HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Theoretically Trading Lundqvist

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-26-2011, 11:37 AM
  #51
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Remember everyone. Chad Johnson is better than Lundqvist, so Hank is pretty expendable right now. (Speaking of the smiley, where's Bluenote these days?)

__________________

RANGERS =
we want cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:02 PM
  #52
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by we want cup View Post
Remember everyone. Chad Johnson is better than Lundqvist, so Hank is pretty expendable right now. (Speaking of the smiley, where's Bluenote these days?)
Been wondering that myself, too. Miss the old guy.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:07 PM
  #53
Kane One
HFB Partner
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemarkmessier View Post
Wouldnt do this in a million years. I dont think you guys realize yet that Lunquist is one of the greatest goalies of all time. By far th eall time best Ranger goalie. To trade him would be pure stupitity
In my opinion Lundqvist is the best Ranger goalie of all time, but definitely not by far. I think he is by far better than Richter, but not even close to by far better than Giacomin.

__________________
Kane One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:07 PM
  #54
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,903
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
not if it was against the Rangers.

If the Rangers are out, I root for my next favorite team, then former players in that order.
Im the opposite, for me its team with most former Rangers( who I actually liked) then my next favorite team but... my next favorite team became the Winnipeg Jets. My other favorites are the Hawks, Oilers, Av's and Leafs in that order.

Gardner McKay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:08 PM
  #55
lJuicel
Registered User
 
lJuicel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. John's
Country: Canada
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Never say never. He may one day get tired of playing for a mediocre team. Stranger things have happened in sports.
Exactly, if Wayne Gretzky can go, anyone can. Who knows maybe Hank gets fed up with the team in front of him and pulls a Roy. Not that I'd ever want him to leave, dude is a beast.

lJuicel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:09 PM
  #56
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Been wondering that myself, too. Miss the old guy.
Well, hopefully he'll be around for the draft. In the meanwhile, we'll have to make up for his absence by overusing .

we want cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:10 PM
  #57
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
In my opinion Lundqvist is the best Ranger goalie of all time, but definitely not by far. I think he is by far better than Richter, but not even close to by far better than Giacomin.
Please, let's not turn this thread into that mindnumbingly stupid thread.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:27 PM
  #58
lebear
I have no idea
 
lebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 623
vCash: 500
I think the reason that such trades never happen is because it's very hard to pull off, strategically.

It's one thing if you end up with a great goalie through the draft or when they're very young, and he ends up being a truly elite goalie. In this way, you can build a team around the goalie.

If you, on the other hand, has built a good offensive team with a good/mediocre goalie, the incentive to trade key players to get an elite goalie might be very low. You'd rather have a high GFA than low GAA, because more than likely, the difference will be worse if you do the trade.

And from the POV of the team with the elite goalie - you'd have little reason to give him up for skaters who might or might not improve GFA.

lebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:42 PM
  #59
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
We need to ice a team in front of Hank that's worthy. we have a core of good players, we need at the very least THREE more top end players imo. a first line LW, a OFD, and another proven consistent 25-30g to play on the second line.

Maybe a piece or two comes from within the organization in Krieder, Miller, etc. Maybe through trade. Regardless, In order to maximize our great goalie we need more scoring and functional PP. Period! The next 1-3yrs is going to be pretty telling to see if the gameplan is on track.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 12:48 PM
  #60
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,903
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Sting View Post
Please, let's not turn this thread into that mindnumbingly stupid thread.
Agree, that debate could never be successfully argued until 1 of 2 things happens.

Either A, the Rangers win the Cup with Lundqvist in net
B, After Lundqvist retires and has a full career to be put into perspective.

Gardner McKay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 01:57 PM
  #61
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemarkmessier View Post
Wouldnt do this in a million years. I dont think you guys realize yet that Lunquist is one of the greatest goalies of all time. By far th eall time best Ranger goalie. To trade him would be pure stupitity
I don't think you realize that this is a THEORECTICAL trade Lundqvist discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
a minor tweak

Quick, J.Johnson and Dustin Brown

for

Lundqvist and Girardi
I wanted to get Brown into that package as well but I didn't know what else to add on our end.

n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:25 PM
  #62
The Perfect Paradox
Registered User
 
The Perfect Paradox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAPPY HOUR View Post
If Henrik was ever on the market I have a feeling that Detroit would be the first to bang on Slats door for a chat.
The thought of the Red Wings with Lundqvist is incredibly scary.

The Perfect Paradox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:29 PM
  #63
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadude View Post
Just to clear things up, I don't want Hank traded. I'd probably cry. But I was just wondering how a trade involving him might look. And you never know when he'll realize he simply wont win a Cup with the Rangers.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I say we have a 3 year window with Hank before we cross that bridge and if we are not going to be in a position by then to legimately compete for a cup, then that topic may have to be addressed.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:33 PM
  #64
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
in the world of NHL 2012...
and suspending the concept of reality...

first you need to get yourself a bonafide #1 starter in net to replace him. You probably would want to get a d-man who can really help our PP

Quick + J.Johnson...
i dunno what else would go into such an insanely hypothetical trade.
I'd do that trade tomorrow. You would resolve 2 issues, a potentially elite goalie who is much younger than Hank and an elite offensive defenseman also very young. I love it!

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:36 PM
  #65
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshy3413 View Post
Didn't Colorado give Washington a potential lottery 2012 1'st for Varlamov, who was probably heading to the KHL?

With that said, I think Lundqvist could fetch a very good return.

Trade proposals aren't really my thing but could trade him to a team like the Kings for Quick or Bernier, throw in someone like Kopitar also.

I would only trade him if we brought back a young proven goalie and a superstar forward
Are you kidding? LA wouldn't trade Kopitar straight up for Hank! They don't need him with Quick as their goalie there.

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:39 PM
  #66
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolskii View Post
Agree, that debate could never be successfully argued until 1 of 2 things happens.

Either A, the Rangers win the Cup with Lundqvist in net
B, After Lundqvist retires and has a full career to be put into perspective.
You are correct sir!

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 02:48 PM
  #67
Drewbackatu*
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henrik 30 View Post
The thought of the Red Wings with Lundqvist is incredibly scary.
Why would the Red Wings trade for Hank? They are hands down the best franchise in the NHL for the last 20+ years and they have proven that they can win cups(4 in total) without an elite level goaltender (3 of them with Osgood, 1 with Hasek). They already have a very good goalie in Jimmy Howard who is younger than Hank. Detroit will be looking to sign Weber(Lidstrom will finally retire) and/or Parise(if the Debbies don't resign him that is).

Drewbackatu* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 03:28 PM
  #68
Miller Time NYR
Wrong^
 
Miller Time NYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemarkmessier View Post
This is the stupidist post of all time. Hank loves New York and we love him. Pointless would never happen in a million years. Please delete post!
the·o·ret·i·cal

1.
of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied).
2.
existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3.
given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.

Try reading the title first, then delete your own post

Miller Time NYR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 03:29 PM
  #69
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,247
vCash: 500
henrik lundvist for Crosby, Malkin, & MAF


done.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 04:29 PM
  #70
Gardner McKay
Moderator
#4parsley
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 10,903
vCash: 300
I know the old adage of "if Gretzky could be traded..."

But... That was an Edmonton team that was still able to win a cup with out Gretzky which shows how ridiculously deep they were.

This is a Rangers team that can't even win a cup WITH Lundqvist in goal (the reasons why can be speculated and talked about to death with no real single reason emerging as the best but...) therefore one cannot reasonably expect to trade Lundqvist and have it have a serious positive impact on the chance of winning a cup. Sure maybe we can get receive a top flight forward and defenseman for him which fills a huge void in the offense, and adds to what will already be an insane defense (IMO, when fully healthy) but opens up a gaping hole in the net.

Looking at some of the teams who won the cup in the last 10-15 years, the names of argueable non top tier goaltenders are: Niemi, Giguere, Vernon.

Can go either way: Osgood and Fleury

Names of those argueable top goaltenders: Thomas, Brodeur, Roy, Belfour.

All of those teams with argueable non top tier goaltenders, all had a hell of a lot better teams in front of them then we would have even IMO with a Lundqvist trade. None of those guys are slouches but not on the level of others. The teams in front of them made the goaltender great for that amount of time. Lundqvist has made the team in front of him great .

Either way: Osgood and Fleury... Detroit for the last 10 years... yeah self explanatory and Pittsburgh... Crosby, Malkin, Staal... still better then what the Rangers would have as far as a team with a post Lundqvist trade IMO.

Top tier: Again, Thomas, Brodeur, Roy, Belfour... With the exception of maybe Belfour, the other 3 played a HUGE role along with the teams in front of them in winning the Stanley cup, the Rangers would need the type of team these guys had in front of them, along with the greatness in net that Boston, NJ and Colorado had.

IMO, this points to not trading Lundqvist. The return won't be equal to his value and we do NOT have a goaltender in the system even close to the skill level of Marty Biron, let alone Henrik Lundqvist. Some say goaltenders are dime a dozen and if teams can win the cup with guys like Niemi or Vernon then seriously diminishes a guy like Lundqvists value. Those teams had such a complete roster from top to bottom that they were able to make up for the lack of complete quality in goal. The Rangers are the other way around. We have such a complete and great goaltender we need to find a way to make the rest of the roster complete enough to make up for the lack of quality in other areas. Our defense has the potential to be great when healthy the Rangers need to focus on building from the net and defense out considering what we have to work with.


Last edited by Gardner McKay: 10-26-2011 at 04:35 PM.
Gardner McKay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 04:37 PM
  #71
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolskii View Post
I know the old adage of "if Gretzky could be traded..."
Gretzky got traded over money. You'll never ever see a Ranger get traded because the team cant afford him.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 04:47 PM
  #72
gluvhand
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rockland County
Country: Greece
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Why would the Red Wings trade for Hank? They are hands down the best franchise in the NHL for the last 20+ years and they have proven that they can win cups(4 in total) without an elite level goaltender (3 of them with Osgood, 1 with Hasek). They already have a very good goalie in Jimmy Howard who is younger than Hank. Detroit will be looking to sign Weber(Lidstrom will finally retire) and/or Parise(if the Debbies don't resign him that is).
1 with Vernon, 2 with Osgood, 1 with Hasek. Neither Hasek or Vernon were in their respective primes though.

gluvhand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 05:46 PM
  #73
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
henrik lundvist for Crosby, Malkin, & MAF

done.
1. With understanding this is to satisfy the OP curiosity and is hypothetical, in theory only...

2. Crosby w/concussion --- not so much.
Malkin --- knee injury may be serious but I see some possiblity.
MAF talented but not w/skill to always control those talented reflexes, but interesting and helps w/$$$ balancing.

So therefore, I go with a variation on your proposal and am leaning toward uniting Staal-Staal.

I propose
Marc Staal --- as is.
Hank L.

for
Malkin damaged, but still dangerous
Letang serious PMD D
+ MAF keep or trade him once quick hand Talbot/Stacjer is ready.

It would be nice if we could get Stamkos or Hall, but don't see that happening w/a G as the centerpiece.

This maybe, because Pens move MAF (+ his relatively high salary/cap)


Last edited by bernmeister: 10-26-2011 at 07:55 PM. Reason: content clarification
bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2011, 05:58 PM
  #74
Victory*
We're Still In It
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyzer23 View Post
did you forget about tim thomas, who won the Vezina 2 out of the last 3 seasons....and a stanley cup...just saying
Did you forget what the word "opinion" means? Did you forget Thomas actually had a solid defense and forwards that could put the puck in the net, especially in the playoffs? The Rangers are a lottery team without Lundqvist, Boston is still a playoff team without Thomas.

Victory* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2011, 08:46 AM
  #75
Jxmarts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnelundefaret View Post
Initially, I thought that it's a bit odd that goalies doesn't have comparable trade value, especially as they see 20 min + of icetime for 60 - 80 games + playoffs every season, and that the trade would be moronic, almost regardless.

Help me if I'm wrong, but going over the stats for last season, comparing e.g. Lundquist with, Thomas the best in the leage last season, Fleury, somewhat mediocre last year and Kiprusoff well below the best, based soly on sv%, the differnce in GA is only 10 goals a game between Lunquist and Fleury. Between Thomas and Kiprusiff a whole 36, while Lundquist vs Kiprusuff 24 goals.

Taking into consideration Biron had the same sv % as Lundquist, but only for 17 games: Given that he would as the 1. goalie for 70 +/- games play something like Fleury at 0.906, and we bring up Talbot from Whale as his backup, I would make good sence to do a trade with him attached to Wolski and Fedetenko, for a top 30 pruducing forward and a good D.

Might get some more entertaining hockey in MSG as well, with more goals. And if one would want to trade someone, it makes just as much sense doing it when they are at their peak.

A lot of ifs and buts, obviously very simplified, but yes..why not a trade? The difference between a good and a decent goalie is not that big? He's a great goalie, probably at his peak, but a slightly worse goalie might tempt Torts to create some offence now and then.

Backup goalies usually play against the weakest teams on the schedule, so you can't equate save pecentages. Backups can look good for streches, but they are often inconsistent when asked to play more. Although I'm very comfortable with Biron as a backup, it's been a while since Biron carried the load as a starter, and I'd be wary about giving him a bigger role in his mid-30's. The Chad Johnsons, Cam Talbots, Jason Missiaens & Scott Stajcers of the world would be questionable even as NHL backups, so trading Hank would leave the Rangers with a big hole at goal.

I do agree that a NHL team that is otherwise dominant might get away with a merely "decent" goalie, but the Rangers are not nearly at that level. Unless the Rangers were to acquire another top flight goaltender, they need Hank to keep them in games.

I don't see how a "slightly worse goalie might tempt Torts to create some offense now and then." If anything, without Hank, the Rangers might have to play an even more defensive style, if that's possible.

Jxmarts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.