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.
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...

lol, says the fan who touts the first goal in each of Hanks playoff starts weren’t soft, they were stoppable.

Try to learn something
 
haohmaru said:
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.
Click to expand...

The purpose of buying out Lundqvist is less about keeping Georgiev than it is about moving on from Hank. This team is ready to move forward and as long as he’s here, that’s harder. For me, that’s well worth pushing $1.5m to the next season. And, for what it’s worth, it’s still better for the cap to buy Lundqvist out. The Rangers cap situation is better off dropping the backup goalie cost by $1.5m in the season where Shattenkirk’s buyout costs $5m than it is having an extra $1.5m in a season where Shattenkirk’s buyout costs $1.1m.

If you want that asset for Georgiev so badly, buying out Hank doesn’t stop you from getting it. You can still trade Georgiev. There are true backups, not potential starters like Georgiev, available on the free agent market, or cheap via trade. We need someone to expose anyway.

Personally, I don’t see the burning need to acquire another draft pick anyway. Our system is plenty deep. You can also trade Georgiev next offseason just as easily as you can trade him now.

And, not that I don’t have confidence in Shesterkin, but the Rangers would be prudent to hedge their bets on him by keeping Georgiev for another year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crease
haohmaru said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting - Paying 5.5 on Lundqvist not playing, 1.5 on Georgiev AND 1.5 of available cap space, then 1.5 on Georgiev in 20-21, 1.5 on Lundqvist not playing AND now you have the 5.5 in freed up cap space

or 8.5 on Lundqvist to backup, NO free cap space and some kind of trade compensation for Georgiev, then you need another competent backup in 20-21
 
TominNC said:
You're forgetting - Paying 5.5 on Lundqvist not playing, 1.5 on Georgiev AND 1.5 of available cap space, then 1.5 on Georgiev in 20-21, 1.5 on Lundqvist not playing AND now you have the 5.5 in freed up cap space

or 8.5 on Lundqvist to backup, NO free cap space and some kind of trade compensation for Georgiev, then you need another competent backup in 20-21
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's the same amount of money either way.

5.5M + 1.5M (AG) = 7M
1.5M (dead cap) year 2 = 1.5M
________

8.5 M

Or

Lundqvist plays 2020-21
______

8.5M

And you're in an even better spot in 2021-22 when it's going to matter more.
 
Igor Shestyorkin said:
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...
Click to expand...

I never said it was and I've been essentially saying that "he's still a good goalie" but probably not a starter anymore, so I'm not sure where we're disconnecting.

It's hard to argue that at the beginning of this season that the team was even worse than normal in giving up quality chances, though.
 
Raspewtin said:
this article does absolutely nothing to prove it’s a useless stat lol did you even read it?

it’s also from uhhhhh November 1st
Click to expand...

Yeah, not a whole lot of side by side Lundqvist/Georgiev comparison articles out there so you take what you uhhhhhh get.

GSAA, often cited as an advanced stat, just takes league average Sv%, compares it to a goalie's Sv%, and applies it to the number of shots they faced. All it accounts for is games played and raw save percentage. It does not account for shot quality.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Yeah but there are 2 very vocal camps who just use whatever stats supports their narrative when it comes to Lundqvist
Click to expand...
This is true, which is why I try not too focus too much on those stats, since depending on what you use he either sucks or is decent. I just go by what I see, which is a guy whose reflexes aren't what they once were, which exacerbates his rebound control issues, but who is otherwise very capable of making great saves with regularity and is still probably a league-average player if given a league-average defense.

He shouldn't be starting anywhere at this point--and that's okay, in addition to his actual age, he has a ton of mileage--but if he could commit to being a backup and getting 20-30 starts somewhere, could be a good option. Of course the contract is an issue but I'm just talking about his ability level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Paying 8.5 million for a backup goalie in a frozen cap year is ridiculous. And nothing in the King's makeup or career makes it seem like he would relish being a backup. Georgiev beat out Henrik last season to be the number 2; another year presumably would result in young Georgi improving and the King deteriorating, as his stats have almost every season for quite a while. JD indicated that we would only carry 2 goalies and that he just had a very private conversation with Henrik recently. The tea leaves are very clear here. Henrik has played his last game as a Ranger. Time to accept the obvious and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYRFANMANI and SnowblindNYR
I still haven't seen any convincing argument for keeping Georgiev. There's pretty much no upside.

Even if Hank retires or gets bought out (highly doubt this will actually happen) I still trade Georgiev. It's silly asset management to keep him for another year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harbour Dog and Captain Monglobster
JohnC said:
Even if Hank retires or gets bought out (highly doubt this will actually happen) I still trade Georgiev. It's silly asset management to keep him for another year.
Click to expand...

Hank retires, Georgiev traded and if Shes goes down we’ll just hope Wall is ready. Good asset management
 
What sucks is I really like Georgiev. However, even if we take Hank out of the equation, we still have an issue. As much as I hate to say it, Georgie is the true odd man out here. Shesty is very clearly the future, and Georgie is too good to be just a back up.

I thought we should have traded Hank to a contender and kept Talbot. In hindsight, maybe it wouldn't have been a great idea, or maybe Talbot would have continued to flourish here. Who knows. Still, the point is that any team who would take Hank would require us to pay the majority of his contract anyhow, so if we want a veteran back up, then I see no reason to send Hank packing.

At this point, keep Hank. Let him retire a Ranger, and hopefully keep him in organization in some capacity.
 
With nothing to go by but the weakest of weak tea leaves from JD's comments + @BBKers "pirate" hint (which I still don't really get), I'm going to guess it plays out as follows:

- Hank retires from the NHL and goes back home to join Frolunda for 2-3 years playing alongside his brother.
- The Rangers trade Georgiev to a team in need of a starter. Whether that's on a one-for-one deal or as part of a larger package, I don't know.
- The team then signs a backup from among the following Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps to a 2-year, $1.0-2.0MM AAV contract. Said backup plays surprisingly well (due to Allaire's influence) and is exposed to Seattle in next summer's expansion draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Monglobster
It makes plenty of sense of keep Georgiev at this point: (1) he's an excellent backup at this juncture for a very reasonable cost for a cap strapped team, (2) Igor has played 13 games in his entire NHL career (and has been hurt twice in that short time period), (3) it appears to be a buyers market for goalies right now; if Georgiev has another good season, say playing 35 games, his trade value should increase considerably, especially assuming the goalie market trends towards the mean as it likely will.

It's simply good asset management to go with Georgiev as the backup for the upcoming season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYRangers0723
Why are we so sure AG is a starter elsewhere? He took a step back this year and he needs to consistently stop backhanders before deemed a true #1
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
With nothing to go by but the weakest of weak tea leaves from JD's comments + @BBKers "pirate" hint (which I still don't really get), I'm going to guess it plays out as follows:

- Hank retires from the NHL and goes back home to join Frolunda for 2-3 years playing alongside his brother.
- The Rangers trade Georgiev to a team in need of a starter. Whether that's on a one-for-one deal or as part of a larger package, I don't know.
- The team then signs a backup from among the following Browse - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps to a 2-year, $1.0-2.0MM AAV contract. Said backup plays surprisingly well (due to Allaire's influence) and is exposed to Seattle in next summer's expansion draft.
Click to expand...

This would probably be best for everyone involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
haohmaru said:
I never said it was and I've been essentially saying that "he's still a good goalie" but probably not a starter anymore, so I'm not sure where we're disconnecting.

It's hard to argue that at the beginning of this season that the team was even worse than normal in giving up quality chances, though.
Click to expand...

That’s true. They were an abomination defensively this season more so than any other season tbh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom