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.
patnyrnyg said:
Agreed. He has made a ton of money, has never left a dime on the table to help the team's cap, and this is a cold business. The team needs to do what is best for the current team. If he is willing to retire, great. If not and they feel they need to buy him out, so be it.If they can get a good deal for Gerogiev and decide to keep Henrik one more year, fine. Just do not want them trading Georgiev just to get him off the roster so they only have 2 goalies going into next season.
Click to expand...

See, I'm cool with this. 100%. Retiring is up to HIM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYRFANMANI
cwede said:
Hank for Kapanen speculation(rumour) out of Canada

Maple Leafs Rumors Looking For Goaltending, Is The Rangers Henrik Lundqvist A Fit - The Daily Goal Horn
Click to expand...

As much as I think the Toronto GM to be foolish c-word, he can't be that f***ing stupid.
Trading a young dynamic winger for Hank, no matter the additions to be made for the deal to actually go through.
Toronto dug its own grave. They have no cap and no D. So the G suffers and they ruined Andersen. Let'em burn in hell.

Also, what's up with (rumour)? There is AE and BE and both are correct.
 
GoAwayStaal said:
Yeah I think if there is a goalie to trade to Toronto its Geo, not Hank.

I think its either back up or retirement for him. Buying him out would be dumb.
Click to expand...

I agree but the beat writers (Brooks, Carp, etc...) all think he's going to be bought out. And then we have to sign Georgiev. And then there's another 1.5M cap hit next year. We save nothing and the cap space we're going get this year (5.5M buyout, 1.5M Georgiev salary = 1.5M) is a joke as is our dead cap space (13+M). Ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
Oscar Lindberg said:
The site might be based out of Canada, but the guy who wrote the post is the 4everBlueshirts guy

So nothing to see here
Click to expand...

Not sure Hank fixes the Leafs' issues anyway...

Plus, I think I would puke, seeing him in any other jersey. Seriously. I would hope he either retires or just plays out his contract. Although I selfishly don't want to retire out of the affinity I have towards Hank as a Ranger, I also selfishly want him to retire to see what we could do with all that cap space(Barzal? lol, probably not). Can he retire, go to Sweden for a year, then leave retirement and come back to NY for a year or two? Like, I don't know man.
 
haohmaru said:
I agree but the beat writers (Brooks, Carp, etc...) all think he's going to be bought out. And then we have to sign Georgiev. And then there's another 1.5M cap hit next year. We save nothing and the cap space we're going get this year (5.5M buyout, 1.5M Georgiev salary = 1.5M) is a joke as is our dead cap space (13+M). Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
1.5 is 1.5. Better than all 8.5, then next year the available cap increases. Keeping Hank is the worst idea
 
haohmaru said:
I agree but the beat writers (Brooks, Carp, etc...) all think he's going to be bought out. And then we have to sign Georgiev. And then there's another 1.5M cap hit next year. We save nothing and the cap space we're going get this year (5.5M buyout, 1.5M Georgiev salary = 1.5M) is a joke as is our dead cap space (13+M). Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I really don’t look at it this way. To me, unless he retires, you’re spending the $8.5m in cap one way or the other. Your only two choices are to either spend it on Hank or spend it on Georgiev (or another goalie). Essentially, the cap implications don’t really factor into the decision.

Given that, which is the better goalie to keep around? To me, it’s not Hank. That makes me sad, but it’s the conclusion I come to.
 
TominNC said:
1.5 is 1.5. Better than all 8.5, then next year the available cap increases. Keeping Hank is the worst idea
Click to expand...

what if i phrased it this way, would you want to:

A.) spend $1.5M on Hank to be your backup goalie.
B.) use $1.5M to give a slightly better contract to one of Strome/Lemieux/Fast/DeAngelo/Georgiev but then also waste $1.5M in space for the following season


Edit: cap is flat for the next 3 years
 
1 Other Person said:
what if i phrased it this way, would you want to:

A.) spend $1.5M on Hank to be your backup goalie.
B.) use $1.5M to give a slightly better contract to one of Strome/Lemieux/Fast/DeAngelo/Georgiev but then also waste $1.5M in space for the following season


Edit: cap is flat for the next 3 years
Click to expand...
How am I spending 1..5M for Hank to be the backup?
 
You're better off buying out Staal. An average 5/6 D on the free agent market, particularly in this market, is going to be cheap. This replacement would be a huge upgrade to the team as Staal is an anchor on whoever he's paired with and is just horrible. Legitimately one of the worst regular players in the NHL.

Then you trade Georgiev for whatever assets you can get. Hank is the backup (if he's open to that role). Maybe you can even find the replacement for Staal in this deal.

That, I think, is the best way to improve next year's team and the team moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanielBrassard
Tawnos said:
I really don’t look at it this way. To me, unless he retires, you’re spending the $8.5m in cap one way or the other. Your only two choices are to either spend it on Hank or spend it on Georgiev (or another goalie). Essentially, the cap implications don’t really factor into the decision.

Given that, which is the better goalie to keep around? To me, it’s not Hank. That makes me sad, but it’s the conclusion I come to.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this if there weren't an asset coming back for Georgiev, which I presume there would be.

So, you're spending 8.5M on one season of Lundqvist as a 2 and, let's say, a 2nd round draft pick without further consequence.

-Or-

You're spending 5.5M on Lundqvist not playing, 1.5M on Georgiev (guessing) on a 2Y deal, and spending 1.5M on Georgiev in 2020-21 and 1.5M on Lundqvist not playing yet again without a draft pick.

It's a wash. Except for the draft pick. That's why I pick moving AG.

Enough dead money. Unless there's an amnesty buyout, it's not the route I'd take and it's not about sentiment.
 
NYSPORTS said:
Goals saved above average

Shes 9.34
Georg .12
Hank -4.16

can we stop please?
Click to expand...
Where are you getting your GSAA stats? I'm getting the following stats from evolving hockey:

And I believe GSAx is a bit more telling than GSAA

Which would be:

Shesty 5.9 GSAx
Hank 4.12 GSAx
Georgie 1.91 GSAx

And then they have the GSAA for the three as:

Shesty 7.73 GSAA
Georgie -0.32 GSAA
Hank -3.79 GSAA
 
NYSPORTS said:
Worthless stat huh? Top five goalies of the decade: King Henrik Lundqvist reigns - Sportsnet.ca
Click to expand...

Yes. Worthless. It's generic and pays no attention to shot quality at all which is certainly a serious Rangers issue over the past three years - especially early this season where Lundqvist started a whole lot of games and the team in front of him sucked defensively and gave up who knows how many quality chances.

I'd be with you if you're narrative was that Lundqvist should be a backup and not the starter. 100%. Not on board that he's "done" and not good enough to be a 2 and should be put out to pasture. He still has value, just not what it was and we can just simply agree to disagree beyond that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nevesis and nyr2k2
Last edited:
haohmaru said:
Yes. Worthless. It's generic and pays no attention to shot quality at all which is certainly a serious Rangers issue over the past three years - especially early this season where Lundqvist started a whole lot of games and the team in front of him sucked defensively and gave up who knows how many quality chances.

I'd be with you if you're narrative was that Lundqvist should be a backup and not the starter. 100%. Not on board that he's "done" and not good enough to be a 2 and should be put out to pasture. He still has value, just not what it was and we can just simply agree to disagree beyond that.
Click to expand...

If you look at Lundqvist's entire career, the team has always sucked defensively in front of him for the most part. It's just that father time has caught up to him to the point where he can't be a superhuman anymore. But he's still a good goalie, not sure why people think he's really bad now.

Point being: facing an absurd amount of quality shots isn't something that's been exclusive to Hank's career these last 3 seasons...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Monglobster and nyr2k2
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom