Confirmed with Link: Rangers Buy Out Contract of Henrik Lundqvist

[Miamipuck]

Henrik is a lot of things but he really, REALLY, doesn't come across as a "diva".

And, let's be honest, anyone that's played the sport (and I'm not implying that you haven't) knows that goalies are... well... "different". All of them.

I can vouch for this x1,000,000, goalies by and large are R.F.C.

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

Wasn't there a story in the Post in early September with quotes from Hank about coming back for his girls to go back to school?

Just relaying what I have heard. Same source said he isn’t retiring. School could be online now

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Well, you are correct on one thing, they did fail the fan base.
In today's professional sports world, you better be cheering for the name on the front, because players move so frequently.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand my point by mentioning "helping Hank" and "failed Hank". It's not, and never was, about Hank. If you don't get that, what's the point.
Hank was a great player in his prime. Nothing wrong with fans liking the guy, but it is disingenuous to state that he never played behind really good teams or that management didn't try to put a winning team on the ice.

Better cheer for the name on the front bc players move? What if, I know...crazy shit. What if you're capable of cheering for individual players AND the team?

Your point was understood fine. But clearly you failed miserably to understand the multiple points I made in response. Including the ones that show that they failed hank but only bc they failed everyone including themselves. Now i thought you might see that and realize that you had responded with a myopic, annoying, condescending and poorly thought out post. One based more on childish ideas of what loyalty "needs" to be in sports. Instead you reiterated a point I already addressed as if I hadn't just addressed it.

So like I said. You can have that opinion but cool it with pushing the stupid "name on the frooooont" marketing pitch. And try reading the room. It's the hank buy out thread. Maybe save your blind loyalty stuff for a thread where people aren't lamenting and celebrating one of the greatest individual players ever to wear that name on the front?

You also seem to have made up strawmen. I said the teams weren't good enough specifically for certain levels of the playoffs. Never said that not a single team was good. How you could mix that up, I have no clue.

Never said management didnt try. In fact I listed all their miserable failures showing how they did try, they just failed. Theres that concept of them failing again. No idea how you pulled "oh they never tried" out of thin air
Forget how you need blind, arbitrary loyalty. You need to read better. It's a much more critical attribute

 

[rangers1314]

Just relaying what I have heard. Same source said he isn’t retiring. School could be online now

This isn't true.

MSG posted a clip just yesterday with JD. He said Hank has been up in Westchester training and taking shots from a few of the guys who have stayed local.

JD also mentioned that Hank is welcome to continue to train at the NYR facility if he chooses to.

 

[Trxjw]

Henrik is a lot of things but he really, REALLY, doesn't come across as a "diva".

And, let's be honest, anyone that's played the sport (and I'm not implying that you haven't) knows that goalies are... well... "different". All of them.

Wait, you mean it's weird that I think my day will be full of bad luck if I don't put my clothes on in exactly the right order every morning? I thought everyone did that?

 

[TheGortonConspiracy]

This isn't true.

MSG posted a clip just yesterday with JD. He said Hank has been up in Westchester training and taking shots from a few of the guys who have stayed local.


JD also mentioned that Hank is welcome to continue to train at the NYR facility if he chooses to.

What isn’t true? He isn’t planning on retiring. What exactly did you disprove? Lol

FWIW this is coming from..... edit

 

[The S5]

Better cheer for the name on the front bc players move? What if, I know...crazy shit. What if you're capable of cheering for individual players AND the team?

Your point was understood fine. But clearly you failed miserably to understand the multiple points I made in response. Including the ones that show that they failed hank but only bc they failed everyone including themselves. Now i thought you might see that and realize that you had responded with a myopic, annoying, condescending and poorly thought out post. One based more on childish ideas of what loyalty "needs" to be in sports. Instead you reiterated a point I already addressed as if I hadn't just addressed it.

So like I said. You can have that opinion but cool it with pushing the stupid "name on the frooooont" marketing pitch. And try reading the room. It's the hank buy out thread. Maybe save your blind loyalty stuff for a thread where people aren't lamenting and celebrating one of the greatest individual players ever to wear that name on the front?

You also seem to have made up strawmen. I said the teams weren't good enough specifically for certain levels of the playoffs. Never said that not a single team was good. How you could mix that up, I have no clue.

Never said management didnt try. In fact I listed all their miserable failures showing how they did try, they just failed. Theres that concept of them failing again. No idea how you pulled "oh they never tried" out of thin air
Forget how you need blind, arbitrary loyalty. You need to read better. It's a much more critical attribute

What's with all the internet tough guys?

Sorry if I offended your Hank fantasies.

There isn't any "marketing pitches" going on as far as I can tell. Just pointing out that players move all the time. It doesn't preclude you from liking any particular player. Remember, its a choice to follow and support a TEAM. You can bitch and moan about the failures of management. I don't necessarily disagree. Where I have a disagreement is with the narrative of "failing Hank". Yes, if you have been on this board more than 5 minutes, it is the popular narrative, along with "Hank was the sole reason these Ranger teams had any success" and "Hank carried awful teams on his back".

Hank was a great goaltender. Was he the best? Debatable. He was always among the top 3 during his prime (not over the last 5 years).

I shed no tears for Hank. He is a rich guy with a seemingly great life. I'm thrilled that the organization can now move on to a new, more successful era.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't really give a %$#@ what you think about me or my opinion.

 

[haohmaru]

It's obvious they were never "the best" team, but shitty teams don't make it to the ECF's multiple times and a SCF.
I know its a popular narrative to state that they went to those rounds because of Hank, but it is a wobbly proposition.

I didn't say they were "shitty", I said they weren't "really good". Hanks playoff numbers, elimination game #'s, and game 7 #'s speak for themselves. I'll agree to disagree with it being "wobbly".

 

[NYSPORTS]

Imagine being that blessed?

• Talent
• Athletic
• Personality
• Compassion
• Chad looks
• A huge piece

How can one be so lucky?

When you have it all they award you a logo

 

[n8]

i will be sad if Henke signs with the Devils.

 

[haohmaru]

i will be sad if Henke signs with the Devils.

Devils? I don't think so. If he continues it'll be with a playoff team that can do some damage. The question is will/can he accept the reduced role he's likely to have?

 

[Leetch3]

i will be sad if Henke signs with the Devils.

you don’t have to worry about that. He isn’t signing with someone that doesn’t give him a shot at the cup and the devils might have the least chance...Philly, Washington or even isles could be options with rival teams depending on their goalie situations but not nj

 

[Kovalev27]

He’s going to retire. There isn’t going to be a chair for him when the music stops here. That’s been my long standing opinion I’m sticking to it

 

[Larrybiv]

And to be clear, even if they moved Georgiev several months ago, I don't think it would've changed the finale for Lundqvist.

I just don't think the Lundqvist-Shesterkin dynamic was something anyone was comfortable with. I'll leave it at that because otherwise I feel like it would lead us down a rabbit hole and into pages of debates that would take away from the goodbye we owe Lundqvist.

So, because you got so many likes on your "reply" to my post, apparently you made yourself clear. Except for me. So, you are saying you agree with what I said?

 

[Larrybiv]

It wasn't a "let's trade Georgiev so we can keep Hank one more year" thing for me, and I don't think it was for most. For me, this is what we had:

1. Two goalies, one of whom needed to be moved
2. One goalie (Georgiev) who actually had some value
3. One goalie (also Georgiev) who we'll likely be moving on from in the next couple of years anyway
4. One goalie (Lundqvist) who likely required a buyout to get rid of, adding dead money

So given this, it seemed logical to me to keep Lundqvist, not for sentimental reasons but because it was practical. Georgiev won't want to stay here as a backup forever, especially if he plays well, so it's not like we'd be moving an integral part of the team over the next 5-10 years. And when Staal was traded and we freed up all that cap space, it seemed like the need to get rid of Lundqvist for cap purposes was essentially eliminated.

So, IDK. I'm sure there's more to it than what I've captured here, but that was my thinking, and I think many others shared the thought process.

I "liked" your response, but still dont agree. Whatever the "value" was in possibly trading Georgiev, (goaltenders dont retrieve much) HAVING him as a proven good backup......for ME is like having (pardon the expression and apologies to Hank) a KING in the hole, as Shesty is now the Ace.

 

[nyr2k2]

I "liked" your response, but still dont agree. Whatever the "value" was in possibly trading Georgiev, (goaltenders dont retrieve much) HAVING him as a proven good backup......for ME is like having (pardon the expression and apologies to Hank) a KING in the hole, as Shesty is now the Ace.

Understood. If I could add a fifth point to what I laid out above it's that I don't think Henrik Lundqvist as s backup is much different than Georgiev as a backup.

 

[Larrybiv]

Personally, I think Georgiev is a luxury for us. He has more value for the Rangers, potentially, in trade than he has backing up Igor.
Also, with goalies I wouldn’t feel bad if he went elsewhere and did well. It’s a little different from “skaters”. Let him go and be a starter somewhere.
(Unless he turns out substantially better than Igor. Then I’d feel bad...ish).

A necessary luxury. Injuries happen, and I dont EVER want to be forced to playing a goaltender that isnt ready, NOR going free agency market of also rans. Rather have Georgiev, at least until they "have to" go separate ways.

 

[Larrybiv]

Understood. If I could add a fifth point to what I laid out above it's that I don't think Henrik Lundqvist as s backup is much different than Georgiev as a backup.

Agreed.

 

[GAGLine]

you don’t have to worry about that. He isn’t signing with someone that doesn’t give him a shot at the cup and the devils might have the least chance...Philly, Washington or even isles could be options with rival teams depending on their goalie situations but not nj

Brian Elliot was just extended, so Philly is out. The Islanders have Varlamov and Sorokin. They are out. Washington is a possibility. They have Copley signed for 2 more years at 1.1 mil, but he spent all of last year in the AHL. They might want a seasoned vet to help Samsonov.

 

[Kovalev27]

Brian Elliot was just extended, so Philly is out. The Islanders have Varlamov and Sorokin. They are out. Washington is a possibility. They have Copley signed for 2 more years at 1.1 mil, but he spent all of last year in the AHL. They might want a seasoned vet to help Samsonov.

If Hank didn’t want to do that for Shesterkin why would he want to do it for Samsonov?

 

[n8]

If Hank didn’t want to do that for Shesterkin why would he want to do it for Samsonov?

If it's a 41/41 game split, i could see him do that. I think Hank isn't expecting 60 games. He just doesn't want to go into a situation where he's playing only 20 games. He still wants to be a difference maker.

If there is interest, Hank should try to sign with Dallas (not sure if Khubodin is resigning), Colorado (rumored to be interested in Holtby), Carolina, maybe St Louis? I don't know what their backup situation is but Binnington/Allen were pretty close in their game splits so that share of work load could continue. I mention these teams specifically because they have good defense (sub 2.85 ga/gp) and Hank needs to have a solid defense in front of him to be his best. That's when he shines. When he's left high and dry, he'll still make a spectacular save from time to time but I think he becomes more prone to bad goals then.

 

[egelband]

A necessary luxury. Injuries happen, and I dont EVER want to be forced to playing a goaltender that isnt ready, NOR going free agency market of also rans. Rather have Georgiev, at least until they "have to" go separate ways.

I would expect they’d find a good veteran backup for we’re they to trade G. There will be a guy who can hold down the fort for $1.5m I suspect. They have done that before.
I agree it’s great to have two good goalies and indeed Igor probably should be given a decent amount of rest here-and-there but assuming they can get, say, a second rounder and maybe a decent prospect, I think that’s more valuable. And also, I don’t think it’s ideal to have a young guy (younger than Igor, I believe) completely blocked forever.

Now if the value isn’t out there in a trade, sure. Keep him. See what happens down the road. I’m not suggesting “dumping” G, at all.

 

[Kovalev27]

If it's a 41/41 game split, i could see him do that. I think Hank isn't expecting 60 games. He just doesn't want to go into a situation where he's playing only 20 games. He still wants to be a difference maker.

If there is interest, Hank should try to sign with Dallas (not sure if Khubodin is resigning), Colorado (rumored to be interested in Holtby), Carolina, maybe St Louis? I don't know what their backup situation is but Binnington/Allen were pretty close in their game splits so that share of work load could continue. I mention these teams specifically because they have good defense (sub 2.85 ga/gp) and Hank needs to have a solid defense in front of him to be his best. That's when he shines. When he's left high and dry, he'll still make a spectacular save from time to time but I think he becomes more prone to bad goals then.

why is Washington giving Samsonov only 41 games to appease Henrik Lundqvist?

 

[n8]

why is Washington giving Samsonov only 41 games to appease Henrik Lundqvist?

What makes you think Washington giving Samsonov only 41 games is to appease Henrik Lundqvist?
The kid only played 24 games last season and has never played more than 40 games in a season his entire career. If it's a one year contract, I'd call that easing the kid in.

 

[JT Kreider]

I didn't say they were "shitty", I said they weren't "really good". Hanks playoff numbers, elimination game #'s, and game 7 #'s speak for themselves. I'll agree to disagree with it being "wobbly".

Looking back now its crazy that 2012 team went as far as they did, considering how much offensive skill they lacked. Lundqvist took them as far as he could. Honestly probably should have lost that first round series to Ottawa.

It is a shame, the best players that have played for the Rangers over the last 20+ years were Jagr on his way out just as Hank really started to get going, and now Panarin, Fox, Zibanejad and potentially Kakko/Lafreniere just as Hank leaves.