Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Rangers re-sign Henrik Lundqvist [7 years, $59.5M, $8.5M AAV, Full NMC]

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
kenjets36 said:
Jesus. Bunch of ungrateful fans. How is this news not a unanimous positive across the board?

Only in ****ing New York. Debatable that he's best player in the league at his position. Signs a deal not only fair in terms of his production but also less than he would have received in the open market. *Cue complaints from fans*.

:shakehead
:facepalm:
:baghead:
Click to expand...

I'm with you a 100%...They think this is a Rick DiPietro situation...who by the way the Isles will still be paying once Henrik's new deal is over.

Henrik has had a rough start to the season, but the man is the definition of elite consistency over the years. He deserves to win a ring ONLY IN NEW YORK
 
silverfish said:
Think we'll have to disagree here.

First I'll say, that Hank going to any team would make them a playoff contender (see: Rangers, New York) :naughty:

Then I went and sorted teams by cap space available coming this off-season. Some names that stand out:

Colorado (~30), Calgary (~30), Edmonton (~29), NYI (~28), St. Louis (~23), Anaheim (~19), Tampa (~12), Pitt (~9).

Here are those same teams and where they rank in GA/G this season:

Calgary - 30th, 3.54
Edmonton - 29th, 3.45
NYI - 28, 3.36
Anaheim - 14, 2.5
Tampa - 12, 2.48
St. Louis - 8, 2.27
Colorado - 4, 2.08

Now, in all honesty, I truly believe that some of these teams wouldn't be in the race for Hank, obviously, but I also believe that I missed some names, as well.

To think there wouldn't be a bidding war for a top goalie in the league who can single-handedly carry a team to the playoffs just doesn't sit right with my way of thinking. Especially when it is safe to assume, though maybe asinine, that the cap will trend upwards. The NHL is making money, they just signed a huge deal with Rogers, profits will go up, cap will go up.

In a couple of years, $8.5 will be around 10% of the Rangers total cap. If we're putting that towards a top 5 goalie in the league, ****, I'm game.
Click to expand...

Tampa has Bishop. St. Louis doesn't need a goalie. Colorado has Varlamov.

Right away we can cross three teams off the list.

Edmonton and Calgary? I don't see Hank being remotely interested in those outposts unless they are offering over 10M per year. Furthermore, I don't think either team could even afford to pay a UFA goalie what Hank is making right now. So let's cross them off.

That leaves us Anaheim and the Islanders.

Anaheim is interesting, but they are paying HUGE money to Perry and Getzlaf. I could maybe see them kicking the tires on Hank, but I'm not sure they 1) have the cash or 2) want to invest that much in a goalie rather than just re-signing Hiller. I could see them offering a contract, but are they going to go out and sign him for a higher deal than their two best players? I highly doubt it.

The Islanders are worse than us as a team and have been bad for well over two decades. Maybe Hank thinks he can turn them around. But then he's just going from a decent team to a bad team (with seemingly no plan).

Like I said, I think that Hank can either stick with us (an OK team) or go to a bad team. The only wild card to me is Philly.
 
Too much money, too many years, and it has nothing to do with Lundqvist's slow start. It is about allocating resources and this is too much to pay a goaltender. Unless they have caught lightning in a bottle with a few of the skater prospects or do so in the next year or two, we can forget about winning a cup in the next 7 years.
 
Jonathan. said:
Tampa has Bishop. St. Louis doesn't need a goalie. Colorado has Varlamov.

Right away we can cross three teams off the list.

Edmonton and Calgary? I don't see Hank being remotely interested in those outposts unless they are offering over 10M per year. Furthermore, I don't think either team could even afford to pay a UFA goalie what Hank is making right now. So let's cross them off.

That leaves us Anaheim and the Islanders.

Anaheim is interesting, but they are paying HUGE money to Perry and Getzlaf. I could maybe see them kicking the tires on Hank, but I'm not sure they 1) have the cash or 2) want to invest that much in a goalie rather than just re-signing Hiller. I could see them offering a contract, but are they going to go out and sign him for a higher deal than their two best players? I highly doubt it.

The Islanders are worse than us as a team and have been bad for well over two decades. Maybe Hank thinks he can turn them around. But then he's just going from a decent team to a bad team (with seemingly no plan).

Like I said, I think that Hank can either stick with us (an OK team) or go to a bad team. The only wild card to me is Philly.
Click to expand...

All fair points, but I hate dealing with hypotheticals... which is this entire conversation :laugh:

If a guy like Lundqvist hits the open market, the teams you crossed off make plays. Lundqvist is a free agent but Tampa looks at Ben Bishop and goes, nah sorry Hank, we're good with Ben Bishop, who yes is hitting his stride right now, but has proven nothing up until this point, and will mean nothing if he can't keep it up.

St. Louis might need a goalie, Halak AND Elliot both are UFAs at the end of this season. I think the Blues or the Bolts are Hank's money ticket. I like your Philadelphia wild card prediction, but holy **** I'd kill myself if I saw Hank in Orange and Black.

Again, hypotheticals... barf.

Loving the discussion though, Jon.
 
Looks like Hank will be a career Ranger. Hopefully he wins a Cup or more while he's here.
 
silverfish said:
All fair points, but I hate dealing with hypotheticals... which is this entire conversation :laugh:

If a guy like Lundqvist hits the open market, the teams you crossed off make plays. Lundqvist is a free agent but Tampa looks at Ben Bishop and goes, nah sorry Hank, we're good with Ben Bishop, who yes is hitting his stride right now, but has proven nothing up until this point, and will mean nothing if he can't keep it up.

St. Louis might need a goalie, Halak AND Elliot both are UFAs at the end of this season. I think the Blues or the Bolts are Hank's money ticket. I like your Philadelphia wild card prediction, but holy **** I'd kill myself if I saw Hank in Orange and Black.

Again, hypotheticals... barf.

Loving the discussion though, Jon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but St. Louis isn't letting them both walk. They will pick one and stick with him and sign him before the end of the year. Bolts would obviously depend on if Bishop keeps his play up.
 
Just bring home a Cup...


I'm really really happy he's staying. I believed he was going to stay. But, I will say this, 7 years at $8.5 million a year is high. Thank god the cap is going to rise up a fair amount in the coming years or this contract is going to be brutal in year 6 and 7.
 
patnyrnyg said:
Too much money, too many years, and it has nothing to do with Lundqvist's slow start. It is about allocating resources and this is too much to pay a goaltender. Unless they have caught lightning in a bottle with a few of the skater prospects or do so in the next year or two, we can forget about winning a cup in the next 7 years.
Click to expand...

Lol at not understanding how the cap is going to go up/Richards contract being gone.
 
kenjets36 said:
Jesus. Bunch of ungrateful fans. How is this news not a unanimous positive across the board?

Only in ****ing New York. Debatable that he's best player in the league at his position. Signs a deal not only fair in terms of his production but also less than he would have received in the open market. *Cue complaints from fans*.

:shakehead
:facepalm:
:baghead:
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. OMG we overpaid him by a 500k/year for 1 year too long! lol As if signing him for even 1M less would have any real impact on this team.
 
goalsequalvictory said:
Eek... Glad to have him, and think it was the right move to sign him, but 8.5 million buys a lot of scoring talent...
Click to expand...

Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, Brad Richards, Bobby Holik.

It's not paying Henrik that prevents signing scoring talent it's signing 2 or 3 forwards as if they have scoring talent when they have no scoring talent.

Right now Nash, jagr and gabs are the only ones who lived up to the billing so far and Nash has quite a way to go. 2 of them we got in trades not by signing tho so really Gabs is the only scoring talent we actually signed that performed up to his contract. In terms of bottom line talents I believe singin pointed out that we have spent about 35 mil in the last 6 years on mercs and almost none of them worked out so that is an area of concern as well.

Pyatt, Poo, Rupp, Boog, Brashear& Asham are examples. In hindsight I feel like we should have given Prust the money if for no other reason than he would have cost about the same as those guys did (little more) and we actually knew he would do his job unlike those guys who were either bums or just too old.

Ironically the thing that seems to hold back this team is it's ability to sign talent and when the organization is free to spend to the cap it means the scouts in charge of NHL scouting are doing a horrendous job and/or we target the wrong FA's constantly.

ecemleafs said:
8.5 is lower percent of the cap than 6.875 was when he signed that deal.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Anyone clinging to the notion that his cap hit prevents us from signing talent is not thinking clearly and is also ignoring the facts of the past few years.
 
Last edited:
nevesis said:
Lol at not understanding how the cap is going to go up/Richards contract being gone.
Click to expand...

I know the cap is going up, I know it is reportedly going to ~$75MM. $8.5MM is still too much for a goalie and there is no guarantee Richards contract will be gone. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
LOL at people when they say he isn't the best player at his position...and then go on to say "and it isn't even close." That's just dumb.
 
ecemleafs said:
8.5 is lower percent of the cap than 6.875 was when he signed that deal.
Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the only number that is relevant. Comparing fixed salary numbers in a climate of constant change to the cap is a useless exercise. Lundqvists deal is not truly 0.2M less than Crosby's in term of the impact of how it affects the team. Crosby's deal was signed as a 15.4% of the cap deal (56.7M cap). Lundqvist's was 13.2% (and really lower as it doesn't kick in until next year when the cap will be higher than the 64.3 it is now). He may be earning a similar amount of money but the affect it has on the team and ability to sign other players is much lower.
 
shinchanyo said:
Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, Brad Richards, Bobby Holik.

It's not paying Henrik that prevents signing scoring talent it's signing 2 or 3 forwards as if they have scoring talent when they have no scoring talent
Click to expand...

Redden and Gaborik prevented us from getting Kovalchuk... Kovalchuk on our 11-12 team could have put us over the top.
 
gardenparty said:
Given his inconsistent play this year and inability (thus far) to carry the team on his shoulders deep into the playoffs, $8.5MM seems a little steep. I would have expected something south of that.....maybe $7.5MM - $8MM per season.

Still, it's comforting to know the most important position on the ice is locked up with a top echelon goalie. Not thrilled with the cap hit, is all.
Click to expand...

I don't think 1 month of bad play should influence his salary after being stellar for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom