Rumor: Per Kevin Weekes. Shesterkin rejects NYRs $88M / 11M AAV offer

[WhataKnight]

I’m not going to wish ill will on Swayman, Shesty, or any other goalie seeking a high contract.

I will however be watching with popcorn once a goalie with one of these “golden parachute contracts” gets injured Rick DiPietro-style, cuffing their franchise on a short chain to a 1986 Ford Pinto and pushing it off of a pier.

I know I’m just a working-class idiot, but in a league that sees the current Toronto Maple Leafs gain cap compliance by one whole dollar, imagine what damage another 2.75M of available cap space could do in a contract identical to Swayman. I’d rather take the contract that offers multi-generational wealth and the best possible chance at the Cup.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Mr Positive]

I’m not going to wish ill will on Swayman, Shesty, or any other goalie seeking a high contract.

I will however be watching with popcorn once a goalie with one of these “golden parachute contracts” gets injured Rick DiPietro-style, cuffing their franchise on a short chain to a 1986 Ford Pinto and pushing it off of a pier.

I know I’m just a working-class idiot, but in a league that sees the current Toronto Maple Leafs gain cap compliance by one whole dollar, imagine what damage another 2.75M of available cap space could do in a contract identical to Swayman. I’d rather take the contract that offers multi-generational wealth and the best possible chance at the Cup.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What I don't get about this argument is how does this not apply to any player who gets a big contract?

Imo goalies have talent just like any other position and deserve to be paid as such. I see no proof that goalies are inconsistent compared to other positions either. You show me a goalie example and I'll show you a forward or D example.

 

[SML2]

Sorry, but no way do I want Igor making 11+ when most of this deal is in his 30's and Benoit Allaire is retired. Run him like a rental and try to win the cup. Then let him go test the market. I don't think the buyer he is looking for is really out there.

 

[KevinRedkey]

The problem is when a goalie is playing sub-par, you can't just shuffle them to the 2nd line. When you're $11million/year goalie sucks, the whole team is sunk.

You've taken 3 success stories, but ignored all the awful goalie contracts. Even then, Bob had years where everyone was talking about his contract as one of the league's worst. Vasi is coming off an awful year. Price....well that didn't exactly work out well.

The other major issue with goalies is that they are also far more prone to career ending injuries, or at the very least injuries that make them far less effective.

IMO $11 x 8 years has the potential to handicap the Rangers in a huge way and is a massive risk. Shesterkin is nuts for not taking it. The odd of him making it to age 38, while still being a top level goaltender, are very low.

So I cherry picked all the good contracts, while simultaneously only including bad ones?

Pretty impressive if I do say so myself...

 

[Unbiased Fan]

Imagine if he has an atrocious season. As a goalie I’d take it (knowing I could get more at end of season if I preformed) just to play stress free

 

[fahad203]

Imagine if he has an atrocious season. As a goalie I’d take it (knowing I could get more at end of season if I preformed) just to play stress free

11 million is a lot of money to walk away from.. I would have taken the money and ran

 

[centipede2233]

The main problem signing him to an 8 yr contract is he will almost be 30 when the season starts next year. Whichever team signs him they’re cup window gets shut closed

 

[WhataKnight]

What I don't get about this argument is how does this not apply to any player who gets a big contract?

Imo goalies have talent just like any other position and deserve to be paid as such. I see no proof that goalies are inconsistent compared to other positions either. You show me a goalie example and I'll show you a forward or D example.

I think it’s the nature of the additional wear of the position, along with balance/redundancy.

A top forward gets injured, there are 11 other guys suited up to absorb the absence, along with a greater variance of cap hits. Easier to avoid trouble when you don’t have a major drop off in talent.

Eichel goes down, Karlsson, Roy & Hertl move up. Crosby has Malkin, McDavid has Drai, etc.

If I’m thinking like a GM, I may want to take advantage of a small allotment of parity, especially in goal, where a big dip in talent shows itself far faster depending on that disparity, the system played, etc. (Maybe Korpisalo is suffering from this ans we speak?) Everyone remembers Dominic Hasek; not many remember Steve Shields - the guy that had to step in for him when he was injured in Buffalo.

If I had 12 million to spend on two goalies, I’d rather be closer to 7 and 5, if only to ensure that any #2 subbed in would be capable of eating games in a pinch if needed without a major drop-off in talent. That helps regular season point totals, load maintenance and stability, since the team will be used to either guy getting reps in. (Prime example, 2021 Knights. Those 20 skaters looked shook as hell against Montréal after they lost confidence in the more acrobatic Fleury, actually winning a game with some defense and goaltending when in front of a more simple, in-flamboyant Lehner.)

