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.
nyr2k2 said:
A three-goalie rotation is just such an awful idea.
Click to expand...
True. But I kind of think the players forced the situation by playing well. So it’s kind of a “good problem” in the bigger picture.
I think the alternative option which would have been sending down Georgiev earlier - when he was playing great - would have sent the wrong message and basically just been a case of ‘kicking the fan down the road’.
For me, this falls into the ‘c’est la vie’ category. They’ll get through it.
 
The S5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, because of being in the playoffs, they would have been on the outside looking in on many years. Think there are conference finals or trips to the finals without Henke? Not even close.
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.
Click to expand...
Who advanced with merely good goaltending?

Though not sure if the answer matters at all. If you think that this team advanced to Conference Finals or Cup Finals without Henke covering up all of the warts virtually single handed, there is nothing really more for us to debate here.

Hey guys, there was this stretch of time where the franchise had one of it's better successes in history. I know. Let's go back and remove the biggest reason for all of that success. I bet you they do just as well. Maybe if we were to remove Richter and replace him with Healy, the Ranger still win the Cup.
 
If the Rangers management could go back in time they would just sign Hank to a longer first extension, 8 or 9 years instead of 6.
 
True Blue said:
Yes, because of being in the playoffs, they would have been on the outside looking in on many years. Think there are conference finals or trips to the finals without Henke? Not even close.

Who advanced with merely good goaltending?

Though not sure if the answer matters at all. If you think that this team advanced to Conference Finals or Cup Finals without Henke covering up all of the warts virtually single handed, there is nothing really more for us to debate here.

Hey guys, there was this stretch of time where the franchise had one of it's better successes in history. I know. Let's go back and remove the biggest reason for all of that success. I bet you they do just as well. Maybe if we were to remove Richter and replace him with Healy, the Ranger still win the Cup.
Click to expand...
I've discussed this in the past. I do find the bold to be hyperbole.
You are a big Hank fan, I get it.
 
The S5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Walking away would be the opposite of being uber competitive though.
 
The S5 said:
I've discussed this in the past. I do find the bold to be hyperbole.
You are a big Hank fan, I get it.
Click to expand...
That is not hyperbole and has nothing to do with being a fan or not a fan. Those teams go nowhere unless he is there to cover up the warts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Overcast
True Blue said:
That is not hyperbole and has nothing to do with being a fan or not a fan. Those teams go nowhere unless he is there to cover up the warts.
Click to expand...

It's kind of hyperbole. I mean the 14-15 team won the Presidents trophy with an injured Hank only starting 46 instead of his usual 60-70+ games.

There have been plenty of years the team was just basically Hank. But those deep playoff years, those were good teams.
 
McRanger said:
It's kind of hyperbole. I mean the 14-15 team won the Presidents trophy with an injured Hank only starting 46 instead of his usual 60-70+ games.

There have been plenty of years the team was just basically Hank. But those deep playoff years, those were good teams.
Click to expand...
They were. But I maintain that they do not get anywhere near as far as those runs went without Henke.
 
Hank needs to be a team player and waive his NTC.

Let himself get the last chance to win the cup and let the organization to keep two good young goalies.
 
egelband said:
True. But I kind of think the players forced the situation by playing well. So it’s kind of a “good problem” in the bigger picture.
I think the alternative option which would have been sending down Georgiev earlier - when he was playing great - would have sent the wrong message and basically just been a case of ‘kicking the fan down the road’.
For me, this falls into the ‘c’est la vie’ category. They’ll get through it.
Click to expand...

Georgiev wouldn't have passed waivers...sending him down was never an option...
 
RangerBoy said:


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.
Click to expand...

The lack of foresight here is astonishing. Did they just forget Geo was waived exempt
 
Dactyl said:
The lack of foresight here is astonishing. Did they just forget Geo was waived exempt
Click to expand...

Why would you send down Georgiev though? He's younger and way more proven than Shesterkin. Doesn't make any sense....
 
Edge said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m just convinced JD is going to hold Georgiev through this and Henrik moves to San Jose for a year.
 
True Blue said:
That is not hyperbole and has nothing to do with being a fan or not a fan. Those teams go nowhere unless he is there to cover up the warts.
Click to expand...
I know you're convinced of that and I already said the team was between a rock and a hard place with Hank's contract.
Luckily, its almost over and the rebuild can continue.
 
Hinterland said:
Why would you send down Georgiev though? He's younger and way more proven than Shesterkin. Doesn't make any sense....
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been a PR controversy to send Georgiev down to get some starts in while they "take a look" at Shestyorkin who earned a look. I think everyone would have accepted that as reasonable personnel management because Georgiev is (was) waiver exempt and Lundqvist is not. Instead we now have this three goalie rotation which is objectively awkward even though all three goalies are being huge sports about it.
 
What Hank needs to do is evaluate how much longer he thinks he’s gonna play and whether he’s willing to do that as a backup/spot starter on a much reduced contract when the current one is over.

Because if he’s willing to play second fiddle to Shesterkin and take a small contract, he can play till he’s 45 as our backup and maybe see another Cup run.

If he only wants to play another year or two, and he’s thinking about hanging em up when his current contract is over, he might as well agree to a trade now. Even if he doesn’t agree to a trade and wants to finish his career here, there is no point in making any move based on what he wants cause he has one season left since this season is already one we want to have end outside the playoffs.
 
ViD said:
Hank needs to be a team player and waive his NTC.

Let himself get the last chance to win the cup and let the organization to keep two good young goalies.
Click to expand...
Yeah.....that happens every day.

What team is he going to that needs a starting goalie? Or should he waive his NTC and get traded to be back up and never see the light of day in the playoffs?

How exactly is he not being a "team player"?
 
Crease said:
It wouldn't have been a PR controversy to send Georgiev down to get some starts in while they "take a look" at Shestyorkin who earned a look. I think everyone would have accepted that as reasonable personnel management because Georgiev is (was) waiver exempt and Lundqvist is not. Instead we now have this three goalie rotation which is objectively awkward even though all three goalies are being huge sports about it.
Click to expand...
Even if you were to do that, it eventually catches up to you as I think the plan included Shesterkin playing in the AHL All Star game and playing in the AHL playoffs. Not to mention that they do not want to hurt his possible trade value.

Again, is this ideal? No. But it is playing with the hand that was dealt. Shesterkin's play forced Gorton's hand, plain and simple. No one wanted the topic of him even using his escape clause to come up. So you get what you get. Ideal? No. But it is what it is given what reality dictated.
 
Dactyl said:
Sure it was. Sending Geo down and giving Shesty a couple games to see what they have was always an option.
Click to expand...
To you there was an option to do that. That was never in the coaching or management's plans. As such, it was not an option.
 
True Blue said:
To you there was an option to do that. That was never in the coaching or management's plans. As such, it was not an option.
Click to expand...

It's a valid point to raise in the context of discussing whether management has handled the situation well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom