HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Lets talk Goaltending or the "would you ever trade Hank" thread? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=844736)

offdacrossbar 11-22-2010 09:55 AM

Lets talk Goaltending or the "would you ever trade Hank" thread?
 
ok, so ive committed blasphemy with this thread bit once you get over the initial knee jerk reaction, the question remains.

would you ?

imagine the package we could get in return ? #1 pick (s) and/or a bonafide stud scorer(s). would that package be enough to warrant that move right now?

chad johnson-2010-11 Regular Season Hartford Wolf Pack 16 42 933 393 2.70 0.903 10 0 1 2 6 0.667 0 0

and scott stajcer-2010-11 Regular Season Owen Sound Attack 14 38 782 347 2.91 0.901 10 3 0 0 1 1

and to a lesser extent cam talbot all seem to have talent but are they future #1's ?

could biron carry the load in a rebuilding year or even 2 years until one of the kids is ready ?

could we win without henrik lundqvist ?

discuss.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-22-2010 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105264)
ok, so ive committed blasphemy with this thread bit once you get over the initial knee jerk reaction, the question remains.

would you ?

imagine the package we could get in return ? #1 pick (s) and/or a bonafide stud scorer(s). would that package be enough to warrant that move right now?

Goalies don't get that kind of return. Look back at the Luongo trade. They didn't get anything close to that.

Goalies just don't fetch much in trades. There's also a salary cap.

asparkoflife 11-22-2010 10:02 AM

Stajcer started really hot and has cooled off a ton.

Johnson hasn't looked fantastic in the A, neither has Talbot.

Hank is a top 5 goaltender in the league. SOOO.

no.

FOXHOUND* 11-22-2010 10:03 AM

No way in hell. Typical HFBoards thread.

azrok22 11-22-2010 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 29105284)
Goalies don't get that kind of return. Look back at the Luongo trade. They didn't get anything close to that.

Goalies just don't fetch much in trades. There's also a salary cap.

This.

Everyone is available for a price, but history shows that no one will party the price I'd want for Hank

offdacrossbar 11-22-2010 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOXHOUND (Post 29105348)
No way in hell. Typical HFBoards thread.

theres a big difference between saying trade him and discussing the pros and cons of trading him.

hypothetically, there is a difference. please tell me you know that.

im interested in hearing both sides.

pwoz 11-22-2010 10:07 AM

For Ovechkin or Stamkos yes... but not when they're 35.

JeffMangum 11-22-2010 10:07 AM

If we had a Bernier/Markstrom/Lehner in the system, I might consider it. But since we don't, no.

hpNYR 11-22-2010 10:09 AM

Desperate teams will give more than you think for an elite goalie.

A team like NJ in a season or 2 will be in need for a goalie. Usually the bonafide starters are locked up by their respective clubs and there isn't a market for goaltending. Teams try to address the problem via drafting.

asparkoflife 11-22-2010 10:10 AM

This is just lunacy. Last week everyone was calling Hank the best goalie in the league. Now 6 days later we have a "would we trade hank?" thread.

Wraparounds 11-22-2010 10:12 AM

Nein.

The return for him isn't what you would expect. Plus we have nothing in our prospect pool remotely close to replacing him. So...

Nein.

offdacrossbar 11-22-2010 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by playstationline (Post 29105460)
This is just lunacy. Last week everyone was calling Hank the best goalie in the league. Now 6 days later we have a "would we trade hank?" thread.


this is a "would you ever trade hank" thread so it is purely hypothetical but should be something that we can discuss.

Trxjw 11-22-2010 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 29105284)
Goalies don't get that kind of return. Look back at the Luongo trade. They didn't get anything close to that.

Goalies just don't fetch much in trades. There's also a salary cap.

Bingo. The loss of Lundqvist would outweigh the return in almost any realistic scenario.

If we had a blue chipper nipping at his heels I might consider it, but we don't have a guy in the system who has proven he could replace him. The alternative would be to go out and try and pluck a guy like Cory Schneider from Vancouver, but it's risky to hedge your bets on someone else's prospect.

He's also the highest paid goalie in the league, so you're going to have some serious issues finding a team to take on that contract.

Who wants to bet that this thread will end up as an Eklund rumor?

"Rangers to offer Lundqvist for Richards and Lehtonen?!?!" :laugh:

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-22-2010 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trxjw (Post 29105557)
Bingo. The loss of Lundqvist would outweigh the return in almost any realistic scenario.

If we had a blue chipper nipping at his heels I might consider it, but we don't have a guy in the system who has proven he could replace him. The alternative would be to go out and try and pluck a guy like Cory Schneider from Vancouver, but it's risky to hedge your bets on someone else's prospect.

He's also the highest paid goalie in the league, so you're going to have some serious issues finding a team to take on that contract.

Who wants to bet that this thread will end up as an Eklund rumor?

"Rangers to offer Lundqvist for Richards and Lehtonen?!?!" :laugh:

Especially now when the need for an elite goalie seems to be one of great debate these days. Especially when the two goalies in the finals were Leighton and Niemi and the Hawks walked away from the arbitration ruling on their cup winning goalie.

asparkoflife 11-22-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105541)
this is a "would you ever trade hank" thread so it is purely hypothetical but should be something that we can discuss.

So this was predetermined to be made today? If hank was playing like he was last week I would imagine this thread isn't here right now. So maybe it's not purely related to his play right now, but im sure it has something to do with it.

offdacrossbar 11-22-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 29105592)
Especially now when the need for an elite goalie seems to be one of great debate these days. Especially when the two goalies in the finals were Leighton and Niemi and the Hawks walked away from the arbitration ruling on their cup winning goalie.

so you are saying that goaltending doesnt matter that much then ?

teams can win with high end offensive/defensive talent and just so-so talent in net...

we seem to be that team with so-so o/d talent and a high end keeper.

is that recipe not the correct one ?

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-22-2010 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105627)
so you are saying that goaltending doesnt matter that much then ?

teams can win with high end offensive/defensive talent and just so-so talent in net...

we seem to be that team with so-so o/d talent and a high end keeper.

is that recipe not the correct one ?

It seems to me the school of thought changes whenever there's a new Cup winner.

I'm really not sure what the correct recipe is. The Devils one multiple Cups with an elite goalie and the Red Wings won Cups with Chris Osgood.

When it comes to goaltending there's a seemingly irrational disconnect. Everyone says that it's the most important position on the ice — yet they don't seem to fetch much on the trade market.

offdacrossbar 11-22-2010 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 29105674)
It seems to me the school of thought changes whenever there's a new Cup winner.

I'm really not sure what the correct recipe is. The Devils one multiple Cups with an elite goalie and the Red Wings won Cups with Chris Osgood.

When it comes to goaltending there's a seemingly irrational disconnect. Everyone says that it's the most important position on the ice yet they don't seem to fetch much on the trade market.

wouldnt teams like washington or phily be perrenial cup winners with hank or would they not be appreciably better ?

if they had to move some talent in a trade or for cap reasons, you could argue that they may not have a net increase in success.

this is a really interesting discussion though.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-22-2010 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105721)
wouldnt teams like washington or phily be perrenial cup winners with hank or would they not be appreciably better ?

if they had to move some talent in a trade or for cap reasons, you could argue that they may not have a net increase in success.

this is a really interesting discussion though.

I really don't have an answer to that. Conventional wisdom would be that if the Flyers had had a legit top goaltender, they would have won a Cup in the last 20 years.

It seems to me the cap forces teams into committing to an elite goalie or to taking the money an elite goalie would make and spreading that out throughout the lineup.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* 11-22-2010 10:44 AM

Would have to look at the return. Unless it's a disgusting overpayment, I wouldn't move Hank for any combination of Picks/Prospects. Honestly, unless we're talking about AO, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, etc, I would probably pass.

Thordic 11-22-2010 10:46 AM

Would I trade Hank? No. Like everyone has said, we don't have anyone in the system who comes even close to being able to replace him.

At the same time, you can make an arguement that elite goaltending is less important due to current systems. But that doesn't mean you trade Hank, because we don't even have a 2nd tier starter to replace him with.

Riche16 11-22-2010 10:50 AM

This shouldn't take long...

No. I wouldn't.

Trade him and you open a GAPPING WHOLE IN OUR TEAM CONCEPT. One that may take a decade or more to fill.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 11-22-2010 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riche16 (Post 29105979)
This shouldn't take long...

No. I wouldn't.

Trade him and you open a GAPPING WHOLE IN OUR TEAM CONCEPT. One that may take a decade or more to fill.

See that's the thing: I'm still not sure what our team concept is. One would think that with an elite goalie, you would be playing a defense first system. And to that you would surround you elite goalie with excellent defensive defensemen. And I don't think you can say that the Rangers have done that (save Staal and Girardi).

Riche16 11-22-2010 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105627)
so you are saying that goaltending doesnt matter that much then ?

teams can win with high end offensive/defensive talent and just so-so talent in net...

we seem to be that team with so-so o/d talent and a high end keeper.

is that recipe not the correct one ?

As long as that talent gets HOT at the right time... yes.

You have a way better chance of Hank getting to that temp. than you do almost any other (save for the other 5 elite goalies in the league) goalie.

Trxjw 11-22-2010 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by offdacrossbar (Post 29105721)
wouldnt teams like washington or phily be perrenial cup winners with hank or would they not be appreciably better ?

if they had to move some talent in a trade or for cap reasons, you could argue that they may not have a net increase in success.

this is a really interesting discussion though.

Where does that money come from though? Can they field the same kind of team with a $6.75MM Lundqvist on the books? Clearly some sacrifices would have to be made -- probably Semin.

You've basically traded 35+ goals for a top-3 goaltender. It changes the team dynamic significantly.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.