Let’s say you’re spending 12 on one goalie and you only have 2.5 for the other. If that blueline only exists as a consequence of the #1G bailing them out 35 times a night (sorry Buffalo; Hasek is the best example again) the #2 guy upsets the whole applecart when exposed. If I’m going to strategize a roster that limits critical points of failure and all it takes is one opponent doing a Chris Kreider impersonation to make that unbeatable 11-12M monster an 2.5M mouse, I really might prefer the tandem deployment that doesn’t pop the team like a balloon if anything from injuries to load management demands I lean on one goalie more or less.

It’s just a lot of cap space to not be able to use or adequately replace in a Murphy’s Law scenario. An exceptional goalie so hellbent on getting paid he kicks rocks at an $88M deal is telling you he either doesn’t want to be there or he wants paid hard. If the desire to get the bag is so much greater than the desire to win the Cup that a goalie is making this ask knowing the cap implications of occasionally having to ice that much weaker of a roster, and my job is thinking for the glory & good of the team (i.e. the Cup), it’s just cross purposes.

 

[centipede2233]

I think it’s the nature of the additional wear of the position, along with balance/redundancy.

A top forward gets injured, there are 11 other guys suited up to absorb the absence, along with a greater variance of cap hits. Easier to avoid trouble when you don’t have a major drop off in talent.

Eichel goes down, Karlsson, Roy & Hertl move up. Crosby has Malkin, McDavid has Drai, etc.

If I’m thinking like a GM, I may want to take advantage of a small allotment of parity, especially in goal, where a big dip in talent shows itself far faster depending on that disparity, the system played, etc. (Maybe Korpisalo is suffering from this ans we speak?) Everyone remembers Dominic Hasek; not many remember Steve Shields - the guy that had to step in for him when he was injured in Buffalo.

If I had 12 million to spend on two goalies, I’d rather be closer to 7 and 5, if only to ensure that any #2 subbed in would be capable of eating games in a pinch if needed without a major drop-off in talent. That helps regular season point totals, load maintenance and stability, since the team will be used to either guy getting reps in. (Prime example, 2021 Knights. Those 20 skaters looked shook as hell against Montréal after they lost confidence in the more acrobatic Fleury, actually winning a game with some defense and goaltending when in front of a more simple, in-flamboyant Lehner.)

Let’s say you’re spending 12 on one goalie and you only have 2.5 for the other. If that blueline only exists as a consequence of the #1G bailing them out 35 times a night (sorry Buffalo; Hasek is the best example again) the #2 guy upsets the whole applecart when exposed. If I’m going to strategize a roster that limits critical points of failure and all it takes is one opponent doing a Chris Kreider impersonation to make that unbeatable 11-12M monster an 2.5M mouse, I really might prefer the tandem deployment that doesn’t pop the team like a balloon if anything from injuries to load management demands I lean on one goalie more or less.

It’s just a lot of cap space to not be able to use or adequately replace in a Murphy’s Law scenario. An exceptional goalie so hellbent on getting paid he kicks rocks at an $88M deal is telling you he either doesn’t want to be there or he wants paid hard. If the desire to get the bag is so much greater than the desire to win the Cup that a goalie is making this ask knowing the cap implications of occasionally having to ice that much weaker of a roster, and my job is thinking for the glory & good of the team (i.e. the Cup), it’s just cross purposes.

Well said. Steve Valiquette was on the real kyper and Bourne show and the #1 thing he heard teams saying this past summer was goalie depth and being able to have 4/5 goalies in your system to play some sort of nhl games during the season. Gone are the 90’s where you needed a superstar goalie. Goalies face a lot more east and west action today which causes more injuries. Goalie depth is more important then paying any goalie what shesty wants. Build a team with good team defence and a good defence core like Vegas, Colorado or stlouis and have a low caphit goalie there to make the saves he is suppose to make is the way

 

[WhataKnight]

Well said. Steve Valiquette was on the real kyper and Bourne show and the #1 thing he heard teams saying this past summer was goalie depth and being able to have 4/5 goalies in your system to play some sort of nhl games during the season. Gone are the 90’s where you needed a superstar goalie. Goalies face a lot more east and west action today which causes more injuries. Goalie depth is more important then paying any goalie what shesty wants. Build a team with good team defence and a good defence core like Vegas, Colorado or stlouis and have a low caphit goalie there to make the saves he is suppose to make is the way

Shit, thanks for reading that chunk….lol…..and doubly so for understanding. The issue isn’t with paying goalies what they’re worth, it’s paying them so much that a team is bereft of a suitable Plan B if an injury takes out the top guy……taking ~55 starts and 90% of playoff action.

I want a good goalie. I want to be able to hedge bets on my investment by placing a capable defense in front of that goalie. And then a quality forward group.

What I don’t want to see is a great, high-dollar goalie get injured at a critical time, placing a soft limitation on the most vicious roster I can ice. To me, that’s not thinking for the team & the team’s ultimate goal - the Cup.

The chances that a team winds up feeling like the Cleveland Browns - selling both nuts for Deshaun Watson and regretting the f*** out of it - are too high.