Confirmed with Link: Rangers re-sign Henrik Lundqvist [7 years, $59.5M, $8.5M AAV, Full NMC]

[RangersHank*]

Agreed. That argument does not hold water.

The only case I can see being made is that without Lundqvist, this team would be exposed for what they are. Consistently picking in the 5-15 range. "Forced to take their medicine." Retool, sacrificing a few years to build a long term contender.

Given that I have limited faith in the team's ability to draft well, and that I know this will never friggin happen, signing Hank was the right move. But you could make that argument in theory. Reality is a different ball game.

i agree. Top picks are nice but building the way we have been building can work too. It might take long and it might take a few tries but hopefully one day all of this is worth it. If we get to see Hank raise a cup in NYC it would be one of the best feelings any one of us had. Just gotta hope Sather learns or maybe leaves completely. I only saw 94 on video, i'm dying to see one in person

 

[SKjEi o2]

This signing again shows the lack of an organizational philosophy. Presumably, the message sent is Lundqvist is the foundation of the team and we will build from there out. It remains to be seen how and if they continue going in that direction this offseason. The problem there is 1) Is AV the right coach to play a style like that and 2) Isn't that the style of play that Sather doesn't want to play?

AV's system is actually very dependent on the goalie. In Vancouver his system was successful because of Luongo.

 

[Off Sides]

Agreed. That argument does not hold water.

The only case I can see being made is that without Lundqvist, this team would be exposed for what they are. Consistently picking in the 5-15 range. "Forced to take their medicine." Retool, sacrificing a few years to build a long term contender.

Given that I have limited faith in the team's ability to draft well, and that I know this will never friggin happen, signing Hank was the right move. But you could make that argument in theory. Reality is a different ball game.

I think that argument would hold water if it was not for the GM wasting cap space.

Overpay slightly here, slightly there, way overpay there, it all adds up to them having some of the least productive scoring players in the whole league.

I agree Sather would not do anything productive with that space but is that really what we are in for? Hoping Sather uses up too much space on some players just so he can't use it on something else worse?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You're basically agreeing with what I'm saying lol.I was blaming Sather and specifically said Hank has nothing to do with it.

I don't care that he "tried" anything. All these signings and short-sighted trades are just throwing more **** at a wall and hoping it sticks. There's no organizational or team philosophy, no direction. It's just "let me get as many good players as I can and hope they win". It's lazy and pathetic.

I read that you agreed with machines interpretation and then there was a spot or two where you implied Sather didn't try to build a team simply bc Hank was there. I think you said he did not even try to address the scoring needs. It's not a matter of whether you care if Sather tried it's the fact that he did actually try. I misread some of what you wrote because I thought you were wholeheartedly agreeing with machine which would mean you are agreeing to assign Sather's blame to Lundqvist.

After re-reading I see you weren't agreeing on that last part so that was my bad.

Regardless I think it is very important to note that Sather did try. This is important to note because it highlights the idea that his mismanagement and failure was due to his own incompetence and not due to anything else like resting on the laurels of the goalie as some others implied.

 

[OverTheCap]

This signing again shows the lack of an organizational philosophy. Presumably, the message sent is Lundqvist is the foundation of the team and we will build from there out. It remains to be seen how and if they continue going in that direction this offseason. The problem there is 1) Is AV the right coach to play a style like that and 2) Isn't that the style of play that Sather doesn't want to play?

Sather himself said that "A 6-5 game is more interesting than a 1-0 game." Nevermind the fact that Sather has been utterly clueless in constructing a team that can score consistently for most of his tenure.

 

[pld459666]

Sather has been full of crap for years.

He hadn't earned the right to guide the ship out of the 04-05 lockout and has done nothing in the years since that make me believe it was right to have kept him.

he's a used tampon

 

[McRanger]

This signing again shows the lack of an organizational philosophy. Presumably, the message sent is Lundqvist is the foundation of the team and we will build from there out. It remains to be seen how and if they continue going in that direction this offseason. The problem there is 1) Is AV the right coach to play a style like that and 2) Isn't that the style of play that Sather doesn't want to play?

The organization has made it the highest priority to draft, develop and sign defensemen and goaltenders, almost to the point of idiocy. 5 out of their last 8 1st round picks have been defensemen. Vigneault, while different from Torts, is a defensive coach. Renney was even more so. Even the coaching staff and GM in Hartford preach conservative hockey.

Is there any indication that the focus of the organizational philosophy is NOT goaltending/defense besides some vague quotes from Sather indicating he enjoys watching high scoring games?

 

[RGY]

Lundqvist has got the contract out of the way, hopefully he can just play hockey now. I know he said the contract negotiations had not distracted him of late, but I see it as just a front. He admitted the negotiations had distracted him during the preseason. I think it has bothered him. Out of the way and clear headed, I see a win tonight.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Sather himself said that "A 6-5 game is more interesting than a 1-0 game." Nevermind the fact that Sather has been utterly clueless in constructing a team that can score consistently for most of his tenure.

It should be pretty evident from the last few years that his goaltending and defense situations are pretty good, and that his offense stinks.

I think hes sort of given up on drafting and developing an upper-echelon forward. Hes 70 years old and that takes time and energy. Who needs that? Best to try to import them and "win a Stanley Cup"

 

[Tawnos]

If this was an 8 years deal and the idea was to structure the contract so that 8th year gave the Rangers a bit of a break on the cap hit, it would also would have to have effected the other years of the contract

Salary of the lowest year can not be less than half of any of the highest years and it can not lower by more than 35% from year to year.

So regardless for him to give them any break in cap hit by adding an 8th year, there would have to have been significant salary in that last 8th year, that he may not get paid for. Why would he sign a contract that had salary in that 8th year and make less up to that point(only way to get a break in cap hit) if there is a possibility he will not get paid that 8th year?

Check your math. He would make more up to that point. At $11m, the last year of the deal can be only $5.5m. Over 8 years, that cap hit would be lower, but the first 7 years average salary is actually higher than what it is now. For example, 11, 10, 9.5, 9, 7.5, 7, 6, 5.5 = $8.18m over the life, but it's $8.57m over the first 7 years of the deal. Unless the last two years were exactly the same, Lundqvist stood to earn more money by tacking on an 8th year, even if there was a lockout in that 8th season. And really, for the Rangers, is there really a big difference between a 7 and 8 year deal? They passed up an opportunity to lower the cap hit by a few hundred thousand.

You're missing the fact that, if a side opts out of the CBA and there's a lockout, Lundqvist isn't getting paid one way or the other.

 

[McRanger]

It should be pretty evident from the last few years that his goaltending and defense situations are pretty good, and that his offense stinks.

I think hes sort of given up on drafting and developing an upper-echelon forward. Hes 70 years old and that takes time and energy. Who needs that? Best to try to import them and "win a Stanley Cup"

Saying he's given up indicates it was a plan in the first place. He is almost willfully ignoring the position that takes up the most roster spots on the team.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Saying he's given up indicates it was a plan in the first place. He is almost willfully ignoring the position that takes up the most roster spots on the team.

I dont know. The team has done a pretty good job over the past decade or so drafting and developing middle of the lineup-type guys outside of the 1st round. Its redundant now, but he should deserve a bit of credit for that.

The fact this team can't develop top-tier forwards OR bottom 6 grinders is a serious, serious problem.

The lack of home-grown bottom 6 guys is a real horror show. The fact that Rangers consistently draft outside of the top 10 is at least some sort of argument for the lack of a real dynamic forward, but other teams have done it, Sather has had 14 drafts to get it right and hasnt come up with anything.

 

[Off Sides]

Check your math. He would make more up to that point. At $11m, the last year of the deal can be only $5.5m. Over 8 years, that cap hit would be lower, but the first 7 years average salary is actually higher than what it is now. For example, 11, 10, 9.5, 9, 7.5, 7, 6, 5.5 = $8.18m over the life, but it's $8.57m over the first 7 years of the deal. Unless the last two years were exactly the same, Lundqvist stood to earn more money by tacking on an 8th year, even if there was a lockout in that 8th season. And really, for the Rangers, is there really a big difference between a 7 and 8 year deal? They passed up an opportunity to lower the cap hit by a few hundred thousand.

