Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

[Chimpradamus]

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.

So we're going altruistic here? I can write 15 pages about that subject, let's not go there, here. Just don't compare surgeons with brokers (specifically) and CEOs (generally), that just makes me throw up in my mouth. One is a real, respected profession, one is a "professional", truly revolting, criminal, leeching scammer and one is generally a pompous, psychopathic asshole that can jump between jobs as an incompetent leecher, on reputation alone. Anyway, we're talking hockey here. f*** brokers specifically.

"It's time to move on." So, it's time to throw him out because of the rebuild, while contracts as Staal's can remain? Because the mere chance of both goalies being golden's good enough? Are you kidding me? HFBoards in a nutshell. Let me assure you, both won't be golden. Pick one. Chances are neither will be.

Let's do a Leech then and dump him at first chance. Because that taint was soo well worth it.

 

[NYSPORTS]

So we're going altruistic here? I can write 15 pages about that subject, let's not go there, here. Just don't compare surgeons with brokers (specifically) and CEOs (generally), that just makes me throw up in my mouth. One is a real, respected profession, one is a "professional", truly revolting, criminal, leeching scammer and one is generally a pompous, psychopathic ******* that can jump between jobs as an incompetent leecher, on reputation alone. Anyway, we're talking hockey here. **** brokers specifically.

"It's time to move on." So, it's time to throw him out because of the rebuild, while contracts as Staal's can remain? Because the mere chance of both goalies being golden's good enough? Are you kidding me? HFBoards in a nutshell. Let me assure you, both won't be golden. Pick one. Chances are neither will be.

Let's do a Leech then and dump him at first chance. Because that taint was soo well worth it.

Not trying to be argue/debate. Just trying to be realistic. Look at any business professional besides the ones mentioned. You will find individuals with endless rewards getting dismissed when the company changes direction or they’re not part of the future.

so “it’s not time to one on?” Never mind a rebuild, please, stay forever as if the high cap dollar, his age and direction of the team adds up. We still need to pay the older player even if it means sacrificing the future? Ship out a kid b/c we pay the older player for sentimental reasons? Ahh, no. This is becoming Eli Manning II and no team going through a rebuild hangs onto a Hank. The 3 goalies should give him and others the hint that he’s only here b/c of a NTC.

as far as Leetch. Really? The Rangers missed the playoffs for 7 straight years. The Rangers finally traded him at 35 years of age and he retired by 37. Let me guess, like Hank, you wanted to keep Leetch for sentimental reasons and past success too?

 

[Synergy27]

So we're going altruistic here? I can write 15 pages about that subject, let's not go there, here. Just don't compare surgeons with brokers (specifically) and CEOs (generally), that just makes me throw up in my mouth. One is a real, respected profession, one is a "professional", truly revolting, criminal, leeching scammer and one is generally a pompous, psychopathic ******* that can jump between jobs as an incompetent leecher, on reputation alone. Anyway, we're talking hockey here. **** brokers specifically.

"It's time to move on." So, it's time to throw him out because of the rebuild, while contracts as Staal's can remain? Because the mere chance of both goalies being golden's good enough? Are you kidding me? HFBoards in a nutshell. Let me assure you, both won't be golden. Pick one. Chances are neither will be.

Let's do a Leech then and dump him at first chance. Because that taint was soo well worth it.

This is my man right here.

 

[haohmaru]

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.

The real, "real world" is that Hank is performing at a level that's currently better than Georgiev and, based off one game, equal to his replacement-to-be.

So, is his "moving on" based on performance? Doesn't seem like it.

Is his locker room value to a guy like Shestyorkin invaluable? Probably is, since, you know, he's the guy that Igor idolized growing up.

Has he taken the high road through intermittent starts, an NHL debut, the rebuild, the future, etc... and steadfastly remained loyal to this franchise?

Eli Manning said he wants to start or retire and that future doesn't include the Giants. I'd wager that after next season that if Lundqvist wants to be a starter somewhere then he'll part ways with as much class as Eli has.

Which, fwiw, is a hell of a lot classier than your position is.

 

[NYSPORTS]

The real, "real world" is that Hank is performing at a level that's currently better than Georgiev and, based off one game, equal to his replacement-to-be.

So, is his "moving on" based on performance? Doesn't seem like it.

Is his locker room value to a guy like Shestyorkin invaluable? Probably is, since, you know, he's the guy that Igor idolized growing up.

Has he taken the high road through intermittent starts, an NHL debut, the rebuild, the future, etc... and steadfastly remained loyal to this franchise?

Eli Manning said he wants to start or retire and that future doesn't include the Giants. I'd wager that after next season that if Lundqvist wants to be a starter somewhere then he'll part ways with as much class as Eli has.

Which, fwiw, is a hell of a lot classier than your position is.

Lol, so this is about your perception of my class? Like Gettleman said, you can’t argue with feelings and sports with a cap is still a business. The Giants blew it with Eli and set the franchise back years while Hank is one of three goalies now on the active roster which far more ridiculous than classy.

 

[haohmaru]

Lol, so this is about your perception of my class? Like Gettleman said, you can’t argue with feelings and sports with a cap is still a business. The Giants blew it with Eli and set the franchise back years while Hank is one of three goalies now on the active roster which far more ridiculous than classy.

That's what you got out of my post? That it was about you?

 

[NYSPORTS]

That's what you got out of my post? That it was about you?

long week, maybe I read it incorrectly

 

[The S5]

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.

I don't think that would have happened. Management felt they needed to give him that type of contract. If they offered $5M, Hank would have walked.
I understand that they didn't have a crystal ball, but if they were to go back in time, would they have offered the same deal? I doubt it.

 

[Siddi]

The fact is that Hank is still performing on an elite level behind a defence that is mildly put, challenging.

We can have a discussion about him moving on to a contender but the calls for him to retire are just asinine.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Inserting my post from the Shesterkin recalled thread as it seems relevant to the current discussion going on

I don’t think “loyalty” or Lundqvist earning it is the only reason to justify moving Georgiev instead of Hank. I think you could argue the affect Lundqvist would have on Shesterkin being his backup & mentor is greater than having Georgiev who may perform a bit better than an aging Hank as his backup. Decent backup goalies are a dime a dozen, a generational goalie who’s one of the most fierce competitors the games ever seen mentoring the heir to his throne isn’t. I’m not crazy about the idea of having this rookie goalies backup be a goalie who’s even younger than him, Hank is a leader on this team and a calming presence who can teach Shesterkin so much. I’d rather recoup the assets in a Georgiev deal and have Shesterkin taken under Hanks wing.

 

[Peltz]

Inserting my post from the Shesterkin recalled thread as it seems relevant to the current discussion going on

I don’t think “loyalty” or Lundqvist earning it is the only reason to justify moving Georgiev instead of Hank. I think you could argue the affect Lundqvist would have on Shesterkin being his backup & mentor is greater than having Georgiev who may perform a bit better than an aging Hank as his backup. Decent backup goalies are a dime a dozen, a generational goalie who’s one of the most fierce competitors the games ever seen mentoring the heir to his throne isn’t. I’m not crazy about the idea of having this rookie goalies backup be a goalie who’s even younger than him, Hank is a leader on this team and a calming presence who can teach Shesterkin so much. I’d rather recoup the assets in a Georgiev deal and have Shesterkin taken under Hanks wing.

It's not a bad rationale. I think it's also the road of least resistance.

But, just to play devil's advocate, it also isn't a bad thing to have two guys at nearly the same age battle for ice time rather than it being a veteran vs a youngster. It's another way to raise the stakes and increase the pressure to perform. Both will want to be the number 1 goalie, especially if they reach the playoffs where they're less likely switch from one goal tender to another for starts. Collegial competition is a fantastic motivator.

Also, it's not like Hank got to be around Richter to learn his game. I seriously question whether goalies are sharing techniques when the position is more about personal style. What works for one player at that position may not work for another. I sort of doubt Hank is going to "coach" a teammate.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Inserting my post from the Shesterkin recalled thread as it seems relevant to the current discussion going on

I don’t think “loyalty” or Lundqvist earning it is the only reason to justify moving Georgiev instead of Hank. I think you could argue the affect Lundqvist would have on Shesterkin being his backup & mentor is greater than having Georgiev who may perform a bit better than an aging Hank as his backup. Decent backup goalies are a dime a dozen, a generational goalie who’s one of the most fierce competitors the games ever seen mentoring the heir to his throne isn’t. I’m not crazy about the idea of having this rookie goalies backup be a goalie who’s even younger than him, Hank is a leader on this team and a calming presence who can teach Shesterkin so much. I’d rather recoup the assets in a Georgiev deal and have Shesterkin taken under Hanks wing.

The most outspoken people who think Hank should be dumped at first chance, are also those who only look at age and the religion of potential. They look at numbers, the potential of a better future and what their eyes tell them. They don't understand what importance it would have on a young goalie to be trained and mentored by not only Allaire, but also Hank, with the perspective of an actual elite performer who knows what you have to do and how to think, to truly excel. Every day.

If you just dump Hank, you lose 1½ decade of goalie culture in the franchise, a standard Lundqvist himself has set, together with his coach. It's not the same to hear something from your coach, compared to a teammate, legend and mentor, who has lived the life you live. Not even Allaire can reach the boundaries of true goalie experience, by merely observing details. More than half the work as a top netminder is mental and Hank has mastered that aspect, better than anybody else, for a long time.

Lundqvist's importance on the teachings on younger goalies, is basically the same as the role Yzerman had on the Red Wings, if you play your cards right.

It's not a bad rationale. I think it's also the road of least resistance.

But, just to play devil's advocate, it also isn't a bad thing to have two guys at nearly the same age battle for ice time rather than it being a veteran vs a youngster. It's another way to raise the stakes and increase the pressure to perform. Both will want to be the number 1 goalie, especially if they reach the playoffs where they're less likely switch from one goal tender to another for starts. Collegial competition is a fantastic motivator.

Also, it's not like Hank got to be around Richter to learn his game. I seriously question whether goalies are sharing techniques when the position is more about personal style. What works for one player at that position may not work for another. I sort of doubt Hank is going to "coach" a teammate.

Ok. I think otherwise. Even though I think the goalie position is very different from any other position, I still think the veteran and the rookie can have important conversations about the mentality of goaltending.

 

[EdJovanovski]

The most outspoken people who think Hank should be dumped at first chance, are also those who only look at age and the religion of potential. They look at numbers, the potential of a better future and what their eyes tell them. They don't understand what importance it would have on a young goalie to be trained and mentored by not only Allaire, but also Hank, with the perspective of an actual elite performer who knows what you have to do and how to think, to truly excel. Every day.

If you just dump Hank, you lose 1½ decade of goalie culture in the franchise, a standard Lundqvist himself has set, together with his coach. It's not the same to hear something from your coach, compared to a teammate, legend and mentor, who has lived the life you live. Not even Allaire can reach the boundaries of true goalie experience, by merely observing details. More than half the work as a top netminder is mental and Hank has mastered that aspect, better than anybody else, for a long time.

Lundqvist's importance on the teachings on younger goalies, is basically the same as the role Yzerman had on the Red Wings, if you play your cards right.

Ok. I think otherwise. Even though I think the goalie position is very different from any other position, I still think the veteran and the rookie can have important conversations about the mentality of goaltending.

I think many of the people who put all the weight into stats and scoff at the idea of intangibles are ones who've never played hockey, I've played on teams with some very skilled players but had no chemistry, some guys who didn't get along or a bad lockerroom vibe and we performed poorly. Intangibles, a culture, lockerroom guys, mentors; are absolutely essential to creating a championship team. Especially for a goalie, as you said the game is mostly mental; hence why goalies primes are so much later than other positions. We have a goalie with franchise potential in Shesterkin and I think we should be using every resource at our disposal to nurture him into becoming a superstar, Hank is the greatest game 7 goalie of all time, I want him spending time with Hank and seeing first hand how he prepares for big games. I think there is also a peace of mind Shesterkin would have knowing Hank is backing him up, and we're not relying on a rookie goaltender who's backup is even younger than he is. I am a very sentimental person and want nothing more than in a few years to see Mika refuse to lift the cup until Hank does first with tears streaming down his face, but I think people need to understand there are many arguments to keep Hank over Georgiev that aren't just based on that emotional attachment. And even talking purely from the statistical & performance standpoint, I'm not convinced Georgiev is the better goalie than Lundqvist and the stats would back up that assertion as well.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

The only thing we can say with certainty is that Georgiev is younger than Lundqvist. That's it. I think seeing a younger kid play well, people formed in their mind that the new young kid is better than the old Lundqvist, but I really don't think that's the case. Georgiev is young and has potential and shows flashes where he looks really good and does play better and then other flashes where he looks like an ECHLer. He's very up and down, which is to be expected for a kid, but I don't like the narrative that he's unquestionably the better goalie right now because I really don't think that's anywhere near being true.

If you want to say he's the more valuable asset or something because we're factoring age and potential in, then sure that's a different discussion.

I'm still of the opinion that Igor is the future starter and while I like Georgiev I really think he's going to top out as a 1B and Igor is going to have the better career. These are two kids that are going to want to be starters so if we're making a choice I choose Igor. Georgiev should be traded for a good return and then we have whatever we get for him plus Igor as our future starter and Hank as the split duty mentor next season and possibly re-signs to stay on in that role. If he's still good and accepting of a diminished role there are far worse things a budding contender can have as an insurance policy against injury or struggles or whatever than having Hank as the 1B.


As for Hank, I think people are really getting ahead of themselves acting like he's bad. League average SV% is .908 this year. He's at .910 on the team that gives up second worst amount of chances and worst amount of shots I believe?

I posted this in the roster building thread, but I'm posting it here too: here's a list of starters who are all playing behind better teams with a worse sv% than Hank (and AG):

Marc-Andre Fleury (.908)
Phillip Grubauer (.909)
Corey Crawford (.906)
Carter Hart (.906)
John Gibson (.906)
Carey Price (.902) - yikes
Braden Holtby (.901)
Petr Mrazek (.901)
Devan Dubnyk (.898)
Matt Murray (.896)
Sergei Bobrovsky (.895) -yikes
Jonathan Quizk (.895)
Pekka Rinne (.894) !
Jusse Saros (.892)

 

[Edge]

I think a lot of people are missing a very key point - and that’s that Lundqvist himself might not be happy with an increasingly diminished role.

Forget age, or how close to his prime he is, or him not retiring to save the Rangers a trade, or his commitment to a rebuild, etc.

If we focus on just the player himself, I question whether a soon to be 38 year old goalie with young kids wants to go through all the prep work just to see 45 games a season become 35, become 30, etc.

That, more than anything else, will be the biggest factor in whether he finishes this contract.

 

[Peltz]

The most outspoken people who think Hank should be dumped at first chance, are also those who only look at age and the religion of potential. They look at numbers, the potential of a better future and what their eyes tell them. They don't understand what importance it would have on a young goalie to be trained and mentored by not only Allaire, but also Hank, with the perspective of an actual elite performer who knows what you have to do and how to think, to truly excel. Every day.

If you just dump Hank, you lose 1½ decade of goalie culture in the franchise, a standard Lundqvist himself has set, together with his coach. It's not the same to hear something from your coach, compared to a teammate, legend and mentor, who has lived the life you live. Not even Allaire can reach the boundaries of true goalie experience, by merely observing details. More than half the work as a top netminder is mental and Hank has mastered that aspect, better than anybody else, for a long time.

Lundqvist's importance on the teachings on younger goalies, is basically the same as the role Yzerman had on the Red Wings, if you play your cards right.

Ok. I think otherwise. Even though I think the goalie position is very different from any other position, I still think the veteran and the rookie can have important conversations about the mentality of goaltending.

You may be right.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think a lot of people are missing a very key point - and that’s that Lundqvist himself might not be happy with an increasingly diminished role.

Forget age, or how close to his prime he is, or him not retiring to save the Rangers a trade, or his commitment to a rebuild, etc.

