Henrik Lundqvist; will he stay or go?

[Fataldogg]

Where did I say that he should be paid less than Nash?

Being paid slightly more than Nash is still market value or above, however. He already has had one contract above market value. If he cares more about winning the Cup, he will take a bit less than he would get on the market.

I don't view Hank as a Crosby-level talent. If Crosby is making 8.7M, Lundqvist should be making about 7.5 or so. I am willing to give the dude 8M. I think that is very generous. And, frankly, Nash is overpaid by .8M or so. Why should that mean Lundqvist should be overpaid by almost a million?

I don't think his last contract was above market value. He was paid handsomely to be the best goaltender in the NHL, and season by season, he fulfilled that role. If he wasn't considered the best goaltender in the NHL I would say he was overpaid, but he was getting paid slightly more than the other top netminders, and overall, he was the best.

And Nash is only overpaid by 0.8? No, no. Nash shouldn't be making any more than $6 million. I think it's laughable that only Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, Weber and Staal have a higher cap hit than him. And now Perry. All of those players have accomplished more than Nash.

That's the issue heading into this current contract negotiation with Lundqvist. It's clear he is the most valuable piece of the team. But you'd have to pay him as the most valuable piece to represent that. And when we took on Nash's albatross of a contract, it just raised Lundqvist's salary more than it should have.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

You're still seriously thinking about this 10mil thing, it's starting to get a bit sad now, don't you think?
Psst, a tip, not everything you read is true.

You asked when something is trolling a prior thread. Your response here would be considered trolling.

----

The whole point of the present talk is to find out what numbers are acceptable for Lundqvist. We can go off the 10M point because it is what has been leaked so far. Not sure why that bothers you. Just don't respond if this is all you have to add to the conversation.

Can't we turn the conversation to what he can realisticly want to be paid/we think he deserves? Would be much more interesting than all the "omg he cant be paid 10mil, lets run him out of town" "no way 10mil" "10 mil? he isnt crobsy".

We already are talking about that. If you can't understand that because of the language barrier, it's not my fault. Most of this talk has been what we think Lundqvist should be paid.

 

[Crease]

Backdiving contracts are impossible under new CBA rules. Offer him a 3 year deal at 7.5 per. That will take him to 35. I refuse to give him a long-term deal unless he's taking a discount. It's impossible to know how a goalie will age. Don't presume he's going to be worth X amount of money at 36 and beyond.

 

[Fataldogg]

10mil, ummm no. The cap hit can't be higher then 7mil or we're going to have issues. I actually think offering his same contract or at most a slight increase to 7m to match Rinne's. If he wants more then that then he has to go.

As others have said, how many teams have won the cup with a high paid net minder? I love Henrik and he really is the face of the team, but he has to cut the team a break on the contract and consider how much he makes on endorsements and his other ventures. If relocating is ok with him, then so be it. There would only be a small handful of teams who could afford him over 8/9/10 mil. And none of them are serious contenders.

Well, than shouldn't Richards have asked for a lower cap hit for the team to be competitive? Shouldn't Nash have signed at a lower cap hit with Columbus so they can spend money else where to add team depth? Should Perry have signed at less than $8.25 million for his team to be that much more competitive moving forward?

I get your point, and agree in some respects with you, but it's not how you allocate the money, it's how that money performs for the team. Lundqvist getting paid $7 million wouldn't be a big factor if players like Rick Nash, getting paid as the 5th best forward in the game, was actually the 5th best forward in the league. If Richards is getting paid as the 12th best center in the league, and actually performed as the 12th best center, the team wouldn't be where it is now. It's all about having those investments pan out for you. When they don't is when you're in a pinch. And it's up to the GM's to sign reasonable contracts to athletes they truly anticipate will live up to that contract. I have no issue signing Lundqvist to $7+ million per year, because he will live up to it.

Right now, Nash and Richards are being greatly overpaid. Callahan is slightly overpaid, but for the most part, his contract is reasonable.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I don't think his last contract was above market value. He was paid handsomely to be the best goaltender in the NHL, and season by season, he fulfilled that role. If he wasn't considered the best goaltender in the NHL I would say he was overpaid, but he was getting paid slightly more than the other top netminders, and overall, he was the best.

Sure it was. When he got his last deal, most would have ranked him below Luongo, actually. Yet he was paid more. We can quibble about how much he was overpaid, but he was still overpaid by a bit at the time. We merely justified it because the cap went up.

And Nash is only overpaid by 0.8? No, no. Nash shouldn't be making any more than $6 million. I think it's laughable that only Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, Weber and Staal have a higher cap hit than him. And now Perry. All of those players have accomplished more than Nash.

I think Nash is fine at 7. It's about market value for him. If he hit UFA tomorrow, he'd get 8.

That's the issue heading into this current contract negotiation with Lundqvist. It's clear he is the most valuable piece of the team. But you'd have to pay him as the most valuable piece to represent that. And when we took on Nash's albatross of a contract, it just raised Lundqvist's salary more than it should have.

Not really. Just because Nash was overpaid does not mean Hank has to be overpaid. Nash's contract should have very little bearing on Hank since we did not sign Nash to that deal.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Backdiving contracts are impossible under new CBA rules. Offer him a 3 year deal at 7.5 per. That will take him to 35. I refuse to give him a long-term deal unless he's taking a discount. It's impossible to know how a goalie will age. Don't presume he's going to be worth X amount of money at 36 and beyond.

I'm okay with this!

Hopefully Lundqvist is too.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Backdiving contracts are impossible under new CBA rules. Offer him a 3 year deal at 7.5 per. That will take him to 35. I refuse to give him a long-term deal unless he's taking a discount. It's impossible to know how a goalie will age. Don't presume he's going to be worth X amount of money at 36 and beyond.

Aren't they only impossible to a certain extent? The cap hit would still be lowered, but we'd be on the hook if he retired or became a pile of ****.

I tend to agree with this, though. I would go up to 8 for him. Don't think I'd go any higher.

 

[Thirty One]

Backdiving contracts are impossible under new CBA rules. Offer him a 3 year deal at 7.5 per. That will take him to 35. I refuse to give him a long-term deal unless he's taking a discount. It's impossible to know how a goalie will age. Don't presume he's going to be worth X amount of money at 36 and beyond.

I think there's no way Lundqvist signs a three year deal.

You can still pay him a lot of money up front. Something like:
2015 11
2016 11
2017 11
2018 7.15
2019 5.5
2020 5.5
2021 5.5

Would be legal.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I think there's no way Lundqvist signs a three year deal.

You can still pay him a lot of money up front. Something like:
2015 11
2016 11
2017 11
2018 7.15
2019 5.5
2020 5.5
2021 5.5

Would be legal.

That's a $7.8 million cap hit for seven years. Ouch.

 

[Fataldogg]

Sure it was. When he got his last deal, most would have ranked him below Luongo, actually. Yet he was paid more. We can quibble about how much he was overpaid, but he was still overpaid by a bit at the time. We merely justified it because the cap went up.



I think Nash is fine at 7. It's about market value for him. If he hit UFA tomorrow, he'd get 8.



Not really. Just because Nash was overpaid does not mean Hank has to be overpaid. Nash's contract should have very little bearing on Hank since we did not sign Nash to that deal.

On the first bold point, I don't doubt what you're saying, but just because a team would be willing to pay Nash $8 million per year does not make it a good contract. Remember, multiple teams were willing to sign Redden at $6+ million per year, that didn't mean Sather made the right choice at that cap hit.

And on the second point, I do agree that we didn't sign Nash at that contract, but I have a hard time believing that Lundqvist, who knows he is the best player on the team, will be willing to take less than someone who hasn't paid his dues as a NYR making more than him.

Look at Pittsburgh. Crosby was signed at $8.7 million. Malkin had the same value to the team at the time. If Malkin signed elsewhere, a team would have offered him more. BUT, the Penguins management and Malkin knew he had similar value to Crosby and got the same contract (especially when the contracts were signed). If you think you're the best player on the team, or tied for the best (in Malkin and Crosby's case during their first signing) than you want to be paid like that.

 

[Crease]

Aren't they only impossible to a certain extent? The cap hit would still be lowered, but we'd be on the hook if he retired or became a pile of ****.

With 8 year maxes and a max variance of 50% between the richest year and cheapest year of the contract, the cap hit can only be marginally lowered now.

Edit: See -31-'s example above. Front-loaded deals can't really be used to create a palatable cap hit anymore.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I would prefer a 5 year, 40M contract if we are going to go above 7.8.

 

[Thirty One]

That's a $7.8 million cap hit for seven years. Ouch.

$8.1 by my count . But what do you expect him to sign for?

 

[Thirty One]

I would prefer a 5 year, 40M contract if we are going to go above 7.8.

So would I, I'm just wondering if Lundqvist would.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

On the first bold point, I don't doubt what you're saying, but just because a team would be willing to pay Nash $8 million per year does not make it a good contract. Remember, multiple teams were willing to sign Redden at $6+ million per year, that didn't mean Sather made the right choice at that cap hit.

And on the second point, I do agree that we didn't sign Nash at that contract, but I have a hard time believing that Lundqvist, who knows he is the best player on the team, will be willing to take less than someone who hasn't paid his dues as a NYR making more than him.

Look at Pittsburgh. Crosby was signed at $8.7 million. Malkin had the same value to the team at the time. If Malkin signed elsewhere, a team would have offered him more. BUT, the Penguins management and Malkin knew he had similar value to Crosby and got the same contract (especially when the contracts were signed). If you think you're the best player on the team, or tied for the best (in Malkin and Crosby's case during their first signing) than you want to be paid like that.

Yeah, but we are talking about value. Nash, at 7.8, is not really that overpaid. You have to take into account his market value when you discuss that. He's marginally overpaid by almost 1M. That's not brutal by any stretch.

That's why I don't mind Lundqvist getting 8M. He's the best player and should be paid around equal or slightly more than Nash. 10 is just insanity and any much more than 8 means we should think about trading him.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

So would I, I'm just wondering if Lundqvist would.

If he wouldn't, than I think it's safe to say he cares more about money than winning.

 

[Jersey Girl]

$8.1 by my count . But what do you expect him to sign for?

I dunno...but there is a limit at some point where we would have to walk away. We'll know better a year from now what that limit is.

 

[Jersey Girl]

If he wouldn't, than I think it's safe to say he cares more about money than winning.

Unless he can get $10 million somewhere that also gives him a chance to win.

 

[Fanned On It]

No I don't think they like him,would you,lol? The guys acts like a dick and throws players under the bus left n right and has favorites. I don't know where u get the vibe they like him. At times they don't even look like they want to play for him

Uh, I actually think the players DO like Torts and I think that could actually be a problem for us. Torts does act like a dick, TO THE MEDIA. You think he speaks to his team that way? I bet he treats them all with the utmost respect during practice and meetings. You rarely ever see Torts VISIBLY ragging on a player on the bench either. He might be "yelling" but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in a derogatory manner. Like the other dude said, Torts benched his all-time favorite the last two games of the playoffs... so you don't really have a point there. And about him throwing people under the bus... who? Hagelin? Once? I think that's the only time he did something remotely close to that this season and like the other guy said, it was a motivational tactic which I wouldn't even call "throwing someone under the bus".

You could say that they MIGHT be getting frustrated with the system the team is playing, but I think they like/respect him as a person/coach.

NO D00D THE TEAM SUX.

BRO, DON'T YOU FEEL BAD FOR HANX AND STUFF? HE NEEDS TO LEAVE FORT THE CLOWN AND STUFF AND GO 2 THE WINGZ. TEHY CAN JUST BUY OUT PLAYERS TO FIT HIM AND STUFF.

THE RANGER$$$$ SUX AND TOOTS THE PRAWN IS COACHING IT INTO P00P.

---

Yeah. Agreed. The team isn't bad at all. The amount of people that think the team sucks and is bad just blows my mind. Spoiled, spoiled NY sports fans.

I gotta ask you... do you play hockey? If so, did you watch the playoffs? I mean, this team looked like absolute CRAP in the playoffs both this year and last year. I wouldn't necessarily attribute getting into the second round (or the ECF for that matter) with "being a good team". I know that sounds silly, but if you look at the WAY the team played, it was just messy. The team lacked a solid break-out strategy. Their break-out plan was to throw the puck off the glass and hope that it squeaked over the blue-line. Almost every player on the ice lacked poise and confidence with the puck. Our offensive creativity was nearly non-existent for these past 2 post-seasons and it was very hard to watch. It's like you're almost praying for a lucky bounce in order for the team to score a goal because they couldn't CREATE any good scoring chances... and the FEW that they did were stifled for the most part.

I know it doesn't matter HOW goals are scored (and obviously every team scores dirty goals) but usually you can determine the skill of a team by looking at their goal-scoring style. If you go back and look at the goals we scored this post-season, there were maybe 3 "nice goals". Kreider's OT goal was a "nice" goal with a great set-up by Nash. Cally's breakaway back-hander was pretty ill, and maybe Girardi's first one-timer goal on the PP because of the sick setup by Brass. The rest were mostly either 'throw it on the net and wish' plays or complete defensive miscues by the other team - gifts (see Stepan's goal after stripping Chara).

So I'm not going to sit here and say that this team completely sucks... because we do have skill, just most of it is on defense (where did that go this playoffs?). Offensively, the Rangers are somewhat of a laughing-stock.

 

[Thirty One]

If he wouldn't, than I think it's safe to say he cares more about money than winning.

Winning can only buy you so much boats and ho's.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I dunno...but there is a limit at some point where we would have to walk away. We'll know better a year from now what that limit is.

I would rather trade him now if they think they can't come to a deal rather than risk losing him for nothing. Just my two cents. I'll take 60-75 cents on the dollar instead of taking 0 cents on the dollar. Letting Hank walk for nothing would be disastrous for this franchise.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Unless he can get $10 million somewhere that also gives him a chance to win.

A dubious belief on his part if you ask me.

I gotta ask you... do you play hockey? blah blah this team sucks yada yada.

Played for over 15 years.

Winning can only buy you so much boats and ho's.

Hank's on a boat and
It's going fast and
He got a nautical themed
Pashmina afghan

 

[KingWantsCup]

Backdiving contracts are impossible under new CBA rules. Offer him a 3 year deal at 7.5 per. That will take him to 35. I refuse to give him a long-term deal unless he's taking a discount. It's impossible to know how a goalie will age. Don't presume he's going to be worth X amount of money at 36 and beyond.

You really think that after years of being the backbone of this organization, the best goalie in the league, and carrying this offensively team for so long that he's going to even entertain the idea of signing a 3 year deal? Come on man.

 

[Fataldogg]

I think there's no way Lundqvist signs a three year deal.

You can still pay him a lot of money up front. Something like:
2015 11
2016 11
2017 11
2018 7.15
2019 5.5
2020 5.5
2021 5.5

Would be legal.

I'd like the cap hit, but would prefer for the contract to expire when he is 36. As someone else stated, we don't know how he will be at 38, 39, 40, etc. I wouldn't sign any player into his 40's, including Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, etc at a big cap hit.

2015 $12M
2016 $10M
2017 $8M
2018 $6M
2019 $4M

Would take him to 36 and would be an $8M/YR cap hit, making him the highest paid player on the team (which he deserves) and we wouldn't be handcuffed to keeping him at the cap hit in his twilight years.

Than after 36/37, if he is still good, we can do what the Redwings did with Lidstrom, sign him to a 1 year $7.5 million contract if it fits the bill, or a 2 year contract with a lower cap hit.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I would rather trade him now if they think they can't come to a deal rather than risk losing him for nothing. Just my two cents. I'll take 60-75 cents on the dollar instead of taking 0 cents on the dollar. Letting Hank walk for nothing would be disastrous for this franchise.

While I do not disagree with that concept, the truth is history tells us NHL goalies do not return as much in trades as you would think.

The person who said we should trade Hank for Hiller and Bobby Ryan was out of his mind.