You're missing the fact that, if a side opts out of the CBA and there's a lockout, Lundqvist isn't getting paid one way or the other.

Correct, I am corrected


Henrik Lundqvist’s salary breakdown: 14-15 $11 million , 15-16 $10 million, 16-17 $9.5 million, 17-18 $9 million, 18-19 $7.5 million, 19-20 $7 million, 20-21 $5.5 million.

So if they added an 8th year at 5.5M they would have saved 375K on his cap hit.

I can only guess the Rangers figured the 375K cap difference did not make enough of a difference for them to gamble even more on the 8th year.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

The organization has made it the highest priority to draft, develop and sign defensemen and goaltenders, almost to the point of idiocy. 5 out of their last 8 1st round picks have been defensemen. Vigneault, while different from Torts, is a defensive coach. Renney was even more so. Even the coaching staff and GM in Hartford preach conservative hockey.

Is there any indication that the focus of the organizational philosophy is NOT goaltending/defense besides some vague quotes from Sather indicating he enjoys watching high scoring games?

They've also spent a lot of money on one-dimensional players to produce offense (Richards, Gomez, Gaborik, to a lesser degree the likes of Pouliot). Is it a situation where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing?

 

[JimmyG89]

They've also spent a lot of money on one-dimensional players to produce offense (Richards, Gomez, Gaborik, to a lesser degree the likes of Pouliot). Is it a situation where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing?

Or that they need some offense in order to win need the 2-1 games? They have stability in their own end so can try and get a top offensive player now that they have a stable defensive end? Would you rather spend that money on another redundant series of 3rd line players to fill out the roster? These are attempts to address a poor offense, not going against drafting philosophy.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Or that they need some offense in order to win need the 2-1 games? They have stability in their own end so can try and get a top offensive player now that they have a stable defensive end? Would you rather spend that money on another redundant series of 3rd line players to fill out the roster? These are attempts to address a poor offense, not going against drafting philosophy.

The Rangers havent been able to draft the types of players that they're trying to buy, so yes, those 2 situations are tied directly at the hip.

 

[McRanger]

I dont know. The team has done a pretty good job over the past decade or so drafting and developing middle of the lineup-type guys outside of the 1st round. Its redundant now, but he should deserve a bit of credit for that.

The fact this team can't develop top-tier forwards OR bottom 6 grinders is a serious, serious problem.

The lack of home-grown bottom 6 guys is a real horror show. The fact that Rangers consistently draft outside of the top 10 is at least some sort of argument for the lack of a real dynamic forward, but other teams have done it, Sather has had 14 drafts to get it right and hasnt come up with anything.

They've made the most out of some of their forward picks, but IMO they haven't spent enough 1st rounders on forwards. In the last 9 drafts we've taken three forwards in the 1st round. Cherepanov's death was obviously unforeseen but even with him that is still not enough. They were a little more aggressive with Anisimov, Stepan, Werek, Thomas and Nieves in the 2nd round, but not by much.

I've been a fan of most of the "players" taken if not the "philosophy" but they need to put themselves in the best position to draft a young offensive stud, which means either trading up or at least drafting more forwards to increase the odds.

 

[McRanger]

They've also spent a lot of money on one-dimensional players to produce offense (Richards, Gomez, Gaborik, to a lesser degree the likes of Pouliot). Is it a situation where one hand doesn't know what the other is doing?

Even in an organization built around a goalie you need offense. And Sather's solution to problems has always been to throw large sums of money at it. Same reason he signed Redden and Rozsival to large contracts.

Really what it comes down to for me is that while there is a lot to like about the organizations direction, there are still giant gaping instances of stupidity that worry me.

We are like a mac truck driving at 80 MPH in more-or-less the right direction but with a lunatic behind the wheel that at any moment can just decide to quickly change course and flip the truck over.

Still I suppose its better than the late 90's- early 00's. That truck was being driven 200 MPH backwards while on fire as the driver played a banjo on the front hood.

So that's something. I suppose.

 

[JimmyG89]

The Rangers havent been able to draft the types of players that they're trying to buy, so yes, those 2 situations are tied directly at the hip.

They have drafted those type of players. Have they panned out is a different question. That is on player development. The players themselves and staff, whether it be AHL or NHL not being able to harness that potential. Sometimes, the player peaks and cannot get passed that point. Management takes a chance and if it doesn't work, looks terrible. We have guys who were either undrafted or went in lower rounds playing top 6 for us. Currently Nash and Kreider are the first round picks we have their. Brass and Pouliot are playing 3rd line fringe top 6 minutes. They are getting production from those players too (Step, Cally, Zuke, and Richards). With and endless flow of cash at their dispense, who cares where the players come from that produce. To say they gave drafted poorly is wrong. Look at the blueline. Look in net. Trading pieces for some players too that are young. Used our drafted players to get them. We may not have a drafted forward superstar, but everywhere else is great. We have assets that cost the organization nothing. Money is irrelevant to this team. Use it to take a chance and get a proven player to play well here. No assets lost. No draft selection wasted.

I believe the bigger issue here is that an organization that wants offense keeps hiring coaches that emphasize defense first? AV plays a 1-2-2. That is conservative. Less forecheck. More counter based game. Torts was more aggressive. 2-1-2. Too bad he did not teach offense. Coaching philosophy is just as important and the last group of guys aren't ideal for that to take place.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Coaching philosophy is enormous.

 

[Bannor]

Wrong Direction

In my opinion, putting such a huge chunk of cap on the goaltender position is not a good way to build a champion. His playoff record is very middling, and not just because the team struggles to score (see: 2012, game 5, New Jersey). I was going to say that now it'll be difficult to upgrade the O, but with Gordie Clark on a perpetual mission to find the next Dubinsky or McIlrath, I guess it's a moot point.

 

[The Gloaming]

In my opinion, putting such a huge chunk of cap on the goaltender position is not a good way to build a champion. His playoff record is very middling, and not just because the team struggles to score (see: 2012, game 5, New Jersey). I was going to say that now it'll be difficult to upgrade the O, but with Gordie Clark on a perpetual mission to find the next Dubinsky or McIlrath, I guess it's a moot point.

Yes. Let's cherry pick one playoff game and completely forget most other playoff games where the Rangers couldn't even score two goals.

 

[haohmaru]

I am not worried about the last 7 years, I am worried about the NEXT 7 years. Does the merchandise Lundqvist sells help the Rangers on the ice? I don't give a **** about how much money the Rangers make from merchandise, I care about W's and L's. The point is his performance is not that much better than the average goalie to warrant such a huge difference in pay.

Right, 13% of the cap and how have the Devils done since? They have been to the Finals once and have advanced beyond the first round in only two other seasons. The 5.2MM was STILL a reduction in pay.

Hockey is a business. If you want to stick your head in the sand and make believe it isn't then you're just in fantasy land. OF COURSE this is a consideration for the Rangers when tending an offer for a franchise-type player like Lundqvist. Ignoring that fact delegitimatizes your argument entirely.

And pining about Brodeur taking a "reduction in pay" after the salary cap was instituted is just being intellectually dishonest. As a percentage of his teams total cap space, it's negligibly close and you can't walk on both sides of the fence saying he took a "home town" discount when it works out to nearly the same % as Lundqvist's.

 

[MTrangers]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Hank will remain a Ranger. I just think I'd much rather spend 8.5 mill a year on a dynamic forward. I think that gets us closer to a Stanley Cup.

 

[The Gloaming]

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Hank will remain a Ranger. I just think I'd much rather spend 8.5 mill a year on a dynamic forward. I think that gets us closer to a Stanley Cup.

And which forward would that be?