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.
ecemleafs said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is still $1.5 million less than Hank. Do you think there is a $1.5 mil difference between the two? I'm not so sure. Only point I'm making in bringing up his contract.
 
Henrik Lundqvist:

08-09: $6.875m of a $56.7m cap = 12.1% of team cap
14-15: $8.5m of a $68m cap = 12.5% of team cap



Its basically the same deal that he had before.
 
Richter Scale said:
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.
Click to expand...

henke has also had better statistics every season that quick has been in the NHL and henke has been playing in probably the highest scoring division over that time.
 
lbrowne said:
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.
Click to expand...

He's an important piece, but with this cap hit it leaves the rest of the team with a very similar talent level going forward.

I feel more confident with him as well, I think he's top tier but he's now on a contract that puts him above top tier for goalies for the foreseeable future, as he gets older during it.
 
Richter Scale said:
It wasn't an RFA contract. Stop making things up. See this:
Click to expand...

So what does that tell you?

Is Hank 1.5M better than Quick? If he's not, what's the number? So Hank is going to be overpaid by how much next season?

Oh, and this is all under the fallacy that Quick could be playing for NYR with his current contract and we'd lose no assets to obtain him?

Or are you just upset that we didn't break the new CBA laws and add some dummy years at the end of Hank's deal?

The two contracts aren't comparable.
 
Richter Scale said:
And that is still $1.5 million less than Hank. Do you think there is a $1.5 mil difference between the two? I'm not so sure. Only point I'm making in bringing up his contract.
Click to expand...

$1.5m is the difference between being on your third contract (not Quicks second) having serveral more seasons of stellar play on your resume.
 
quick has not been good after his cup. hes become average to below average during the regular season. i understand everyone calls hank a regular season performer, but without his performance we wouldnt be in the playoffs.
 
ecemleafs said:
henke has also had better statistics every season that quick has been in the NHL and henke has been playing in probably the highest scoring division over that time.
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to make an argument for which goalie is better. I'm talking about the contract to make a point about the $$$ Hank is getting. But if you want to talk what the two goalies have done in their career, or the situations surrounding their contracts, then it seems convenient that you ignore that Quick signed his contract after absolutely dominating in the playoffs and carrying LA to a Stanley Cup and winning a Conn Smythe. That tends to get players a pretty hefty contract.

Whether you want to argue it is because of the teams in front of the two respective goalies or not, Hank has not had a start-to-finish dominant playoff performance, or won a cup with this team - not to mention a Conn Smythe.
 
I wish I never read this thread. Insufferable.

Hank isn't having a good season thus far and I personally think this will be a weight off of his mind. He isn't going to suddenly be a horrible goalie, that's for sure. Getting $500k less a year wasn't going to solve our scoring problems. Also, according to some of you, now we need a 1C too? What?
 
2013-14 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2014-15 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2015-16 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2016-17 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2017-18 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2018-19 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2019-20 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $0
2020-21 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $0
2021-22 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0
2022-23 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $0

Quick's contract.

I would now like to direct everyone to the last three years of that contract. See those? yeah, they're called dummy years. They're there for the sole purpose of bringing the overall cap hit down.

I would now like to direct everyone to the new CBA, which specifically prohibits drastic salary changes like this from year to year.

So unless you people were expecting a contract which didn't meet the CBA requirements, get over the cap hit already. Without those three years at the end, Quick's cap hit would be 1.2 million over what it is now.
 
2022-23 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000
2023-24 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000
2024-25 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000

Crosby's last 3 years of his contract look like this. He gets $9 million the year prior. Gets 12 million right now. Again, also illegal under the new CBA.

And his infatuation with the number 87 certainly doesn't help.
 
Riche16 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is sort of the whole Sather thing again, it's not like the Rangers have not known Lundqvist was going to be a UFA for the past 6 years, not like they couldn't have come up with some sort of alternate plan or at least alternate plan that may have provided options between then and now?

I am not saying this hurts the Rangers, I just don't see how it ultimately leads to anything beyond what we have already seen.
 
lbrowne said:
No, he's not a center, but he's one of the, if not THE, best at his position.
Click to expand...

Crosby is the best player in the league, not just at his position but of any position.

Lundqvist is one of the best goalies in the league, but there's still a different between the two. I think there'd be more teams offering Crosby that contract than Lundqvist this contract.

I'm not against the contract though, but it is a lot of money + years.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
2022-23 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000
2023-24 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000
2024-25 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $8,700,000 $8,700,000

Crosby's last 3 years of his contract look like this. He gets $9 million the year prior. Gets 12 million right now. Again, also illegal under the new CBA.

And his infatuation with the number 87 certainly doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Stop wasting your time with logic, Lundpads sucks and his contract will destroy this team forever.
 
Jonathan. said:
I agree with everything here.

The no hometown discount thing really irks me (especially after I think we paid him high on his last contract). If he's going to be the Crosby of goalies, I want elite play every game.
Click to expand...

you dont think thats a hometown discount? I guarantee you teams would be lining up around the block to give him a max contract with max term if he hit UFA. he's a gamebreaker.
 
Terrible contract.

Rangers will have no money to spend on UFAs to finally help us with our scoring woes.

Way to go Lundpads!

:sarcasm: (if it wasn't obvious)
 
Riche16 said:
So what does that tell you?

Is Hank 1.5M better than Quick? If he's not, what's the number? So Hank is going to be overpaid by how much next season?
Click to expand...

I would argue that Hank is being overpaid by potentially as much as $1 mil per year, maybe even a bit more. I'm sure that will be an unpopular opinion, but there it is. Doesn't mean I'm not happy he is locked up. Just not thrilled about the $$ or term, as I said at the outset.

Riche16 said:
Oh, and this is all under the fallacy that Quick could be playing for NYR with his current contract and we'd lose no assets to obtain him?
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read (or remember) my original post responding to you, I specifically said that I wasn't directly answering your question. In fact, I explicitly said that it wasn't a possibility for Quick to play for NYR. My point in bringing up his contract all along was to make the point that there are elite goalies in this league who are carrying cap hits significantly less than Hank's new contract - and will be carrying them for a long period of time moving forward. That will inherently give those teams a leg up and put NYR at a disadvantage.

Riche16 said:
Or are you just upset that we didn't break the new CBA laws and add some dummy years at the end of Hank's deal?

The two contracts aren't comparable.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. See above. And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that last point. I have admitted the two contracts are not perfectly comparable - but I think the two contracts are similar enough to be used to make the point I've been making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom