I dont think you know what a different opinion is. Just bc you dont see an overpayment doesnt mean there isnt an overpayment. I explained why i see it as overpayment already
Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist
- Thread starter Beacon
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Thx for putting stuff i never said or implied in the 2nd quotes. Yet another dishonest response unsurprisingly from someone desperately arguing that hank isnt overpaid. Nice job bringing up the "id overpay him bc he means so much" point again. 3rd or 4th person. Do i really have to say that i understand your thoughts there and i even agree....AGAIN? Because clearly you missed it the previous times
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
The first paragraph was in response to your post ("market value") of which I deliberately only quoted that one sentence of your post and addressed it pretty clearly.
After that were general thoughts about Lundqvist's contract: what arguments some people ("let us") make, why I think he's not overpaid, what his value is to the Rangers. If you couldn't pick up on that then a course in remedial reading might benefit you.
And, yeah, I get it's your "opinion" but you've done a piss poor job in communicating why you think Lundqvist is overpaid and state it like it's a fact. It isn't. He was paid less than what he would've gotten on the open market, is the face of the franchise, generates tons of $ for the franchise, drags this shit show of team on his back into the playoffs every year (more millions), is a great ambassador for the sport and the team, is the Captain without being the Captain, answers the hard questions more than any other player on the team, is always the guy interviewed on national broadcasts, and is as consistent a goalie as there has been in the history of the sport.
So, yes, I think your opinion sucks. I've given you a bunch of reasons why he's not overpaid above. Again.
After that were general thoughts about Lundqvist's contract: what arguments some people ("let us") make, why I think he's not overpaid, what his value is to the Rangers. If you couldn't pick up on that then a course in remedial reading might benefit you.
And, yeah, I get it's your "opinion" but you've done a piss poor job in communicating why you think Lundqvist is overpaid and state it like it's a fact. It isn't. He was paid less than what he would've gotten on the open market, is the face of the franchise, generates tons of $ for the franchise, drags this shit show of team on his back into the playoffs every year (more millions), is a great ambassador for the sport and the team, is the Captain without being the Captain, answers the hard questions more than any other player on the team, is always the guy interviewed on national broadcasts, and is as consistent a goalie as there has been in the history of the sport.
So, yes, I think your opinion sucks. I've given you a bunch of reasons why he's not overpaid above. Again.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
From the Athletic:
"Through 67 games this season, the Rangers have taken a league-low 46.14 percent of their shot attempts at 5-on-5. And it’s a problem of both sides of the ice, from their 53.14 shot attempts for per 60 minutes to their 62.04 Corsi against per 60. Yet despite their low rate of shot attempts for, they have created quality chances for. The Rangers are actually expected to score more (2.57 goals for per 60) than they actually have (2.27 per 60). The problem is in their own zone; they’ve allowed so many quality chances against that 2.76 goals against per 60 are expected to be scored on them, which ranks worst in the league."
A short blurb from a lengthy Shayna Goldman column.
I ponied up the $47.99 annual fee - the Rangers coverage is actually pretty good and I, personally, missed Carps 20 something thoughts after every game that he used to write. Well worth supporting.
"Through 67 games this season, the Rangers have taken a league-low 46.14 percent of their shot attempts at 5-on-5. And it’s a problem of both sides of the ice, from their 53.14 shot attempts for per 60 minutes to their 62.04 Corsi against per 60. Yet despite their low rate of shot attempts for, they have created quality chances for. The Rangers are actually expected to score more (2.57 goals for per 60) than they actually have (2.27 per 60). The problem is in their own zone; they’ve allowed so many quality chances against that 2.76 goals against per 60 are expected to be scored on them, which ranks worst in the league."
A short blurb from a lengthy Shayna Goldman column.
I ponied up the $47.99 annual fee - the Rangers coverage is actually pretty good and I, personally, missed Carps 20 something thoughts after every game that he used to write. Well worth supporting.