If we focus on just the player himself, I question whether a soon to be 38 year old goalie with young kids wants to go through all the prep work just to see 45 games a season become 35, become 30, etc.

That, more than anything else, will be the biggest factor in whether he finishes this contract.

Agree with this, and it falls within a very key overarching point: that Lundqvist's future over these next 15 months will be on his terms. And he has more than earned that.

 

[The S5]

The real, "real world" is that Hank is performing at a level that's currently better than Georgiev and, based off one game, equal to his replacement-to-be.

So, is his "moving on" based on performance? Doesn't seem like it.

Is his locker room value to a guy like Shestyorkin invaluable? Probably is, since, you know, he's the guy that Igor idolized growing up.

Has he taken the high road through intermittent starts, an NHL debut, the rebuild, the future, etc... and steadfastly remained loyal to this franchise?

Eli Manning said he wants to start or retire and that future doesn't include the Giants. I'd wager that after next season that if Lundqvist wants to be a starter somewhere then he'll part ways with as much class as Eli has.

Which, fwiw, is a hell of a lot classier than your position is.

I think you may have confirmation bias. I think it is evident that Hank is 3rd in the pecking order. There are very few things, possibly none, that Hank does better than the other two goalies currently.
With that said, Hank isn't going anywhere. He will retire after next season. With any luck, Shesty continues to learn the NA game and lives up the the potential. Hank gets around 30 games, they throw him a farewell tour and talk about the day they hang his jersey in the rafters.

 

[The S5]

I think a lot of people are missing a very key point - and that’s that Lundqvist himself might not be happy with an increasingly diminished role.

Forget age, or how close to his prime he is, or him not retiring to save the Rangers a trade, or his commitment to a rebuild, etc.

If we focus on just the player himself, I question whether a soon to be 38 year old goalie with young kids wants to go through all the prep work just to see 45 games a season become 35, become 30, etc.

That, more than anything else, will be the biggest factor in whether he finishes this contract.

Absolutely. Hank is also an uber competitive guy. Most of these types would rather walk than not be at the top of the pecking order.
Does anyone think Hank is looking forward to mentoring the young goalies? I think he has plenty of money and other interests. I just don't see him as that type of guy.
Sorry if I repeated what you wrote.

 

[The S5]

double post

 

[True Blue]

I don't think that would have happened. Management felt they needed to give him that type of contract. If they offered $5M, Hank would have walked.
I understand that they didn't have a crystal ball, but if they were to go back in time, would they have offered the same deal? I doubt it.

You think that if they went back in time that they would have let Henke walk instead of the contract that was offered? Are you kidding? Without Henke, this team does not enjoy the success that they had in getting to the conference finals or the Finals. Henke carried this team on his back to get there. Of course they would sign him again.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

You think that if they went back in time that they would have let Henke walk instead of the contract that was offered? Are you kidding? Without Henke, this team does not enjoy the success that they had in getting to the conference finals or the Finals. Henke carried this team on his back to get there. Of course they would sign him again.

Tonight...on When Contracts Go Bad.....

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers have 4 games remaining until the ASG break. The Rangers are off for a while. Their first game back is on January 31.

Shesterkin goes to the AHL during the break to participate in the AHL all star game. January 26-27.

 

[nyr2k2]

The Rangers have 4 games remaining until the ASG break. The Rangers are off for a while. Their first game back is on January 31.

Shesterkin goes to the AHL during the break to participate in the AHL all star game. January 26-27.

A three-goalie rotation is just such an awful idea.

 

[The S5]

You think that if they went back in time that they would have let Henke walk instead of the contract that was offered? Are you kidding? Without Henke, this team does not enjoy the success that they had in getting to the conference finals or the Finals. Henke carried this team on his back to get there. Of course they would sign him again.

I don't think there was any way they would have let him walk. In retrospect, I wish they would have let him go. The rebuild would have started a long time ago.

In almost every instance, teams that advance to the Conference finals or SCF have to have great goaltending, not a great goaltender. You can get there with a good goaltender who plays his best in the playoffs.