HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   What Would It Take For You to Give Up Lundqvist? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=807524)

Fataldogg 08-08-2010 01:17 PM

What Would It Take For You to Give Up Lundqvist?
 
I was viewing the thread on the trade and free agent forum labeled something to the extent "Value of: Malkin to NYR."

Penguin fans were saying Lundqvist, on his own, isn't close to Malkin's value and were proposing ludicrous returns for him. I vehemently disagree.

Than, they were showing trades such as Malkin + Fleury for Gaborik + Lundqvist + Staal and I thought that would be a TERRIBLE deal for the Rangers. I asked my brother last night too. He also said he wouldn't do that proposed trade and that if you move Lundqvist, in his prime right now, it would take a lot of consideration.

Personally, I think Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the NHL. I can understand why some people don't think so but at the very least I'd view him as a top-3 goaltender in the NHL. He is an elite goaltender who can stand on his head and steal games all on his own. He almost stole an entire series from Washington in 08-09 by himself. This year Halak did with a lot of help from Cammalleri. Unfortunately, the Rangers didn't have a potent goal scorer like that to back up Henrik.

I wouldn't trade Lundqvist for Malkin straight up. Lundqvist is our franchise and I think we would be sunk without him. Can you imagine if Fleury was out starter last year with the way how he played for the Penguins :help: Malkin or no Malkin, we would have been a lottery team.

I put a lot of stock in goaltending and I just don't know if I would trade an elite goaltender for an elite center straight up. Would I consider it? Well, you would have to but I'd have to put a lot of thought in it. I think just in this example, that Malkin's value and the value of elite center's in general will fall with the rise of how many are up and coming. Crosby, Datsyuk, Malkin, Getzlaf and now the rise of Sedin, Backstrom, Stamkos, etc.

Any trade involving Lundqvist in my book would have to include a franchise player coming the other way (I.E. someone Kovalchuk caliber).

I think the only two players in the NHL I would move him for right away, in a package deal, would be Ovechkin / Crosby. Everything else I'd have to put a lot of serious thought into.

What do you guys think?

RangerFan10 08-08-2010 01:19 PM

Who cares, at the end of the day the odds of this type of blockbuster happening in the NHL are like 1 in 1,000. On top of that it makes no sense from a business perspective, he's pretty much the face of this franchise. Unless you're trading him for Crosby, why?

Why?

and lol @ Kovalchuk being a franchise player.

Fataldogg 08-08-2010 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerFan10 (Post 27290013)
Who cares, at the end of the day the odds of this type of blockbuster happening in the NHL are like 1 in 1,000. On top of that it makes no sense from a business perspective, he's pretty much the face of this franchise. Unless you're trading him for Crosby, why?

Why?

and lol @ Kovalchuk being a franchise player.

I agree 100%. It will never happen I just think a lot of fans were selling the value of Henrik to the NYR a bit short.

You really don't think he is a franchise player? He has more goals than anyone else since debuting in the NHL. It's not his fault he has been on poor teams.

I Eat Crow 08-08-2010 01:28 PM

Ovechkin or Crosby.

Nothing else

RMcDonagh 08-08-2010 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fataldogg (Post 27290073)
You really don't think he is a franchise player? He has more goals than anyone else since debuting in the NHL. It's not his fault he has been on poor teams.

Actually it is, he signed the contracts. While I understand where you're coming from - Kovy finally realized he's not in the spotlight at all by being in Atlanta and refusing their $100M offer.

Kovy is not a game-changer yet and hasn't won anything. To say he's a franchise player is a little far-fetched. However, sometimes that term is often misused. We use it for Lundqvist, and he's arguably not in most people's top 5 for goaltenders, so is he a franchise player for other hockey teams/fans? Probably not. So to some, Kovy is a franchise player, but he isn't on Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin level.

pwoz 08-08-2010 01:30 PM

Ovechkin + Backstrom.

wolfgaze 08-08-2010 01:30 PM

To give up Lundqvist we would need an equally capable netminder to replace him with... Otherwise it makes no sense for our organization...

FOXHOUND* 08-08-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fataldogg (Post 27290073)
I agree 100%. It will never happen I just think a lot of fans were selling the value of Henrik to the NYR a bit short.

You really don't think he is a franchise player? He has more goals than anyone else since debuting in the NHL. It's not his fault he has been on poor teams.

not a complete player

Panfork 08-08-2010 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fataldogg (Post 27290073)
You really don't think he is a franchise player? He has more goals than anyone else since debuting in the NHL. It's not his fault he has been on poor teams.

He's a One-Way player. Lacks the defensive half of the game. Franchise players should be players who at least have responsible defense. Datsyuk, Crosby, Malkin, Iginla, Zetterberg, Ovechkin, Getzlaf, Toews, Stastny, Nash, Parise, M. Richards, Thornton, Lecavalier, and even Gaborik to an extent.

All these players are considered 'Franchise Players', and they all share 2 traits. They have great to superb offensive talent, along with very responsible play in their own zone. Kovalchuk lacks that responsible play in his own zone.

BlueshirtBlitz 08-08-2010 01:32 PM

Hank does not get traded. Even in the current NHL where an average goaltender can win cups, Hank is still on an entirely different level. I will be deeply upset if I don't see Hank as a Ranger for the majority, if not entirety, of his NHL career. On an incredibly average team, Hank is OUR elite player. I have nothing but love for Gabs, but Hank is ours. He will be essential to any SC win we see (if we get it before he retires :cry:). He also has incredible love for the team, as documented by his depression after getting pulled the times he did. If I was GM, Hank is off-limits unless its for Crosby,Ovy- which will not happen. Hank is a Ranger for life.

RangerFan10 08-08-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fataldogg (Post 27290073)
I agree 100%. It will never happen I just think a lot of fans were selling the value of Henrik to the NYR a bit short.

You really don't think he is a franchise player? He has more goals than anyone else since debuting in the NHL. It's not his fault he has been on poor teams.

"Franchise player" is a term thrown around so loosely. There's not many in the NHL. There's stars, sure. Ovechkin and Crosby are possibly the only players I'd consider franchise players. A guy like Brodeur in his prime is another I'd MAYBE consider a franchise player. A guy that could carry a city. A leader, a guy that still has the star stats, and can do just about everything.

You think Kovalchuk's that guy? Just because he has a lot of goals?

DrZoidberg 08-08-2010 01:37 PM

I agree. I hope Hank is also a Ranger for life. Even if his game falls off and he starts playing half the season later on in his career, I still hope he stays. I can't imagine him in another jersey. He's ours, I wouldn't even give him up for Crosby or Ovechkin. It's all about the emotional connection to players.

Florida Ranger 08-08-2010 01:39 PM

Nothing... Unless we have a quality prospect goaltender on the rise.

But, maybe Crosby or Ovechkin.

Florida Ranger 08-08-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz (Post 27290149)
Hank does not get traded. Even in the current NHL where an average goaltender can win cups, Hank is still on an entirely different level. I will be deeply upset if I don't see Hank as a Ranger for the majority, if not entirety, of his NHL career. On an incredibly average team, Hank is OUR elite player. I have nothing but love for Gabs, but Hank is ours. He will be essential to any SC win we see (if we get it before he retires :cry:). He also has incredible love for the team, as documented by his depression after getting pulled the times he did. If I was GM, Hank is off-limits unless its for Crosby,Ovy- which will not happen. Hank is a Ranger for life.

He better be ours for life. No homo. I'm a huge fan (can you tell? ha), but you don't let guys like Lundqvist go when they're so valuable and especially since he's a goalie. He, with Jagr, took the team out of obscurity. That's why I'm still upset that Jagr had to go out the way he did.

BlueshirtBlitz 08-08-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg (Post 27290232)
. It's all about the emotional connection to players.

This is what hockey is to me. Well said.

Mr Atoz* 08-08-2010 03:15 PM

What Would It Take For You to Give Up Lundqvist?


I'd want at least a million dollars. Not for the Rangers. For me.

Fitzy 08-08-2010 03:19 PM

Lundqvist may be the best, its debateable. Honestly the top 6 or 7 goaltenders in the league are interchangeable on a yearly basis.

Lundqvist is the highest paid goaltender in the league, which also needs to be taken into consideration. Nabokov just left the NHL after a 44 win season for 1.8 mil less than Lundqvist is making.

As for a trade, I dont really think it matters. He isnt going to be dealt until the final year of his contract and I doubt even then.

Bleed Ranger Blue 08-08-2010 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfgaze (Post 27290126)
To give up Lundqvist we would need an equally capable netminder to replace him with... Otherwise it makes no sense for our organization...

It certainly makes sense if the team was looking to rebuild...and by rebuild, I mean for real...not the crap going on the last couple of years that some like to incorrectly label as rebuilding, or my favorite "rebuilding while staying competitive"

Fataldogg 08-08-2010 03:25 PM

For those asking, I suppose I view a franchise player as a player you can build the future of your team around or the centerpiece of your team. I think a 50-goal scorer is a centerpiece you can build your team around. I definitely understand what you guys are saying though about him lacking the defensive end of the game.

Banks3rdLineCenter 08-08-2010 03:28 PM

It would never happen, especially in this goalie market. Nobody is getting equal value for goaltenders. I don't know why there has been so much talk of trading Lundqvist this summer.

I Am Chariot 08-08-2010 03:37 PM

Pens fans are somewhat correct. Malkin is worth more than Henke. But thats what it will take for the Rangers to ever consider trading Lundqvist OVERPAYMENT

wolfgaze 08-08-2010 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 27291621)
or my favorite "rebuilding while staying competitive"

Ummm look at what Philly did... They didn't endure a "complete rebuild"... They drafted well and surrounded their best young players with key UFA acquisitions.... Few years later they are in the SC finals....

Bleed Ranger Blue 08-08-2010 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfgaze (Post 27291808)
Ummm look at what Philly did... They didn't endure a "complete rebuild"... They drafted well and surrounded their best young players with key UFA acquisitions.... Few years later they are in the SC finals....

They also completely tanked it a few years ago. Nice try attempting to be selective in your argument though

wolfgaze 08-08-2010 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 27291831)
They also completely tanked it a few years ago. Nice try attempting to be selective in your argument though

Oh you mean tanked it for a single season? Guess that's your "complete rebuild' there huh? :help:

Philly did exactly what you laughed about... Stayed competitive while they built up their team and now their roster (minus their goal-tending) is superior to ours and they have reached the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup Finals over the last 3 seasons which is more than we can say for the last 12+ seasons...

bubba5 08-08-2010 04:09 PM

I Like Hank, he is a very, very good goalkeeper, but he is not worth the cap hit. Is a little overpayed in my eyes especially for a player who has never been past the 2nd round.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.