You literally said "learn how to have a discussion" and follow it with "You know I'm right". Not much of a discussion to be had there..
I never tried to argue Hank wasn't overpaid, nor am I "desperately arguing" that he isn't overpaid. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to be insanely desperate for someone to agree with you by the tone of your posts, though. At this point relative to his overall play, I'd say he's slightly overpaid, but I also couldn't care less as he's still more than capable of having massive games. You just seem to have an issue with how contract negotiations work, or you are just brimming with venom that another human 1) was able to command that sort of money, and 2) that another human looked out for their own best interest in a line of work where he could have a career-ending injury at any time.
We get it, man. You think he's overpaid. We all understand that you think he is overpaid and that you are entitled to your opinion. I'll half-heartedly agree with that. You apparently understand everyone else's sentiment, and we understand the "teams shouldn't pay an elite price for goalies" sentiment. I find it hard to believe you actually do understand the most common stance here considering you seem to just not give a f*** about anything hockey-related that Hank has done, writing off all the regular season success, playoff berths, and playoff rounds won almost directly resulting from Hank, while just pointing to his cap hit and repeatedly yelling "OVERPAID". At any rate I'll see myself out of this conversation as well.
No I respond with "You know I'm right" because he was disqualifying my entire argument without any particular reason (Of course you ignore this since his opinion agrees with yours) so i was returning the favor.
Good for him getting taken care of. Doesn't make him any less overpaid.
Problem with contract negotiations? Brimming with venom? Towards Lundqvist? You utterly, completely and miserably failed to understand what you were reading in this case if you think that.
I dealt with a steady procession of people who were being dishonest and people who loved building strawmen. I barely launched anything more than casual snark THEIR way. For Hank? Again...you must have missed this part. I AGREED with people who admitted that they felt an emotional reason was enough to want to overpay Hank. That's brimming with venom towards him? Geez I wish my boss was brimming with venom towards me then, I'd love to be overpaid.
You're reading what you want to read and half this response misses the points I've had to reiterate now up to 4 times.
Nowhere do I write off his successes. Thx for putting words in my mouth...again. Amazing how everyone who is desperate to defend Hank has to resort to that.
No...please...don't go. A catastrophic loss by any measure
Last edited:
I'd respond to your remedial reading comment but at this point it's just you throwing a fit and flaming me b/c you can't handle that I gave good reasons showing why I think he's overpaid. Your contribution to this discussion combined with your inability to accept a differing opinion leads me to think I'm better off letting my previous responses address this...since they did. Especially the first paragraph. Ironically and hilariously you addressed your first paragraph FOR me in a previous post. I don't think you ever figured that out though.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Don't give yourself that much credit, I wouldn't "throw a fit" about anything you have to say and saying you're opinion is terrible isn't "flaming", it's an opinion about your position. Furthermore, I have "accepted" your opinion and I completely differ with it. The guy having trouble with differing opinions around here is YOU.
Again, I've read your "reasons" and there's nothing solid there. You're throwing around numbers like 6.5M but you're not explaining why or how you got to that figure using stats or anything else. You've talked about declining play but I really haven't seen any evidence that supports that either.
Build the case or you get roasted around here. That's how HF works. They call out BS when they see it. I'd really like to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
Again, I've read your "reasons" and there's nothing solid there. You're throwing around numbers like 6.5M but you're not explaining why or how you got to that figure using stats or anything else. You've talked about declining play but I really haven't seen any evidence that supports that either.
Build the case or you get roasted around here. That's how HF works. They call out BS when they see it. I'd really like to see how you arrived at that conclusion.
Last edited:
Crease
Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
- Jul 12, 2004
- 24,777
- 27,734
I mean, I don't think it's controversial to say that: (1) Lundqvist was the best goalie of his generation; but nevertheless (2) committing $8.5 million to the starting goalie position is not really wise cap allocation.
