Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

[TominNC]

It just makes no sense financially to have Hank as backup goalie next year. Whether he is an NHL starter quality or not. You can’t pay that kind of money for a backup.

Move some of that money one way or another - trade, buyout, retire.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I think they retain salary and trade him. I don't know who wants him and for how much, but I don't get the sense that he thinks he's done or wants to walk away. And if you can retain in a deal that makes it similar to what you'd save next year on a buyout, then it's an easy call.

Again, I have no idea who would want him. Or where, if anywhere, he'd want to go. But he doesn't seem like he wants to retire, to me anyway. Trade or buyout.

Wild, desperately need an upgrade in net and have enough cap space for him.

 

[Baby Duck Homme]

I love Hank. I really do. It was great having an elite, rock star, fashion model, celebrity goalie this past decade and a half. He brought some pretty good teams to the precipice a few times and is a no doubt hall of famer. The most consistent goalie of his generation.

The decision to keep him or not will not be made in a vacuum though.

We will be facing a flat cap next year. He is being paid like an elite goal tender. He is no longer an elite goaltender. He lost his spot as the starter and we have a capable backup at a fraction of Hanks salary. We are rebuilding and won’t compete next year for the cup.

If Hank wants to continue playing he can go home to ride out the end of his career.

Again I love Hank and remember and appreciate everything he has done for us. Time to turn the page. I hope he retires, gets his jersey in the rafters and takes his rightful place as a Rangers legend.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Some interesting takes here to say the least. Hank's retiring would actually be a huge help for the team in resolving numerous cap issues and helping us fill some holes and deepen our depth.

I don't know whether Henrik will in fact retire but that's what I'm hoping for. The chances of him winning a Cup with the Rangers at this point in his career are pretty much nil--the chance that he will be our main goalie doing it are even much worse than that. He's at the end of the line but he also has every right to hang on or try to hang on to the last year of the contract and possibly make the Rangers buy him out.

This rebuild has seen us almost without exception dump players that have hit 30 or those in the twilight of their careers for younger players. Henrik and Staal are pretty much the last of the mohicans here and I don't think we should change the trajectory we've been on. Igor is going to be our No. 1 and I would hang on to Georgiev at least until I could find a relatively young replacement for him that has the goods. None of Wall, Huska or Lindbom are ready for the NHL.

Agree with all of this until you get to the part about hanging on to Georgiev. There appears to be a market and he is at a high value point. Move him and sign a vet to a 2-year, ~$1MM AAV deal, then expose that vet to the Kraken. Meanwhile, let Wall and Huska percolate in the minors.

 

[Baby Duck Homme]

Agree with all of this until you get to the part about hanging on to Georgiev. There appears to be a market and he is at a high value point. Move him and sign a vet to a 2-year, ~$1MM AAV deal, then expose that vet to the Kraken. Meanwhile, let Wall and Huska percolate in the minors.

I am not opposed to trading Georgiev. If he can get us a solid player then deal him. I am opposed to having a back up goalie eat up 8.5M of the cap. Hank is fiercely competitive and a proud man. I hope he doesn’t delude himself into thinking he can win the cup with us next year. Any team glory will need to come somewhere else if he plays on. Time to build a team to compete consistently and we can’t sacrifice depth or development for a retirement tour. No Kobe or Jeter final years here. Even Brodeur had to find out the hard way.

 

[Fataldogg]

What the f*** are you talking about? The guy came in and did nothing but win. Did you watch the games or did you read advanced stats all year? It's time to accept it, Hank had his time but it's over with. People trying to find ways to include him on this team is insane. If you didn't realize how Shesterkin gave this team life, maybe you should watch the games more.

Again missed the entire point of the post. We get it, you like Shesterkin and he breathed life into the team [as if Panarin and Zibenejad didn't do that all season, news flash, Panarin is a Hart finalist, not Shesterkin, the credit he gets for making this play in is wildly overblown].

Shesterkin is great. He is the franchise goalie moving forward. No one has disputed that and no one is advocating that Lundqvist should be starter. I don't know where the opposition from you is coming from. Everybody knows Henrik would be his back up. What I said was Lundqvist could still be a starter, somewhere in the NHL, based on what you see from other goaltenders in the NHL [especially looking at how poorly some goaltenders did in the play in round]. Shesterkin is the starter next year.

The only question comes down to who is the back up if Henrik doesn't retire. Its either going to be Shesterkin starting over Georgiev or Shesterkin starting over Lundqvist. And yes, Lundqvist is more than capable to be a back up in this league.

 

[Rangers394]

Again missed the entire point of the post. We get it, you like Shesterkin and he breathed life into the team [as if Panarin and Zibenejad didn't do that all season, news flash, Panarin is a Hart finalist, not Shesterkin, the credit he gets for making this play in is wildly overblown].

Shesterkin is great. He is the franchise goalie moving forward. No one has disputed that and no one is advocating that Lundqvist should be starter. I don't know where the opposition from you is coming from. Everybody knows Henrik would be his back up. What I said was Lundqvist could still be a starter, somewhere in the NHL, based on what you see from other goaltenders in the NHL [especially looking at how poorly some goaltenders did in the play in round].

I agreed that Hank can be a starter in this league, i'm not one of these people who thinks he sucks. I'm just not sure who starts him since most teams would like to go younger at that position and find a long term solution

 

[bleedblue94]

I’m indifferent on this. I don’t think Georgiev is going to be here long term. I also don’t think we should spend Hank’s cap hit this season and don’t really see what it’s stopping us from doing right now.

I wonder if clearing henkes salary could have more to do with being able to pay out all bonuses next year so they don't have to worry about any spilling over the following season with the continued flat cap?

 

[NYRFAN218]

I wonder how much the Covid situation plays into things. Is it possible he just goes back to Sweden for next season given the uncertainty with the NHL's starting date (and I guess number of games in the season if it gets pushed back from December 1st), plays there a season with his brother, and comes back to the NHL the following season to take a few last runs at the Cup somewhere? Doesn't really have to be a retiring situation as the Rangers and Henrik could just mutually terminate the rest of the contract. I don't know if playing there a season would hurt his interest from teams for 21-22 but who knows how many starts he'd get in the 20-21 NHL season given everything.

 

[TominNC]

Again missed the entire point of the post. We get it, you like Shesterkin and he breathed life into the team [as if Panarin and Zibenejad didn't do that all season, news flash, Panarin is a Hart finalist, not Shesterkin, the credit he gets for making this play in is wildly overblown].

Shesterkin is great. He is the franchise goalie moving forward. No one has disputed that and no one is advocating that Lundqvist should be starter. I don't know where the opposition from you is coming from. Everybody knows Henrik would be his back up. What I said was Lundqvist could still be a starter, somewhere in the NHL, based on what you see from other goaltenders in the NHL [especially looking at how poorly some goaltenders did in the play in round]. Shesterkin is the starter next year.

The only question comes down to who is the back up if Henrik doesn't retire. Its either going to be Shesterkin starting over Georgiev or Shesterkin starting over Lundqvist. And yes, Lundqvist is more than capable to be a back up in this league.

But Hank’s salary is too much cap space used on a backup. They can’t afford him on this team

 

[NYSPORTS]

This is what I hate. The criticism because he is 38. He didn't do any worse than Shesterkin, literally, they had identical stats in net. One played 2 games, one played 1 game.

He is not the third best goaltender either. There is a reason Georgiev wasn't considered for a start. It was Igor, if he was healthy and ready to go, and Lundqvist if something happened to Igor.

This is another false narrative that Henrik did poorly. If anything, that showed me he still has some life in the tank. No, not as an elite starter in the league. Not as a franchise goaltender, but as an NHL goaltender.

Look at how Koskinen, Smith, Stalock, Saros, Bobrovsky, etc just did in the play in. Look at Holtby's last three regular seasons [.907, .911 and .897] and he is only 30. The fact is, Lundqvist is still NHL caliber [.915, .907, .905 on pretty bad defensive teams the last three years]. People don't want to recognize it because he is 38.

But goalies are allowed to suck if they are 30 and retain their jobs in the NHL. If a goalie puts up identical stats that most other goalies do in the NHL, but is 38, he cannot compete. That I cannot wrap my head around.

they aren’t identical in net. Hank is weakest of the three, he’s 38 and too expensive.

Life in the tank lol. Good, go play elsewhere and see how that works out.

 

[NYRFAN218]

It just makes no sense financially to have Hank as backup goalie next year. Whether he is an NHL starter quality or not. You can’t pay that kind of money for a backup.

Move some of that money one way or another - trade, buyout, retire.

What difference does it make how much he makes as a backup? The 8.5 is on the books right now. The options are trade him (I'd argue extremely unlikely even at 50% retained because you're talking 4.25 in cap hit in a season where the cap is staying flat for a goalie that posted a GAA above 3 and was basically relegated to the bench the 2nd half of the season), retirement (the best option by far but not really in the Rangers control), or buy him out in which case it turns to 5.5 this season plus whatever Georgiev makes, presumably 1.5ish. So now we're paying 7 in backups with a dead cap charge for 21-22 of 1.5. The money is in all likelihood a wash in total with you essentially clearing a little more space this season to have a little less the following season.

The only options financially that are beneficial are really out of the Rangers control as they can't force Henrik to retire and they can't force other teams to have interest in him at 4.25. Maybe tossing in an asset to get a team to take him would entice others but is that the smartest thing to do?

The arguments to buy him out to keep Georgiev in the case of Igor being overworked and having a safety net are probably the most logical reasons for a buyout that I could see. Financially? There's really no benefit.

 

[TominNC]

What difference does it make how much he makes as a backup? The 8.5 is on the books right now. The options are trade him (I'd argue extremely unlikely even at 50% retained because you're talking 4.25 in cap hit in a season where the cap is staying flat for a goalie that posted a GAA above 3 and was basically relegated to the bench the 2nd half of the season), retirement (the best option by far but not really in the Rangers control), or buy him out in which case it turns to 5.5 this season plus whatever Georgiev makes, presumably 1.5ish. So now we're paying 7 in backups with a dead cap charge for 21-22 of 1.5. The money is in all likelihood a wash in total with you essentially clearing a little more space this season to have a little less the following season.

The only options financially that are beneficial are really out of the Rangers control as they can't force Henrik to retire and they can't force other teams to have interest in him at 4.25. Maybe tossing in an asset to get a team to take him would entice others but is that the smartest thing to do?

The arguments to buy him out to keep Georgiev in the case of Igor being overworked and having a safety net are probably the most logical reasons for a buyout that I could see. Financially? There's really no benefit.

How is there not a benefit. Paying less than Hank’s full salary is better than paying all Hank’s salary.

 

[NYRFAN218]

How is there not a benefit. Paying less than Hank’s full salary is better than paying all Hank’s salary.

Because you're still paying 8.5, you're just essentially deferring 1.5 million of it to the following year like I outlined.

Again, if you prefer Georgiev over Lundqvist for hockey reasons or locker room reasons or whatever, be my guest. But financially, there really isn't any benefit to buying him out.

 

[TominNC]

Because you're still paying 8.5, you're just essentially deferring 1.5 million of it to the following year like I outlined.

Again, if you prefer Georgiev over Lundqvist for hockey reasons or locker room reasons or whatever, be my guest. But financially, there really isn't any benefit to buying him out.

You’re deferring it to a year when other salaries are off the books. You are making money you need available. There is benefit.

 

[Siddi]

The idea that we should trade Shesty and Georgie to keep Hank on as starter is insanity to put it mildly.

 

[Ardi44]

i keep going back to 3 years from now when neither Lundqvist, nor Georgiev will be here. This year, financially will be a push. So why not try and maximize georgievs value in a season when the cap is going to be flat. why wouldnt they try and package georgiev and a contract to plug other holes they have?

 

[Cmox]

Can Dolan just buy Lundqvist's house for 5 million dollars and then sell it back for the symbolic amount of $1?

That reminds me of Neil Smith and how he got Ray Shepard. He got him for a $1 from the Sabres.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

You’re deferring it to a year when other salaries are off the books. You are making money you need available. There is benefit.

I have given up on trying to explain cap benefit and shit. It's hopeless.

All the cards are in Henrik's hand. I can see us continuing the 3-goalie debacle into next season.

Staal is the obvious buyout. Smith is super volatile, but at this point we could manage the last year too.

 

[Cmox]

I have given up on trying to explain cap benefit and shit. It's hopeless.

All the cards are in Henrik's hand. I can see us continuing the 3-goalie debacle into next season.

Staal is the obvious buyout. Smith is super volatile, but at this point we could manage the last year too.

 

[Trxjw]

I think they retain salary and trade him. I don't know who wants him and for how much, but I don't get the sense that he thinks he's done or wants to walk away. And if you can retain in a deal that makes it similar to what you'd save next year on a buyout, then it's an easy call.

Again, I have no idea who would want him. Or where, if anywhere, he'd want to go. But he doesn't seem like he wants to retire, to me anyway. Trade or buyout.

That's probably the least abrasive path for everyone but like you I can't really think of what team would want to pick him up. He's clearly a 1B at best right now. Maybe behind a better team defense he can be a middle-of-the-pack starter but at $4.25m? That's a high price to gamble on. Especially with what looks like a lot of goalies being available around the league this off-season.

I guess if the Rangers are prioritizing giving him an opportunity above clearing the most cap then they could take a contract off someone's hands for a year in addition to eating 50% of the deal.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

That's probably the least abrasive path for everyone but like you I can't really think of what team would want to pick him up. He's clearly a 1B at best right now. Maybe behind a better team defense he can be a middle-of-the-pack starter but at $4.25m? That's a high price to gamble on. Especially with what looks like a lot of goalies being available around the league this off-season.

I guess if the Rangers are prioritizing giving him an opportunity above clearing the most cap then they could take a contract off someone's hands for a year in addition to eating 50% of the deal.

Minnesota.

They have the need, a pretty veteran laden roster and Hank can play out his last year with Zucc.

 

[Trxjw]

Minnesota.

They have the need, a pretty veteran laden roster and Hank can play out his last year with Zucc.

Yeah, I guess they could be an option, but why would Hank go to a team that isn't really set up to be a competitor?

 

[TominNC]

Delete - Not sure I was responding to the person who commented on my post earlier.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Yeah, I guess they could be an option, but why would Hank go to a team that isn't really set up to be a competitor?

How many competitors really need a goalie though?

Carolina I guess if you consider them one probably does, Vegas may but they have MAF signed at 7 per for the next 2 seasons, how much do they want to tie up in goalies?

Teams like Edmonton can use the help but would he waive to go there? Toronto is a possibility since it seems like they've soured on Andersen for whatever reason.

Of the top teams, I'm not really seeing a fit. If he wants to continue playing in the NHL, his best bet is probably to settle for a bubble team where he'd be a sure thing to start. Minnesota fits the bill.