Henrik Lundqvist; will he stay or go?

[darko]

Something like 7/56 I wouldn't hesitate to give to Hank.

 

[broadwayblue]

I dont know, 9M per is a huge number, and if he wants to then he can retire after that contract which would make him 37.

Right. Or, he could sign a short term deal for a couple more years. Under the new CBA it makes sense for teams to overpay players for shorter terms. Obviously players want to get both max salary and term...and as we've seen there are always dumb GMs who can't help themselves. But there has to be a price where a player would be willing to accept less years. How about 10M for 4 years for Hank? I guess the question is how much can he get when he's 36? Now I see why owners were pushing for shorter max contract lengths. It's hard to come up with two 4 year deals that will pay a UFA more than one 8 year contract.

 

[Trxjw]

I admit I have a tiny (like, microscopic) bit of resentment towards Hank. It's not his fault, but it has to do with how he's pretty much singlehandedly masked this team's deficiencies since the lockout and has, in a way, validated the "strategy" that Sather has implemented all these years. Part of me would rather see him go to a true contender than see us lock him up for 7 years knowing he'll be hard pressed to win a cup while the organization continues to spin it's wheels.

Idk. Just some Monday morning musing.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I admit I have a tiny (like, microscopic) bit of resentment towards Hank. It's not his fault, but it has to do with how he's pretty much singlehandedly masked this team's deficiencies since the lockout and has, in a way, validated the "strategy" that Sather has implemented all these years. Part of me would rather see him go to a true contender than see us lock him up for 7 years knowing he'll be hard pressed to win a cup while the organization continues to spin it's wheels.

Idk. Just some Monday morning musing.

I think we're moving in the right direction honestly.

 

[Trxjw]

I think we're moving in the right direction honestly.

We're a reactive franchise. We've never looked beyond the upcoming season. The awful UFA signings; the mortgaging depth for elite scoring; the hiring and firing of a players coach, then a hard ass, then another players coach; etc. None of it fits together. What is the "right" direction? I'm not even sure this team has a direction picked out, let alone the right one.

We're developing some nice players, and I like AV as a coach, but at some point this team has to become something more than a direction, and do it quickly. Otherwise we're likely to see our franchise talent walk out the door and leave us high and try.

 

[The Gloaming]

We're a reactive franchise. We've never looked beyond the upcoming season. The awful UFA signings; the mortgaging depth for elite scoring; the hiring and firing of a players coach, then a hard ass, then another players coach; etc. None of it fits together. What is the "right" direction? I'm not even sure this team has a direction picked out, let alone the right one.

We're developing some nice players, and I like AV as a coach, but at some point this team has to become something more than a direction, and do it quickly. Otherwise we're likely to see our franchise talent walk out the door and leave us high and try.

Yep. Are we a tough team? Are we a skilled team? Are we a fast team? IDK what we are. And getting a new coach won't help change that. Machinehead made a good point a short while ago. Management has assembled a roster which is soft and has little skill, a hard combination to pull off.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

We're a reactive franchise. We've never looked beyond the upcoming season. The awful UFA signings; the mortgaging depth for elite scoring; the hiring and firing of a players coach, then a hard ass, then another players coach; etc. None of it fits together. What is the "right" direction? I'm not even sure this team has a direction picked out, let alone the right one.

We're developing some nice players, and I like AV as a coach, but at some point this team has to become something more than a direction, and do it quickly. Otherwise we're likely to see our franchise talent walk out the door and leave us high and try.

I think that's changing though.. I think they are going for a more skilled team.. bringing in Nash, trading for Brassard (skilled playmaker), Moore (skilled defenseman) in the Gaborik trade, trading for Kristo, keeping Zucc, keeping Richards. We will see if it pans out.

 

[OverTheCap]

At this point, the team should be beyond heading in the right direction - they should be a legitimate threat to win the cup.

No matter who the coach is, no matter what players that are thrown out in front of Hank, the strategy remains the same - Lundqvist is the backbone of this team and will be forced to bail them out when the team struggles to score and/or the defense craps the bed.

Lundqvist sounded very disappointed that this past year's team couldn't build on the success of the 2011-12 team. If Lundqvist remains unsigned by the end of the season and the team hasn't taken a substantial step forward, it wouldn't surprise me if he considers other options.

 

[Trxjw]

I think that's changing though.. I think they are going for a more skilled team.. bringing in Nash, trading for Brassard (skilled playmaker), Moore (skilled defenseman) in the Gaborik trade, trading for Kristo, keeping Zucc, keeping Richards. We will see if it pans out.

The thing is we sent away depth for skill, then basically made the same trade in reverse 9 months later. Granted, I like Nash more than Gaborik, and I think Moore and Brassard are promising players, but it's still a move that was made to fix a mistake. We all look at the Gomez trade and think, "Woah. Sather fleeced the Habs" but in reality, it was a really all tied to a massive mistake that he had to correct. He just happened to get a prospect who the Canadiens felt had stalled in his development.

So, all in all, we're adding more skill. However, a lot of it is still tied up in "potential" and players who need to "take the next step" in their development. Until that happens, we're going to have a hard time being a "skill" team. We need Kreider to step up and be a goal scorer. We need Brassard to continue to keep his game going at a high level. We need Zucc to establish himself as a legitimate top-six forward. It's hard to say we're a skill team when 3 pieces of our top-six are still such huge question marks.

 

[haveandare]

The thing is we sent away depth for skill, then basically made the same trade in reverse 9 months later. Granted, I like Nash more than Gaborik, and I think Moore and Brassard are promising players, but it's still a move that was made to fix a mistake. We all look at the Gomez trade and think, "Woah. Sather fleeced the Habs" but in reality, it was a really all tied to a massive mistake that he had to correct. He just happened to get a prospect who the Canadiens felt had stalled in his development.

So, all in all, we're adding more skill. However, a lot of it is still tied up in "potential" and players who need to "take the next step" in their development. Until that happens, we're going to have a hard time being a "skill" team. We need Kreider to step up and be a goal scorer. We need Brassard to continue to keep his game going at a high level. We need Zucc to establish himself as a legitimate top-six forward. It's hard to say we're a skill team when 3 pieces of our top-six are still such huge question marks.

Not sure I agree with that. We traded depth guys who I wouldn't exactly call "skill guys" for Nash, then traded Gaborik for skilled depth players. Nash is younger than Gaborik and plays a more assertive game. Brassard is better than AA in my opinion, Dubi was a heart guy but has been struggling for a while now, and Moore is the type of D-man we really needed. I think that those trades look kinda silly on the surface, but they make sense when you really think about them.

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

The thing is we sent away depth for skill, then basically made the same trade in reverse 9 months later. Granted, I like Nash more than Gaborik, and I think Moore and Brassard are promising players, but it's still a move that was made to fix a mistake. We all look at the Gomez trade and think, "Woah. Sather fleeced the Habs" but in reality, it was a really all tied to a massive mistake that he had to correct. He just happened to get a prospect who the Canadiens felt had stalled in his development.

So, all in all, we're adding more skill. However, a lot of it is still tied up in "potential" and players who need to "take the next step" in their development. Until that happens, we're going to have a hard time being a "skill" team. We need Kreider to step up and be a goal scorer. We need Brassard to continue to keep his game going at a high level. We need Zucc to establish himself as a legitimate top-six forward. It's hard to say we're a skill team when 3 pieces of our top-six are still such huge question marks.

I dont agree with this, because the Rangers traded 2 depth players for a skilled winger in Nash thinking it would put them over the hump, Gaborik and Richards didn't play well and that was the end of that. the Gaborik trade was more for cap reasons and the Rangers redid pretty much the Nash trade, but they targeted more skilled players, for instance brassard more skilled than AA, and Moore is more skilled than Erixon.

 

[Trxjw]

Not sure I agree with that. We traded depth guys who I wouldn't exactly call "skill guys" for Nash, then traded Gaborik for skilled depth players. Nash is younger than Gaborik and plays a more assertive game. Brassard is better than AA in my opinion, Dubi was a heart guy but has been struggling for a while now, and Moore is the type of D-man we really needed. I think that those trades look kinda silly on the surface, but they make sense when you really think about them.

I dont agree with this, because the Rangers traded 2 depth players for a skilled winger in Nash thinking it would put them over the hump, Gaborik and Richards didn't play well and that was the end of that. the Gaborik trade was more for cap reasons and the Rangers redid pretty much the Nash trade, but they targeted more skilled players, for instance brassard more skilled than AA, and Moore is more skilled than Erixon.

Dubinsky is a better player than Dorsett. Brassard perhaps has more offensive upside than Artie, but has yet to realize it over the course of an entire season. Artie is a far better two-way player and saw about 1/2 the PP time on average in NY that Brassard saw in Columbus. Moore and Erixon are about equal, IMO.

Regardless, the player to player comparison is really not the point. The point is that the Rangers failed to assess their team properly and went "all in" on a Nash deal that effectively gutted their middle-six position. They lost two key role players and the most likely candidate to step in next season and help on the blue line. Then they went out and traded last seasons leading goal scorer for a middle-six center, a 4th line forward, and a LH PMD who was beaten out to the NHL by the guy we traded to them 9 months earlier.

For the record, I liked the Gaborik trade a lot. However, the fact that we forced ourselves into that position because of a trade we made in the off-season is just not acceptable to me. It reeks of poor planning and the brass not really having their "finger on the pulse" of the team. Richards looked lousy in his first year here aside from the playoff push. They chalked it up to him being uncomfortable in a new setting and here we are now. He's regressed even further. The front-office of this team has shown little ability to build a team that is better than the sum of it's parts. The only time they did, they chose to remove two key elements to try and bring in more scoring.

 

[silverfish]

Didn't think this necessitated its own thread, but...

Lundqvist is staring a record breaking year in the face coming up. He's 25 wins away from tying Richter for the all-time Rangers lead. He's also 4 shutouts away from tying Giacomin's record setting 49.

Could be a big year for Hank, and hopefully with a couple of trophies to go along with his new records

Like the Giants with Eli, we are SO spoiled to have a goalie like Henrik. Knowing every season who our undisputed #1 goalie is going to be, and just exactly what we're going to get out of him game in and game out.

It's a privilege to watch this guy play hockey.

 

[Fitzy]

I don't know how many of Henrik's wins are in the shootout but if he re-signs he will pass Richter in old-school wins as well.

 

[Tawnos]

Regardless, the player to player comparison is really not the point. The point is that the Rangers failed to assess their team properly and went "all in" on a Nash deal that effectively gutted their middle-six position. They lost two key role players and the most likely candidate to step in next season and help on the blue line. Then they went out and traded last seasons leading goal scorer for a middle-six center, a 4th line forward, and a LH PMD who was beaten out to the NHL by the guy we traded to them 9 months earlier.

This is 100% accurate. Sather failed to understand what made his own team successful.

In the years leading up to when we won the conference, Sather's offseason moves had generally been measured and prudent. He took care of an existing issue in Gomez and replaced him with a winger on a cheap contract for his statistics in Gaborik, taking advantage of Gaborik's injury history. Later, he went and addressed the team's lack of a top center by signing the best guy on the market, albeit to too much term. All the while, the young core of the team continued to develop.

What would have been a continuation of this approach would've been bringing in some top-6 help from the UFA market without breaking the bank. Or maybe trading for Jordan Staal, who would've come cheaper than Nash. Alex Semin, PA Parenteau, Ray Whitney, Jiri Hudler. None of these are exciting names, but they would've been supplementary pieces and would've come without the price of gutting the forward corps. Or, you sign a David Moss-type and go into the next season flush with middle-6 depth.

The Gaborik trade was a reset.

 

[McD27]

Didn't think this necessitated its own thread, but...

Lundqvist is staring a record breaking year in the face coming up. He's 25 wins away from tying Richter for the all-time Rangers lead. He's also 4 shutouts away from tying Giacomin's record setting 49.

Could be a big year for Hank, and hopefully with a couple of trophies to go along with his new records

Like the Giants with Eli, we are SO spoiled to have a goalie like Henrik. Knowing every season who our undisputed #1 goalie is going to be, and just exactly what we're going to get out of him game in and game out.

It's a privilege to watch this guy play hockey.

All true but winning the Cup is everything and in my mind he hasn't been consistent enough in our playoff runs

 

[Jonimaus]

All true but winning the Cup is everything and in my mind he hasn't been consistent enough in our playoff runs

He's been more than consistent the last 2 years. He pretty much played alone.

 

[MessierIsGod]

He's been more than consistent the last 2 years. He pretty much played alone.

He's been great in many games but he was awful in game 5 vs NJD in last year's ECF, so so in game 6. He was outplayed by Marty in that series. And Rask outplayed him in this year's playoffs. He even admitted himself he could've played Bette vs the Bs.

As to resigning him, it spends on the cap hit. Build like the Blackhawks. Objective is to win the Cup not have the best shoot out goalie in the world.

 

[Beacon]

The thing is we sent away depth for skill, then basically made the same trade in reverse 9 months later.

Gaborik was never in our long-term plans. Next year, he'll demand the maximum length contract for $8 million per. He might settle on something like $7.5 for 6 years, but not lower than that unless he has a terrible season. Either way, we were not going to re-sign him.

Nash is part of the team's long term.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Didn't think this necessitated its own thread, but...

Lundqvist is staring a record breaking year in the face coming up. He's 25 wins away from tying Richter for the all-time Rangers lead. He's also 4 shutouts away from tying Giacomin's record setting 49.

Could be a big year for Hank, and hopefully with a couple of trophies to go along with his new records

Like the Giants with Eli, we are SO spoiled to have a goalie like Henrik. Knowing every season who our undisputed #1 goalie is going to be, and just exactly what we're going to get out of him game in and game out.

It's a privilege to watch this guy play hockey.

Hank is a significantly better goalie than Eli is QB. We're way more spoiled by Henrik in NY. There's no comparison there.

 

[Beacon]

The Gaborik trade was a reset.

The Gaborik trade was a way for us to get 3 young players for a guy who wasn't going to be with us in a year.

 

[KingWantsCup]

Something like 7/56 I wouldn't hesitate to give to Hank.

Hank will not look at anything less than 8 years from us if we even want his attention. It's the one thing we can give him that other teams can't.

 

[Tawnos]

The Gaborik trade was a way for us to get 3 young players for a guy who wasn't going to be with us in a year.

It was still a reset.

 

[broadwayblue]

Hank will not look at anything less than 8 years from us if we even want his attention. It's the one thing we can give him that other teams can't.

Sure, that's true in a vacuum. But I'm not so sure 1 year is as important to Hank as is his desire to be in a place he feels like he can win a championship. While I do think in the end he takes a long term deal to become a life-time Ranger, it could also be possible that he considers a very short term extension here (at BIG $$$$) to see what direction the team is going. Basically my point is that Hank writes his own ticket.

 

[silverfish]

Hank is a significantly better goalie than Eli is QB. We're way more spoiled by Henrik in NY. There's no comparison there.

I agree in the sense that Hank is arguably the #1 netminder in the NHL, while you can't really argue that for Eli. I'm comparing them in the sense of how consistent they are, and how nice it is to know they are there

But, I bet someone could argue Eli's two rings as a pretty significant factor

Either way, they're both headed to the HoF in their respective sports.