Unfortunately this thread shows that some folks are such massive fanatics that agreeing with them that it's ok to overpay hank is controversial...bc to them it's not overpayment and no one should be allowed to call it an overpayment (even though they call it overpayment in some of their actual posts). Man, if only all of us could love with the same blind passion and fervor the way some Hank fans seem to.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,072
- 40,924
You already threw a fit. I don't assign "credit" to myself. Pretty much everyone here has thrown a few.
Your version of "accepting" it was to tell me it's based on nothing, thus disqualifying my entire argument. Sure, ignore that though.
Edit: If you'd asked I'd have talked about G performance relative to cap hit, cup wins, other contracts, age, declining play and a dozen other factors that have been done to death. I don't see your breakdown of all of the above either. So your argument doesn't need this but mine does because...reasons?
Apparently, "I refuse to listen or accept your opinion" Odd, i always thought agreeing with substantial parts of an argument qualified as accepting.
I think you decided that admitting Hank is overpaid = lobbying unfair criticism. For some, it's tantamount to throwing out everything he's ever done. (or some people assumed something that wasn't there)
While you're busy trying to "Roast" opinions you should be careful because you're liable to light up all those straw-men you guys kept erecting.
But hey, you guys are guilty of the crime of caring too much on an internet forum where the stakes are imaginary and the points really don't matter. There is no penalty and relatively no one cares. So you do you.
Last edited:
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
AV is so gone.
Deservedly so. Hanks interpretation of AV’s comments is very apt. AV had a point with Hank starting the season poorly then getting great for a while then strugggling again. That part is true. But pointing the finger at Hank basically as the main reason the team was struggling was a complete joke. And so incorrect.
That’s the thing with AV. He’s so arrogant he’ll get fired and legitimately believe it was Hank’s fault that his teams underachieved the last few years. Not his system, but his goalie. Who had to play behind atrocious defense and still won a playoff series on his own in that time. AV can get f***ed. Dude only has any reputation as a winning coach and owes all his success to the fact that 90% of his career coaching has been with the two best goalies post 05 lockout as his starters. Literally. Luongo and Lundqvist. It doesn’t get better than that in this generation and he not only benefited from them, but threw both of them under the bus. Gum chewing idiot.
Hank talking about how hard it is mentally to go into every game essentially knowing your team defense is shit and you still need to be perfect. So true. It’s no surprise he cracked. People think he’s a robot but that’s tough for anyone to deal with even the best. Especially when you add in age and how that influences his mindset as well.
Last edited:
Chimpradamus
Registered User
He's a bit overpaid at this point, but he he's one of extremely few who deserves his overpayment. It's not more complicated than that. A ridiculous amount of players - especially incoming UFAs from other teams - have not even been worth their initial payment. That's called perspective. Also, that's the way long term contracts are constructed, the cap hit will basically always be high towards the end of the contract for star players.
It's not like his wheels have fallen off, which often happens with older players. It's not like he's like Drury, Holik or Redden. It's not like he's an albatross or creates a retirement home atmosphere in the franchise. Behind an actual NHL team this season, with actual support and structure, I'm not sure he would be considered overpaid at all, he would probably chase a Vezina.
And even after all is said and done, he's still not the most overpaid player on the team. Staal and Smith comes to mind, now that Nash is gone.
You're right, I keep agreeing with this! I understand why he got overpaid for past performance and what he means to the team but I wish he wasn't overpaid b/c either it'd mean he'd be performing even better than he is now (and he's still damn good) or it means the team has an extra 1.5-2 M in cap space per year which can help bring in a significant contributor.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
An Extra 1.5M could bring in Tanner Glass
I think the Lundqvist contract is an over payment by a bit, and I agree he may be on of the few who is worth that, but if the Rangers are not going to be efficient with their cap space it does not really matter in the larger realm.
I dislike the idea that a % of cap is the correct way to go about contracts, there is no formula that states a % used on any single player or position is good use.
I think the Lundqvist contract is an over payment by a bit, and I agree he may be on of the few who is worth that, but if the Rangers are not going to be efficient with their cap space it does not really matter in the larger realm.
I dislike the idea that a % of cap is the correct way to go about contracts, there is no formula that states a % used on any single player or position is good use.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,857
- 9,487
Overpayment is such a fluid concept, I think this is what posters are struggling to grasp on both ends of the spectrum of the argument.
Isssue one: Overpayment relative to what? There're many different payment brackets to begin with. RFAs without arbitration rights, RFA with arbitration, RFAs with UFA years under contract, UFAs etc. Then each category has its own subcategories and contexts that needed to be taken into consideration.
Issue two: UFAs are by default are being "overpaid" relative to other groups. If you're in a top tier of the bracket then you're even more "overpaid" relative to other brackets. Again, this is not a fair comparison for evaluation of salary "appropriateness" if the brackets are not properly aligned.
Issue three: Important UFA players receive not only bigger annual compensation but also longer term. It's a fact. So longer contracts that are dictated by the market have like a built-in default expectations of later years being an overpayment if the basis for comparison is strictly based on performance. Otherwise, the just-below-elite tier UFAs would be paid these elite salaries of over $10M if their term was 3-4 years instead of 6-7.
Isssue one: Overpayment relative to what? There're many different payment brackets to begin with. RFAs without arbitration rights, RFA with arbitration, RFAs with UFA years under contract, UFAs etc. Then each category has its own subcategories and contexts that needed to be taken into consideration.
Issue two: UFAs are by default are being "overpaid" relative to other groups. If you're in a top tier of the bracket then you're even more "overpaid" relative to other brackets. Again, this is not a fair comparison for evaluation of salary "appropriateness" if the brackets are not properly aligned.
Issue three: Important UFA players receive not only bigger annual compensation but also longer term. It's a fact. So longer contracts that are dictated by the market have like a built-in default expectations of later years being an overpayment if the basis for comparison is strictly based on performance. Otherwise, the just-below-elite tier UFAs would be paid these elite salaries of over $10M if their term was 3-4 years instead of 6-7.
I don't get this assumption. It's not 1.5 flat with zero cap space besides just what we saved with hank. It's the difference between 4 and 6 M. 6 and 8 M.|
It' the difference between one bottom 6, veteran guy who can be a leader and produce at 2-4 M and having juuuuust enough to squeeze in 2 of them.
The Rangers have never been in cap hell. They always angle the contracts just perfectly enough to wriggle free. They've given out some awful contracts. Yet those contracts were always able to be bought out, buried in the minors, etc without issue.
I also think, given the current teams situation and given the fact that we have Gorton and not Sather, that the team may have learned from some of those disasters.z
Look at the Shattenkirk contract: Only 4 years and at a significant discount compared to what he could have gotten.
Look at Stepan. He had an out written into his contract and the team used that out spectacularly.
Redden could be buried
Gomez could be traded.
Nash could be traded.
And in every case the team did what it had to do to not screw itself.
Last edited:
I considered all of this and I feel he's overpaid. Understandably overpaid but overpaid nonetheless.Some players get huge deals and they earn every cent, every year of the contract or actually overperform. Some fall woefully short.
Lundqvist earns the bulk of his money but his performance isn't enough for me personally to say he isn't overpaid by a little bit.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
My point was if the Rangers are going to use their cap space inefficiently, using some of that inefficiently on an bit of an over payment to Lundqvist is the least of their mistakes. Them riding on the edge of screwing themselves because of gross inefficiencies elsewhere is not really an ideal situation as there could be hundreds of other options to use that space on rather than what they did use it on.
I think comparing what Shattenkirk or any player could have received is an odd way of looking at value, at best he is going to be worth his current contract, so if it was larger or longer based on what the market would/could have paid, at best that contract is still somewhat of an inefficiency.
Great post.
One other thing I want to add. If someone is ”worth it” and/or ”deserving” of a certain salary, then by definition they are NOT overpayed.
- Status
