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

Henrik Lundqvist; will he stay or go?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2013, 09:25 PM
  #576
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Based on letting go off the best goalie in the NHL, team MVP for 7 consecutive seasons and having no replacement for him perhaps?
Uh, you can only assume something so ridiculous if you are assuming the team does not replace him in some capacity. If they can replace him with a solid starter and a first line forward, than I don't see how the window is closed.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2013, 09:46 PM
  #577
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Uh, you can only assume something so ridiculous if you are assuming the team does not replace him in some capacity. If they can replace him with a solid starter and a first line forward, than I don't see how the window is closed.
What solid starters are available to compensate the loss of Henrik Lundqvist, the greatest goalie of this generation? The Rangers are already a fringe team without Lundqvist and they'd probably be around 12th with an average NHL tender (.912 sv%). I fail to see how there is an opportunity of winning a title, unless the rest of the core is completely revamped.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2013, 10:01 PM
  #578
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
 
Nac Mac Feegle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,752
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krudus View Post
To Rangers:
Malkin
Letang
Fleury

To Penguins:
Lundqvist
Stepan
McDonagh/Kreider/Hagelin
Overpayment on the Rangers part.

Nac Mac Feegle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 07:07 AM
  #579
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Blooded View Post
Most of the bad contracts have been flushed out (or rather will be in the case of Richards), only Nash remains on a high paying contract and I'm not willing to throw him under the bus for one playoff under Torts' flawed playoff system.

Apart from Nash, what awful contracts do we have? Callahan @ $4.275M? Staal @ $3.975M?

Callahan and Girardi are likely to be overpaid on their next contracts, but until then we don't really have a Gomez/Drury/Redden/Richards contract taking up a lot more space than their contribution.

Nash-calibre players are once again going to have cap hits in the $8M region since with the new CBA. No more Zetterberg @ $6M, Hossa @ $5.333M, or Kovalchuk @ $6.667M. Getzlaf and Perry are both making $8M+, Semin makes $7M.

That's why I want to lock up Stepan for 8 years at around $5-5.5M/year. With the cap going up in the future that will be a bargain even if he plateaus as a 60pt 2-way center. If he can keep up his play from this season or progress even further it will be a Tavares-like steal of a contract. Do the same for McDonagh, we have cap-space now if we buy out Richards, give up more money now for a bargain later. It's a risk, but a risk I'm willing to take. Bridge contracts give us space right now, but there is really nothing to spend it on unfortunately.
As I see it, it doesn't really matter if the big bag of albatross contracts have been "handled". The damage has already been done in the form of mediocre teams, consistently throwing huge loads of money on garbage performances, draining perhaps Hank's best years out of him for nothing but keeping the team afloat and at least appear respectable, constantly dragging the other supposed top contracts on his back.

It doesn't matter if the albatrosses are gone, as the team isn't good enough to win the Cup. It lacks qualities on too many positions and can't keep up with the best teams. It lacks top quality players who actually are worth their salaries and it lacks depth. It lacks defensemen who can handle the breakout and a PP QB. If Lundqvist is signed to some monstrous $8m/y deal, the team is dead set for mediocrity. If he's gone, the team is set for getting some lottery picks and basically a small rebuild.

Alas, the team won't win another Cup for a long time. The only remote chance the team has is if Lundqvist takes a discount, which the current management doesn't deserve and it arguably won't make a difference anyway. Cup teams have at least three defining players who all are anchors and key players to the team success. As long as Hank is the clear MVP and no one else really steps up to the task, things will never change and Lundqvist could just as well go for the money in NY or go to a legit contender with the discount. With or without Hank, the team is a long way from actually being a legit cup contender. I don't believe a new coach can change this. This franchise has huge management issues.


Last edited by Chimp: 06-08-2013 at 07:32 AM.
Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 09:35 AM
  #580
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
What solid starters are available to compensate the loss of Henrik Lundqvist, the greatest goalie of this generation? The Rangers are already a fringe team without Lundqvist and they'd probably be around 12th with an average NHL tender (.912 sv%). I fail to see how there is an opportunity of winning a title, unless the rest of the core is completely revamped.
I love how you merely analyze the team with a goalie and not another top line player added (which a trade would bring us). I am not talking about only changing the goalie. Until you realize that, we cannot go forward here.

You keep saying the core needs to be revamped. That's stupid. Plain and simple. The core is solid, but it needs pieces around it. If Lundqvist can be moved for a top line forward and a top 4 D, you do it. Then you go after a goalie like Halak. The core is fine. But it needs more pieces surrounding it. We can't do that if Hank is making over 8m. We can probably barely do it if he is making 8m.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 10:57 AM
  #581
haohmaru
#bdwyblueshirts
 
haohmaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 5,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krudus View Post
To Rangers:
Malkin
Letang
Fleury

To Penguins:
Lundqvist
Stepan
McDonagh/Kreider/Hagelin
If the Rangers made that trade I'd burn all of my Rangers gear and become a CBJ's fan.

haohmaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 11:16 AM
  #582
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I love how you merely analyze the team with a goalie and not another top line player added (which a trade would bring us). I am not talking about only changing the goalie. Until you realize that, we cannot go forward here.

You keep saying the core needs to be revamped. That's stupid. Plain and simple. The core is solid, but it needs pieces around it. If Lundqvist can be moved for a top line forward and a top 4 D, you do it. Then you go after a goalie like Halak. The core is fine. But it needs more pieces surrounding it. We can't do that if Hank is making over 8m. We can probably barely do it if he is making 8m.
Same Halak that had a .899 save percentage? lol.

No, the Rangers aren't a top line player away from being contenders. Adding Halak and 1st line player (unless 1C or somehow a 50g scorer) isn't enough to compensate the loss of the best G in the league. They were barely average with a top line player in Gaborik.

And lol @ Hank being a problem at nearly 8mil. I'd say Richards at staggering 6.667 and Nash at a preposterous 7.8m are more added blemishes to Sather's big-name acquisitions. Lundqvist along with maybe Gaborik, Nylander and Jagr are the only ones to work out.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 11:45 AM
  #583
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 4,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I love how you merely analyze the team with a goalie and not another top line player added (which a trade would bring us). I am not talking about only changing the goalie. Until you realize that, we cannot go forward here.

You keep saying the core needs to be revamped. That's stupid. Plain and simple. The core is solid, but it needs pieces around it. If Lundqvist can be moved for a top line forward and a top 4 D, you do it. Then you go after a goalie like Halak. The core is fine. But it needs more pieces surrounding it. We can't do that if Hank is making over 8m. We can probably barely do it if he is making 8m.
Hitting the nail on the head. The argument shouldn't be about who would replace Hank, it should be about whether or not team X is better off with:

1. The best goalie in the league, who is being paid in accordance with that, and the resulting lack of depth that is forced on the rest of the lineup.

or

2. Top 12ish goalie X, making $2-3 million, and more depth/high end everywhere else.

Richards ridiculous underperformance muddies the waters for me a bit, but I can't help but think that Option 2 is the way to go. Look at how all of the recent SC winners have been constructed. Having high end guys on ELCs is important as well, but I don't think the difference between Hank and said goalie X is big enough to warrant the 150% salary premium he commands. And don't get me wrong, I am in agreement that he's the best of his generation, I'm just saying that that might be working against his team in the context of the cap. ****** situation.

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 12:32 PM
  #584
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,198
vCash: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
If the Rangers made that trade I'd burn all of my Rangers gear and become a CBJ's fan.
Same. I'd... i don't even know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergy27 View Post
Hitting the nail on the head. The argument shouldn't be about who would replace Hank, it should be about whether or not team X is better off with:

1. The best goalie in the league, who is being paid in accordance with that, and the resulting lack of depth that is forced on the rest of the lineup.

or

2. Top 12ish goalie X, making $2-3 million, and more depth/high end everywhere else.

Richards ridiculous underperformance muddies the waters for me a bit, but I can't help but think that Option 2 is the way to go. Look at how all of the recent SC winners have been constructed. Having high end guys on ELCs is important as well, but I don't think the difference between Hank and said goalie X is big enough to warrant the 150% salary premium he commands. And don't get me wrong, I am in agreement that he's the best of his generation, I'm just saying that that might be working against his team in the context of the cap. ****** situation.
It is a terrible situation. Richards weighing us down right now too buit yeah, 8M/yr is bad. Not close to cap friendly... No depth will kill us

Silence Of The Plams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 12:36 PM
  #585
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,927
vCash: 500
If we make a deal with Anaheim for Bobby Ryan, it would be nice to get Frederick Andersen in the trade. The kid is going to be a star goaltender, and it would be a very good contingency plan should the worst happen.

Between Hiller, Fasth, Gibson, and Andersen, Anaheim has 2 good starters and 2 very promising prospects. I expect them to deal at least two of them.

Best case scenario, he develops and we get either a great backup goaltender or a king's return for him in another deal.

The market for goaltenders is weak right now. Luongo barely got a decent offer at the deadline. Team's wont pay much for a goaltender making a ton of money.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:08 PM
  #586
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Same Halak that had a .899 save percentage? lol.

No, the Rangers aren't a top line player away from being contenders. Adding Halak and 1st line player (unless 1C or somehow a 50g scorer) isn't enough to compensate the loss of the best G in the league. They were barely average with a top line player in Gaborik.

And lol @ Hank being a problem at nearly 8mil. I'd say Richards at staggering 6.667 and Nash at a preposterous 7.8m are more added blemishes to Sather's big-name acquisitions. Lundqvist along with maybe Gaborik, Nylander and Jagr are the only ones to work out.
It's only one name. I'm not even going to get into speculation about potential moves at this point.

If Richards is bought out, how is he a problem next season? How was Gaborik a top line player last year? His less than a PPG pace after a big game in Columbus somehow makes him a top line player? Gaborik was a 2nd liner at best this past year. Same with Richards. Over the hill, broken, done players. Why do you think we got rid of Gaborik? Why do you think there are talks to buy out Richards? How is Nash a bad acquisition? He was one of the key reasons we were even in the playoffs to begin with.

I don't see how you can possibly be OK with paying Hank a cent over 8M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergy27 View Post
Hitting the nail on the head. The argument shouldn't be about who would replace Hank, it should be about whether or not team X is better off with:

1. The best goalie in the league, who is being paid in accordance with that, and the resulting lack of depth that is forced on the rest of the lineup.

or

2. Top 12ish goalie X, making $2-3 million, and more depth/high end everywhere else.

Richards ridiculous underperformance muddies the waters for me a bit, but I can't help but think that Option 2 is the way to go. Look at how all of the recent SC winners have been constructed. Having high end guys on ELCs is important as well, but I don't think the difference between Hank and said goalie X is big enough to warrant the 150% salary premium he commands. And don't get me wrong, I am in agreement that he's the best of his generation, I'm just saying that that might be working against his team in the context of the cap. ****** situation.
Agreed. Although I assume you mean making 2-3M less than what Hank would be making (ala 5M or so)?

Option 2 definitely is the way to go, IMO. I look around the league and think it's the clear direction this team should take. We have a solid core. Richards leaving pays for the RFAs. Hank being traded allows us to add a top line player and a decent goaltender.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:13 PM
  #587
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,927
vCash: 500
Goaltenders don't have the sort of trade value one would expect.

There are arguments for/against trading Henrik

For...

His cap hit would cripple the franchise's competitiveness

It would carry him to a very old age (39)


Against...

We'd be trading the best player this franchise has produced since Leetch, while still in his prime.

We don't have a viable replacement goaltender.

It's unlikely we'd get real value for him.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:36 PM
  #588
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
If Henrik will not sign below 8M, I'll trade him and take 70% of his true value and be happy about it.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:38 PM
  #589
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,927
vCash: 500
That has to leave us with a backup option at goaltender. Trading Henrik, you would have to get someone else. Fleury? Luongo? A younger kid?

I just don't see the stars aligning for a Lundqvist trade.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:39 PM
  #590
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
That has to leave us with a backup option at goaltender. Trading Henrik, you would have to get someone else. Fleury? Luongo? A younger kid?

I just don't see the stars aligning for a Lundqvist trade.
Hence why it's all speculation right now. We have no idea who is available and at what price. I'm just saying that I would 100% entertain the idea of moving him if he is unreasonable with his asking price.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:42 PM
  #591
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 7,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
If Henrik will not sign below 8M, I'll trade him and take 70% of his true value and be happy about it.
I'm thinking in the area of 7.2-7.8. Worth it for arguably the most important player to any team in the league.

Rust Heisenberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 01:53 PM
  #592
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
I'm thinking in the area of 7.2-7.8. Worth it for arguably the most important player to any team in the league.
How is it worth it if we can't improve the rest of our team around him? The rest of the team is the problem. Jersey Girl brings up a huge point in that the successful teams in this league are not built around a goalie. It's just not how they do it.

