Toggle sidebar

News Article: Hard for Lundqvist to "picture myself playing elsewhere"

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
If I remember correctly, Rozy was actually a free agent for a few hours on July 1, which enabled him to field offers from other teams. Sather lost his leverage by allowing Rozsival to hit the open market - I assume he won't be stupid enough to let this happen with Hank (or Cally or Girardi) but one never knows. There's not much precedent when it comes to Sather negotiating long-term extensions for an upcoming UFA.
 
Blue Blooded said:
Rozsival's contract wasn't that bad. He caught the fans' ire because he was soft, but he was a solid D-man. He was slightly overpaid, sure, but it hardly hurt us in the long run.

Which players did we lose because of Rozsival? It was the Drury/Redden contracts that hurt.

Hell, Sather found a way to sign Kotalik for $3M/year despite Rozi's contract. If you have the room to do that, overpaying a #3 defenceman isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

Rozsival was way overpaid by Sather, not slightly. He's not a banger, that's not his game, but he's never been soft. He's an OK defenseman at the right price, and still is...five years later the Blackhawks signed him to another two year contract this summer.

Sather had to dump a serviceable d-man in Rozsival for the perenially underachieving Wojtek Wolski, just to free up cap space. Same Sather problem, different year.
 
Last edited:
OverTheCap said:
If I remember correctly, Rozy was actually a free agent for a few hours on July 1, which enabled him to field offers from other teams. Sather lost his leverage by allowing Rozsival to hit the open market - I assume he won't be stupid enough to let this happen with Hank (or Cally or Girardi) but one never knows. There's not much precedent when it comes to Sather negotiating long-term extensions for an upcoming UFA.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if UFA's actually get to the open market or not...Hank has all the leverage now, just as much as he will on July 1, 2014. Either way Sather can't play the same kind of hardball with Hank that he plays with the RFA's...now or later.

Never. Like, ever.
 
The Rozsival signing was a Net plus for this organization.

Rozsival was signed out of the last lockout on the cheap where he played on the teams 1st pairing for years.

He was re-signed @ 5 million/season for 4 years and then dealt to PHX when McDonagh came up which netted Wolski from Phoenix to help the offense.

Wolski was okay in NY and then he was dealt to Florida for a 3rd round pick in 2013 and Mike Vernace who helped the Whale on defense for the rest of that season.

The Rangers traded that pick along with their 2nd in 2013 for Ryane Clowe who helped the team make the playoffs with a late surge.

Clowe was lost via free agency for nothing.
 
NYR Viper said:
The Rozsival signing was a Net plus for this organization.
Click to expand...

IMHO his signing was a serious net MINUS for the organization, because Sather had to unload his salary.

He was re-signed @ 5 million/season for 4 years and then dealt to PHX when McDonagh came up which netted Wolski from Phoenix to help the offense.

Wolski was okay in NY and then he was dealt to Florida for a 3rd round pick in 2013 and Mike Vernace who helped the Whale on defense for the rest of that season.
Click to expand...

So Rozsival was traded for virtually nothing, and he's still good enough to be a contributor on a Stanley Cup champion, and to be re-signed for two years by the Blackhawks. Just another case of asset mis-management by Sather.
 
Jersey Girl said:
IMHO his signing was a serious net MINUS for the organization, because Sather had to unload his salary.



So Rozsival was traded for virtually nothing, and he's still good enough to be a contributor on a Stanley Cup champion, and to be re-signed for two years by the Blackhawks. Just another case of asset mis-management by Sather.
Click to expand...

How was he a net minus? He gave the organization 3-5 years of solid play and he netted them a player who was semi-useful and a pick layer on which was used to bring in a rental to help the team make the playoffs.
 
NYR Viper said:
How was he a net minus? He gave the organization 3-5 years of solid play and he netted them a player who was semi-useful and a pick layer on which was used to bring in a rental to help the team make the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I suppose we seriously disagree on Wolski...or the definition of 'semi-useful'. Six goals in 46 games from a guy who, aside from the occasional shootout goal, contributed NOTHING other than the goals. That's why he's in the KHL now, while Rozsival is a contributor to the Stanley Cup champions.

Serious net minus in my book.

The third round pick received from Florida was just one of the assets we gave up for Clowe. The second round pick we gave up in that deal was really painful.

I also disagree with Clowe helping the team make the playoffs. Two goals in his first game, then one in his next 11...then he's not available for the last eight games of the season. Big help.
 
Jersey Girl said:
I suppose we seriously disagree on Wolski...or the definition of 'semi-useful'. Six goals in 46 games from a guy who, aside from the occasional shootout goal, contributed NOTHING other than the goals. That's why he's in the KHL now, while Rozsival is a contributor to the Stanley Cup champions.

Serious net minus in my book.

The third round pick received from Florida was just one of the assets we gave up for Clowe. The second round pick we gave up in that deal was really painful.

I also disagree with Clowe helping the team make the playoffs. Two goals in his first game, then one in his next 11...then he's not available for the last eight games of the season. Big help.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the trade. I am talking about spending nothing but money on Rozsival and then turning that asset into something that contributed to this organization over a longer period of time than he was here.
 
NYR Viper said:
I am not talking about the trade. I am talking about spending nothing but money on Rozsival and then turning that asset into something that contributed to this organization over a longer period of time than he was here.
Click to expand...

...which means you're talking about the trade!
 
NYR Viper said:
You're not getting what I'm saying.

I am not talking about each individual trade. I am talking about how they utilized free agency and then maximized the asset.

All I was writing was the timeline from when Rozsival was signed.
Click to expand...

Well, no reason to continue this. In my mind trading Rozsival for Wolski was horrible, Wolski was yet another one of those 'he just needs a change of scenery' guys who a change of scenery didn't help, Clowe was a horrible rental who cost a significant asset and contributed almost nothing, and Rozsival is still a contributor for the Stanley Cup champions.

Just more brutal asset management by Sather...which is why it was best for Rozsival to get out of here so he actually had a chance of winning the Cup.

It's all a matter of opinion anyway...no one is right and no one is wrong. I'm sure I won't convince you, you certainly won't convince me, so...let's get back on topic and overpay for Hank! :D
 
Jersey Girl said:
Well, no reason to continue this. In my mind trading Rozsival for Wolski was horrible, Wolski was yet another one of those 'he just needs a change of scenery' guys who a change of scenery didn't help, Clowe was a horrible rental who cost a significant asset and contributed almost nothing, and Rozsival is still a contributor for the Stanley Cup champions.

Just more brutal asset management by Sather...which is why it was best for Rozsival to get out of here so he actually had a chance of winning the Cup.

It's all a matter of opinion anyway...no one is right and no one is wrong. I'm sure I won't convince you, you certainly won't convince me, so...let's get back on topic and overpay for Hank! :D
Click to expand...

I actually agree with most of what you wrote above, but I was more or less just laying out how the Rangers should be utilizing that game plan, maximizing assets, more often rather than just letting guys walk for nothing.
 
That's Hockey on TSN is saying Lundquist will be north of 8 mill a season and could end up in the same range as Malkin. They say he will remain a Ranger.
 
29dryden29 said:
That's Hockey on TSN is saying Lundquist will be north of 8 mill a season and could end up in the same range as Malkin. They say he will remain a Ranger.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that # is for 6 years or so then. I'd give him more money per for less years.
 
Rozy was traded because his roster spot was taken by a cheaper, younger player. He wasn't overpaid while he was a solid 3 or better D. It just made no sense to pay him $5m to play in the 5th slot when you could get an asset of greater value to the team by moving him. That's actually a better service the the player too, even if that doesn't come into the conversation when we talk about this stuff.

That he's a useful player now at a cheaper contract more relative to his current abilities has nothing to do with the circumstances of when he was dealt.
 
This may be elsewhere, but from Elliotte Friedman 30 Thoughts:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/ho...nhl-clarifies-illegal-check-to-head-rule.html

13. Do New York Rangers fans have any reason to worry about Henrik Lundqvist's future? "I'm not even thinking about it," he said Friday. "It doesn't matter, contract or no contract ... I just want to focus on the year. It is an important year for me and the organization. It's time for us to take a good step in the right direction."

14. It is expected there will be conversations this week between the Rangers and Don Meehan, Lundqvist's agent. Does the goalie agree with Phil Kessel about no talks during the season? Or is he like Dion Phaneuf, who doesn't mind? "We'll see. Hopefully, we'll have some good talks in the next couple of weeks. If we don't have a solution, we'll have another discussion on how to move forward."

15. Lundqvist will be 32 in March, which is the Rangers' biggest concern. His last three seasons were the best of his NHL career in save percentage. He was second, fourth and fifth overall among full-time starters during that time. I can't find a full-timer who had a save percentage of .920 after the age of 37, but I can find 23 who did it from 32-37, including Dominik Hasek (four times), Tim Thomas (four times), Patrick Roy (twice), Ed Belfour, Brodeur and Miikka Kiprusoff. Lundqvist's in that class, which would make it easier for me to take the risk.
 
nsvoyageurs said:
This may be elsewhere, but from Elliotte Friedman 30 Thoughts:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/ho...nhl-clarifies-illegal-check-to-head-rule.html

13. Do New York Rangers fans have any reason to worry about Henrik Lundqvist's future? "I'm not even thinking about it," he said Friday. "It doesn't matter, contract or no contract ... I just want to focus on the year. It is an important year for me and the organization. It's time for us to take a good step in the right direction."

14. It is expected there will be conversations this week between the Rangers and Don Meehan, Lundqvist's agent. Does the goalie agree with Phil Kessel about no talks during the season? Or is he like Dion Phaneuf, who doesn't mind? "We'll see. Hopefully, we'll have some good talks in the next couple of weeks. If we don't have a solution, we'll have another discussion on how to move forward."

15. Lundqvist will be 32 in March, which is the Rangers' biggest concern. His last three seasons were the best of his NHL career in save percentage. He was second, fourth and fifth overall among full-time starters during that time. I can't find a full-timer who had a save percentage of .920 after the age of 37, but I can find 23 who did it from 32-37, including Dominik Hasek (four times), Tim Thomas (four times), Patrick Roy (twice), Ed Belfour, Brodeur and Miikka Kiprusoff. Lundqvist's in that class, which would make it easier for me to take the risk.
Click to expand...

Never understood the "dont negotiate during the season" thing. Like Lundqvist can't field a call from his agent giving him 2 numbers every once in a while?
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Never understood the "dont negotiate during the season" thing. Like Lundqvist can't field a call from his agent giving him 2 numbers every once in a while?
Click to expand...

When I'm doing my work in my field of work that involves sitting in front of a computer at home, I can't and won't start anything until I've vacuumed the carpet/flooring in my office. It's a mental space thing. Hank said if it's even a 1% distraction, he won't allow for it.
 
JCrusty said:
When I'm doing my work in my field of work that involves sitting in front of a computer at home, I can't and won't start anything until I've vacuumed the carpet/flooring in my office. It's a mental space thing. Hank said if it's even a 1% distraction, he won't allow for it.
Click to expand...

Yea, wouldnt want to go through the distraction of signing a $50-60M deal. Playing 70+ games with no contract for next year seems like much less of a distraction to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom