Henrik Lundqvist; will he stay or go?

[NikC]

Not as long as Sather was here--my grandfather always said that the definition of insanity was having the same people running the show and expecting something different the next time.

Sather has been better since the lockout prior to this one.

i'm from greenpoint brooklyn originally... fyi

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

I'm almost right there with you. The older I get the more my mind set changes. Let's face it players come & go. If Lundqvist does leave it's not gonna be like Messier leaving in 97' or even 04' for me now. Whatever dude, thanks for the memories.

Yeah, I'm past the point where I'm completely attached to any one player--a lot of them are young enough to be my grandchild. But, I do like Henke and I have loved watching him play (just like Richter who is my all time favorite). I would hate to lose him. But, I have no faith in the people running this organization to finally get their act together.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Sather has been better since the lockout prior to this one.

i'm from greenpoint brooklyn originally... fyi

Saying the Man Behind the Curtain is doing better is relative. And as I just wrote: I don't believe in his ability to put together a winning team. Didn't in 2000 when he was hired and was only 10 years removed from winning a Stanley Cup, haven't changed my mind in the last 13 years.

 

[NikC]

Saying the Man Behind the Curtain is doing better is relative. And as I just wrote: I don't believe in his ability to put together a winning team. Didn't in 2000 when he was hired and was only 10 years removed from winning a Stanley Cup, haven't changed my mind in the last 13 years.

i'm no Sather apologist, but collectively they at least stuck by their program of trying to rebuild while staying competitive. If we can get a functioning power play, and employ a system that cater to offense as well as defense, we can take the next step. We have to start scoring some goals for Lundqvist.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

i'm no Sather apologist, but collectively they at least stuck by their program of trying to rebuild while staying competitive. If we can get a functioning power play, and employ a system that cater to offense as well as defense, we can take the next step. We have to start scoring some goals for Lundqvist.

You mean if the GM acquired and drafted better players the team would be better? You know next year is 10 years since the rebuild started. It's 10 years since we traded Leetch and had the fire sale. Yes Sather has done an ok job since 04....Big deal. One division title and a decent run to the Conference Finals isn't anything to brag about. I don't think the Rangers are that far away but in reality "not that far away" and "really far away from being a contender" aren't that different.

 

[NikC]

You mean if the GM acquired and drafted better players the team would be better? You know next year is 10 years since the rebuild started. It's 10 years since we traded Leetch and had the fire sale. Yes Sather has done an ok job since 04....Big deal. One division title and a decent run to the Conference Finals isn't anything to brag about. I don't think the Rangers are that far away but in reality "not that far away" and "really far away from being a contender" aren't that different.

i agree with everything you said. not much to brag about. not as bad as some would make it out to be, but regardless still not much to brag about as you say...

the team is poised to take an important step with a new coach. any moves we make have to really be smart ones. I agree that we must stop the turnover. we need more offense from both our forwards and defense...

 

[LGRDunDunDunDunDa]

You have to sign Him or it's Luongo

Has to be a #1 Priority with McD,Hags and Steph.
He is the franchise player and knows it, I believe the comments are just a negotiating tool.
If your not able to, Luongo will be bought out and you can sign him for 3 years and hope for the worst.

 

[RangerBoy]

Of course the Rangers have to do whatever is necessary to re-sign franchise goalie Henrik Lundqvist, the single greatest reason for the franchise's turnaround from the playoff-free years of 1998-2004, even if that means a max eight-year, $80 million deal.

Right?

There's no denying Lundqvist's value to the Rangers. But there is evidence to suggest overspending on a goalie, even one as great as Lundqvist, a sure-fire future Hall of Famer, is not a wise investment.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/2...ig_bucks_for_Henrik_Lundqvist.html?c=y&page=1

The Rangers have zero choice but to pay Henrik. Can they split the difference between $7M and $10M? $8.5M. Its not a wise investment. We discussed that here last week. They have no choice.

 

[Jersey Girl]

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/2...ig_bucks_for_Henrik_Lundqvist.html?c=y&page=1

The Rangers have zero choice but to pay Henrik. Can they split the difference between $7M and $10M? $8.5M. Its not a wise investment. We discussed that here last week. They have no choice.

Jeez, $8.5 million, plus $1.3 for a backup, would be 14.6% of total cap space for the goaltending position...IF the cap goes up to $67 million in two years. If it stays at $64 million, that's 15.3% of your cap spent on goalies.

Both percentages are ridiculous. Cannot possibly pay Hank $8.5 million.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Has to be a #1 Priority with McD,Hags and Steph.
He is the franchise player and knows it, I believe the comments are just a negotiating tool.
If your not able to, Luongo will be bought out and you can sign him for 3 years and hope for the worst.

Lundqvist has one year remaining on his contract. There's no guarantee there will be any negotiations between the two parties before the end of the summer--Luongo will probaby not be available by then--or are you suggesting the organization race to sign him regardless of the situation with Lundqvist? And in any case, given the difficults he had in Vancouver (I haven't followed it, but I'm sure he's taken a beating in the press), can he really stand the heat if he comes here? And if he ends up replacing lundqvist and doesn't play nearly as well? Don't sound like a good idea to me.

 

[we want cup]

Has there been anything to suggest Hank will demand that type of max contract? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd do.

 

[Jonimaus]

Has there been anything to suggest Hank will demand that type of max contract? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd do.

That's the funny thing. It's an article where someone speculates he will ask for that, and suddenly HF board takes it as a fact that he will ask for it. Half the board wants to give it to him, half the board wants to run him out of town.

 

[stan the caddy]

Has there been anything to suggest Hank will demand that type of max contract? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd do.

Would be awesome if he took a pay cut but he's going to have an agent in his ear and most great players like to make a ton of money.

 

[LGRDunDunDunDunDa]

Lundqvist has one year remaining on his contract. There's no guarantee there will be any negotiations between the two parties before the end of the summer--Luongo will probaby not be available by then--or are you suggesting the organization race to sign him regardless of the situation with Lundqvist? And in any case, given the difficults he had in Vancouver (I haven't followed it, but I'm sure he's taken a beating in the press), can he really stand the heat if he comes here? And if he ends up replacing lundqvist and doesn't play nearly as well? Don't sound like a good idea to me.

Obviously we would rather have Hank, but you have to look at the possible scenario of not having him. Any replacement would be a step back but Luongo might be the best option probably at 2-3 Million for 4-5 years assuming he gets bought out and the timing is such that the Rangers didn't have a deal with Hank.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

It would be the height of insanity NOT to pay Lundqvist $8.5M for 8 years. We have no goalies in the system. Zero....You aren't going to find anything like him the draft this year or next. What Free Agent can we sign to replace him? What players can we trade to replace him without making the team worse?

The ridiculous percentages of payroll people post are so utterly stupid it boggles the mind. If you need to let Girardi walk and bring in a downgrade on defense next season you do that instead of worrying about an extra million for Lundqvist. Percentage of payroll? Are you kidding me....The only percentage of payroll you need to worry about is how much the team spends on the whole roster...not one area....

Lundqvist is worth every dime he's going to get...Maybe more because his value to the team can't be put into numbers.

Unless the plan is to blow the whole roster over and go through a rebuild (which clearly that isn't the plan) you resign Lundqvist and be happy.

I'm more worried about Lundqvist wanting to resign here then what the Rangers are going to offer him.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

Obviously we would rather have Hank, but you have to look at the possible scenario of not having him. Any replacement would be a step back but Luongo might be the best option probably at 2-3 Million for 4-5 years assuming he gets bought out and the timing is such that the Rangers didn't have a deal with Hank.

What if you can't sign Luongo? What if he's already traded and not bought out? What if he's bought out this offseason? You don't go with what if plans for your most important position. The Flyers are an example of that....How has that worked out for them?

 

[mike14]

What if you can't sign Luongo? What if he's already traded and not bought out? What if he's bought out this offseason? You don't go with what if plans for your most important position. The Flyers are an example of that....How has that worked out for them?

To play Devils Advocate, the flyers have gine closer to the cup with their goalie merry-go-round than the rangers have with Lundqvist.

I think the fact that no team with a goalie making more than $5.5m has won the cup is telling. Yeah, there's not many making that so it skewes the data, but those teams (in particular NYR and Van, who came close) lacked the good 'depth' players who helped push the cup winning teams over the top.

There's debate in another thread about Quick v Lundy. I'd take Lundy easy, he's the best goalie in the game, but if the option became Lundy at $8m plus v Quick (or Howard, or even Halak) at no more than $5.5m the choice becomes a lot harder

 

[RangerBoy]

The Rangers don't really have a choice. There aren't many teams which will pay Henrik big dollars. His cap hit is $6.875M. Only Rinne has a higher cap hit and he is on a budget team. Quick has a contract which lowers the cap hit. Chicago doesn't spend big money on their goalie. The Wings won with Osgood and he didn't make huge dollars. The Rangers can't let it linger into the season unless Lundqvist really isn't sure if he wants to stay. If Messier becomes coach,he should run out of town.

The Rangers could play hardball and say there isn't another team which will pay you more than us but this is our offer. We are not going to bid against ourselves.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Where the hell else would he go?
-Anywhere that would take on his salary would lose any piece that would truly make their team look better than the one he's on. Any current contender has a suitable goalie as well.
Maybe they'll pawn his rights after next year and ends up signing with us anyway..

Small market King Henrik? lol...maybe he'll be a Panther and I'll **** my ****ing pants.

He ain't goin anywhere folks, any "talk to my agent" talk is keeping his salary from dropping. He's a NYer, CHICAGO can't afford him and LA has Quick. Nowhere else like it folks..

 

[mike14]

Where the hell else would he go?
-Anywhere that would take on his salary would lose any piece that would truly make their team look better than the one he's on. Any current contender has a suitable goalie as well.
Maybe they'll pawn his rights after next year and ends up signing with us anyway..

Small market King Henrik? lol...maybe he'll be a Panther and I'll **** my ****ing pants.

He ain't goin anywhere folks, any "talk to my agent" talk is keeping his salary from dropping. He's a NYer, CHICAGO can't afford him and LA has Quick. Nowhere else like it folks..

What about Pitts? Maybe they'll lose malkin to FA, look to buy out or trade Fleury and make a run at Lundy to see if he and crosby can get it done

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

There's debate in another thread about Quick v Lundy. I'd take Lundy easy, he's the best goalie in the game, but if the option became Lundy at $8m plus v Quick (or Howard, or even Halak) at no more than $5.5m the choice becomes a lot harder

But that's not the option and it's not going to be the option next off-season. Lundqvist has the Rangers by the balls and looking at this any other way is just plain wrong. You pay the guy and that's it....

Where would the Rangers be without Hank? If he played for another team and was a Free Agent this board would be saying pay him $9M a year. Some fans cheer when we sign Gomez, Drury, Redden, Richards, etc. Our most important home grown player since Brian Leetch is going to be a Free Agent and people want to quibble over an extra couple of million dollars......He makes $6M now it's not like the difference is that much money. If you let Pyatt and Asham walk next season and use that money plus what Hank makes now that pays Lundqvist. If we are worried about depth issues it's the 3rd pairing on defense and the 4th line that are going to feel the pinch...(If the Rangers even feel a pinch)

 

[mike14]

But that's not the option and it's not going to be the option next off-season. Lundqvist has the Rangers by the balls and looking at this any other way is just plain wrong. You pay the guy and that's it....

Yeah, Quick isn't an option, but some of Halak, Elliott, Crawfird, Hillier, Miller, Luongo will be as well as trades/offer sheets.

None of these guys are at Hanks level, but is the potential to spread out the talent better worth the downgrade at goalie.

I think the rangers will pay hank whatever he wants, I'm just not sure thats the best idea (although i'd love to be wrong)

 

[Jersey Girl]

But that's not the option and it's not going to be the option next off-season. Lundqvist has the Rangers by the balls and looking at this any other way is just plain wrong. You pay the guy and that's it....

Where would the Rangers be without Hank? If he played for another team and was a Free Agent this board would be saying pay him $9M a year. Some fans cheer when we sign Gomez, Drury, Redden, Richards, etc. Our most important home grown player since Brian Leetch is going to be a Free Agent and people want to quibble over an extra couple of million dollars......He makes $6M now it's not like the difference is that much money. If you let Pyatt and Asham walk next season and use that money plus what Hank makes now that pays Lundqvist. If we are worried about depth issues it's the 3rd pairing on defense and the 4th line that are going to feel the pinch...(If the Rangers even feel a pinch)

Paying him $9 million per year would boggle the mind.

 

[TheTakedown]

THe best goalie in the world is worth whatever he asks for, period. They have full ability (and right) to haggle with him, but I am doubtful the Rangers play hardball with Hank...

/Discussion

 

[Hunter Gathers]

THe best goalie in the world is worth whatever he asks for, period.

Wrong.

/discussion