If Shesterkin was to hit UFA, how much would you offer him ?

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Not really, special teams has been the Canes’ issue vs the rags

Probably some of both. Canes got way more shots and had way higher xG figures, yet lost. That’s a classic sign of bad goaltending. Now that I think of it, they’ve gotten outgoalied the last three years in the playoffs in the series they lost.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The canes straight up lost to the rangers because of goaltending.

 

[BM14]

Christ these ads are AIDS.

Anyone know how to stop them, I used to have a screen that would say continue without supporting us.

Try NordVPN.

 

[Ignatius]

If Shesterkin was to hit UFA, how much would you offer him ?

More than Sea Bass offered Swayman

 

[Phrasing]

Goalies scare me because of longevity and the ups and downs, but I’d safely be in the 10-12 range, probably closer to 12.

 

[Sundinisagod]

It's crazy to me that Shesterkin probably will get less/similar as Marner.

 

[Rorschach]

If no other team cannot or will not even come close to paying that number, then the Rangers don't have to cave. That's my point. Having the highest paid goaltender by a long shot has not proven to be a great model for winning a cup.

Especially not for the Rangers.

 

[Rorschach]

I wouldn't bet too much on it.

SC winning goaltenders in the last ~13 years:

Bobrovsky - $10M
Adin Hill - $2.175M
Kuemper - $3.5M
Vasy - $3.5M and $9.5M (2)
Murray - $628K (2)
Binnington - $650K
Holtby - $6.1M
Crawford - $2.67M and $6M (2)
Quick - $1.8M and $2.9M (2)


10M = 1 cup
9+M = 1 cup
6+M = 2 cups
1-4M = 6 cups
Less than 1M = 3 cups

It's almost as if...there's some kind of limited spending pool where if you pay the goaltender less you can use that money for other players such as defensemen...

 

[syz]

Most NHL goalies' goals against end up lining up pretty evenly with their expected goals against these days. There are always a some outliers (positive and negative), and Shesterkin may end up being one of the positives over the next several years... but it's still tough to justify breaking the bank on that position, imo. Would rather have a 4-5 million dollar goalie with an extra 6-7 million spent on the defense.

But, as we know, when free agency rolls around, GMs don't really give a shit about anything anymore. It'd be great for the Rangers if nobody was willing to pay Shesterkin what he wanted, but somebody inevitably would. If nothing else it benefits the Rangers (imo) that he apparently only wants a 4-5 year deal (presumably because he believes the cap will go up enough for him to get another raise on his next deal?) so I dunno... at least if you're gonna have a goalie be your highest cap hit it's better to have it be 4 years instead of 8.