain the same level in the Montreal series and it makes me think that he can't take the team all the way. IMO he can take the team part of the way and if there's another goalie that can help him he might get all the way.

You might not like it but he's going to be 36 next year and even with Staal and/or Klein and/or Girardi gone and I expect at least two of them will be the Rangers aren't likely to have a better group in front of him. He's running out of time and he's not as good as he used to be. He's a sure bet hall of fame goalie but he's not a sure bet to win a Stanley Cup.

His level of play was unsustainable. That's the thing. He posted a .947SV% while facing the most high danger chances. Again, I'll say that was some of the best hockey of his career. The fact that the Rangers needed him to play at that level,
outplay the best goaltender in the world, and barely got by says a lot about the Rangers team.
In my opinion, fans need to start realizing this core of Hayes, Kreider, Stepan, Nash, Zuccarello, Miller, Girardi, Staal, and McDonagh were never as good as their record was, or the number of goals they scored. I think the Rangers have clearly overachieved the last two years (dating back to 11-12, I can count the number of times they actually outplayed their opposition in the post season throughout an entire series on one hand --- and no, this Ottawa series is not one of them).

To expect him to play at that level, through even two series, while facing the number of high danger shots he faces (no offense to Rinne, but he faces a fraction of what Lundqvist faced), is unrealistic.

In Ottawa, he wasn't even bad. He was INCONSISTENT. He played great in four of the six games, including their first loss. He had TWO bad games in the series, and NO bad games in Montreal. To further break it down, he had TWO bad games in Ottawa, ZERO bad games in Montreal, a bunch of good games and a bunch of exceptional games.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,988
12,223
Elmira NY
If Raanta played, they probably get eliminated by Montreal in 5.

Lundqvist had an extra gear that series, his team was routinely outplayed, and he played some of the best hockey of his career in that one series. Raanta doesn't have that level.

You are also making a big assumption that Raanta wins Game 2 (most goals were fluke goals, lucky bounces, and deflections directly in front). Raanta or Lundqvist aren't responsible for the coaches mismanagement.

Raanta had a better year than Lundqvist. What Raanta hasn't proven and he hasn't had a chance to prove is that he can be a real starting goaltender. Raanta has played well for us even after sitting for extended periods--so saying he wouldn't have made a difference is as hindsighted comment as saying he would have made a difference. We just don't know because he wasn't given a chance. What I am saying is that Henrik can't sustain the dominating goaltending performances of 5-10 years ago and that given a break now and again might benefit him and the Rangers.

Montreal really didn't outplay us--IMO the Rangers outplayed Montreal and Henrik was better than Price. IMO the Rangers for the most part outplayed the Senators but Henrik did not outplay Anderson. Both goalies let in some atrocious goals that can't even really be blamed on their defenses.
 

Glen Sathers Cigar

Sather 4 Ever
Feb 4, 2013
16,499
19,943
New York
Raanta had a better year than Lundqvist. What Raanta hasn't proven and he hasn't had a chance to prove is that he can be a real starting goaltender. Raanta has played well for us even after sitting for extended periods--so saying he wouldn't have made a difference is as hindsighted comment as saying he would have made a difference. We just don't know because he wasn't given a chance. What I am saying is that Henrik can't sustain the dominating goaltending performances of 5-10 years ago and that given a break now and again might benefit him and the Rangers.

Montreal really didn't outplay us--IMO the Rangers outplayed Montreal and Henrik was better than Price. IMO the Rangers for the most part outplayed the Senators but Henrik did not outplay Anderson. Both goalies let in some atrocious goals that can't even really be blamed on their defenses.
Montreal had significantly more scoring chances in the series than the Rangers did.


Raanta has also never played more than 4 games in a row in his entire career. Who the hell knows how he would handle a playoff series? We lose the Montreal series without Hank playing out of his kind. Raanta has never shown the ability to play at the level Hank did in that series. He had a better regular season sure. Means nothing to the playoffs.

The assumption that we definitely beat Ottawa with Raanta in is just asinine. There's no way of knowing and Hank only had two off games that series 2 and 5. Maybe Raanta plays better in those two games (as if hockey exists in that kind of vacuum to judge)maybe he doesn't. Still doesn't change the fact that the defense and AV's roster choices and defensive deployments were far bigger problems.

Simply put even with Hank fighting it in 2 of our losses, if AV plays Smith/Skjei down the stretch in game 3 we win. And if AV doesn't have Staal and even worse Glass or with a minute and a half left in game 5 we win that game too.
 

Revel

Dark Sky Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2015
6,189
243
Dunning–Krugerville
Montreal had significantly more scoring chances in the series than the Rangers did.


Raanta has also never played more than 4 games in a row in his entire career. Who the hell knows how he would handle a playoff series? We lose the Montreal series without Hank playing out of his kind. Raanta has never shown the ability to play at the level Hank did in that series. He had a better regular season sure. Means nothing to the playoffs.

The assumption that we definitely beat Ottawa with Raanta in is just asinine. There's no way of knowing and Hank only had two off games that series 2 and 5. Maybe Raanta plays better in those two games (as if hockey exists in that kind of vacuum to judge)maybe he doesn't. Still doesn't change the fact that the defense and AV's roster choices and defensive deployments were far bigger problems.

Simply put even with Hank fighting it in 2 of our losses, if AV plays Smith/Skjei down the stretch in game 3 we win. And if AV doesn't have Staal and even worse Glass or with a minute and a half left in game 5 we win that game too.

You go on and say that Raanta has never played more than 4 games in a row, therefore we cannot predict how he would do in a Playoff series... then later you state with certainty that had we put in rookie Skjei instead of Staal, "we win that game too."

How come when someone plays with the not-so-far-fetched idea that Rannta would have won us games 2 & 5 vs Ottawa, you search for every excuse in the book to downplay it... but when it comes to putting in a rookie in place of Staal in the final seconds...you're on board and jump to immediate conclusions about the outcome?

Sorry man, but your biased...without any doubt. You can't look at anything involving Hank with a neutral eye.

Also want to say that Raanta has shown that he can play at a high level, as evidenced by last season, his outplaying Hank this season, and let's not forget about his .936 effort for Chicago in 2014-15. Raanta is solid as hell. Hank is our 8.5 mil #1 who has had a great career, so of course he's going to start (and rightfully so)...but after all is said and done, I'm comfortable thinking "Yeah, unless he has off nights... Raanta probably gets us through games 2 & 5".
 

Glen Sathers Cigar

Sather 4 Ever
Feb 4, 2013
16,499
19,943
New York
You go on and say that Raanta has never played more than 4 games in a row, therefore we cannot predict how he would do in a Playoff series... then later you state with certainty that had we put in rookie Skjei instead of Staal, "we win that game too."

How come when someone plays with the not-so-far-fetched idea that Rannta would have won us games 2 & 5 vs Ottawa, you search for every excuse in the book to downplay it... but when it comes to putting in a rookie in place of Staal in the final seconds...you're on board and jump to immediate conclusions about the outcome?

Sorry man, but your biased...without any doubt. You can't look at anything involving Hank with a neutral eye.

Also want to say that Raanta has shown that he can play at a high level, as evidenced by last season, his outplaying Hank this season, and let's not forget about his .936 effort for Chicago in 2014-15. Raanta is solid as hell. Hank is our 8.5 mil #1 who has had a great career, so of course he's going to start (and rightfully so)...but after all is said and done, I'm comfortable thinking "Yeah, unless he has off nights... Raanta probably gets us through games 2 & 5".

What? Skjei was performing at a better level than Staal for not only most of the regular season but all of round 1 and round 2. Especially in Game 2 he scored 2 goals and was playing great defense.

That is the most ridiculous analogy. Raanta has never played more than 4 straight games in his career and nothing but garbage time in the playoffs, Skjei was performing at a top pair level in the game I was referring to. That comparison makes literally no sense.

I'm not biased, I said Hank wasn't good in games 2 or 5. I don't think I have to think that Raanta would've automatically won those games to prove I'm unbiased. I think that's ridiculous. Sure, Raanta can play at a high level in the regular seasons in random starts without any pressure or expectations or anything. That to me doens't prove that he would've been an upgrade in any of those games, sorry. That doesn't make me biased, I'm just being realistic.

Man, that Skjei analogy still has me shaking my head. Literally makes no sense.
 

Revel

Dark Sky Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2015
6,189
243
Dunning–Krugerville
What? Skjei was performing at a better level than Staal for not only most of the regular season but all of round 1 and round 2. Especially in Game 2 he scored 2 goals and was playing great defense.

That is the most ridiculous analogy. Raanta has never played more than 4 straight games in his career and nothing but garbage time in the playoffs, Skjei was performing at a top pair level in the game I was referring to. That comparison makes literally no sense.

I'm not biased, I said Hank wasn't good in games 2 or 5. I don't think I have to think that Raanta would've automatically won those games to prove I'm unbiased. I think that's ridiculous. Sure, Raanta can play at a high level in the regular seasons in random starts without any pressure or expectations or anything. That to me doens't prove that he would've been an upgrade in any of those games, sorry. That doesn't make me biased, I'm just being realistic.

Man, that Skjei analogy still has me shaking my head. Literally makes no sense.

It's not a ridiculous analogy. You conjure up predictions in a way that only suits your agenda.

Skjei and Smith got more ice time (at the expense of Staal) in the final game and they sucked. I'm not a Staal fan, but I can't ignore what I saw in game 6. Maybe that's what AV feared would happen in the other games where he didn't insert Skjei in late in the game. I'm sure Hank would agree, as he had no problem giving Skjei hell during the series.

Raanta performed at a higher level than Hank for most of the season. He hardly let us down at all. But because Hank is Hank, Raanta did not even get the opportunity to prove that he could have taken us through the Ottawa series. Some could say he earned it by outplaying Hank during the RS.
 

Glen Sathers Cigar

Sather 4 Ever
Feb 4, 2013
16,499
19,943
New York
It's not a ridiculous analogy. You conjure up predictions in a way that only suits your agenda.

Skjei and Smith got more ice time (at the expense of Staal) in the final game and they sucked. I'm not a Staal fan, but I can't ignore what I saw in game 6. Maybe that's what AV feared would happen in the other games where he didn't insert Skjei in late in the game. I'm sure Hank would agree, as he had no problem giving Skjei hell during the series.

Raanta performed at a higher level than Hank for most of the season. He hardly let us down at all. But because Hank is Hank, Raanta did not even get the opportunity to prove that he could have taken us through the Ottawa series. Some could say he earned it by outplaying Hank during the RS.

I don't have an agenda. Skjei was playing amazing in game 2 and AV sat him for the final 10 minutes of the game and we coughed up a 2 goal lead as a result. That's not my agenda, I'm not conjuring up a prediction, that is factual evidence of Skjei performing literally in that game.

Do you agree with AV's deployment of Skjei in those games?
 

Revel

Dark Sky Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2015
6,189
243
Dunning–Krugerville
I don't have an agenda. Skjei was playing amazing in game 2 and AV sat him for the final 10 minutes of the game and we coughed up a 2 goal lead as a result. That's not my agenda, I'm not conjuring up a prediction, that is factual evidence of Skjei performing literally in that game.

Huh? When you state that Skjei instead of Staal wins us the game ...it is a prediction. How can there be factual evidence for something that never occurred?

Do you agree with AV's deployment of Skjei in those games?

No. I would have wanted Skjei in there late...instead of Staal. And yes, I think we would have won if that were the case (even though Skjei sucked when given more minutes in game 6). And I also think we would have won had Raanta been in net for games 2 & 5. He's done nothing to show me he couldn't have handled those games. To the contrary, he's shown me that he's an excellent NHL goaltender who's unfortunately understudy to a HOFer.
 

Glen Sathers Cigar

Sather 4 Ever
Feb 4, 2013
16,499
19,943
New York
Huh? When you state that Skjei instead of Staal wins us the game ...it is a prediction. How can there be factual evidence for something that never occurred?



No. I would have wanted Skjei in there late...instead of Staal. And yes, I think we would have won if that were the case (even though Skjei sucked when given more minutes in game 6). And I also think we would have won had Raanta been in net for games 2 & 5. He's done nothing to show me he couldn't have handled those games. To the contrary, he's shown me that he's an excellent NHL goaltender who's unfortunately understudy to a HOFer.

Factual evidence of Skjei performing well previously in that same game, it is a prediction I guess because you're right obviously he didn't play, but come on, you know it's different than what you're suggesting with Raanta. I just think AV's deployment was more of a reason for blowing those two games than Hank's play that's just how I feel.

Oh well, doesn't matter at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 

Revel

Dark Sky Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2015
6,189
243
Dunning–Krugerville
Factual evidence of Skjei performing well previously in that same game, it is a prediction I guess because you're right obviously he didn't play, but come on, you know it's different than what you're suggesting with Raanta. I just think AV's deployment was more of a reason for blowing those two games than Hank's play that's just how I feel.

Oh well, doesn't matter at this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I don't think we're gonna get anywhere and don't feel like dragging it out any further, either. I appreciate the replies. Always good to talk Rangers!
 

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
It's not a ridiculous analogy. You conjure up predictions in a way that only suits your agenda.

Skjei and Smith got more ice time (at the expense of Staal) in the final game and they sucked. I'm not a Staal fan, but I can't ignore what I saw in game 6. Maybe that's what AV feared would happen in the other games where he didn't insert Skjei in late in the game. I'm sure Hank would agree, as he had no problem giving Skjei hell during the series.

Raanta performed at a higher level than Hank for most of the season. He hardly let us down at all. But because Hank is Hank, Raanta did not even get the opportunity to prove that he could have taken us through the Ottawa series. Some could say he earned it by outplaying Hank during the RS.

They sucked pretty much the entirety of game 6. They were playing fantastic in games where they were sat at the end AFTER playing fantastic.

I get it if you disagree but geez man how do you miss these obvious holes in your argument that you're actually putting forth? Hank doesn't bench Skjei and Smith during games 2 and 5 (despite Skjei having two goals in one of those!)

Hank doesn't get curbstomped like an idiotic traffic cone the way Girardi did. Hank doesn't throw Glass and the corpse of Marc Staal out there at the end of 5.

Realistically EXPECTING Raanta to have done better is just stupid. Hank was good in these playoffs. He was average too often in these PO's but rarely bad. You've got how many F's that no showed the entirety of the PO's?

I'm the first to crap on the blind G defenders here but this idea that Hank's the problem at ALL when you've got Girardi, Staal, Stepan, Glass, Hayes, Holden, Miller ALLLLLLLLLL doing nooooooothiiiiiiing (basically) the entirety of the playoffs? This idea is borne of nothing more than conjuring up pure fantasy to suit an agenda. If it's not an agenda then it's just a pure failure to understand the bare basics of a team sport.

Oh sry glass had a single good game, good for him, doesn't change my point seeing as how we all know what he did in the other games.
 
Last edited:

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
If NYR want to win a Cup, how about being the better team in a series for once in a blue moon? Yup, that's a good start. How many cups did Hasek win with Buffalo? He arguably had the best peak of any goalie in the league and he still couldn't win a Cup with Buffalo. But some of you seem to think Lundqvist is the problem? The only player who has been worth a damn on the team since he entered it? Lol.

His contract is too much though, I agree with that. That's usually what happens when you have a team so reliant on one player. Why do you think Nash has a $7.8m salary? Why do you think Kane and Toews earn $10m in Chicago? Because they're worth it? Because they are that important to the franchise.

If NYR would've had kept Jagr and had some other team carrier, he wouldn't earn $8.5m, his importance would be down. That Lundqvist earns $8.5m is an actual figure of how bad the NYR were mismanaged under Sather.

On a legit team, Lundqvist would earn $6.5-7m, but for the NYR he is worth $8.5m, because the team isn't good enough to pressure his salary.
 
Last edited:

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,879
7,389
New York
The team scored 4 or more goals in 4 straight games against the Senators. Enough with the "lack of support". I know it's popular meme here because Lundqvist can't do anything wrong, but it's false.

"Support" for a goalie also means having a semi competent defense in front of him.
 

Revel

Dark Sky Enthusiast
Oct 20, 2015
6,189
243
Dunning–Krugerville
"Support" for a goalie also means having a semi competent defense in front of him.

And a goalie needs to support his own case by performing up to reasonable expectations.

I'll say it for the thousandth time. I'm not placing the blame fully on Hank. No one is. Plenty of incompetence to go around. It's just the seeming absolution granted to Hank and pointing of fingers solely at others that bothers me...when Hank was part of the problem in the Ottawa series. The Hank supporters don't like Hank to share in the blame. They regularly steer all negativity towards others. The assumption that no other Goaltender could have changed the outcome in Games 2 & 5 (and possibly 6?) gets on my nerves. "No one could have done it better 'cuz Hank" is pretty much a meme around here.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
25,988
12,223
Elmira NY
I suspect that at least 2 if not all 3 of Klein, Staal and Girardi are going to be gone by next year's playoffs--and Glass as well for that matter. I also suspect that a 36 year old Lundqvist is not going to be able to carry us through 4 rounds as our only goaltender no matter what improvements the team makes. I'm not sure just who people are going to be blaming if all the usual suspects for blame are gone. But to restate the case I think the Rangers and Henrik need to share the goaltending load not only during the regular season but during the playoffs as well for us to have any realistic chance of winning a Stanley Cup. I don't think he can sustain his top level for two months of increasingly competitive playoff hockey without a break now and again. Somehow that's been turned into some kind of a slight towards him....but what I'm looking at is a 36 year old being asked to run and win a marathon. If anyone's being slighted I think it's Raanta who is a very good goalie and who at least some people here think would have no chance of beating Craig Anderson.Raanta must be like **** then. Give me a break.
 

Ori

#Connor Bedard 2023 1st, Chicago Blackhawks
Nov 7, 2014
11,578
2,173
Norway
Henrik is a perfectionist - that`s why he can maintain such a high quality level through his career. Hopefully we can benefit from his well of experience, and AV need to be more careful and give the backup goalie some games as well. It`s important to be well rested when playoffs start if we qualify next season it all depends what kind of policy Rangers org. is using going forward here.
AV & Gorton has not promised another cup run with this current core group so something need to happen over the summer - perhaps a buyout, a new defense signing to strengthen our weak blueline in this league.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->