Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LV

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
15,647
14,478
CA
Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.
Yes they would need to sign someone to be exposed. There's no games requirement for goalies, they just have to be signed.

Georgiev would fit the bill assuming he's still here, but the Rangers don't have anyone to protect at goalie either with Shestyorkin being exempt. So they could keep both Shesty and Georgiev if they wanted too
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
23,491
19,455
Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.

Yes, we have to expose someone. Georgiev is the only one in the organization who qualifies. We will definitely bring in someone, even if it's just to play at the ECHL level.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
31,049
7,833
So putting aside for a moment that Lundqvist is owed a large sum of money and that's not something to easily walk away from, I will admit that it is kind of a bummer to buy him out and potentially see him play for another team.

On the buyout side of things (again putting aside the fact that a deal is a deal and it's his money), it is sad if we can use that money for something that actually benefits this team on the ice next year. In many ways it reminds of the saying about it being better to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late. In an ideal world, Lundqvist's contact ends in 2019 or 2020, and not 2021. Again, nothing we can do about that, but just freestyling some thoughts.

On the topic of playing for another team, it just feels like such a waste. I know, I know, athletes seldom gives us the happy endings we hope for. The same competitive nature that drives them to be the best often drives them to play beyond the amicable, happy ending that everyone else prefers.

But it's hard not to be enamored by the idea of Lundkvist hanging on for what is likely one or two years, either as a marginal starter for a poor team, or backup for a decent team, only to see a marginal uptick in results and an epilogue that no one fondly remembers.

Again, it's his right and his call. But I'd by lying if I didn't say these were my honest thoughts.

I do wonder if Lundqvist would try to give it another few years in the NHL or decide to head back to Sweden to play. He's gonna be 39, 40...even if he thinks he can still play it seems really hard to ignore all the other goalies who got to that age and obviously had a few wasted and poor years tacked onto the end of their career
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
And that kind of leads me to my original thought, that Georgiev as a backup really isn't worth head and shoulders above what's out there for the Rangers.

The value for any team is in the possibility of him becoming a starter --- which doesn't seem likely here. So I believe the added value is for other teams more than the Rangers. That's kind of the crux of potentially moving him.
 

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
I feel way more confident that Georgiev will be worth less in the future than he is today, than I do the other way around.

He's just not going to play a lot, unless Shestyorkin goes down with a catastrophic injury

I am not so sure about how much he would end up playing. Injury is one possibility, the condensed schedule which I assume means more back to back games is another. And while I may be in the slim minority in this opinion, I am not that confident that Shesterkin is not going to have stretches where he is either tired or just off his game.

If it were me I'd be more worried about possibly setting the rebuild back due to an injury to Shesterkin than I would about maximizing Geo's value.
 

Avery16

Shake my hand, fatso
Jun 28, 2015
12,908
8,666
Brooklyn
Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.
We do, but why not Hank or, if extended, Berube?
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
I do wonder if Lundqvist would try to give it another few years in the NHL or decide to head back to Sweden to play. He's gonna be 39, 40...even if he thinks he can still play it seems really hard to ignore all the other goalies who got to that age and obviously had a few wasted and poor years tacked onto the end of their career

Supposedly, he's here to stay for right now. The family came back with him recently.

Right now, it doesn't appear that the plan is to head back to Sweden, at least this year.
 

Avery16

Shake my hand, fatso
Jun 28, 2015
12,908
8,666
Brooklyn
Are you serious? Smith + Staal save us 3.7 mil. Hank saves us 3 mil. Even if you assume minimum salary (700k) for replacements, that's still 2.3 vs 2.3, which means you were wrong.

#MathIsHard
You’ve left out the cost of a backup to Igor.

#ItsNotThatHard
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
We do, but why not Hank or, if extended, Berube?

Hank will be an UFA. Goalie has to be signed, or at least qualified.

Someone like Berube could be.

But we've come full circle back to the value of Georgiev as strictly a back-up vs. a potential starter.

The latter isn't very likely to happen here. Thus the debate about value now vs. later.
 

Irishguy42

Mr. Preachy
Sep 11, 2015
26,835
19,121
NJ
Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.
We have to expose one goalie and protect one as well. It's the same rules as the Vegas expansion, AFAIK.

Right now, on the NHL roster, Georgiev is the only one that can be protected/exposed. Shesty will be exempt and Hank's deal will be expiring.

