Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part II

[True Blue]

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

His numbers from the past year, did not really indicate that he is not an NHL starter.

 

[romba]

His numbers from the past year, did not really indicate that he is not an NHL starter.

It didn't indicate that he is not an NHL starter, but did they indicate assuredly that he is?

 

[True Blue]

It didn't indicate that he is not an NHL starter, but did they indicate assuredly that he is?

Save percentage since he has come into the league is top-30. That's starting for me

 

[haohmaru]

Objective evidence supersedes your emotional attachment to Hank.

You saying that you’re objective is the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. No emotional attachment here. All business.

 

[NYSPORTS]

You saying that you’re objective is the funniest thing I’ve heard all week. No emotional attachment here. All business.

says the fella ignoring objective stats. Don’t let that heart fall off your sleeve

 

[will1066]

Not even paying attention to stats, Hank's play does not instill confidence for the team in front of him. The team plays a little bit stiffer defense with another goalie, it is what it is. He's overly relying on his athleticism at this point in his illustrious career. His rebound control is bad. Even if he makes the stops that he's supposed to, he doesn't look that good, really, doing it.

 

[OrlandK]

At this point Hank is basically an "the emperor has no clothes" situation. He clearly is a shell of his former great self but out of respect for what he was, fan worship, etc. all kinds of excuses (ie bad defense just for him) are made.

 

[haohmaru]

says the fella ignoring objective stats. Don’t let that heart fall off your sleeve

Ignoring? Let's look at Quality Starts, Save %, GAA adjusted GAA, etc.. during the regular season and the stats (AG and HL) are essentially the same and, yet, one is a starter in this league and the other needs a walker and Geritol®

Georgiev actually had more RBS than Lundqvist did.

There's a difference between wanting Lundqvist to retire and saying he's not even backup worthy. The one doing the ignoring here is you. Just like the "softie" nonsense. I've seen every goalie in the playoffs give up goals similar to the Lundqvist one that went over his blocker shoulder. Price, too. Stoppable. Not soft. And, even with that, the goalie lines in the playoffs between HL and IS are essentially the same - similar save %, both winless, both without any offensive support.

Goalies aren't a NYR problem other than having too many of them.

Anyway, we aren't going to convince each other of anything different so I'm done with this topic with you.

Cheers.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers want to keep Georgiev, whether or not it is in the best interest of asset management. He's good, he's young and he most likely will still play 30-35 games a year even though Shesterkin will be the clear #1. He's also quality insurance assuming Igor gets hurt or for some reason fails to meet the goals set for him.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Ignoring? Let's look at Quality Starts, Save %, GAA adjusted GAA, etc.. during the regular season and the stats (AG and HL) are essentially the same and, yet, one is a starter in this league and the other needs a walker and Geritol®

Georgiev actually had more RBS than Lundqvist did.

There's a difference between wanting Lundqvist to retire and saying he's not even backup worthy. The one doing the ignoring here is you. Just like the "softie" nonsense. I've seen every goalie in the playoffs give up goals similar to the Lundqvist one that went over his blocker shoulder. Price, too. Stoppable. Not soft. And, even with that, the goalie lines in the playoffs between HL and IS are essentially the same - similar save %, both winless, both without any offensive support.

Goalies aren't a NYR problem other than having too many of them.

Anyway, we aren't going to convince each other of anything different so I'm done with this topic with you.

Cheers.

broken record lol

i agree with all the posts surrounding your position along with the objective stats you don’t seem to understand.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Not even paying attention to stats, Hank's play does not instill confidence for the team in front of him. The team plays a little bit stiffer defense with another goalie, it is what it is. He's overly relying on his athleticism at this point in his illustrious career. His rebound control is bad. Even if he makes the stops that he's supposed to, he doesn't look that good, really, doing it.

agree

 

[NYSPORTS]

At this point Hank is basically an "the emperor has no clothes" situation. He clearly is a shell of his former great self but out of respect for what he was, fan worship, etc. all kinds of excuses (ie bad defense just for him) are made.

agree

the stats don’t lie, his non-verbal body language is awful after giving up so many goals, the team is patronizing him by not dressing either of the kids as a backup despite starting 1 of out the last 19 games, he let in two softies at the start of both playoff games, he’s paid a fortune, etc. ONLY the contract keeps him in uniform. Why else would the team carry a comical 3 goalies?

 

[and 99 others]

How am I spending 1..5M for Hank to be the backup?

a potential hank buyout would still cost $5.5M against the cap in 20-21. Another $1.5M against the cap in 21-22. $7M of hank's contract is a sunk cost against the cap.

 

[TominNC]

It’s only 5.5 M plus a backups salary if he’s bought out. That leaves you 1.5 to spend in 20-21

it’s only 1.5 m plus a backups salary in 21-22. That leaves you 5.5 to spend.

If he’s the backup you have nothing extra to spend in 20-21

 

[haohmaru]

It’s only 5.5 M plus a backups salary if he’s bought out. That leaves you 1.5 to spend in 20-21

it’s only 1.5 m plus a backups salary in 21-22. That leaves you 5.5 to spend.

If he’s the backup you have nothing extra to spend in 20-21

He's not under contract in 21-22 so it leaves you 8.5M to spend (7 if you count AG's projected raise)

 

[WojtekWolski86]

He's not under contract in 21-22 so it leaves you 8.5M to spend (7 if you count AG's projected raise)

Buying him out is spread over 2 years.

Next year we would have Shatty, Dan G, Spooner, Hank costing almost 13M in dead cap...

 

[haohmaru]

Buying him out is spread over 2 years.

Next year we would have Shatty, Dan G, Spooner, Hank costing almost 13M in dead cap...

Except I'm talking about his cap hit if he ISN'T bought out.

8.5M this year. Nothing next year. Which is why he should be the backup if he chooses not to retire.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Buying him out is spread over 2 years.

Next year we would have Shatty, Dan G, Spooner, Hank costing almost 13M in dead cap...

you need to further spell it out b/c he’s not going to add the full $8.5 million for a backup to the dead money next year nor does he understand a buyout.

Henrik Lundqvist buyout calculator, cap hit impact | Puckpedia

 

[will1066]

Who knows what he wants to do maybe with the exception of JD. He doesn't want another chase at a Cup, otherwise he would've accepted a trade to go elsewhere. He's not happy backing up either.

 

[GAGLine]

We have to clear cap, so it may not be a choice as to whether or not we buy out Hank. Of the 3 buyout candidates, Hank provides us with the most relief.

We need to see what other moves Gorton makes, but I'm of the belief that Hank won't be here next year. He'll retire, accept a trade, or be bought out.

 

[haohmaru]

I’m not sure he’s tradeable with that cap hit. Retirement or buyout IMHO

 

[haohmaru]

you need to further spell it out b/c he’s not going to add the full $8.5 million for a backup to the dead money next year nor does he understand a buyout.

Henrik Lundqvist buyout calculator, cap hit impact | Puckpedia

i understand perfectly. Assuming that Georgiev gets 1.5M x 2 years the money is exactly the same. You don’t understand math.

Let’s do it again for the kids in the back of the room:

Lundqvist not bought out:

2020-21 8.5M
2021-22 0M

Total: 8.5M

Lundqvist bought out:

2020-21 Cap hit 5.5M
Georgiev 1-5M

2021-22
Buyout cap hit 1.5M

Total: 8.5M

You buyout Lundqvist and pay someone else (presumably AG) to play 2020-21 instead of having Lundqvist as the 2 and you save 1.5 this season but lose it to dead cap the following season. I’d rather not have the dead cap in two years with a flat cap and the team probably more ready to compete.

Now, the question is do YOU understand?

 

[Tawnos]

The money might work out to the same total, but the cap implication is *totally* different when you spread it out over two years.

 

[OrlandK]

Carrying a 8.5 million cap hit for a backup goalie in the upcoming season, given the flat cap, is not a possibility. Adding in the Shatty cap hit we would be at almost 20% of "dead" space just for a backup goalie. It is ridiculous to try to justify that. We have to figure out how to sign ADA, Lemiuex, Strome, etc. which is going to be a challenge in the best of circumstances.

 

[NYSPORTS]

i understand perfectly. Assuming that Georgiev gets 1.5M x 2 years the money is exactly the same. You don’t understand math.

Let’s do it again for the kids in the back of the room:

Lundqvist not bought out:

2020-21 8.5M
2021-22 0M

Total: 8.5M

Lundqvist bought out:

2020-21 5.5M
Georgiev 1-5M

2021-22
Buyout cap hit 1.5M

Total: 8.5M

You buyout Lundqvist and pay someone else (presumably AG) to play 2020-21 instead of having Lundqvist as the 2 and you save 1.5 this season but lose it to dead cap the following season. I’d rather not have the dead cap in two years with a flat cap and the team probably more ready to compete.

Now, the question is do YOU understand?

tell us again how you’re done with this topic

when you’re in a hole, stop digging. ($3 million savings). It’s more valuable for the Rangers to have savings next year considering the dead money and Hank’s robust contract than 1.5 million of dead following year.

see jane run