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

[Raspewtin]

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.

Even with Henrik, Isles still don't make it past the 1st round.

Hank's value is so high to the rest of the league because so many people around the league believe a great goalie can mask a bad defense. It can't. Henrik on the Isles or Oilers doesn't improve them too much.

 

[nikonsniper*]

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.

Qick is coming off of his first NHL-level contract (1,7M) and got a raise to 6.5m for his second contract.

Lundqvist is on his third contract, so of course he is going to be paid.

Besides that, His 6.9m deal from 2008 is basically the same as a 8.5m deal now, in terms of % of the team's cap.

 

[beef 4 lunch]

Too much for too long. But I suppose that's the price you pay for the best goalie in the league. I don't see lundqvist getting better, I just hope he maintains his current level of performance for four more years and has a slow decline.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

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.

lol no the Isles would not be as good as we are.

 

[Richter Scale]

quick was a RFA and signed one of those retirement contracts under the old cba. how are these 2 deals remotely comparable?

Uhhh, what? No. He would have been a UFA at the end of his last contract. So they are by no means worlds apart. Your point about it being under the old CBA is valid. But that doesn't make his cap hit that much less of a legitimate marker. It just means the annual $ could be structured differently.

 

[LORDE]

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?

Sounds to me like this is more an indictment of Sather and his ability (or lack thereof) to build a viable roster, rather than the contract he handed out today to Hank.

 

[Doctyl]

thought all signs pointed to him not resigning. this just shows the geniuses on here what they really know.

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

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.

It would be nice if Cally at least played like he was in a contract year. It's been a while since he came back from his thumb injury so I don't know what the explanation for his recent play is, other than him just not being that good/effective anymore.

 

[OnlyTruth]

Too much for too long. But I suppose that's the price you pay for the best goalie in the league. I don't see lundqvist getting better, I just hope he maintains his current level of performance for four more years and has a slow decline.

Sather signing Hank has nothing to do with Hockey. It is all about making money, that his job and he is good at it. He'll be making lots of money off Hank. Even at press conference, he mostly talked about magazines and commercials.

 

[eco's bones]

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.

All the recent threads moving Henrik on in recent days were just ridiculous. It wasn't going to happen. Some people may be having a hard time dealing with it. Lundqvist is the face of the franchise and has proven over an extended period of time that he is our best player. The Rangers weren't going to move him unless he wanted to move and there's never been an indication that he did. Myself I would have preferred a somewhat smaller cap hit--say in the $7-7.5 mil per range but he was going to get pretty much whatever he wanted because he has the leverage. The Rangers just dumping him after all these years was just unthinkable.

 

[Bullseyes]

Uhhh, what? No. He would have been a UFA at the end of his last contract. So they are by no means worlds apart. Your point about it being under the old CBA is valid. But that doesn't make his cap hit that much less of a legitimate marker. It just means the annual $ could be structured differently.

They were signed under very different circumstances. Quick's AAV would be a lot different if the most years he could get would be 8. It's hard to compare the two.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Sather: Lundqvist most likely would have gotten more money elsewhere had he left. Re-signing Lundqvist was priority, now turns to others

https://twitter.com/PLeonardNYDN/status/408327813281103872

 

[Richter Scale]

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.

What I wrote should have read "cap hit," not "paid a salary of." Edited the post.

But assuming you picked up on that meaning, I'm not seeing how that makes it a smoke screen. It isn't 100 % comparable because it was under the old CBA. But it is still pretty damn close.

It doesn't change the cap hit he carries; and that it will be nearly $3 million less than Hank's for the duration. The Rangers could have structured a similar front loaded contract for Hank (albeit not as drastic because of the new CBA) and kept the cap hit down some. In fact, since Hank's contract will take him until he is older than Quick will be when his expires, there is even more reason for the Rangers to structure it this way. Did they though?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

It doesn't change the cap hit hit he carries? Wut? Yes it does, it lowers it by $1.7M. Quick would easily get a $7M+ cap hit were he re-signed under this CBA.

 

[Off Sides]

Sounds to me like this is more an indictment of Sather and his ability (or lack thereof) to build a viable roster, rather than the contract he handed out today to Hank.

And it is that as well but I don't see how the contract he handed out today helps either.

It just seems like this signing was just as much about his value off the ice as it was about what he can do on it. I am so tired of business choices being part of the way the team is crafted... well I understand that, it's a business. What I do not understand is how fans defend that approach like the sole purpose of this signing was somehow a precursor to the team winning a cup or even moving closer to that.

 

[mike14]

Interesting decision.

Unless Lundy goes down with a long-term injury I can't see how this team is going to get the young topflight talent it needs, so I guess the plan (as much as Sather has a plan) is to keep overpaying for top 6 UFAs with questions marks.

Will also be very interesting to now see what he does with Cally and Girardi, something tells me that $5m + contracts for both are on the cards

 

[ecemleafs]

What I wrote should have read "cap hit," not "paid a salary of." Edited the post.

But assuming you picked up on that meaning, I'm not seeing how that makes it a smoke screen. It isn't 100 % comparable because it was under the old CBA. But it is still pretty damn close.

It doesn't change the cap hit he carries; and that it will be nearly $3 million less than Hank's for the duration. The Rangers could have structured a similar front loaded contract for Hank (albeit not as drastic because of the new CBA) and kept the cap hit down some. In fact, since Hank's contract will take him until he is older than Quick will be when his expires, there is even more reason for the Rangers to structure it this way. Did they though?

how does it not change the cap hit? quick has years added at the end to bring down the AAV. quicks contract if it were 7 years would be 7m. thats coming off a contract that paid him 1.8m.

 

[Richter Scale]

See the above explanation for Quick... RFA contract signed prior to the last lock-out. Not comparable. Not close.

It wasn't an RFA contract. Stop making things up. See this:

Uhhh, what? No. He would have been a UFA at the end of his last contract. So they are by no means worlds apart. Your point about it being under the old CBA is valid. But that doesn't make his cap hit that much less of a legitimate marker. It just means the annual $ could be structured differently.

 

[Unpredictable1]

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?

Oh please, other teams would willingly pay him more if he hit the market. Just like Sidney and his contract - but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the name on the front of the jersey either.

What are they with him? A team with an important piece of the puzzle to build around to get to the final dance - but Sather needs ot get his act in gear to fix the rest.

Going forward I feel more confident with Hank in the pipes as far as increasing our chances of of winning the Cup. I'm not going to let his sub-par STATS to start this season influence my opinion of his value to the team.

 

[Bullseyes]

Oh please, other teams would willingly pay him more if he hit the market. Just like Sidney and his contract - but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the name on the front of the jersey either.

What are they with him? A team with an important piece of the puzzle to build around to get to the final dance - but Sather needs ot get his act in gear to fix the rest.

Going forward I feel more confident with Hank in the pipes as far as increasing our chances of of winning the Cup. I'm not going to let his sub-par STATS to start this season influence my opinion of his value to the team.

To be fair, I love Lundqvist, but he's not Sidney Crosby.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Most of the people in the league talking down this deal are rival fans, or Fins.

Either demographic kind of needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Absolutely.

Best goalie of this generation (post lockout era), and best in franchise history when it's all said and done. Yeah, he gets paid.

 

[ecemleafs]

To be fair, I love Lundqvist, but he's not Sidney Crosby.

and sidney signed a contract that pays him over 7 years an avg of 10.9m per year. 2.4m per season more.

 

[LORDE]

And it is that as well but I don't see how the contract he handed out today helps either.

It just seems like this signing was just as much about his value off the ice as it was about what he can do on it. I am so tired of business choices being part of the way the team is crafted... well I understand that, it's a business. What I do not understand is how fans defend that approach like the sole purpose of this signing was somehow a precursor to the team winning a cup or even moving closer to that.

It's not that it "helps" as you have said. It's that it doesn't hurt... or not much anyway.

Again, to not give Hank this contract means you have an alternate plan.

Is that plan to let him walk for nothing? I sure hope not.

Is that plan to trade him? OK... to who? for what?

OK he's gone. Now what? Talbot?

Rebuild?

Free-agent goaltender? Get out your checkbook if so.

I don't argue that it's a business decision, but it's an on ice decision as well. He gives the team the best chance of winning going forward while at the same time putting rear-ends in seats.

 

[Richter Scale]

It doesn't change the cap hit hit he carries? Wut? Yes it does, it lowers it by $1.7M. Quick would easily get a $7M+ cap hit were he re-signed under this CBA.

Do you mind teasing out that rationale? The highest he's getting paid in any single year under his current contract is $7 mil. I don't think cutting two years off the term of his previous contract - two years in which he would have been getting paid the least - gets him that much of a bump.

 

[Doctyl]

To be fair, I love Lundqvist, but he's not Sidney Crosby.

as in hes not a center. he is the crosby of goalies though. almost every game he is a difference maker.