For the rest of the signed goalies in the Rangers system...Huska/Wall are exempt b/c they will have just completed their second pro season.

So, right now, the Rangers would need to bring on someone else in order to fulfill requirements. Two if they end up trading Georgiev this offseason.

CapFriendly has more information here and they have an expansion tool as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyG89

Off Sides

Registered User
Sep 8, 2008
9,755
5,585
Expansion would not be my concern, mine would be that somehow for one reason or another the Rangers go from being in a good spot with their goalies organizationally to needing a goalie because they find themselves needing to start Talbot or similar way more than they thought they would.
 

bobbop

Henrik & Pop
Sponsor
May 27, 2004
14,308
20,409
Now, Suburban Phoenix. Then, Long Island
I think you'd be surprised how many teams "without money" would still prefer to buy someone out and invest in younger talent.

There's this belief that smaller markets prefer the cap because it keeps the larger markets in line. And there is some truth to that.

But I've heard from a lot of people in smaller markets that it a lack of cap amnesty really hurts them as well. They're not bidding on certain guys because their margin for error is smaller. More teams than we'd suspect are willing to eat the one time cost of a buyout if it frees up cap space for them. I think most people might be surprised to hear that.
I think this would have to be negotiated with the players because it would potentially encourage buyouts, which is something the union would prefer not to have happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnSandvich

East Coast Bias

Registered User
Feb 28, 2014
8,362
6,422
NYC
I feel way more confident that Georgiev will be worth less in the future than he is today, than I do the other way around.

He's just not going to play a lot, unless Shestyorkin goes down with a catastrophic injury

I feel like Georgie got really overrated here too.

He had a couple great games this season, but was totally underwhelming.
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
23,491
19,455
You’ve left out the cost of a backup to Igor.

#ItsNotThatHard

FFS, no I didn't. I said assuming the same replacement cost.

Smith and Staal saves us 3.7 mil. Their replacements cost a minimum of 1.4 mil, saving us a net of 2.3 mil.

Hank saves us 3 mil. His replacement costs a minimum of 700k, saving us a net of 2.3 mil.

If you can't admit you were wrong, then just move on. Either way, I'm done with this.
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
Don't we have to expose a goalie? So either Georgiev, or we have to bring someone else in to make available.

I need verfication on this, because I don't know if what I am saying is accurate.
You are correct.

Though the requirement for a qualified G is negligible.

– One available player must be a defenseman who is under contract in 2021-22 and played at least 40 NHL games in 2020-21 or 70 games in ’19-20 and ’20-21 combined.

– Two available players must be forwards who are under contract in 2021-22 and played at least 40 NHL games in 2020-21 or 70 games in ’19-20 and ’20-21 combined.

– One available player must be a goalie who is under contract in 2021-22 or who is a restricted free agent having received a qualifying offer from his team.
EDIT: beaten to the punch by a few others I see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trxjw

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Presumably because the team needs a goalie to protect as well

That would be a weird spot to be in though

Isn't the requirement on exposed and not protected?

In theory, couldn't the Rangers could choose to expose a goalie, not protect one, and then fill the position after the draft either via a trade, free agency, or internally with someone like Wall.
 

Irishguy42

Mr. Preachy
Sep 11, 2015
26,835
19,121
NJ
Confused why would he have to bring in two?
If they get rid of Georgiev this offseason, that gets rid of the one goalie on the roster we can pencil in to protect/expose. So they'd need to bring on someone else on top of the other that they already need to get.

Teams need at least one goalie to protect, and one to expose
 

GoAwayPanarin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 27, 2008
41,881
52,238
In High Altitoad
I feel like Georgie got really overrated here too.

He had a couple great games this season, but was totally underwhelming.

Igor was the only guy we got a pretty consistent performance out of.

The time to move Geo was right after Igor was called up. I don't think his value has tanked and still see him as a more attractive option for the Alberta teams who don't have a ton of space and will have trouble getting people to sign there, but I'd bet on his value dropping if they hold onto him any longer rather than rising or staying steady.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
If they get rid of Georgiev this offseason, that gets rid of the one goalie on the roster we can pencil in to protect/expose. So they'd need to bring on someone else on top of the other that they already need to get.

Teams need at least one goalie to protect, and one to expose

That's part of my question. Looking at the rules it talks about needing a goalie to expose. I don't see a requirement on needing one to protect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad