Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Is Henrik really in the driver's seat?

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
SKjEi o2 said:
Hat offense will never improve if we pay our goalie 8M/year. Trade him now for a solid starter on a cheap contract and a young offensive threat.
Click to expand...

Where from?

Anaheim has a glut of goalies, but they don't need Henrik. They move a young goalie to fill a need, not to bring in Henrik.

Most of the other promising goalies in the league have been moved recently. Bernier, Bishop, Schneider.
 
SKjEi o2 said:
Hat offense will never improve if we pay our goalie 8M/year. Trade him now for a solid starter on a cheap contract and a young offensive threat.
Click to expand...

Bs plenty of teams spend less on forwards then us and they have no problem scoring. The idea that replacing hank with one forward would make us good offensively is laughable
 
CM PUNK said:
Bs plenty of teams spend less on forwards then us and they have no problem scoring. The idea that replacing hank with one forward would make us good offensively is laughable
Click to expand...

I never said it would. Are you saying it wouldn't help? We're 28th or something like that in the league in goals/game. Are you honestly telling me we don't need to improve our offense?
 
Ailurophile said:
Where from?

Anaheim has a glut of goalies, but they don't need Henrik. They move a young goalie to fill a need, not to bring in Henrik.

Most of the other promising goalies in the league have been moved recently. Bernier, Bishop, Schneider.
Click to expand...

Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
 
SKjEi o2 said:
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Chicago doesn't need Lundqvist. They just proved that by winning the Cup last year without him.

Is Washington a Henrik away from the Cup finals? I don't think so. If they were, that'd just mean Holtby is not reliable enough to carry them through the playoffs and therefore won't be of any use to the Rangers.

Basically the only team that sees a need for Lundqvist at the deadline is the one who has everything else going right for them except their goaltending, or a team who sees their starter go down right around the deadline. Right now the only team in the league I could even see possibly ponying up at the deadline is St. Louis, and even that's a stretch. They do have superb depth on F and D, but their goaltending is streaky. They have the assets to get him at the deadline.

Other than that, there is no market for him as a pending UFA.
 
SKjEi o2 said:
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

THis doesn't even make any sense, why would we want Crawford making $6M when Hank will only make about $2M more?
 
All you guys throwing around the 8 million/year number are forgetting one thing: he'll want 8 years at that figure. Therefore, do we really want to be paying Hank 8 million when he's 38-40 years old? I don't.

Why not give him a little more on a shorter deal so we're not locked into him for so long? 9 million for 5-6 years. That additional million won't hurt as much in the short term as having an injured, average goaltender making 8 million when he's 38-40
 
I don't want to pay Hank for what's he has done in the past. I want to pay him for what he will do in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everything Hank has done for this team. I just don't want Sather to hand him a boatload of money for getting a mediocre team to the playoffs the past few years. Management really needs to sit down and decide, is he really worth this much money for x amount of years moving forward? Or can we find a decent replacement and use that leftover money elsewhere.
 
zuckera1 said:
All you guys throwing around the 8 million/year number are forgetting one thing: he'll want 8 years at that figure. Therefore, do we really want to be paying Hank 8 million when he's 38-40 years old? I don't.

Why not give him a little more on a shorter deal so we're not locked into him for so long? 9 million for 5-6 years. That additional million won't hurt as much in the short term as having an injured, average goaltender making 8 million when he's 38-40
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. I certainly don't want to pay a 38 year old Lundqvist an 8-spot. That said, you just can't tie up 9m of cap space with the starting goalie and ice a competitive team unless you're getting exceptional offensive output from guys on ELCs and bridge deals.
 
Crease said:
I agree to an extent. I certainly don't want to pay a 38 year old Lundqvist an 8-spot. That said, you just can't tie up 9m of cap space with the starting goalie and ice a competitive team unless you're getting exceptional offensive output from guys on ELCs and bridge deals.
Click to expand...

Sather is good with ELC's and bridge deals...

BUT, he'll need to figure out some sort of way to find offense with this roster.

That said, having Hank right now, and several years into the future will help ease into that transition..

PLUS, lets think.. with how abysmal our offense is, are we really OK with an average goalie? I'd say the answer is no..

Solid goalies only make a few Million $ less than Hank would forseeably make... Fluery makes 5M per year, Crawford $6M, Rinne $7M, Rask $7M... Is $2M additional (worst case scenario, and of course on a 4-6 year term deal, which is realistic considering Hank's age and workload) REALLY going to "cripple" our cap space to acquire scoring forwards? I personally don't think so..
ALso, regarding workload, we don't have Torts as a coach, so we aren't as completely reliant on Hank as we used to be, since AV can trust Talbot with backup/minor starting duties. Something we never had (Biron would average 13-15 games per year... I'd say Talbot is good for at least 20, if not 25 per year)...

Look at this list. All the teams that are solid playoff contenders have a goalie that makes at least $5M per year: http://www.capgeek.com/comparables/?player_id=643
 
I would hope that the Rangers don't really have to go about 6/45 for Lundqvist (which would be a $7.5M AAV). It would be above what Rinne and Rask make.
 
Baby Punisher said:
Talbot gives the Rangers options. I think that the Rangers telling everyone in training camp that Talbot was NHL ready was part of a bigger strategy to let Lundqvist know that he can be replaced, & he could be replaced if push comes to shove. I would like to see Lundqvist back with the Rangers but not at the price of crippling this franchise for years to come. Lundqvist needs to understand this as well.
Click to expand...

And why do we assume that he dont? I think 9 for 9 is to much, not that he dont deserve it but the fact that it may cripple the Rangers and i believe Hank understands this as well. With that said and with the impressing start by Talbot i still belive that Hank is this franchise best bet for a cup run.
 
Ailurophile said:
Chicago doesn't need Lundqvist. They just proved that by winning the Cup last year without him.

Is Washington a Henrik away from the Cup finals? I don't think so. If they were, that'd just mean Holtby is not reliable enough to carry them through the playoffs and therefore won't be of any use to the Rangers.

Basically the only team that sees a need for Lundqvist at the deadline is the one who has everything else going right for them except their goaltending, or a team who sees their starter go down right around the deadline. Right now the only team in the league I could even see possibly ponying up at the deadline is St. Louis, and even that's a stretch. They do have superb depth on F and D, but their goaltending is streaky. They have the assets to get him at the deadline.

Other than that, there is no market for him as a pending UFA.
Click to expand...

I can see Pittsburgh being interested too. And Philly depending on how they end up.

BrianBoyle said:
THis doesn't even make any sense, why would we want Crawford making $6M when Hank will only make about $2M more?
Click to expand...

I was just showing that there are deals out there.

Fire Sather said:
So you want to send Hank to a Metro rival?

Comical
Click to expand...

So you want to avoid just about 1/4 of the league? A deal will never get done with that mentality.
 
Siddi said:
Yeah, Holtby has really outplayed Hank the last couple of years in the playoffs:facepalm:
Click to expand...

The Rangers may have beaten the Capitals both times but during those playoffs Holtby had a higher save percentage than Hank all while seeing more shots per game than Hank, playing behind a less talented defense than Hank, and playing in a more open system than Hank. It's not an uncontroversial statement, relax with the facepalm.
 
I love Hank, but in a salary cap world, it's probably not the best idea to allocate your resources to the goalie position. You can get good play out of a guy making 6 million less per year and that money can get you 1 or 2 very good players.


Goalie just isn't the most important position...
 
SML said:
I'll start by saying that Lundqvist is arguably the best player to have put on the Ranger sweater.

But is he really in as good a position as people make it out to be?

He makes a ton of money, and as an upcoming UFA, the thought has been that he is going to write his own check.

But really, this team has shown it plays arguably as well with a John Doe like Talbot as it does with him.

THe question is this:

Who can write him a high level check without wrecking their own salary structure?

Do any of those teams have a better chance of winning than the team he is on?

Does the team actually do itself a favor by letting Henrik hit UFA and then putting in an offer? Because the number of teams who:
A: Need a goalie
B: Can afford these crazy numbers
C: Can add a 7M+ contract without having to rip their team apart
leaves you with who, exactly, in the market for his UFA services?

Is it worth our cap space to pay him 7M+ when the difference is looking like 1 to 1.5 GAA per game? Does that money go further if you allocate it elsewhere?

I liken this situation to World War One.

All of the best and most experienced military geniuses were taught Cavalry charges.
Then they invented the machine gun (the salary cap)
As a result, the people making the decisions, were working from the old rules
(build from the goal out)
but they failed to realize than those tactics were obsolete.
And the tactics they employed failed terribly.

So, how much can someone reasonably expect to offer him, and who the hell is actually going to step up and do it?

Is this the reason why he appears to be not be quite the player we are used to seeing this year? Does he know it too?

Who would really offer the contract he wants with a better chance to win?
Click to expand...


This is really a great post and something I've thought of for a long time. I've come to the conclusion that no goalie is worth 7 or 8 or more million dollars. The rangers problems are not defensive related and largely Hank has benefitted from a system where defense has come first. Case and point, earlier this season, when the rangers attempted an up tempo game where defense was less important. What happened, Hank did not look so good. Now we've all watched him play for years and we know he is a tremendous goalie, but the rangers, as currently set up with defense being important, would be about the same without him.

What's going to take this team beyond where we currently are is several upgrades in the forward core, a legitimate top line center, and one or two more capable defenseman. 8 million per year can buy a lot and, as much as I'd hate to see Hank go, I would not be crushed!

All this said, I'm fairly certain the Rangers will re-sign him and he will finish his career with the Rangers and we will finish .500 each year with maybe one or two nice runs.
 
Crease said:
The Rangers may have beaten the Capitals both times but during those playoffs Holtby had a higher save percentage than Hank all while seeing more shots per game than Hank, playing behind a less talented defense than Hank, and playing in a more open system than Hank. It's not an uncontroversial statement, relax with the facepalm.
Click to expand...

Looking at the 2012-2013 series vs the Caps Hank faced 220 shots while Holtby faced 205. Hank let in 12 goals against Holtbys 16. Not to mention Hanks consecutive shutouts in game 6 & 7.

As you can see from my quick research your "statement" is full of all kinds of wrong.
 
Siddi said:
Looking at the 2012-2013 series vs the Caps Hank faced 220 shots while Holtby faced 205. Hank let in 12 goals against Holtbys 16. Not to mention Hanks consecutive shutouts in game 6 & 7.

As you can see from my quick research your "statement" is full of all kinds of wrong.
Click to expand...

My statement is fine. I'm not just including head to head play. I said "during those playoffs" not "during those two series". I should have been more clear.
 
Last edited:
Crease said:
I'm not just including head to head play. I said "during those playoffs" not "during those two series". I should have been more clear.
Click to expand...

And i should have read your post more carefully.

I still believe Hank is the far better goalie and lets not forget one important aspect of playing for the Rangers, the pressure that comes with putting on the jersey. Do think Holtby could handle that kind of pressure? Greater players than Holtby have crumbled under the pressure playing for the Rangers.

That is why i think the discussion about Hank being traded is severely premature. Sure Talbots been great and all but in Hank we have a proven ELIT goalie and hands down the best goalie post lock out. Once more, i believe Hank is this franschise best bet for a succesfull cup run.
 
Siddi said:
And i should have read your post more carefully.

I still believe Hank is the far better goalie and lets not forget one important aspect of playing for the Rangers, the pressure that comes with putting on the jersey. Do think Holtby could handle that kind of pressure? Greater players than Holtby have crumbled under the pressure playing for the Rangers.

That is why i think the discussion about Hank being traded is severely premature. Sure Talbots been great and all but in Hank we have a proven ELIT goalie and hands down the best goalie post lock out. Once more, i believe Hank is this franschise best bet for a succesfull cup run.
Click to expand...

Good point about whether another goalie would be able to handle the pressure (and the distractions) of New York City. We've seen too many players over the years come in and fall off a cliff for that very reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom