Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Would you trade...

Who would take over the netminding duties?

Stamkos is fantastic, I agree, but trading Lundqvist makes no sense in the absence of even a reasonable facsimile as replacement.
 
Kwayry said:
Interesting dilemna.
Stamkos is a 1.03 PPG player.
Hank is a career 2.25 GAA.
So in theory, replacing Hank's 2.25 GAA with 3.0 GAA goalie (About average) and adding Stamkos' 1.03 PPG, the Rangers come out ahead.
But why would the Ranger do this?
Stamkos is at 7.5M cap hit, Assuming Hank is at 8M, Rangers gain 500K in cap space, is it worth it? I don't
Click to expand...


Does St Louis come with Stamkos? Because he is the one feeding him all those pucks.

Plus the Bolts play with like ZERO pressure from their fanbase to WIN NOW.

Lundqvist is a proven success in NY. He likes the pressure, feeds off it. Stamkos could buckle here for all we know. Especially if he came here via trade of our fanbases favorite player.
 
I Am Chariot said:
Does St Louis come with Stamkos? Because he is the one feeding him all those pucks.

Plus the Bolts play with like ZERO pressure from their fanbase to WIN NOW.

Lundqvist is a proven success in NY. He likes the pressure, feeds off it. Stamkos could buckle here for all we know. Especially if he came here via trade of our fanbases favorite player.
Click to expand...
A lot of good points, but the bolded is fact that is usually taken for granted, I'd agree.
 
Championship said:
And like I said, Stamkos affecting the play of other players has certainly led them to a ton of playoff success...
Click to expand...

Or maybe the skaters played better in front of Hank than the Tampa goalies played behind Stamkos the last few years. There are always other factors, these are just one player on their respective team afterall.
 
Last edited:
Uh, yes......

Tampa stinks because they are weak everywhere except the top line.

The Hawks went to two of the last four SCF with Corey Crawford and Niemi -- who they hell were they up until 2009?

Niemi was a UFA signing and Crawford was a late 2nd Rounder. Hell..the Flyers got the SCF with Leighton.

You dont always need a Vezina winner to win the Cup. It doesnt hurt, but Hank has obviously shown that he can't get the team to the SCF all by himself.

I make that trade and Ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun
 
HockeyBasedNYC said:
They are both major impact players who can singlehandedly change the course of the game.

Stamkos is younger so I go with him.
Click to expand...

Stamkos is definitely overrated.

He ain't even close to have the impact on a game as Sid or Malkin for example. Tampa is missing the POs with him. He doesn't get his team up ice.

His shot is amazing, yes, but as we have seen with AO that goes up and down.
 
Ola said:
Stamkos is definitely overrated.

He ain't even close to have the impact on a game as Sid or Malkin for example. Tampa is missing the POs with him. He doesn't get his team up ice.

His shot is amazing, yes, but as we have seen with AO that goes up and down.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about Yzerman and Sakic.
 
I wouldn't trade Lundqvist because there is no starter in the wings waiting

However Stamkos could in turn make it easier for guys like Nash to score in the playoffs.. Take the Boston series for example, Chara would be out against Stamkos/Nash and then that leaves the other one to play against the second D pair. Assuming of course you left Stepan with Nash.
 
There are plenty of big things happening this summer that I think these fun proposal are kind of missing the mark! But no, wouldn't make that trade. Stamkos is a building block to a support crew, a huge one but you pull Henrik out, you will win nothing forever without a good goalie.
 
MrEctions said:
Nope. Id take Datsyuk before Id take Zetts, and even then Im not sure I trade em straight up for hank.
Click to expand...

You're nuts. Zetterberg is the most underrated player in the league. I wouldn't do Stamkos for Lundqvist, but Zetterberg for Lundqvist I'd flip a coin. Lundqvist is the best goalie in the league. Zetterberg, Crosby, Malkin are really the 3 guys I'd consider. Datsyuk is too old, still one of the best but not worth trading Lundqvist. Stamkos is close, but I still wouldn't do it, as he's just a very good goal scorer, thats about it though.
 
Shark Staal said:
You're nuts. Zetterberg is the most underrated player in the league. I wouldn't do Stamkos for Lundqvist, but Zetterberg for Lundqvist I'd flip a coin. Lundqvist is the best goalie in the league. Zetterberg, Crosby, Malkin are really the 3 guys I'd consider. Datsyuk is too old, still one of the best but not worth trading Lundqvist. Stamkos is close, but I still wouldn't do it, as he's just a very good goal scorer, thats about it though.
Click to expand...

Love Zetterberg

but you must be smoking crack to put him on Sid or Malkins level
 
It would never be a 1 for 1 trade big names don't get moved 1 for 1 like ever, pretty sure we'd be getting a goalie back from Tampa.

But I'd be tempted to do that trade, Stamkos has a lot more years left in him at a high level IMO.

Shark Staal said:
Datsyuk is too old, still one of the best but not worth trading Lundqvist. Stamkos is close, but I still wouldn't do it, as he's just a very good goal scorer, thats about it though.
Click to expand...

Like 32 is so much younger than 34. You don't trade Hank for 3 good years of Zetterberg if you can get 10+ years out of Stamkos.
 
id trade for Stamkos and deal Nash for more depth and a goalie to replace Hank...... Stamkos is way better than Nash at this point.. Nash is a player you add to the if your one piece away from the making a far run in the playoffs. Nash is not a player that teams win with if he is being relied on every game...
 
I will take the 23-year-old elite forward with his best years ahead of him over the elite goaltender on the wrong side of 30.
 
I know I am pretty alone no this, but Steve Stamkos isn't all that high up on a list of players if I could choose among everyone in the NHL.

No matter how good a sniper is, you only get certain things from a sniper.

Hence why Tampa just isn't that good. I just think guys like Doughty, a healthy Sid or Malkin is on a diffrent planet in terms of value compared to Stamkos.

I get the point in trading Hank. Since it will not happen, I've never seriously suggested it, but I have for fun included him in some proposals over the years. You can never get a 10m performance from a 1m forward, a forward impacts the game on a shift by shift basis and even if a Jeff Toms scores 3 goals in one game on some kind of objective level the overall impact of that one game is still not compareable to a Malkin if you get what I mean.

But, there are probably 200 goalies in the world who once in a while plays 60 minutes of hockey just as good as Hank. A top 20 goalie can during 25 games play really close to Hank hockey. Besides, Nik Bäckström the goalie is like available and can be had for 6m per. He is a good goalie that can win a cup no doubt.

I am not sold on if id move Hank for on (1) sniper.
 
Crawford, Hiller, Halak, Miller, Elliot will all be in the same FA class as Lundqvist. There are cheaper options than Lundqvist that can be used as stop-gaps while the Rangers develop goalie prospects and see what other circumstances emerge. The Rangers would never trade Lundqvist or let him walk without a contingency plan. I'm not sold on dedicating more than 10% of the salary cap on a goaltender's salary. It appears to be terribly inefficient, unless you're getting a ton of offense from cheap ELCs, which the Rangers are not. Coupled with the fact that Lundqvist is leaving his prime years...

I love the idea of Lundqvist being a career Ranger. I hope his contract demands are reasonable. If not, Rangers management has a tough decision to make. Lundqvist's next 8 years will most likely not be as good as his last 8 years, but he's getting a raise regardless...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom