Confirmed Signing with Link: [NYR] Igor Shesterkin signs extension with Rangers (4 years, $5.666M AAV)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

Chayos

Registered User
Mar 6, 2003
4,933
1,171
Winnipeg
It seems to me that Shesterkin wanted to get paid and not give up any free agency years. I can live with this deal. Too many people get hung up on what might happen 5 or 6 years down the road. Worry about the next 4. I would like to see him start 60 games a season without being injured too. 4 years is a perfect term for both parties.
There are not to many UFA's that I can remember that the Ranger let walk if they wanted to keep them. It is a signature NHL market and players want to be there, especially Russian players. I think there is a minimal chance that the Ranger's feel any risk about losing him in 4 years.
 

QJL

Registered User
Jan 2, 2014
6,304
4,627
I would have preferred 8 years at $775K but apparently contract negotiations involve two parties looking out for their best interests.

I find it hard to believe Shesty would shut down longer term for a 1mil+ annual increase. In my opinion, that is the deal in the best interest of both sides. We are going to annihilate the ability to keep exceptional talent on the roster with these bridge-ish deals. Take a damn swing somewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdJovanovski

MtoD

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
743
1,123
This deal makes sense when you consider the FA status of Shesterkin. Despite being relatively new to the NHL, because of his age, he only had 2 more RFA years that were both arbitration eligible.

I think based on his play/stats, you usually see a 2-year 'prove-it' deal.. but that's prohibitive from the Rangers perspective given that takes him immediately to UFA. A 1-year deal also is also something they'd likely prefer to avoid given the possibility of forcing a 1-year deal to get to UFA via arbitration. So now you're left with a term of at least 3 years.. where the AAV has to be some balance between 'prove-it' (~3-4M) and expected value as UFA for a bonafide starter (~6Mish). Buy out 2 UFA years and you're gonna skew closer to that 6M.

The AAV may be a tad high but Rangers would rather give spread the cost out over the next year or so when they have cap room before the crunch sets in (vs the other option of signing a shorter term deal and then extending for higher than this cap hit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bernmeister

ICanMotteBelieveIt

Registered User
Jan 11, 2013
8,611
5,140
Doesn't this take him straight to UFA?

If so - this is an unnecessary risk to take. Do I think they'll re-sign him again? Yes. Either way this will cost the Rangers so much more on the next deal.


TLDR: Great AAV, bad term. Should've offered him $6.5M for at least 6 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QJL

MtoD

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
743
1,123
Doesn't this take him straight to UFA?

If so - this is an unnecessary risk to take. Do I think they'll re-sign him again? Yes. Either way this will cost the Rangers so much more on the next deal.


TLDR: Great AAV, bad term. Should've offered him $6.5M for at least 6 years.

He only had 2 RFA years left due to his age so anything 2+ years would have taken him straight to UFA.
 

MtoD

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
743
1,123
Still too short of a deal.

On the flip side, I think there would have been a fair amount of risk for the Rangers to sign him for 6+ years at a high AAV. Obviously has looked great in his limited sample size but its still a limited sample size + needs to prove he has the durability to be a high-end #1.

This is mostly a ****ty scenario that happened because he was 24 when he came into the NHL.. then had two COVID-shortened years. Another goalie in this position ignoring FA status probably gets 2 years at 4-5M before a long-term commitment at a higher AAV.
 

mm11

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
7,121
4,172
Fleming island, Fl
blueshirts think they got their stud goalie for awhile. Can't blame them for going all in. Kid has some question marks, but his positives outweigh the negatives. As always, time will supply the answers
 

Wizards27

Registered User
Feb 25, 2019
15
7
A lot of money to pay for a goaltender who just finished his rookie season. I like what I have seen from him so far outside of the injuries. Hopefully he lives up to this contract and becomes the starting goaltender we need.
 

islesfan186

YES! YES! YES!
Jul 5, 2012
7,157
3,010
Tennessee
I’m just curious as to what he’s done so far to warrant almost 6 mil? His bestie on LI out performed him stats wise this year. Hopefully Sorokin doesn’t think he’s worth 5.5+ mil

Dont get my wrong, he’s definitely got talent, but he’s played 50 games in the NHL. I feel like he’s being paid based on potential and whatever he did in the KHL, which has been proven time and time again doesn’t always translate….see Mikko Koskinen
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,184
13,199
That’s a significant contract for someone with only 47 games under his belt.
 

Bluto

Don't listen to me, I'm an idiot. TOGA! TOGA!
Dec 24, 2017
1,439
2,179
pretty bad takes with this whole "he only has 47 games under his belt". He was one of the top tenders in the KHL for 4 years and even has a Gagarin cup win to his name. He's accomplished a lot in his career already. His save percentage is on par for a 5 million dollar goalie and there's a large enough sample size.
 

islesfan186

YES! YES! YES!
Jul 5, 2012
7,157
3,010
Tennessee
pretty bad takes with this whole "he only has 47 games under his belt". He was one of the top tenders in the KHL for 4 years and even has a Gagarin cup win to his name. He's accomplished a lot in his career already.
You know how else had a great career in the KHL? Mikko Koskinen. Success in the KHL doesn’t not guarantee success in the NHL
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Crypto Guy
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad