a shift in philosophy away from keeping the player that will likely go down as the organizations greatest all time player? u pay elite player elite money. all the teams do. we made a habit of playing above avg players elite money. thats the philosophy u get away from if callahan is demanding 6m.
Confirmed with Link: Rangers re-sign Henrik Lundqvist [7 years, $59.5M, $8.5M AAV, Full NMC]
- Thread starter nevesis
- Start date
-
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
a shift in philosophy away from keeping the player that will likely go down as the organizations greatest all time player? u pay elite player elite money. all the teams do. we made a habit of playing above avg players elite money. thats the philosophy u get away from if callahan is demanding 6m.
Sure would've been nice if Hank took a hometown discount since, you know, he hasn't won the cup yet.
Silly me though, how would he have been able to survive on only $7M a year for then next 7 years?
Silly me though, how would he have been able to survive on only $7M a year for then next 7 years?
Sure would've been nice if Hank took a hometown discount since, you know, he hasn't won the cup yet.
Silly me though, how would he have been able to survive on only $7M a year for then next 7 years?
its very easy to take a paycut when ur not the one receiving the money...
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
What goalie are we going to sign for ~6.5M? Or are we trading for him? If so with what asset(s)?
What player(s) are we getting in return for trading Hank, a rental, who will command big bucks to resign as a UFA? Or are we letting him walk and gain nothing lol?
What player(s) are we signing with the extra ~2M to offset the increase in GA that said 6.5M goalie will allow?
What player(s) are we getting in return for trading Hank, a rental, who will command big bucks to resign as a UFA? Or are we letting him walk and gain nothing lol?
What player(s) are we signing with the extra ~2M to offset the increase in GA that said 6.5M goalie will allow?
There is a very good argument to be made that $8.5 mil is a pretty significant overpayment for Hank, whether the cap is going up or not. And I think there is also something to be said of the concern over a team having that much cap space wrapped up in one player.
Quick, who has similar #s, has arguably performed better and more consistently than Hank in the playoffs, has won a Stanley Cup, and is a number of years younger than Hank will have a cap hit almost $3 million less than Hank for the duration of his contract. Regardless of who you think is the better goalie (I'm not making an argument either way), there is no way that there is a $3 million difference between the two.
Doctor King Schultz
Garian Maborik
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,301
- 21,909
****, I think Cally's overpaid now honestly. I can't stomach him getting a pay increase.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,071
- 17,712
Quick's contract is a smokescreen, his was signed when back loaded dummy contracts were still allowed. Quick makes $7M in salary straight across for the first 7 years of his deal.
Doctor King Schultz
Garian Maborik
I think the difference is that Lundqvist is more responsible for getting you into the playoffs in the first place. Quick can carry his team to the finals once he is there though.
As much as it kind of hurts to say this, I'm perfectly okay with Callahan walking if he doesn't get the money that he wants.
Lundqvist is a much more elite player.
Lundqvist is a much more elite player.
quick was a RFA and signed one of those retirement contracts under the old cba. how are these 2 deals remotely comparable?
Doctor King Schultz
Garian Maborik
Unpredictable1
Registered User
I really can't believe all the people bashing this signing, pretty much the face of our organization, elite and most consistent goalie for almost a decade.
So many are in other Ranger bashing threads to say that without Lundqvist, we're a lottery pick team.
You guys are something else.
So great to see Hank signed for the duration. I want him to retire a Ranger.
So many are in other Ranger bashing threads to say that without Lundqvist, we're a lottery pick team.
You guys are something else.
So great to see Hank signed for the duration. I want him to retire a Ranger.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I agree with that but this is not a young player, the contract will start when he is 32. He couldn't have given them a discount for the years where he is going to be 37, 38 39 years old?
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
Since we gsve him that letter he's trying to be Nik Zherdev instead of being the Ryan Callahan that earned it in the first place. Him scoring in the crease the other night was refreshing though, I gotta say.
I'm not saying that signing Hank was a bad move; absent starting some sort of rebuild, it was going to happen all along and was pretty much their only move. The only question was for how much and how long.
That said, Jonathan Quick is on a contract with a cap hit significantly less than $6.5 mil for the next 10 years. Obviously not an option for the Rangers now, so its not really an answer to your question. Just pointing out that there is at least one elite goaltender on a contract worth less than the $$ you mention here.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,071
- 17,712
Quick got 2.84 GPG from the team in front of him, much, much higher than Hank has had in the past 5 years.
Hank had some good goal support in 2006-2007, but the defense in front of him was pretty terrible. LA's blueline is one of the best in the league, and most of their forwards are excellent defensively.
Doctor King Schultz
Garian Maborik
Lundqvist likes his money. He must have decided how much money it took to make up for the fact he may never win a championship here.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
We are a crappy, non-playoff team without Hank. If, say, the Islanders signed him, they would be as good as we are. So would most non-playoff teams.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
See the above explanation for Quick... RFA contract signed prior to the last lock-out. Not comparable. Not close.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Sorry I was thinking about the name on the front of the jersey
What are they with him? If they are a lottery team without him how do they ever win a championship with just him and a lottery team?
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,071
- 17,712
Bullseyes
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2013
- 4,450
- 0
Callahan shouldn't get anywhere close to 6 million a year. He's not that good.
Honestly, I hope they let him walk. He's not that good of a player.
Well said.
I'm happy we re-signed the man. He got pretty much what many of us expected he'd get and I'm fine with that. Best money for the best goalie. Easy.
- Status
