I guess Quick is expendable in LA too? I guess the Rangers can get rid of Lundqvist now too?
Lack would need to go:
9-7-6, .863 SVP, 2.5 GAA in his next 20 games to have the same stats as Luongo has after 32 games.
That is while being paid 4.5M less, and having two more years signed where he is $4M cheaper than Luongo.
I think it's quite clear that goalies in the NHL right now are more even than ever.. which makes sense, since there's such a large pool of them and only 30 starting jobs. In the past I would be much more hesitant, as there are lots of goalies who have flash in the pan type starts but fail to keep that up. And that may well be the case with Lack.. but there's no shortage of other options that could provide comparable goaltending to Luongo without the long term cap implications, imo (and at a cheaper rate).
I don't know if paying excessive $ for a goalie is really necessary unless that goalie is proven to give the team something more than the average goalie -- i.e. clutch past performances, mental stability, etc... which are the opposite of what Luongo offers right now. I just don't see a goalie who is giving his team more confidence when he is in net.
I'm a huge fan of Luongo -- and if his contract wasn't so bad, this wouldn't even be a topic for discussion imo. However, his contract is going to have long term implications on this team moving forward.
I don't think the Lundqvist signing was a good one for New York, personally.
And I think the performance of LA's goalies and Talbot, as well as Lack, are showing that maybe these goalies aren't that far ahead of the pack. Quick had one of the most dominant playoff showings of all time, so that deserves some compensation, imo. I don't know if he's that good of a goalie, but he definitely inspires confidence in his team when it counts (aside from the occasional very bad goal).