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

[gmerger37]

Can't help but marvel that the argument against keeping Lundqvist is "more cap space" and yet this team has managed to accomplish nothing when they have cap to spend. Sather's best moves have arguably come from getting out of cap hell, or when he was forced to think shrewdly because cap space was limited.

Cap space has led to Gomez, Drury, Redden and Richards. Yeah, who wants space invested in a guy who would actually earn his pay check?

I'll buy the argument that this team could take a step back to take several steps forward, but to say "we can use the cap on other pieces" is just mind-blowing to me.

So we should give hank, girardi and cally 10 million a year to avoid giving our gm cap space?

That makes even less sense. Is sather gonna go hey hank heres $9. Mil a year, dont wanna give myself to much cap space.

Things have been rough if as rangers rans we are willing to over pay a guy just to avoid having cap space lol

 

[bmw2004]

Sometimes I feel like someone from the higher management reading some of the nonsense in this thread to make the decisions according to trade suggestions in here.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

So we should give hank, girardi and cally 10 million a year to avoid giving our gm cap space?

That makes even less sense. Is sather gonna go hey hank heres $9. Mil a year, dont wanna give myself to much cap space.

Things have been rough if as rangers rans we are willing to over pay a guy just to avoid having cap space lol

One thing though is that it isn't just about getting cap space it's about
A) is it better to allocate 8 or 9 mil for a little less than decade to a 32 year old goalie
B) that 32 year old goalie is Henrik Lundqvist not some merc forward.

There is a good arguement that it would be better to use this cap space on one of the best rangers of all time.

There is also legitamate concern here especially if the years are beyond 5.

 

[gmerger37]

One thing though is that it isn't just about getting cap space it's about
A) is it better to allocate 8 or 9 mil for a little less than decade to a 32 year old goalie
B) that 32 year old goalie is Henrik Lundqvist not some merc forward.

There is a good arguement that it would be better to use this cap space on one of the best rangers of all time.

There is also legitamate concern here especially if the years are beyond 5.

Yeah I think that sums up my stance on this really. I think Hank is definitely worth a cap hit of 7-8 million over 5-6 years but if Hank is 38 and making 9 million a year I dont see how our team is competitive unless he maintains his ridiculous production late into his thirties. Can he? Absolutely but it's a huge risk IMO.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

One thing though is that it isn't just about getting cap space it's about
A) is it better to allocate 8 or 9 mil for a little less than decade to a 32 year old goalie
B) that 32 year old goalie is Henrik Lundqvist not some merc forward.

There is a good arguement that it would be better to use this cap space on one of the best rangers of all time.

There is also legitamate concern here especially if the years are beyond 5.

I would assume that someone from the organization reads this board, this is a large hockey site and plenty of businesses monitor social media and the like.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I would assume that someone from the organization reads this board, this is a large hockey site and plenty of businesses monitor social media and the like.

I seriously doubt anyone involved in on-ice personnel decisions reads this site. I would not be shocked at all if people in marketing, sales, in-game entertainment read the site.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I would assume that someone from the organization reads this board, this is a large hockey site and plenty of businesses monitor social media and the like.

Im not sure what I said that resulted in this comment. There's nothing wrong with it or anything I just feel like it came out of nowhere. I'm sure some people do for fun after all this is a place where we can be fans and many of us are very informed fans with perspectives that may be unique and helpful on rare occassion even to someone in the business. Then again they eat and sleep hockey discussion so maybe they prefer to stay away...maybe they come here for some great laughs

 

[TheTakedown]

Hank still #1...

I bet we see Hank's performance get just a little bit better after Cam's start today. Followed by further rumors of what Hank will re-sign for.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ra...-vigneaults-predetermined-goalie-rotation-cam

 

[RegalRangers]

Cap hit of stanley cup winning goalies since 08-09:

Marc-Andre Fleury 5.0 Mil
Antti Niemi 0.83 Mil
Tim Thomas 5.00 Mil
Jonathan Quick 1.80 Mil
Corey Crawford 2.66 Mil

If we get to the trade deadline and Cam Talbot is looking like an above average NHL goalie, I would fully consider trading Henrik for a legit offensive weapon.

That is a HUGE "if" that will likely NOT come to be. I expect Talbot's numbers to drop. This entire scenario is based on the unlikely event that Cam Talbot is ALSO a real-deal NHL goalie. If that doesn't happen (and I doubt it will), then there's going to be A LOT riding on Sather's relationship with Henrik's agent this offseason. (No way Henrik's contract gets done while Talbot is playing so well).

If the gap between Talbot and Lundqvist remains small at the trade deadline, you'd have to face the fact that the salary difference is MASSIVE and that the Rangers struggle to score goals. I know we all own Lundqvist jerseys but there's a small chance this could be a very real scenario.

 

[TheTakedown]

Cap hit of stanley cup winning goalies since 08-09:

Marc-Andre Fleury 5.0 Mil
Antti Niemi 0.83 Mil
Tim Thomas 5.00 Mil
Jonathan Quick 1.80 Mil
Corey Crawford 2.66 Mil

If we get to the trade deadline and Cam Talbot is looking like an above average NHL goalie, I would fully consider trading Henrik for a legit offensive weapon.

That is a HUGE "if" that will likely NOT come to be. I expect Talbot's numbers to drop. This entire scenario is based on the unlikely event that Cam Talbot is ALSO a real-deal NHL goalie. If that doesn't happen (and I doubt it will), then there's going to be A LOT riding on Sather's relationship with Henrik's agent this offseason. (No way Henrik's contract gets done while Talbot is playing so well).

If the gap between Talbot and Lundqvist remains small at the trade deadline, you'd have to face the fact that the salary difference is MASSIVE and that the Rangers struggle to score goals. I know we all own Lundqvist jerseys but there's a small chance this could be a very real scenario.

SMall chance, absolutely... Mostly because trading Hank is NOT going to get us an Evgeni Malkin, a Patrick Kane, or a Sidney Crosby... PERIOD...

7.5 for 5 years is fair for him, and probably where he will end up (no doubt in my mind that he's asked for $8M at some point)

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Cap hit of stanley cup winning goalies since 08-09:

Marc-Andre Fleury 5.0 Mil
Antti Niemi 0.83 Mil
Tim Thomas 5.00 Mil
Jonathan Quick 1.80 Mil
Corey Crawford 2.66 Mil

If we get to the trade deadline and Cam Talbot is looking like an above average NHL goalie, I would fully consider trading Henrik for a legit offensive weapon.

That is a HUGE "if" that will likely NOT come to be. I expect Talbot's numbers to drop. This entire scenario is based on the unlikely event that Cam Talbot is ALSO a real-deal NHL goalie. If that doesn't happen (and I doubt it will), then there's going to be A LOT riding on Sather's relationship with Henrik's agent this offseason. (No way Henrik's contract gets done while Talbot is playing so well).

If the gap between Talbot and Lundqvist remains small at the trade deadline, you'd have to face the fact that the salary difference is MASSIVE and that the Rangers struggle to score goals. I know we all own Lundqvist jerseys but there's a small chance this could be a very real scenario.

Has much less to do with the cap hit of their goaltenders as opposed to those teams abilities to draft and develop top tier positional talent. I'll take my chances with Lundqvist as opposed to the tired philosophy of buying offensive talent that has already been proven to not work.

 

[Hariken]

I doubt any team will give up any significant assets for an UFA goalie with big caphit like Hank at the trade deadline. Better to keep him so he can back up Talbot, who will be #1, in the playoffs.

Talbot will probably continue to play well and Sather will simply re-sign Talbot and let Lundqvist go wherever he wants in free agency. It was a nice run Hank but this is the end for you on this team.

 

[Thirty One]

I doubt any team will give up any significant assets for an UFA goalie with big caphit like Hank at the trade deadline. Better to keep him so he can back up Talbot, who will be #1, in the playoffs.

Talbot will probably continue to play well and Sather will simply re-sign Talbot and let Lundqvist go wherever he wants in free agency. It was a nice run Hank but this is the end for you on this team.

 

[RegalRangers]

I doubt any team will give up any significant assets for an UFA goalie with big caphit like Hank at the trade deadline. Better to keep him so he can back up Talbot, who will be #1, in the playoffs.

Talbot will probably continue to play well and Sather will simply re-sign Talbot and let Lundqvist go wherever he wants in free agency. It was a nice run Hank but this is the end for you on this team.

There is no way in hell that Lundqvist leaves the organization without the Rangers getting something in return. At worst, if the situation was completely mishandled, we'd trade negotiating rights for a pick before UFA status.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I doubt any team will give up any significant assets for an UFA goalie with big caphit like Hank at the trade deadline. Better to keep him so he can back up Talbot, who will be #1, in the playoffs.

Talbot will probably continue to play well and Sather will simply re-sign Talbot and let Lundqvist go wherever he wants in free agency. It was a nice run Hank but this is the end for you on this team.

We truly live in a ****ed up world when the guy with 8 years of stellar goaltending play gets supplanted by the guy with 8 games worth.

 

[Hariken]

There is no way in hell that Lundqvist leaves the organization without the Rangers getting something in return. At worst, if the situation was completely mishandled, we'd trade negotiating rights for a pick before UFA status.

You're overvaluing Lundqvist. The goalie market is satured and goalies aren't worth **** nowadays, especially goalies with big-ass caphits. Better to keep him for the playoffs so he can backup Talbot and then maybe trade negotiating rights for a pick like you suggest.

 

[Ail]

You're overvaluing Lundqvist. The goalie market is satured and goalies aren't worth **** nowadays, especially goalies with big-ass caphits. Better to keep him for the playoffs so he can backup Talbot and then maybe trade negotiating rights for a pick like you suggest.

It's so saturated that at least 3 teams right now are struggling to find a legitimate starter from their farm or unsigned FAs. Edmonton might get lucky with Bryz.

Goalies aren't worth a hell of a lot, but Lundqvist would return a pretty good amount. Which is however irrelevant because the Rangers are 99.9% not going to trade him.

lol @ backing up Talbot.

 

[Hariken]

lol @ backing up Talbot.

What's so "lol" about that? Talbot has outplayed Hank by a vast marigin and there are zero signs of that changing. He's younger as well.

 

[Ail]

What's so "lol" about that? Talbot has outplayed Hank by a vast marigin and there are zero signs of that changing. He's younger as well.

You're right, I'm sorry for laughing at that. There is nothing funny about the mentally handicapped.

 

[sbjnyc]

I'll start by saying that Lundqvist is arguably the best player to have put on the Ranger sweater.

Better than Gretzky?! Even at the tail end of his career with the Rangers he was still one of the top point scorers in the league.

Back on topic, I just don't think you can give a goalie such a big contract. Plus I dont think Hank is going to try and bankrupt the team. Two seasons ago he might have gotten a contract like Richards. Now they will have to work within the current CBA. Talbot may get consecutive starts at home today but will he get any starts in meaningful games/the playoffs? I suppose if he plays like this all season then sure. But until that happens I just don't think it plays much into the negotiations with Hank.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

What's so "lol" about that? Talbot has outplayed Hank by a vast marigin and there are zero signs of that changing. He's younger as well.

Oh, Im VERY curious as to what "signs" you're looking for

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Better than Gretzky?! Even at the tail end of his career with the Rangers he was still one of the top point scorers in the league.

Back on topic, I just don't think you can give a goalie such a big contract. Plus I dont think Hank is going to try and bankrupt the team. Two seasons ago he might have gotten a contract like Richards. Now they will have to work within the current CBA. Talbot may get consecutive starts at home today but will he get any starts in meaningful games/the playoffs? I suppose if he plays like this all season then sure. But until that happens I just don't think it plays much into the negotiations with Hank.

Considering how hes carried this team for 8 years, and how ****** of a job Sather has done building a contending team around him, and how thats not going to change with a couple million more in cap space, he'd have every right to bankrupt this team if he wants to.

 

[nikonsniper*]

People have been saying for years, and rightfully so, that because Lundqvist has been so good, hes dragged lotto teams into the playoffs. Good on one hand, bad on the other, because thats also the reason we dont have a young elite scorer (kane, stamkos, hall, JT, Duchene, Segin, RNH, etc).

So now in the hypothetical that Lundqvist walks, do we try to plug the hole with a Miller/Bryz/Thomas type goalie, who may help is float in the middle of the pack, or do we "take advantage" of the situation, see where Cam takes us (or anyone else for that matter), drop Richards, move nash/cally/giardi, and wait while we pick up some top picks and reload from there?


Basically there are three courses of action:

(1) Keep Henrik, swap out Richards salary for another UFA and make minor moves to fill holes, and go for the win.

(2) Let Henrik walk, taking Richards with him, and use all that coin to land 1-2 big UFAs, grab a bargain goalie and take our chances, and go for the win.

(3) Let Henrik walk, move out anyone we think that, while good now, will be on downhill in the near future (cally/nash/danny), let the kids play and stock picks.


What is truly best for the team? The Henrik decision will dictate the entire plan for the team.

 

[The Gloaming]

I doubt any team will give up any significant assets for an UFA goalie with big caphit like Hank at the trade deadline. Better to keep him so he can back up Talbot, who will be #1, in the playoffs.

Talbot will probably continue to play well and Sather will simply re-sign Talbot and let Lundqvist go wherever he wants in free agency. It was a nice run Hank but this is the end for you on this team.

Amazing how spoiled some Rangers "fans" are. Especially with this team being bad-mediocre most years.

Pretty much this.

 

[SML]

Better than Gretzky?! Even at the tail end of his career with the Rangers he was still one of the top point scorers in the league.

Back on topic, I just don't think you can give a goalie such a big contract. Plus I dont think Hank is going to try and bankrupt the team. Two seasons ago he might have gotten a contract like Richards. Now they will have to work within the current CBA. Talbot may get consecutive starts at home today but will he get any starts in meaningful games/the playoffs? I suppose if he plays like this all season then sure. But until that happens I just don't think it plays much into the negotiations with Hank.

Yes. Better than Gretzky. When I said it, I am talking about best career with the team. What he did elsewhere doesn't count in my conversation.