Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[nevesis]

No goalie is worth 8.5 million. If you have to rely on elite goaltending to win games, there are probably some other areas you’d be better off spending cap hit on.

Hank is one of my favorite Rangers of all time. He’s still a top ten goalie IMO. His last contract was still irresponsible.

Why wasn't his last contract irresponsible? It was a higher percentage against the cap then than it was when he signed his new one, and is even lower today.

You know what is irresponsible? Signing a 30 year old, injury prone goalie to an 8 year contract, with a $10.5 million cap hit.

 

[gorangers0525]

Why wasn't his last contract irresponsible? It was a higher percentage against the cap then than it was when he signed his new one, and is even lower today.

You know what is irresponsible? Signing a 30 year old, injury prone goalie to an 8 year contract, with a $10.5 million cap hit.

Because that one at least took him through his prime, this one ends with him knocking on 40s door. Paying the best goalie in the league through his prime is a lot more responsible than paying a slightly better than average goalie until he’s 40, even if it’s a similar cap hit.

 

[nevesis]

Because that one at least took him through his prime, this one ends with him knocking on 40s door. Paying the best goalie in the league through his prime is a lot more responsible than paying a slightly better than average goalie until he’s 40, even if it’s a similar cap hit.

I just posted this above, but I would classify this differently than 'slightly better than average'

If you look at all goalies who have played 3500+ 5v5 minutes since July 1 2014 (when Hank's new contract started), he is 3rd in GSAA/hr behind only Crawford & Bobrovsky.

That's out of 53 different goalies who have played that much the last 4 seasons.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Because that one at least took him through his prime, this one ends with him knocking on 40s door. Paying the best goalie in the league through his prime is a lot more responsible than paying a slightly better than average goalie until he’s 40, even if it’s a similar cap hit.

Price's contract starts when he's 31. Contract takes him to 39.

Henrik's contract started when he was 32. Contract takes him to 39.


So please spare me.

 

[RGY]

I just posted this above, but I would classify this differently than 'slightly better than average'

If you look at all goalies who have played 3500+ 5v5 minutes since July 1 2014 (when Hank's new contract started), he is 3rd in GSAA/hr behind only Crawford & Bobrovsky.

That's out of 53 different goalies who have played that much the last 4 seasons.

Lmao and God forbid he had an intelligent coach with an appropriate system as well as a bette defense in front of him.

 

[mike14]

Price's contract starts when he's 31. Contract takes him to 39.

Henrik's contract started when he was 32. Contract takes him to 39.


So please spare me.

Reading grangers post, I'm almost 100% certain he's referring to Hank's last contract and isn't talking about Price at all...

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Lmao and God forbid he had an intelligent coach with an appropriate system as well as a bette defense in front of him.

If an elite goalie needs a good defense in front of him, then what's the point of paying an elite goalie a premium salary?

Doesn't that just prove the critics' point?

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Reading grangers post, I'm almost 100% certain he's referring to Hank's last contract and isn't talking about Price at all...

If it is then apologies, but he was responding to a post about Price's contract being more irresponsible than Hank's. Context confusion I guess.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Regarding Price... His contract being bad doesn't necessarily prove Lundqvist's isn't

 

[RGY]

If an elite goalie needs a good defense in front of him, then what's the point of paying an elite goalie a premium salary?

Doesn't that just prove the critics' point?

I disagree with this AK. I think it is entirely the wrong way to look at it.

He was clearly viewed as elite throughout the majority of his career before he signed the extension. Everyone saw the talent and ability. He didn’t need for the poor coaching or progressively detiorating defense over the last several years to prove anything.

The way I look at it is, having an elite goaltender does not mean you can completely butcher having the right coach and improving your personnel in front of Hank. Imo, this has only had to make Hank work 10x harder for us to just be competitive. And his numbers are still great. Imagining if he wasn’t getting bombarded with Grade A+ scoring chances every night because of this disaster of a defensive scheme, makes me wonder how much more this organization could have achieved.

 

[nevesis]

If an elite goalie needs a good defense in front of him, then what's the point of paying an elite goalie a premium salary?

Doesn't that just prove the critics' point?

A goaltender is a last line of defense in the game of hockey. The better insurance policy you have as the last line of defense against a puck entering your net is usually a good thing.

No matter how good a defense is, shots get through and breakdowns happen. The goaltender being that last line of defense can be the difference maker in a game and or series in the playoffs.

How many times have we seen that be the case over Lundqvist's career? More than you can count on two hands thats for sure.

 

[gorangers0525]

Price's contract starts when he's 31. Contract takes him to 39.

Henrik's contract started when he was 32. Contract takes him to 39.


So please spare me.

Wasn’t even talking about Price’s contract, which is among the worst in the league.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It always annoys me he asked for that AAV for more than 5 years. To me, tacking on the last three should've reduced the AAV to 6 -6.5.

I think he's been playing at the level of a goalie worth 6.5 the last few years and I don't see him improving much over the next 3.

I see the contract as very likely to be a poor value by the time it is up. I already see it as about 1-1.5 M of an overpay.

Between last year and this year I'd say the team lost about 3 M overpaying him. Not crippling at ALL. Not like Stepan. That dude will be overpaid by 3-5 M for the next handful of seasons.

We'll see how the last few seasons play out though.

 

[TGWL]

It always annoys me he asked for that AAV for more than 5 years. To me, tacking on the last three should've reduced the AAV to 6 -6.5.

I think he's been playing at the level of a goalie worth 6.5 the last few years and I don't see him improving much over the next 3.

I see the contract as very likely to be a poor value by the time it is up. I already see it as about 1-1.5 M of an overpay.

Between last year and this year I'd say the team lost about 3 M overpaying him. Not crippling at ALL. Not like Stepan. That dude will be overpaid by 3-5 M for the next handful of seasons.

We'll see how the last few seasons play out though.

Stepan is not overpaid by 3-5 million. That's just ridiculous. He's on pace for another 50 point season.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Stepan is not overpaid by 3-5 million. That's just ridiculous. He's on pace for another 50 point season.

I didn't say he was overpaid now I said he will be in the next few seasons. Maybe he keeps up his point production for the duration of his contract. Maybe he doesn't . I'm of the opinion he won't. Not to mention I think the other aspects of his game are going to decline significantly as well.

 

[nevesis]

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Yes Hank has been one of the best goalies of all time. He is still one of the top goalies in the league. Great stat on its own

But I hope you're not using PO stats from previous years to justify overpaying him in present and future years. You have a tendency to lazily quote tweets in the middle of discussions as if you actually think the quoted tweet will put an end to the debate when usually it doesn't even come close to doing so.

 

[nevesis]

Yes Hank has been one of the best goalies of all time. He is still one of the top goalies in the league. Great stat on its own

But I hope you're not using PO stats from previous years to justify overpaying him in present and future years. You have a tendency to lazily quote tweets in the middle of discussions as if you actually think the quoted tweet will put an end to the debate when usually it doesn't even come close to doing so.

Being overpaid is subjective. To YOU he is overpaid. To the organization and more importantly, the MARKET, he is paid relative to his value.

In 2013, Henrik Lundqvist on the open market would have gotten more than he did with the Rangers. Fact. He didn't want to leave, management didn't want him to leave and it was time for a raise. Going from $6.875 to $8.5 was not a massive overpayment. It was at the least, a justified market value increase. The term was most important to him as he loves New York, his family is here, and has business interests here.

You would have let him walk?

Thats fine, you also would be the most hated GM in the history of the franchise.

Either way, your judgement around his salary is completely misguided when you fail to talk about how bad the Nash contract was, Girardi's contract, and most currently Staal's contract.

None of those above produced and or were worth anywhere near what Sather threw at them, yet Lundqvist's contract is the one getting the heat.

I always bring this up, but again...where were all the people complaining about Hank's LAST contract? When he made less money than he does now, but relative to the cap at the time, was a higher percentage against it than it is now.

Math is funny.

 

[TGWL]

I didn't say he was overpaid now I said he will be in the next few seasons. Maybe he keeps up his point production for the duration of his contract. Maybe he doesn't . I'm of the opinion he won't. Not to mention I think the other aspects of his game are going to decline significantly as well.

Well, you said for the next handful of seasons, not in a few seasons. I don't see him being overpaid by that much next year.

 

[kovazub94]

It always annoys me he asked for that AAV for more than 5 years. To me, tacking on the last three should've reduced the AAV to 6 -6.5.

I think he's been playing at the level of a goalie worth 6.5 the last few years and I don't see him improving much over the next 3.

I see the contract as very likely to be a poor value by the time it is up. I already see it as about 1-1.5 M of an overpay.

Between last year and this year I'd say the team lost about 3 M overpaying him. Not crippling at ALL. Not like Stepan. That dude will be overpaid by 3-5 M for the next handful of seasons.

We'll see how the last few seasons play out though.

Gotta ask. Is this $6.5 in today’s money or when Hank signed his contract?

 

[TGWL]

Being overpaid is subjective. To YOU he is overpaid. To the organization and more importantly, the MARKET, he is paid relative to his value.

In 2013, Henrik Lundqvist on the open market would have gotten more than he did with the Rangers. Fact. He didn't want to leave, management didn't want him to leave and it was time for a raise. Going from $6.875 to $8.5 was not a massive overpayment. It was at the least, a justified market value increase. The term was most important to him as he loves New York, his family is here, and has business interests here.

You would have let him walk?

Thats fine, you also would be the most hated GM in the history of the franchise.

Either way, your judgement around his salary is completely misguided when you fail to talk about how bad the Nash contract was, Girardi's contract, and most currently Staal's contract.

None of those above produced and or were worth anywhere near what Sather threw at them, yet Lundqvist's contract is the one getting the heat.

I always bring this up, but again...where were all the people complaining about Hank's LAST contract? When he made less money than he does now, but relative to the cap at the time, was a higher percentage against it than it is now.

Math is funny.

They were nowhere to be found because it's all about numbers. A lower amount doesn't look as bad as a higher amount. Lundqvist playing at the top of his game being paid more against the cap hit doesn't seem as bad as Lundqvist playing not as good, while having a higher individual cap hit (less against the actual total cap)

I think people soured on the contract because looking around the league, teams are winning without paying their goalie an enormous amount of money. Some fans think this hampered us as if we were going to get the next best free agent to carry us to the cup, or that the upcoming years we're going to need all the cap we can get, even though we're rebuilding. This contract doesn't hurt us nearly as bad as some make it out to be

 

[Chimpradamus]

What the heck are you talking about? Lundqvist's networth has been twice as much as any other goalie. He has been the face of the franchise, combined with consistently preventing goals over his career more than any other goalie in the league, bar none. Every game, more than everyone. Do you understand the importance of consistency? Why is this even a discussion?

Is a 36 year old Lundqvist worth $8.5m of the cap hit? Compared to what he has done for this franchise, yes, especially compared to all the other failures that were supposed to help him carry the burden. He still decides the outcome of games on his own and even at his age, he gives everything to never allow a goal.

Compared to what the management has done to what Lundqvist has done, I think the franchise should pay him $20m, if it was possible. If there was someone ever there worthy of shaving off millions of Lundqvist's contract; he was never there for 12 years and counting. No player for 12 years have ever proven to be worthy of carrying the franchise alongside Lundqvist. None.

And you ask why he earns $8.5m? Because he has been outstanding at his position, is the best goalie of this era and has received very poor management help to reach his goal of a cup to New York. In my opinion, he carried a flawed team towards a cup further than even Hasek could.

As for now, he's not worth $8.5m a year in his senior years. But that's the debt for his service when he performed higher than his salary, by far, when it really mattered. He WAS the team in the playoffs, every year. That's not acceptable in any way for a team.

To the ridiculous notions of Lundqvist being average, are you for real? Which team have you watched for the last decade, you imbecile? His career performance is ridiculously impressive, considering the circumstances he has - and do - perform in. The teams have been pathetic in many cases and not just worthy of a playoffs - or a cup - in all of them. But they had Lundqvist.

Even $ather has been quoted on stating Lundqvist is as important to NYR as Gretzky was to Edmonton (which was a bad quote, because Edmonton was kind of fine without Gretzky, which NYR never would've been without Lundqvist).

And you whine about his salary when the management admits total defeat, while Lundqvist still refuses to lose a single game? And you ask where the fault is? Hmmmmmm.

 

[East Coast Bias]

NHLPA did a survey that was released today and asked players about the best goalie of all-time (might have been posted in other threads). Anyway, the only current goalie in the top 5 was Carey Price. No Hank.

Which made me think - how many times during his career was the argument for best G in the league "Hank or ____"?

Hank or Rask
Hank or Tim Thomas
Hank or Lou
Hank or Quick
Hank or Bob
Hank or Price
Hank or Holtby

Every couple years a different guy would have a great 2 year streak, then fade off a bit. He had a different couple guys that people were arguing were as good or better every year. This has gone on for over a decade. Some of these guys have had 3 year stretches that were unreal. None of them have done it for 10 years.

The consistency in which he's been elite is unbelievable. Just amazing.

 

[Chimpradamus]

NHLPA did a survey that was released today and asked players about the best goalie of all-time (might have been posted in other threads). Anyway, the only current goalie in the top 5 was Carey Price. No Hank.

Which made me think - how many times during his career was the argument for best G in the league "Hank or ____"?

Hank or Rask
Hank or Tim Thomas
Hank or Lou
Hank or Quick
Hank or Bob
Hank or Price
Hank or Holtby

Every couple years a different guy would have a great 2 year streak, then fade off a bit. He had a different couple guys that people were arguing were as good or better every year. This has gone on for over a decade. Some of these guys have had 3 year stretches that were unreal. None of them have done it for 10 years.

The consistency in which he's been elite is unbelievable. Just amazing.

I just want to add to your list...
Hank or Leclaire?
Hank or Brodeur?
Hank or Nabokov?
Hank or Kipper?
Hank or Mason (or some other flash in the pan for a team finding their groove for a season).

Hank or... every year, that is his career and in the modern game today, it says something, considering how much the goalie position has changed in his era. He's not a big guy like you should be, but he still dominated, because he refuses to fail. From his rookie season to the total implosion of NYR, he was always there and should still be there if you recognize the nightmare he has in net every game for a while now - and what he still is capable of doing.

And then you look at Hank's playoff stats, pretty much always playing behind an inferior team, in every round. Ridiculously good.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Being overpaid is subjective. To YOU he is overpaid. To the organization and more importantly, the MARKET, he is paid relative to his value.

Being overpaid is subjective. To YOU he is not overpaid. I never said anything about market value. Brad Richards went for market value too, doesn't make him any less overpaid when his play dropped off.

Going from $6.875 to $8.5 was not a massive overpayment. It was at the least, a justified market value increase. The term was most important to him as he loves New York, his family is here, and has business interests here. You would have let him walk?

I never said anything about whether paying him made sense based on FA. You've gone on a big strawman tangent.

Either way, your judgement around his salary is completely misguided when you fail to talk about how bad the Nash contract was, Girardi's contract, and most currently Staal's contract.

I don't think you get what I'm discussing based on the fact that you just said this. Players depreciate over the life of their contracts. Yes. That is literally my point here. That is why your above comments are irrelevant lol. Nash, Richards, Redden, Gomez, Girardi, Staal. These guys were overpaid towards the end of their contracts. They too got market value at the time.

None of those above produced and or were worth anywhere near what Sather threw at them, yet Lundqvist's contract is the one getting the heat.

I always bring this up, but again...where were all the people complaining about Hank's LAST contract? When he made less money than he does now, but relative to the cap at the time, was a higher percentage against it than it is now.

Did...you just imply guys like Nash, Staal and Girardi have not caught heat for not performing up to what they're getting paid? Wow... Everyone always brings this up but your bias and interpretation of all things Lundqvist badly skews your conclusions and analysis.