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

[HatTrick Swayze]

I don't blame the man one bit for getting what he perceives to be a fair deal. I would do the same. Get what you can get while you can.

BUT it also comes with an even further heightened set of expectations. If you are being paid $1.5M more than the next best tender, you should perform at that level consistently. No not every night.

 

[darko]

Had Hank hit the free agency he could've got an even bigger deal. Tack on a year or 2. Maybe even something along the lines of 9/75-80.

 

[Tawnos]

Had Hank hit the free agency he could've got an even bigger deal. Tack on a year or 2. Maybe even something along the lines of 9/75-80.

Can't tack on any years. 7 is the max for signing in free agency. I am somewhat surprised that Lundqvist and the team didn't use the resigning benefit of 8 years.

 

[darko]

Can't tack on any years. 7 is the max for signing in free agency. I am somewhat surprised that Lundqvist and the team didn't use the resigning benefit of 8 years.

You are correct. Forgot about that.

 

[Raspewtin]

You are implying he did not even TRY to address them which is just patently false. Since he did try on at least 5 different notable occasions through FA alone this nullifies your whole arguement.

All this is without even referencing everything before 2004. (cough Jessiman, Brendl, Lundmark). Couldn't hang on to Korpikoski either. Abysmal GMing. period

You're basically agreeing with what I'm saying lol.I was blaming Sather and specifically said Hank has nothing to do with it.

I don't care that he "tried" anything. All these signings and short-sighted trades are just throwing more **** at a wall and hoping it sticks. There's no organizational or team philosophy, no direction. It's just "let me get as many good players as I can and hope they win". It's lazy and pathetic.

 

[itsPLkielbasa]

Im a huge Lundqvist fan and happy we finally got the deal done.

Now a question to you guys. Lets say Cally isnt resigning (Dont get me wrong, Im almost 100% sure we will resign him). But if we dont, what do you think of giving the C to Lundqvist? Had it ever been given to a goalie before? Hank truly deserves it.

 

[Off Sides]

Can't tack on any years. 7 is the max for signing in free agency. I am somewhat surprised that Lundqvist and the team didn't use the resigning benefit of 8 years.

The 8th year is the one where both sides have a opt-out of the CBA, Lundqvist would run the risk of not being guaranteed that money.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't blame the man one bit for getting what he perceives to be a fair deal. I would do the same. Get what you can get while you can.

BUT it also comes with an even further heightened set of expectations. If you are being paid $1.5M more than the next best tender, you should perform at that level consistently. No not every night.

Nothing like having a contract that a player at best can only live up to as he ages. With Nash and if they resign Callahan and Girardi they'll have 4 of them.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Im a huge Lundqvist fan and happy we finally got the deal done.

Now a question to you guys. Lets say Cally isnt resigning (Dont get me wrong, Im almost 100% sure we will resign him). But if we dont, what do you think of giving the C to Lundqvist? Had it ever been given to a goalie before? Hank truly deserves it.

It is not allowed. Last goalie to wear the C was back in the 30s or 40s.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Two things:

Name a more consistent goalie in the league in the last 7 years and really look at the numbers. His performance ALONE passes your smell test for the value/$ You HAVE to factor the other things in - you don't think the NYR get a ton of money from Lundqvist merchandise? That factors into their decision and rightfully so.

Funny thing you bring up Brodeur - Salary Cap in 2005-06 was $39 million Brodeur signed a 6 year 5.2 million dollar contract. Why is that funny? 13.3% of NJ's total cap space. Henrik's is 13.49%. Yeah, Brodeur really took one for the team...

I am not worried about the last 7 years, I am worried about the NEXT 7 years. Does the merchandise Lundqvist sells help the Rangers on the ice? I don't give a **** about how much money the Rangers make from merchandise, I care about W's and L's. The point is his performance is not that much better than the average goalie to warrant such a huge difference in pay.

Right, 13% of the cap and how have the Devils done since? They have been to the Finals once and have advanced beyond the first round in only two other seasons. The 5.2MM was STILL a reduction in pay.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I am not worried about the last 7 years, I am worried about the NEXT 7 years. Does the merchandise Lundqvist sells help the Rangers on the ice? I don't give a **** about how much money the Rangers make from merchandise, I care about W's and L's. The point is his performance is not that much better than the average goalie to warrant such a huge difference in pay.

Right, 13% of the cap and how have the Devils done since? They have been to the Finals once and have advanced beyond the first round in only two other seasons. The 5.2MM was STILL a reduction in pay.

De-legitimizing the importance of a great goaltender is such a **** argument. It really is.

Almost as much of a **** argument that a few million dollars in cap space and the loss of a great goaltender will take this team to the next level.

 

[patnyrnyg]

De-legitimizing the importance of a great goaltender is such a **** argument. It really is.

Almost as much of a **** argument that a few million dollars in cap space and the loss of a great goaltender will take this team to the next level.

No, you don't get it. Great, yes. The issue is the goaltending in the league right now is probably the best it has ever been. I am not saying replace him with Kevin Poulin or Ilya Bryzgalov. However, you can get a guy for less than 1/2 the cap hit without that big of a drop in production. Take the $ saved and improve the skaters and the TEAM as a whole improves.

How much was Crawford making with Chicago last year? Quick 2 years ago? Thomas 3 years ago? Fleury? Osgood? I will give you a hint, a lot less than what Lundqvist will be making and the only one even close in terms of % of cap is Thomas. If Sather called Chicago and offered Lundqvist for Crawford straight-up, you think Chicago does it? I don't, not when you realize they will have to dump some skaters to get under the cap. Lundqvist is better than Crawford, why not do the deal?

 

[Tawnos]

The 8th year is the one where both sides have a opt-out of the CBA, Lundqvist would run the risk of not being guaranteed that money.

If the sides opt-out of the CBA in that year, Lundqvist won't get any money anyway. That makes no sense as a reason.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, you don't get it. Great, yes. The issue is the goaltending in the league right now is probably the best it has ever been. I am not saying replace him with Kevin Poulin or Ilya Bryzgalov. However, you can get a guy for less than 1/2 the cap hit without that big of a drop in production. Take the $ saved and improve the skaters and the TEAM as a whole improves.

How much was Crawford making with Chicago last year? Quick 2 years ago? Thomas 3 years ago? Fleury? Osgood? I will give you a hint, a lot less than what Lundqvist will be making and the only one even close in terms of % of cap is Thomas. If Sather called Chicago and offered Lundqvist for Crawford straight-up, you think Chicago does it? I don't, not when you realize they will have to dump some skaters to get under the cap. Lundqvist is better than Crawford, why not do the deal?

Because you're insinuating that the Rangers will be able to find a goalie that is almost as good as Lundqvist on the cheap, and that the Rangers can use the space to build teams like Chicago, Boston, and LA.

I understand you are trying to be pragmatic, but you're doing it in a way that is pure fantasy and has zero specifics.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

We are talking about 250k here. Not 2.5m.

If we are going anywhere in the coming 20 years, it will be thanks to Hank. Lets be realistic about that. I just can't believe that Slats didn't make a statement and gave him more than Cindy and co.

Maybe he shouldn't have topped AO. But the other guys...

I assume that this is a joke and you just forgot the sarcasm smiley, correct?

 

[Ola]

I assume that this is a joke and you just forgot the sarcasm smiley, correct?

I am never serious unless I write a book on a subject. Even published scientific articles are only half-serious...

On a serious note, I would definitely question if this topic is even thread-worthy. This thread got 19 pages.

IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE HAD NO CHOICE.

NOBODY SHOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT TWICE ABOUT IT.

I mean, what options did we have? Let Hank walk? And then do what exactly? Sign Hemsky for 6m per? There is no trade-market, we have no option between the pipes. Hank is by far our MVP. Etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[RangersHank*]

No, you don't get it. Great, yes. The issue is the goaltending in the league right now is probably the best it has ever been. I am not saying replace him with Kevin Poulin or Ilya Bryzgalov. However, you can get a guy for less than 1/2 the cap hit without that big of a drop in production. Take the $ saved and improve the skaters and the TEAM as a whole improves.

How much was Crawford making with Chicago last year? Quick 2 years ago? Thomas 3 years ago? Fleury? Osgood? I will give you a hint, a lot less than what Lundqvist will be making and the only one even close in terms of % of cap is Thomas. If Sather called Chicago and offered Lundqvist for Crawford straight-up, you think Chicago does it? I don't, not when you realize they will have to dump some skaters to get under the cap. Lundqvist is better than Crawford, why not do the deal?

All those teams were good deep teams, we arent that good and we arent deep. Their top likes can carry the load, ours really cant. Trading Hank and signing a goalie for 4.5 opposed to 8.5 saves us 4 mil but what are we spending it on? Do we have a deep enough team to win with a goalie like Crawford? I dont think so

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

All those teams were good deep teams, we arent that good and we arent deep. Their top likes can carry the load, ours really cant. Trading Hank and signing a goalie for 4.5 opposed to 8.5 saves us 4 mil but what are we spending it on? Do we have a deep enough team to win with a goalie like Crawford? I dont think so

The whole crux of this anti-Lundqvist argument is that we aren't deep and offensively competitive because Lundqvist makes slightly more money than his market value.

Its an absurd argument.

 

[Off Sides]

If the sides opt-out of the CBA in that year, Lundqvist won't get any money anyway. That makes no sense as a reason.

If this was an 8 years deal and the idea was to structure the contract so that 8th year gave the Rangers a bit of a break on the cap hit, it would also would have to have effected the other years of the contract

Salary of the lowest year can not be less than half of any of the highest years and it can not lower by more than 35% from year to year.

So regardless for him to give them any break in cap hit by adding an 8th year, there would have to have been significant salary in that last 8th year, that he may not get paid for. Why would he sign a contract that had salary in that 8th year and make less up to that point(only way to get a break in cap hit) if there is a possibility he will not get paid that 8th year?

 

[The Gloaming]

People are talking about how not signing Hank would Save us money to get a great forward.

Who is that forward? Where is he coming from ?

FA? Haven't we had enough failed free agent signings?

Trade ? Great! Why would a team want to trade a great young forward for anything but great overpayment?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

People are talking about how not signing Hank would Save us money to get a great forward.

Who is that forward? Where is he coming from ?

FA? Haven't we had enough failed free agent signings?

Trade ? Great! Why would a team want to trade a great young forward for anything but great overpayment?

Not even a great forward. What are you really talking about saving here? $4M - $5M per season, max?

The Rangers are really just another Ryan Callahan and losing Lundqvist's play from being amongst the most competitive teams in the league?

I've been on these boards for a long time - I've seen some out there things, but Im pretty flabbergasted by the stupidity of this argument.

 

[RangersHank*]

The whole crux of this anti-Lundqvist argument is that we aren't deep and offensively competitive because Lundqvist makes slightly more money than his market value.

Its an absurd argument.

I agree. Its a dumb argument. He isnt taking up much of the cap at all, people hear 8.5 and think its a disaster right away without even knowing the math. We could have let this drag out and get into a bidding war in July, i'm sure that would have been fun.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

People are talking about how not signing Hank would Save us money to get a great forward.

Who is that forward? Where is he coming from ?

FA? Haven't we had enough failed free agent signings?

Trade ? Great! Why would a team want to trade a great young forward for anything but great overpayment?

Agreed. That argument does not hold water.

The only case I can see being made is that without Lundqvist, this team would be exposed for what they are. Consistently picking in the 5-15 range. "Forced to take their medicine." Retool, sacrificing a few years to build a long term contender.

Given that I have limited faith in the team's ability to draft well, and that I know this will never friggin happen, signing Hank was the right move. But you could make that argument in theory. Reality is a different ball game.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

Unfortunately, these are the type of deals you have to give franchise players who seemingly come out of nowhere and help turn your franchise around.

The guy is an all-time great, and will go down as the greatest Rangers goaltender when its all done. Hopefully this deal includes a cup win in it and then it will be well worth it.

Honestly I think its a fair deal given the market value of a guy like Hank, both on and off the ice. To me he's been the unofficial captain on the team for years. He is the heartbeat of the team, the biggest star and face of the Rangers. He's done a lot more great things then bad. He's carried this team on his back for seasons on end and he's got the hardware to prove it.

I am happy for him, and while the debate is one that's justified regarding goalies taking up so much cap space - he is a special player and person who wanted to be a Ranger for life and this is what it took to get done. He should get paid as much as he possibly can and not feel bad about that, imo he's earned it.

The cap will go up and this will be less of a burden as the years go by. He has been a very durable player so from that regard I can see him playing this contract out barring a catastrophic injury (knock on wood). Does this deal put more pressure on him to deliver the goods? Sure it does. But he puts that pressure on himself regardless. The guy is one of the fierest competitors not only on the Rangers, but in sports. Good for him and good for the Rangers.

To draft a goalie in the 7th round, 205th overall and have him turn into what he has and get a deal like this is fantastic IMO. Its what this forum is all about and I think its a positive.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

This signing again shows the lack of an organizational philosophy. Presumably, the message sent is Lundqvist is the foundation of the team and we will build from there out. It remains to be seen how and if they continue going in that direction this offseason. The problem there is 1) Is AV the right coach to play a style like that and 2) Isn't that the style of play that Sather doesn't want to play?