I am not saying that this team should always be followers. But you know what? It's a valid point.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 02:05 PM
  #593
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,749
vCash: 500
Henrik isn't being traded unless his contract demands are ridiculous. And by ridiculous I'm talking more than 8M/year. The team will pay him and lock him up long term as soon as they can. With the money the Rangers waste I for one will not complain for a second about spending an extra 1M on Hank each year. That's not going to have any effect on the competitiveness of this team. He's not going anywhere unless he wants out.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 02:07 PM
  #594
Jonimaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lund
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
How is it worth it if we can't improve the rest of our team around him? The rest of the team is the problem. Jersey Girl brings up a huge point in that the successful teams in this league are not built around a goalie. It's just not how they do it.

I am not saying that this team should always be followers. But you know what? It's a valid point.
To get to the point where the successful non-super-goalie-teams are, we'd have to pretty much go through a complete rebuild. The pieces that could make a difference are not availible, and we'd have to get rid of more than Lundqvist to free up cap space for that anyways.

Lundqvist cap gives us room for an average goalie and a good/decent-not great player.

Jonimaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 09:32 PM
  #595
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,700
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonimaus View Post
To get to the point where the successful non-super-goalie-teams are, we'd have to pretty much go through a complete rebuild.
No we wouldn't. Why do people assume this? We have a good core. It's the fact that Richards is shot and the secondary scorers weren't there that damned this team. Complete rebuild? Give me a break.

EvilCorporateLawyer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 09:38 PM
  #596
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,198
vCash: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
No we wouldn't. Why do people assume this? We have a good core. It's the fact that Richards is shot and the secondary scorers weren't there that damned this team. Complete rebuild? Give me a break.
In support of this way. Richards took a ****in dump and the secondary scoring decided to drop turds too.

Silence Of The Plams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 09:45 PM
  #597
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
It's only one name. I'm not even going to get into speculation about potential moves at this point..
Regardless, the acquisition of a middle tier goalie and a 1st line winger is not enough for me to compensate the loss of the best goalie in the NHL IMO. Agree to disagree I guess, unless you happen to get say a Jamie Benn and Halak, then yeah, go for it. But look at Sather's track record and tell me with a straight face if you're confident he'll use that extra money wisely.

Quote:
If Richards is bought out, how is he a problem next season? How was Gaborik a top line player last year? His less than a PPG pace after a big game in Columbus somehow makes him a top line player? Gaborik was a 2nd liner at best this past year. Same with Richards. Over the hill, broken, done players. Why do you think we got rid of Gaborik? Why do you think there are talks to buy out Richards? How is Nash a bad acquisition? He was one of the key reasons we were even in the playoffs to begin with. .
I believe a lot of this sterns from the fact of Glen Sather's complete inability to evaluate a roster for the long haul. Constant overpaying of FAs like Drury, Richards, Gomez and Redden does not make me feel safe with Sather handling that cap space. I'd much rather use that cap for the best goalie in the league who's been top at his position for the Rangers. Nash is a bad acquistation since he is one of the most overpaid players in the league, pretty simple. Just look at the names that made 7.8mil at the time he signed his contract, completely inexcusable for an above average, non-elite 1st line player.

Quote:
I don't see how you can possibly be OK with paying Hank a cent over 8M.
Because he is the best at his position. Because he was an MVP candidate. Because he has been this team's MVP ever since he stepped into the league. To have the Rangers balk for their only franchise player at 200k more than what Rick Nash makes will make me really test my fandom with this franchise as long as Sather/Gorton/Clark are running the show.


Last edited by Kershaw: 06-08-2013 at 09:53 PM. Reason: face
Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2013, 10:31 PM
  #598
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,595
vCash: 500
Nash above average. ..

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 08:25 AM
  #599
Jonimaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Lund
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
No we wouldn't. Why do people assume this? We have a good core. It's the fact that Richards is shot and the secondary scorers weren't there that damned this team. Complete rebuild? Give me a break.
So which availible players should we bring in that will help us score so much more that it's worth losing Lunqvist?

Jonimaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2013, 11:31 AM
  #600
MGF0723
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 460
vCash: 500
You want to see this team really sink down to nothingness? Dump Lundqvist and everyone will be kicking themselves in the ass after.

MGF0723 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 06:20 PM.

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.