Toggle sidebar

Rangers after Lundqvist

PrincetonRanger

Registered User
Jan 11, 2008
47
0
Princeton, NJ
For the last 3-4 years or so, I've seen the Hockeys Future NY Rangers prospect summary conclude, consistently, that the goalie prospects are the #1 organizational need still unaddressed through Rangers drafting.

So, put bluntly, what gives? As the Rangers organization has not, in recent memory, recently drafted by 'need' but rather by 'best player available', has an impressive goalie prospect just not landed at our feet at the time of our selections in the drafts? However, is it a sound strategy to NOT develop a netminder prospect internally, and, rather, pursue a reactive trade or signing following Lundqvist's tenure (see my last paragraph).

Looking to the very distant future (I hope), Lundqvist** (knock on wood) always has been and hopefully will continue to play healthy--with virtually no injuries in his career (which is a slightly less realistic assumption, at the very least, as he ages). As some elite goaltenders have played well into their late-thirties (Brodeur, Hasek, TT), has the Rangers brass banked on Lundqvist playing for another decade and addressing other, more pressing line-up gaps through the draft?

Also, as an aside, many have been relatively surprised by the (deflated) value of goaltenders via recent trades--as the inflated value of "good" players at certain positions (such as 1st/2nd liners, or #1-4 d-man) haven't necessarily translated to the same trade value and bundle of prospects for top-tier goaltenders (Schneider, Halak). (I think its an oft-cited cliche that the game has changed, but I think the market has changed to match trends in the game. Teams can be, in some instances, successful without that elite goaltender). Obviously the asking price for the elite (such as Quick, Lundqvist, Rinne, Rask etc) is high, but in other trades, say for top-ten/15 net minders, goalies simply haven't brought in those blue-chip prospects many expected.


**my BIG assumption (and obviously topic of another thread) is that Lundqvist re-signs with the Rangers for the longterm.
Click to read more...
 
I think we have another 7 or so years before we need a substitute for Henke.

We are using late draft picks for goalies (Skapski) because ATM, it isn't a need. Instead of wasting a 1st or 2nd or 3rd on a goalie prospect, I think we are using multiple late picks to hopefully get lucky and draft a NHL goalie.

We have the time to do this. If worst comes to worst, and we need to get a goalie quickly, we can do something like NJ did (Trade draft pick for developed goalie.)


I think we have a long time until we have to worry about this.
 
Yeah, Hank isn't going anywhere. They will likely draft a future #1 in a year or two in order to have him ready to take over down the road. Or if that doesn't work you can always obtain one through trade or free agency.
 
Lundsanity30 said:
Rangers will sign him and we won't have to worry about it for 6 or more years
Click to expand...

This ^ barring injury.

The success of the team is more than just the netminder.
How many quality 'horses' will we have?

The pivotal thing is now with the next core from our draft guru.
If they all hit reasonably well, we will be strong contenders, not pretenders.

At some point, a controlled blow up of part of the roster (chiefly oldest vets) to locales willing to pay top dollar should be seriously considered.
 
Look at the good goaltenders in the league, and when they were drafted.

There isn't any point to wasting a high pick on a goalie from the CHL. Pick up series of promising young goalies graduating from the NCAA or coming of age in the SEL. You'll find a good one soon.
 
....because Lundqvist will be here another 6-8 years.

....perhaps more importantly, because its traditionally been stupid to draft goaltenders high.
 
While it's a whole in the prospect pool it's far from a concern going forward if Lundqvist get re signed.
 
Joacim Eriksson or Antti Raanta. In general, need to sign these European goalies who are already developed in pro leagues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Literally, the one organizational area we don't need to look into right now. I'd say in 3-4 years I'd start looking for a replacement.

Right now I'm much more worried about legitimate LW and a PMD (my faith in Del Zotto is coming to an end, although I will like to see what he does under AV)
 
I remember having similar conversations when Richter was nearing the end. Not many of us, myself inculded had never heard of Lundqvist, or if we did it was when he was drafted & never thought of again. The Rangers have always had a history of drafting solid goalies. I think as long as Benoit Alire is with us when the times comes we will do just fine.
 
I think in general GM's try to shy away from drafting goalkeepers unless they're a sure-fire number 1 franchise goalie, and even then it's not a safe bet they turn into All-Stars or even a starter.

It's generally accepted that goalies take longer time to develop than forwards or defensemen (I've got my theories on why, but that's another topic) and can also stay on top of the game for maybe another 2-3 years on average. As such, I think some GM's now are looking more into signing undrafted or free agent goalies in their mid-twenties after they've had time to develop in Europe.

There's obviously pro's and con's to this. It's not safe to bet that their talent translates into NHL rinks and as there's competition for them they might waste a few million in cap space. Take Jonas Gustavsson for example. On the other hand, you might get really lucky and get a goalie like Tim Thomas who literally came out of nowhere after spending his 20's in Europe.

Goalies is just a special case and I don't think there's any reason for Rangers to panic right now, but it sure wouldn't hurt to at least have someone drafted who could possibly take over should Hank leave. The ideal situation for me would be if the Rangers used a 4th or 5th round pick on one or two goalies on their last year of draft eligibility, and then let them develop for another two or three years, and then either sign them or let them go as FA's. They'd be in their early to mid-twenties and you could make a more educated assessment of the player's potential.
 
Last edited:
Would be funny as hell if Hank were to chose a change of scenery, which he has every right to do. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see him go to a team that's ready to compete for a cup. That "ready to compete" factor will be there at seasons end, if this team is still struggling to score and make the playoffs, all the while riding on Hank's back, I'll bet he moves on, and I wouldn't blame him one bit..
 
PrincetonRanger said:
For the last 3-4 years or so, I've seen the Hockeys Future NY Rangers prospect summary conclude, consistently, that the goalie prospects are the #1 organizational need still unaddressed through Rangers drafting.

So, put bluntly, what gives? As the Rangers organization has not, in recent memory, recently drafted by 'need' but rather by 'best player available', has an impressive goalie prospect just not landed at our feet at the time of our selections in the drafts? However, is it a sound strategy to NOT develop a netminder prospect internally, and, rather, pursue a reactive trade or signing following Lundqvist's tenure (see my last paragraph).

Looking to the very distant future (I hope), Lundqvist** (knock on wood) always has been and hopefully will continue to play healthy--with virtually no injuries in his career (which is a slightly less realistic assumption, at the very least, as he ages). As some elite goaltenders have played well into their late-thirties (Brodeur, Hasek, TT), has the Rangers brass banked on Lundqvist playing for another decade and addressing other, more pressing line-up gaps through the draft?

Also, as an aside, many have been relatively surprised by the (deflated) value of goaltenders via recent trades--as the inflated value of "good" players at certain positions (such as 1st/2nd liners, or #1-4 d-man) haven't necessarily translated to the same trade value and bundle of prospects for top-tier goaltenders (Schneider, Halak). (I think its an oft-cited cliche that the game has changed, but I think the market has changed to match trends in the game. Teams can be, in some instances, successful without that elite goaltender). Obviously the asking price for the elite (such as Quick, Lundqvist, Rinne, Rask etc) is high, but in other trades, say for top-ten/15 net minders, goalies simply haven't brought in those blue-chip prospects many expected.


**my BIG assumption (and obviously topic of another thread) is that Lundqvist re-signs with the Rangers for the longterm.
Click to expand...
Thomas played well into his late 30s because he really didn't hit the NHL till about 30-31. He is the rule of exception IMO.
 
16 To Stanley said:
Literally, the one organizational area we don't need to look into right now. I'd say in 3-4 years I'd start looking for a replacement.

Right now I'm much more worried about legitimate LW and a PMD (my faith in Del Zotto is coming to an end, although I will like to see what he does under AV)
Click to expand...

I agree it could take 3-4 years after that to develop someone & it's not like we r gonna hit gold with every guy we Draft.
 
Lundsanity30 said:
Rangers will sign him and we won't have to worry about it for 6 or more years
Click to expand...

Rangers thought they'd have Mike Richter for longer too. Lack of planning lead to the rushing and ruining of prospect Dan Blackburn and terrible goal tending until the arrival of King Henke.

I'd prefer to not repeat history and throw a fracking 2nd or 3rd rounder at a goalie already. Since Montoya was moved out of the organization you'd think of the 30+ picks they've used, they would have taken more than two goalies in the late rounds 5 and 6. I sure would prefer Sami Aittokallio over Yogan any day!!!

Deep down the middle wins, and that starts with goal tending.
 
Not worried about it right now tbh, no point in wasting an early draft pick on a guy that's going to come up in the organization and be stuck behind hank
 
Jackpot said:
Would be funny as hell if Hank were to chose a change of scenery, which he has every right to do. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see him go to a team that's ready to compete for a cup. That "ready to compete" factor will be there at seasons end, if this team is still struggling to score and make the playoffs, all the while riding on Hank's back, I'll bet he moves on, and I wouldn't blame him one bit..
Click to expand...

define "ready to compete". how many teams have won more than 3 playoff series' the last two years. i get that we aren't the best team in the league, but we're not exactly garbage. plus Hank loves new york. he wanted a more offensive system and now he'll get one. a deal will get done. bank on it.
 
Goalies take longer to develop then skaters. 4 years before they're NHL ready is't a stretch. Further playing a year or two as a backup in the NHL afterwards wouldn't be bad either. Tuuka Rask is a prime example of this. 6 years from now, Henke is 37 and there is no legit goalie prospect in the organization. They're essentially walking themselves into a situation where they're going to have to make a deal for a goalie prospect.

Last time the Rangers ended up with a goalie shortage they traded two solid blueline prospects and a player for a mediocre goalie in Dunham who was really a backup pretending to be a starter.
 
vipernsx said:
Rangers thought they'd have Mike Richter for longer too. Lack of planning lead to the rushing and ruining of prospect Dan Blackburn and terrible goal tending until the arrival of King Henke.
Click to expand...

Blackburn wasn't rushed, he was developing nicely until a freak injury finished his career, leading to the wasted pick in Montoya (which was a panic move).

It would be nice to have a possible starter in the org but I'm not sure it is essential. You look at Dunham and Weekes and think 'this is why you can't half arse it with goalies' but those guys were only meant to be stop gaps. Bernier and Schnieder have shown that if you want to commit to a long term solution the cost isn't massive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom