slipknottin
Registered User
Realistically what team that is close to a cup is going to take him?
Detroit, LA, Chicago, Boston are all set between the pipes.
NYI, NJ maybe.
Anaheim. Like I said, hank for Hiller + Ryan + Gibson + Etem
Realistically what team that is close to a cup is going to take him?
Detroit, LA, Chicago, Boston are all set between the pipes.
NYI, NJ maybe.
If winning is his only priority, I think Edmonton is the place over the long-term. If they have an sort of a playoff run next season, I think they'll be poised. I could picture him in furs, too.
lolz.
82 + 48 + 20 + 12 = 162
Do you think 09-10 and 10-11 are more predictive of future success than the past two seasons?
Losing Hank might actually cause this team to approach a rebuild with a serious level of commitment...something thats long overdue and, ironically, something Lundqvist's emergence delayed.
Just watched hank's presser, and I do not like the vibe I got when he was asked about re-signing.
He made an awful lot of references in the past tense, "The Rangers treated me well" "I have liked being here", etc. Not really quotes that make me believe his first priority is to resign with NY no matter what. If he truly wanted to be here he would have made the same comments Stepan made about wanting to retire a ranger and be here for his whole career.
Lundqvist may be close to reaching his breaking point. The team does not (and has not) given him enough goal support. He is relied upon so heavily that he has absolutely no margin for error.
I believe he wants to win a cup in NY, but his experience here must be emotionally and physically taxing upon him. He gets so upset after almost every loss, moreso than any other player on the team. It's possible he is starting to lose confidence that the organization can field a Stanley Cup-caliber team in front of him.
Nope.
It will allow them to spend that 6.8 elsewhere.
Serious rebuild in NY? Never going to happen
Now, If I'm the Rangers, I look to get him to commit to a long term deal over the summer. If he refuses to commit long term, I trade him during the season.
It's a capped world. These things are bound to happen. Before the guy goes and you get nada, trade his arse for picks/prospects and what ever else you can get in return.
This is why I follow no players. I have no emotional attachment to any one player. If the Ducks said you give us Callahan, we give you Ryan.
Buh-bye Cally
IMHO, the Rangers do not have ONE SINGLE untouchable player.
They carry different levels of value, but they are ALL AVAILABLE.
all of them
Now, If I'm the Rangers, I look to get him to commit to a long term deal over the summer. If he refuses to commit long term, I trade him during the season.
It's a capped world. These things are bound to happen. Before the guy goes and you get nada, trade his arse for picks/prospects and what ever else you can get in return.
This is why I follow no players. I have no emotional attachment to any one player. If the Ducks said you give us Callahan, we give you Ryan.
Buh-bye Cally
IMHO, the Rangers do not have ONE SINGLE untouchable player.
They carry different levels of value, but they are ALL AVAILABLE.
all of them
Losing Hank might actually cause this team to approach a rebuild with a serious level of commitment...something thats long overdue and, ironically, something Lundqvist's emergence delayed.
I can see Hagelin being one of them.
I can see Kreider being another.
The publically calling out of players may have a good impact the first time it happens, but it QUICKLY loses steam when you do that more than once.
Additionally, when some players still play after making errors while a kid like Kreider gets benched for periods at a time for making the same mistake, the "lesson" is no longer there to be learned.
Every coach loses the room eventually. Well 99% of them do. It's no secret that Torts has an abrasive personality and that turns players off after a while.
His "boy" Richards has shown to be a bust signing. We still don't know how the Torts Nash relationship will evolve. I can tell you that Hank has got to be getting frustrated with the lack of offence and while some blame can be put on the players, not having a system that generates offence is all on Torts. As well is the lack of a functioning PP.
Back to the point of the thread, I don't see Hank going anywhere unless there is a significant rift with the coach and the team backs the coach.
Now, If I'm the Rangers, I look to get him to commit to a long term deal over the summer. If he refuses to commit long term, I trade him during the season.
It's a capped world. These things are bound to happen. Before the guy goes and you get nada, trade his arse for picks/prospects and what ever else you can get in return.
This is why I follow no players. I have no emotional attachment to any one player. If the Ducks said you give us Callahan, we give you Ryan.
Buh-bye Cally
IMHO, the Rangers do not have ONE SINGLE untouchable player.
They carry different levels of value, but they are ALL AVAILABLE.
all of them
I think if Hank left, the first call is going to LA and the Rangers won't hang up until they've acquired Bernier.
Him and Lundqvist would easily be the best tandem in the league.They have Quick locked up for 10 years.
I think if Hank left, the first call is going to LA and the Rangers won't hang up until they've acquired Bernier.
Was thinking the exact same thing, though the Devils fans hopes are resting upon getting Bernier out of LA.
Perosnally I dont give Hank a dime over 8mil/year. Even at that it would be a long thought process before I offered it up. I just think in todays NHL you can be successful without your goalie being your best player.