Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist: Part III

[NYSPORTS]

Yes. His decision, his right. He's not selfish for exercising something the Rangers agreed to in his contract. Why on earth should he forego his ~$2MM? To do a favor for the team that is pushing him out and telling him they don't want him anymore?

yeah, he’s milking the Rangers for every dime if he refuses to waive his NTC resulting in the Rangers possibility losing an ADA only to see Hank sign elsewhere next season. It’s his right to milk and my right to call him what he is.

 

[mrhockey193195]

yeah, he’s milking the Rangers for every dime if he refuses to waive his NTC resulting in the Rangers possibility losing an ADA only to see Hank sign elsewhere next season. It’s his right to milk and my right to call him what he is.

Again, fair enough. I don't begrudge any person for making as much money as they possibly can, especially in an industry where their careers are so limited. And especially when we are talking about massive corporations who don't have any sense of loyalty to their employees being on the other end.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Why is his NTC being discussed. No one is trading for him now, no one was going to trade for him last season

Any team that is even slightly interested in Hank is going to wait the Rangers out. Teams know the Rangers have to make a decision because of the 3 goalie situation, and why give up something when you can get him for free, and signed significantly less than what he's making now

said it before, i’d let him sit in street clothes rather than further appease him like last season. The starters both starting and watching in street clothes around him was comical.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Again, fair enough. I don't begrudge any person for making as much money as they possibly can, especially in an industry where their careers are so limited. And especially when we are talking about massive corporations who don't have any sense of loyalty to their employees being on the other end.

if you want sports teams to be loyal to these players you just killed their market and income opportunities. It’s the main reason the NHL negotiated the CBA years after the NFL did. You could bury a player on a roster with limited income opportunity. Sure, want teams to be loyal with no CBA? Lias Anderson, sit forever b/c the Rangers drafted you.

 

[East Coast Bias]

When teams trade players or push them out: "Tough luck, it's a business".

When players exercise their negotiated rights in their contract and don't forego money to do a favor to their team: "They're ungrateful and disloyal".

I understand the fact that people feel like the position is now a strength and Hank’s 8.5 is killing us but....

we have 7.5m of dead cap on defensemen. Another what 9.5 on Staal and Smith who everyone wants gone. Legit 17m of dogshit just sitting there. Not really his fault unless we blame him for making average defenders look good for so long.

 

[Off Sides]

yeah, he’s milking the Rangers for every dime if he refuses to waive his NTC resulting in the Rangers possibility losing an ADA only to see Hank sign elsewhere next season. It’s his right to milk and my right to call him what he is.

The Rangers gave him that clause.

Rangers back in the day when they were negotiating this contract could have drawn a line they would not cross, whether in years, salary, clauses, cap hit.

Why would the player ever be at fault after?

If you want to call that milking the team who gave out the contract, I guess you can do so, yet then every player the Rangers or any other team bought out milked theirs too.

 

[mouser]

Fair take but that's why I admitted the Rangers would need to add an asset.

Understood that part. Was trying to say at that point might as well talk about what asset would need to be attached to trade Hank for buyout without taking Goligoski back in return?

 

[haohmaru]

yeah, he’s milking the Rangers for every dime if he refuses to waive his NTC resulting in the Rangers possibility losing an ADA only to see Hank sign elsewhere next season. It’s his right to milk and my right to call him what he is.

Waive his NTC to what end? A trade? Good luck with that. He's doing what he has to do to play this season - elsewhere. Waiving his NTC only matters if there's a trade to be had.

 

[NYSPORTS]

The Rangers gave him that clause.

Rangers back in the day when they were negotiating this contract could have drawn a line they would not cross, whether in years, salary, clauses, cap hit.

Why would the player ever be at fault after?

If you want to call that milking the team who gave out the contract, I guess you can do so, yet then every player the Rangers or any other team bought out milked theirs too.

please scroll up, opt not to repeat everything again.

(including the option for not dressing him and allowing the kids to play. Unlike last season where the kids had to comically dress around him while he sat the bench)

 

[NYSPORTS]

Waive his NTC to what end? A trade? Good luck with that. He's doing what he has to do to play this season - elsewhere. Waiving his NTC only matters if there's a trade to be had.

and 1+1=2

 

[haohmaru]

and 1+1=2

So, Mr. Genius, what makes you think he's not willing to waive his NTC if there's a trade out there?

 

[haohmaru]

(including the option for not dressing him and allowing the kids to play. Unlike last season where the kids had to comically dress around him while he sat the bench)

Yeah, this makes zero sense to the club or to the player. It's dumb as shit.

 

[NYSPORTS]

So, Mr. Genius, what makes you think he's not willing to waive his NTC if there's a trade out there?

fill your schedule by scrolling through the thread for your answer

 

[haohmaru]

fill your schedule by scrolling through the thread for your answer

I've read the whole thread. There's nothing anywhere indicating he wouldn't waive his NMC to go elsewhere if there was a trade to be made where he'd play. Other than pure baseless speculation, of course.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Yeah, this makes zero sense to the club or to the player. It's dumb as shit.

we all know you’re a HUGE fan of Hank and anything other than praise is downright insulting.

there is nothing wrong with letting the two kids, who should be #1 and #2 on the depth chart to dress and watch from the bench. The final 19 games of the season the kids alternated b/c they are the Rangers #1 and #2 goalie. Hank is #3 so he shouldn’t even be dressing. To quote you “Dumb as shit” is repeating next season like the last 19 games.

 

[haohmaru]

we all know you’re a HUGE fan of Hank and anything other than praise is downright insulting.

there is nothing wrong with letting the two kids, who should be #1 and #2 on the depth chart to dress and watch from the bench. The final 19 games of the season the kids alternated b/c they are the Rangers #1 and #2 goalie. Hank is #3 so he shouldn’t even be dressing. To quote you “Dumb as shit” is repeating next season like the last 19 games.

Has nothing to with being a huge fan of Lundqvist. I'm a Rangers fan first.

Either buy him out or trade Georgiev. There's no reason, whatsoever other than "teaching him a lesson" (with additional cap pain to the club, to boot) to retaining all three goalies just to have one sit in the box. I don't care who you're a fan, or not a fan, of. It makes no sense. At all.

 

[Off Sides]

please scroll up, opt not to repeat everything again.

(including the option for not dressing him and allowing the kids to play. Unlike last season where the kids had to comically dress around him while he sat the bench)

I am confused about your point in any of this.

You want the Rangers to let him sit in street clothes all season if he will not retire? Opening up no cap space.

You would like to see him retire to open up cap space?

 

[haohmaru]

I am confused about your point in any of this.

You want the Rangers to let him sit in street clothes all season if he will not retire? Opening up no cap space.

You would like to see him retire to open up cap space?

It costs us cap space because we'd still have to sign Georgiev. It doesn't make a lick of sense for either party involved. It hurts BOTH.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Has nothing to with being a huge fan of Lundqvist. I'm a Rangers fan first.

Either buy him out or trade Georgiev. There's no reason, whatsoever other than "teaching him a lesson" (with additional cap pain to the club, to boot) to retaining all three goalies just to have one sit in the box. I don't care who you're a fan, or not a fan, of. It makes no sense. At all.

i’m not buying him out. You did a 180 b/c you were against a buyout. Now you’re for a buyout lol

 

[NYSPORTS]

I am confused about your point in any of this.

You want the Rangers to let him sit in street clothes all season if he will not retire? Opening up no cap space.

You would like to see him retire to open up cap space?

all along i wanted Hank to waive his NTC b/c this was/is a rebuild. Been saying this since the letter went out

if Hank wants to play elsewhere, let’s work something out. He’s done here.

I’m not allowing his contract to dictate moving out either of the other two goalies so Hank can hang out for another year.

If Hank decides not to waive his NTC, resulting in the Rangers losing an ADA b/c he wants to simply remain a Ranger and play elsewhere in the NHL next season, no i’m not dressing him.

That’s it. I’m not buying him out.

 

[Off Sides]

It costs us cap space because we'd still have to sign Georgiev. It doesn't make a lick of sense for either party involved. It hurts BOTH.

Geo is not going to cost all that much to extend. He's a 24 year old arbitration eligible RFA who has played in 77 NHL games, with 35 wins, 3.00 GAA and .910 S%

Hank and the Rangers signed a deal, he can do whatever he wants, he could retire, he could not.

The Rangers under the CBA have the option to buy him out.

I am unsure why anyone would expect any player to sign a contract and retire before it ends or waive a clause. Could that happen, sure, is the player under any obligation to do so after the contract is signed, No.

 

[haohmaru]

i’m not buying him out. You did a 180 b/c you were against a buyout. Now you’re for a buyout lol

No, I did not. I said it's not what I would do - I would trade Georgiev but if that's not on the table and there's no deal to be made then the next move is buying him out. The LAST thing I do is keep him and the other two guys around for another year of that nonsense.

In order of preference: trade Georgiev, trade Lundqvist, buyout Lundqvist. One of them HAS to happen.

 

[haohmaru]

Geo is not going to cost all that much to extend. He's a 24 year old arbitration eligible RFA who has played in 77 NHL games, with 35 wins, 3.00 GAA and .910 S%

Hank and the Rangers signed a deal, he can do whatever he wants, he could retire, he could not.

The Rangers under the CBA have the option to buy him out.

I am unsure why anyone would expect any player to sign a contract and retire before it ends or waive a clause. Could that happen, sure, is the player under any obligation to do so after the contract is signed, No.

Yes, I understand that. But keeping Lundqvist so he can sit in the press box costs us his salary and whatever Georgiev ends up signing for - so it does cost us in a year where we have very little cap and a ton of RFA's to sign. It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Trxjw]

Understood that part. Was trying to say at that point might as well talk about what asset would need to be attached to trade Hank for buyout without taking Goligoski back in return?

Yeah but I frame it in the way I did most people will ignore it instead of railing on me with "No effing way would I pay another team to take Lundqvist!" posts.

 

[Off Sides]

all along i wanted Hank to waive his NTC b/c this was/is a rebuild. Been saying this since the letter went out

if Hank wants to play elsewhere, let’s work something out. He’s done here.

I’m not allowing his contract to dictate moving out either of the other two goalies so Hank can hang out for another year.

If Hank decides not to waive his NTC, resulting in the Rangers losing an ADA b/c he wants to simply remain a Ranger and play elsewhere in the NHL next season, no i’m not dressing him.

That’s it. I’m not buying him out.

I'm still confused,

You want to sign ADA, you want to keep Geo (we agree there)

Yet you would not want the 3M in cap space towards doing so that a Lundqvist buyout would provide? (this is where we disagree)

If the idea is to threaten Lundqvist into retiring with the street clothes thing, and if he will not retire to have less cap space for the off-season thus likely hampering the Rangers in some other facet, I think it's a bad idea strategically and probably falls within the realm of poor business ethics.