RangerLifer
Formerly known as Captain Lindy
That fact is totally irrelevant now. The fact is that Hank isn't helping this team anymore and something has to give.
Speculation: Roster building thread XXIII: Heading into doldrum days and All Star break
- Thread starter BBKers
- 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
DutchShamrock
Registered User
This is it. A lot of people are committed to picking sides and finding a bad guy. Why? Both sides made their bed with the contract, and in shocking rare showing of maturity in today's day and age, they are fulfilling their promises.
The rangers aren't running to the press with bad words, or ostracizing Henrik. Lundqvist isn't pouting, making demands or creating a scene in the locker room. They are acting like adults. There is a break in 2 games for everyone to reflect and come to a decision.
Fans become very frustrated when athletes don't make decisions that are convenient for fans. Like, are you guys mad that he loves the rangers as much as you?
And no one is asking why this situation came to a head so unnaturally. The rangers blew through Georgiev's games played plateau and then almost immediately called up Igor? They painted themselves in a corner and didn't have enough foresight to predict this dilemma 2 weeks down the road. Igor probably gave the ultimatum that he was going to Russia if he didn't get a call up. And I'm not blaming him for exercising the leverage in his contract that management gave him. Not a bad guy, but mysteriously absent in the conversation because he is the new hero. Crucify Lundqvist for using his contract but absolve Igor.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,203
- 38,877
I doubt that. Probably just wanted to make sure Igor could play at the NHL level before trading Geo away.
JCProdigy
Registered User
There are a lot of shitty people in the world/society. This board, like any other grouping of people, is just a reflection of that.
It's ultimately a business but the Rangers brass know Hank personally. I'm guessing they like him and have enjoyed the successful symbiotic relationship that has occurred. I also believe that they are acutely aware that how they treat him and this situation doesn't happen in a vacuum so no, I don't think they are intentionally trying to mindf*** him. From what I can gather from what I've seen in their respective pasts, I believe guys like JD, Gorton, and Hank have been open and honest with each other about the situation. The whole "trying to screw with Hank and loving it" speaks more on the poster and how they would handle their own personal and professional relationships in their own lives, rather than a reflection on the Rangers current modus operandi.
gravey9
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 2,945
- 6,331
Something we should all keep in mind when discussing Lundqvist:
The three goalie situation really doesn't change the underlying state of affairs.
At this moment in their careers, Hank isn't better than Shesterkin or Georgiev.
He's not necessarily worse, but he doesn't seem capable of consistently playing at his highest level. (very reminiscent of late stages Brodeur) And if we're being honest about the situation, there are stretches in Hank's play where he deserves to be the 3rd guy on the chart.
And if you're 37 years old and you're at best on par with a 23 and 24 year old, in many situations that means you'll become the last guy on the depth chart. If we were in the midst of a playoff series then maybe having Hank start over the other two might make more sense -- like, go with the guy whose been there before. But on a rebuilding team where the goal is to have the younger players reach their ceiling, it's hard to justify prioritizing the 37 year old whose skillset is only going to erode. So, even if Shesty was still in the AHL and there was no three-headed goalie situation, we'd still need to deal with the fact that Henrik should, at best, be the team's backup goalie going forward. And it's no knock on Henrik. It's just what happens naturally.
If you we understand this point, then we can understand that when it comes to the Rangers long term plans -- Georgie being traded has more to do with what's ultimately better for team building going forward: Is having two young number ones in Shesty and Georgie better for the team? Or is it better to have one of them and a young top 9 NHL forward added to the org?
I would also wager that keeping Georgie means that Wall would probably opt to sign elsewhere this summer. Because Geo and Shesty as the one-two combo could remain that way for 4-5 years given their age and contract situation. And Wall, isn't some 19 year old he's already 22. He's not signing with the Rangers to wait 4-5 years to play in the NHL.
So, to me, trading Georgie isn't only about the org's faith in Shesterkin. It's about Huska and Wall (and theoretically Lindbom). If the org thinks highly of Wall and they believe he is likely to sign if they create a pathway to the NHL, then trading Geo becomes much more palatable. But if Wall has already signalled he's going FA -- then the Rangers have to make sure Henrik is okay becoming a backup for a few years.
The three goalie situation really doesn't change the underlying state of affairs.
At this moment in their careers, Hank isn't better than Shesterkin or Georgiev.
He's not necessarily worse, but he doesn't seem capable of consistently playing at his highest level. (very reminiscent of late stages Brodeur) And if we're being honest about the situation, there are stretches in Hank's play where he deserves to be the 3rd guy on the chart.
And if you're 37 years old and you're at best on par with a 23 and 24 year old, in many situations that means you'll become the last guy on the depth chart. If we were in the midst of a playoff series then maybe having Hank start over the other two might make more sense -- like, go with the guy whose been there before. But on a rebuilding team where the goal is to have the younger players reach their ceiling, it's hard to justify prioritizing the 37 year old whose skillset is only going to erode. So, even if Shesty was still in the AHL and there was no three-headed goalie situation, we'd still need to deal with the fact that Henrik should, at best, be the team's backup goalie going forward. And it's no knock on Henrik. It's just what happens naturally.
If you we understand this point, then we can understand that when it comes to the Rangers long term plans -- Georgie being traded has more to do with what's ultimately better for team building going forward: Is having two young number ones in Shesty and Georgie better for the team? Or is it better to have one of them and a young top 9 NHL forward added to the org?
I would also wager that keeping Georgie means that Wall would probably opt to sign elsewhere this summer. Because Geo and Shesty as the one-two combo could remain that way for 4-5 years given their age and contract situation. And Wall, isn't some 19 year old he's already 22. He's not signing with the Rangers to wait 4-5 years to play in the NHL.
So, to me, trading Georgie isn't only about the org's faith in Shesterkin. It's about Huska and Wall (and theoretically Lindbom). If the org thinks highly of Wall and they believe he is likely to sign if they create a pathway to the NHL, then trading Geo becomes much more palatable. But if Wall has already signalled he's going FA -- then the Rangers have to make sure Henrik is okay becoming a backup for a few years.
My trade deadline:
- Trade Krieder / Lias to COL for a 1st, 2021 3rd/4th, and Kaut
- Trade Georgie to TOR for Kapanen
- Trade Fast to xxx for a 3rd and B- prospect
- look for Smith/Staal 50% dump
done
- Trade Krieder / Lias to COL for a 1st, 2021 3rd/4th, and Kaut
- Trade Georgie to TOR for Kapanen
- Trade Fast to xxx for a 3rd and B- prospect
- look for Smith/Staal 50% dump
done
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
I think you made a very good post with many good points. All true IMO.
What’s missing IMO, is the salary. The Rangers do have a cap problem.
So much should play out in the next month with the deadline. If Georgiev traded, etc. If this does become a playoff team however, and one roster spot has to be taken by Hank who isn’t playing, this has the potential to get ugly. Sure Shesterkin could be sent down but that might not be ideal. We shall see.
Another way to look at how they’ve handled hank is that.... they kept him fresh in case he decided he wanted to waive his NMC and go somewhere.
Say a guy like sakic is talking to Gorts at the beginning of the year about hank but says I’m concerned with workload in the past and how it’s effected him late in the season.
In a way, it’s been setup and laid out perfectly to give hank a couple weeks with Benny, trade him, give him the kind of schedule that allows hank to lock in and ride him for the rest of the season.
Again, if hank decided he wanted to go for a cup while he can
Say a guy like sakic is talking to Gorts at the beginning of the year about hank but says I’m concerned with workload in the past and how it’s effected him late in the season.
In a way, it’s been setup and laid out perfectly to give hank a couple weeks with Benny, trade him, give him the kind of schedule that allows hank to lock in and ride him for the rest of the season.
Again, if hank decided he wanted to go for a cup while he can
DutchShamrock
Registered User
Certainly possible. But poor management. I'm not really looking for a scapegoat since there is nothing to be mad about.
motopanekeku
abnormally high
- Aug 23, 2009
- 509
- 282
I like everything but the Fast idea. He brings more to the table than some garbage pick and isn't expensive. We're short on wingers. Same for Smith to a lesser degree.
I agree for sure, but what would it take to resign him this summer? Wouldn’t he be too expensive?
getting Hank to waive his NMC might not even be half the battle...good luck finding a team that wants to trade for him at even 50%. unless someone's goalie gets hurt, good teams normally don't need goalies and bad teams don't need an aging goalie...I struggle to see how the trade makes sense for anyone but the rangers
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
Can the Hank talk be moved to the Hank thread? This thread is unreadable because of it.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
I don't think you do. You can discuss trades, buyouts, the whole nine yards without being a hateful prick about it. He's done everything asked of him and more. You bring up Eli as a comparable and I'd probably make the same argument for him - he handled everything with grace and leadership and gets the short end of the stick for doing the right thing short of retiring.
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
lol, yeah we’re hateful pricks for loving the Rangers. If you love Hank, feel free to follow him wherever he goes. Bring binoculars at the garden to watch him on the bench.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
You're still missing the point, so I'll digress. It's clearly something you can't wrap your head around or simply don't want to.
JCProdigy
Registered User
No he's saying you can love the Rangers (an entity) and still have some decency towards Hank (a human) while still getting your point across.
AKA: You're not being a hateful prick for loving the Rangers. You're just a hateful prick that happens to love the Rangers
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
lol you love Hank regardless. We get it. We get it. We get it. You would keep him forever and everybody who post otherwise is a hater.
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
No he's saying you can love the Rangers (an entity) and still have some decency towards Hank (a human) while still getting your point across.
AKA: You're not being a hateful prick for loving the Rangers. You're just a hateful prick that happens to love the Rangers
you could follow along a bit more closely too.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
You really don't - no matter how many condescending posts you make. You still don't get it.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
No he's saying you can love the Rangers (an entity) and still have some decency towards Hank (a human) while still getting your point across.
AKA: You're not being a hateful prick for loving the Rangers. You're just a hateful prick that happens to love the Rangers
Somebody gets it.
- Status
