Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leetch3 said:
i love the idea of a post hank tandem of georgiev & shesty but hank doesn't look like a guy that is ready to retire anytime soon...honestly would it surprise anyone to see hank sign another contract after the current one and finish his career as a tandem and eventually backup for 1 of those 2?
Click to expand...
I doubt the Rangers would sign him for another year. I agree he's been great as of late though. Particularly over the last few games.
 
KirkAlbuquerque said:
Listening to WFAN right now, Joe and Evan are ranking the best NY athletes of the Decade, and they both agree Hank is #1 AINEC. Pretty cool because they rarely talk hockey and when they do its usually the Islanders.
Click to expand...

Its great, and true, but it also speaks to the absolute shit quality of NY sports over the last decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KirkAlbuquerque
  • Like
Reactions: Wicked Backhand
The S5 said:
Hank will be in the HOF, but the Rangers were the losers with this contract. It delayed the inevitable rebuild and the team never delivered a Cup.
I realize it would have been very difficult for the Rangers to let Hank go, but it would have been the right choice.
Click to expand...

It's a surprisingly great piece.
 
The S5 said:
Hank will be in the HOF, but the Rangers were the losers with this contract. It delayed the inevitable rebuild and the team never delivered a Cup.
I realize it would have been very difficult for the Rangers to let Hank go, but it would have been the right choice.
Click to expand...
Wait, we should've let him go before resigning him? Trade him at the 2014 deadline? We should've gotten rid of Lundqvist and started a rebuild? What?

So we should've punted the ball when we were at our best chance to try and win with that group? I understand asset management and cap considerations but re-signing Lundqvist to try and win with that core was the right move. You have to shoot your shot when you get the chance.

We made the SCF in 2014 and the Presidents trophy and Game 7 of the ECF in 2015. Why should we have been rebuilding? Not to mention that a couple bounces in 2014 and we win the cup and if Zucc doesn't take a puck to the head and 4 of our defenseman be playing on one leg each in 2015 we at least make it back to the SCF.

I'm sorry, that group was good enough to win and it was the right move to try and do so. You can look back now and know we didn't win and poo poo the asset management but that's not how this works.

And the contract wasn't an overpayment. He resigned for the same % of the cap as his last contract. You pay your superstars what they're worth and figure out the rest. Girardi at 5.5x6 and Staal at 5.7x6 were far worse contracts and for players who didn't deserve the money for their on ice results, as opposed to Lundqvist who did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorangers0525, mrhockey193195, Chimp and 10 others
It was a risk that unfortunately didn't come with the ultimate payoff, but was still the correct move. Other moves created far more problems than this.
 
The S5 said:
Hank will be in the HOF, but the Rangers were the losers with this contract. It delayed the inevitable rebuild and the team never delivered a Cup.
I realize it would have been very difficult for the Rangers to let Hank go, but it would have been the right choice.
Click to expand...
Pass the pipe. Stop hogging, dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorangers0525
Unless his body gives up on him I see him resigning to backup Shesty and I hope he does.

Watching what he has done for NY and the sport is great. Reaching milestones and being able to play on this team that's slightly more mature and competes at a higher level would be awesome. I feel this team in 2-3 years could easily make the PO's and have a little run. It would be awesome for him to sign a 2 year extension and play 25 games a year. Get another shot or 2 at the big prize.

f*** the Hank haters. I admit he hasn't been great, but he'd be one hell of a backup!
 
Now the usual stuff comes out of the woodwork to discredit Hank's extremely consistent work as a brilliant, top of the world netminder, because it doesn't suit the future. It's disgusting to read, honestly. "We need more time for our second prospect so he doesn't leave us." Yeah, great. Let's throw out the HHOF goaltender with the trash, now that it suits the "stratetegy". I mean, come on.

He has been just as consistent as Brodeur, except he didn't play behind a dynasty, nor a defensive concussion wall. Not anyone close to Leetch, not anyone close to Stevens, no one to be even remotely close to his level of performance at any position. Still we hear these opinions of throwing him out because his contract is too big and both prospects need room. Ridiculous. He's still a very capable netminder, only he cannot carry the team single handedly like he used to.

Is that the bar? The entire tone is so cynical, especially with the other garbage going around the team. I'll stop now. I just think it's ridiculous that Hank should be dumped just because of two very promising prospects in net.

The entire fault rests in Hank though. He should've switched team 10 years ago. Then he would've won a cup, but he loved New York too much. I guess you New Yorkers should take that as a compliment from him. He's more loyal to the city than he's to the acknowledgement for who he is. And yet so many are ready to dump him the moment it feels "right".

If Hank wasn't drafted by NYR and if he wasn't so loyal and fell in love with the city, he would've had double the trophies he has gathered right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gummitarzan, Brooklyn Ranger, Siddi and 1 other person
Glen Sathers Cigar said:
Wait, we should've let him go before resigning him? Trade him at the 2014 deadline? We should've gotten rid of Lundqvist and started a rebuild? What?

So we should've punted the ball when we were at our best chance to try and win with that group? I understand asset management and cap considerations but re-signing Lundqvist to try and win with that core was the right move. You have to shoot your shot when you get the chance.

We made the SCF in 2014 and the Presidents trophy and Game 7 of the ECF in 2015. Why should we have been rebuilding? Not to mention that a couple bounces in 2014 and we win the cup and if Zucc doesn't take a puck to the head and 4 of our defenseman be playing on one leg each in 2015 we at least make it back to the SCF.

I'm sorry, that group was good enough to win and it was the right move to try and do so. You can look back now and know we didn't win and poo poo the asset management but that's not how this works.

And the contract wasn't an overpayment. He resigned for the same % of the cap as his last contract. You pay your superstars what they're worth and figure out the rest. Girardi at 5.5x6 and Staal at 5.7x6 were far worse contracts and for players who didn't deserve the money for their on ice results, as opposed to Lundqvist who did.
Click to expand...
I'm late to this conversation, but this post is spot on. Sometimes, you do have to sign big stars with the foresight that you may not like the tail end of their contract.

We signed Panarin to a whopping deal and I predict right now that we will probably hate the last year or two of that contract. That doesn't mean you don't do it or it isn't the objectively right move.

Players of that caliber are rare and generational. You secure them when you can and build a team around them and make a run. That's how this works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrhockey193195 and nyr2k2
The S5 said:
Hank will be in the HOF, but the Rangers were the losers with this contract. It delayed the inevitable rebuild and the team never delivered a Cup.
I realize it would have been very difficult for the Rangers to let Hank go, but it would have been the right choice.
Click to expand...
He loves NY so much that even if they offered him 5 mil or walk, he would have taken it. He gets endorsement money. He would never have left Allaire.
 
Chimp said:
Now the usual stuff comes out of the woodwork to discredit Hank's extremely consistent work as a brilliant, top of the world netminder, because it doesn't suit the future. It's disgusting to read, honestly. "We need more time for our second prospect so he doesn't leave us." Yeah, great. Let's throw out the HHOF goaltender with the trash, now that it suits the "stratetegy". I mean, come on.

.
Click to expand...

Real World - there are countless Surgeons who have saved lives, Brokers who have made people millionaires, CEO who have built companies, President’s of our Nation who have benefited millions, all of which have countless awards . . .
yet when the time comes for change, it comes time for change.

Meanwhile, it’s not like Hank’s past accomplishments are being rewritten or his compensation is being taken away. It’s time to move on. What part of rebuild does he not understand?

Like Eli Manning, I’m sure if the team keeps paying him a fortune he would gladly stick around until he’s 50.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom