HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Lundqvist to be best paid player?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2013, 12:56 PM
  #26
RidinwitdaKING
Registered User
 
RidinwitdaKING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
I hope its in the 8M for 5 Year range... He is 31

RidinwitdaKING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:01 PM
  #27
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,626
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Tough to quantify, but wouldnt you say that Lundqvist is consistently the most important goaltender corresponding to his team's success?

In other words, guys like Rask and Quick have a much better team in front of them on any given night. And the reason those teams are better ain't because they have a million extra dollars in cap space.
And I'm sure Sather would gladly use Quick's contract as a comparable for Lundqvist's next one.

I think Lundqvist can make a compelling case to be the highest paid goaltender, and I think the Rangers should expect that. But the highest by ~20%?

By the way, 4 of the teams with the 10 highest goaltender cap-hits made the playoffs last season. 2 had home ice in the first round.

__________________
Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:16 PM
  #28
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardsRngrs View Post
I hope its in the 8M for 5 Year range... He is 31
Don't forget he'll be 32.5 before any contract extension begins next fall.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:30 PM
  #29
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
And I'm sure Sather would gladly use Quick's contract as a comparable for Lundqvist's next one.

I think Lundqvist can make a compelling case to be the highest paid goaltender, and I think the Rangers should expect that. But the highest by ~20%?

By the way, 4 of the teams with the 10 highest goaltender cap-hits made the playoffs last season. 2 had home ice in the first round.
Im admittedly jaded by the notion that Glen Sather would not be able to improve the team with the cap space he could potentially save on a cheaper Lundqvist deal. Can you blame me?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:33 PM
  #30
startainfection
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 6,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I just may.

It would be a dick move on his part to demand that.

No goalie in the league will be making more than 7.5 until 17-18

What need is there for Lundqvist to demand being an 8 per year guy?

That's a selfish *****-type person in my opinion.
because the is the best goalie in the league and is consistently a vezina candidate every single year despite that award usually having different nominees every single season

startainfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:43 PM
  #31
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
The Bruins signed Tukka Rask to eight years, $7 million per, at age 26...the Preds sign Pekka Rinne to seven years, $7 million per, at age 30...the Kings sign Jamie Quick to ten years, $5.8 million per, at age 26.

Hank will be 32 when his next contact begins. It would not be prudent to give him more years and more per year than those contracts.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:44 PM
  #32
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,626
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im admittedly jaded by the notion that Glen Sather would not be able to improve the team with the cap space he could potentially save on a cheaper Lundqvist deal. Can you blame me?
I have little confidence in Sather too, but shelling out more money than required/deserved because why not isn't my ideal business model.

I think any GM, from Mike Milbury to Ken Holland, could build a better team with $63 million than $61 million.

And Sather's almost 70, hopefully a 7-8 year deal will be on some other GM's cap space for most of the deal.

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 01:49 PM
  #33
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,738
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I have little confidence in Sather too, but shelling out more money than required/deserved because why not isn't my ideal business model.

I think any GM, from Mike Milbury to Ken Holland, could build a better team with $63 million than $61 million.

And Sather's almost 70, hopefully a 7-8 year deal will be on some other GM's cap space for most of the deal.
Im generally not about overpaying for past performances, but if there was ever an exception to that rule for the Rangers, it'd be Lundqvist. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that theres any singular player more valuable for his team in the entire league.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:04 PM
  #34
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
He's an elite player? One of the best in the game? Nash makes 7.8, Hank is more important, shouldn't he be the highest paid on the team if he wants it?
I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

7.875 makes him the highest paid player at his position for the next 7 years.

Why is that a problem?

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:15 PM
  #35
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Ha.

No goaltender is more important to his team's success than Lundqvist, so, I think it gives him every right to ask for $8M per. If you're going to let him walk over a $125K (or let him walk in general), you might as well tear the whole team down and start from scratch.

A lot of you guys are too young to remember and/or understand what a Ranger team with no goaltending looks like. It ain't pretty.
Going to be 45 in a few days.

Don't lump me into that group.

The Rangers haven't gone to long a time where we haven't had good to great goaltending.

early 80's to 86 when Beezer arrived. and the short period between Richer and Hank

In the last 40+ years the Rangers have had 7 years without good to great goaltending.

I personally believe if your goalie in your best and highest paid player, then you have structured your team incorrectly. A goalie in the 5-15 range in terms of overall standings will save the team (in this case) upwards of 3+ million.

That money can be better used on providing a deeper offence or a better defence that will make the goalie look better than he really is.

I think Lundqvist is going to go down as the Rangers best goalie EVER, but i also believe it's a mistake to lock that kind of coin into that position.

That's my opinion.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:21 PM
  #36
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
The Bruins signed Tukka Rask to eight years, $7 million per, at age 26...the Preds sign Pekka Rinne to seven years, $7 million per, at age 30...the Kings sign Jamie Quick to ten years, $5.8 million per, at age 26.

Hank will be 32 when his next contact begins. It would not be prudent to give him more years and more per year than those contracts.
to add.

Quick - 10 years at 58 million.
Bryzy - 9 years at 51 million
Rask - 8 years at 56 million
Rinne - 7 years at 49 million.

Why is 8 years at 60 million a problem here?

Where is the downside here for Lundqvist?

This is where I have issues with players. They become problems because they let their ego's get in the way of what is best for the team.

Lundqvist is going to be hurting at 7.5 per? He NEEDS to be at 8 per?

hogwash.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:22 PM
  #37
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,626
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
to add.

Quick - 10 years at 58 million.
Bryzy - 9 years at 51 million
Rask - 8 years at 56 million
Rinne - 7 years at 49 million.

Why is 8 years at 60 million a problem here?

Where is the downside here for Lundqvist?

This is where I have issues with players. They become problems because they let their ego's get in the way of what is best for the team.

Lundqvist is going to be hurting at 7.5 per? He NEEDS to be at 8 per?

hogwash.
Latrell Sprewell struggled to feed his kids at $8 million.

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:29 PM
  #38
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Latrell Sprewell struggled to feed his kids at $8 million.
Mike Modano couldn't feed his dog at 5 million.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:32 PM
  #39
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,626
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Quick - 10 years at 58 million.
Bryzy - 9 years at 51 million
Rask - 8 years at 56 million
Rinne - 7 years at 49 million.
Also worth noting, the Rangers would likely be willing to front-load Lundqvist's contract in way's Rask's, Rinne's and Quick's aren't.

Rask's highest salary year is $7.5M.
Quick's and Rinne's are $7M.

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:41 PM
  #40
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
This is where I have issues with players. They become problems because they let their ego's get in the way of what is best for the team.

Lundqvist is going to be hurting at 7.5 per? He NEEDS to be at 8 per?

hogwash.
To be fair, the numbers that have been thrown around are just speculation from the media. Hank deserves to be the highest paid goalie in the league and he will be. Right now, no goalie in the league has a cap hit higher than 7 mil. And no goalie in the league will make more than 7 mil in salary next year.

Rask makes 6 mil next year and 7.5 mil per for the 4 years after that, before the salary drops back down for the final 3 years of the deal.

Henrik is making 5.125 mil next year. Give him 7 years 52.5 mil. 7.5 per year. That's fair for both sides IMO.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:44 PM
  #41
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

7.875 makes him the highest paid player at his position for the next 7 years.

Why is that a problem?
I just don't see how 125K makes a big difference. Hes the best player on the team, he should be paid like it

Lundsanity30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:49 PM
  #42
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
To be fair, the numbers that have been thrown around are just speculation from the media. Hank deserves to be the highest paid goalie in the league and he will be. Right now, no goalie in the league has a cap hit higher than 7 mil. And no goalie in the league will make more than 7 mil in salary next year.

Rask makes 6 mil next year and 7.5 mil per for the 4 years after that, before the salary drops back down for the final 3 years of the deal.

Henrik is making 5.125 mil next year. Give him 7 years 52.5 mil. 7.5 per year. That's fair for both sides IMO.
don't disagree.

I'd even be willing to go the 8th year and round the total to 60.

I just don't see the justification of making him the teams highest paid player.

At the end of the day this is still a TEAM game and guys need to know that within that structure, if you want to win and win consistently, then you negotiate to the point where you are satisfied about your standing amongst your peers.

Best player at his position? 7.5 per takes care of that.

Elile level player? Being the highest paid player at his position takes care of that as well.

Seems very insecure to also want to make sure you are the highest paid guy on the team. Insecure and childish.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:52 PM
  #43
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
I just don't see how 125K makes a big difference. Hes the best player on the team, he should be paid like it
Why is getting paid like the best player at his position not enough?

7.5 per takes care of that.

7.875 ALSO takes care of being the highest paid guy on the team. Why that's important is beyond my understanding.

I'd give him the 7.875 per, but even THAT is pushing it.

8 or better per year is absurd.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:52 PM
  #44
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
I just don't see how 125K makes a big difference. Hes the best player on the team, he should be paid like it
Nash was not signed by the Rangers, his contract was signed when Nash was 26, not 32, and he's overpaid. His contract should not be used for comparison.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:52 PM
  #45
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Nash was not signed by the Rangers, his contract was signed when Nash was 26, not 32, and he's overpaid. His contract should not be used for comparison.
But but but....he's the highest paid player on the team....

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:53 PM
  #46
ecemleafs
Registered User
 
ecemleafs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
saying our best player and longest serving player is immature and childish for wanting to be the best payed player on the team is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing ive ever read on hfboards.

ecemleafs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 02:56 PM
  #47
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
But but but....he's the highest paid player on the team....
Only because no other team (including Columbus) wanted Nash's contract on their books.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 03:01 PM
  #48
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,075
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecemleafs View Post
saying our best player and longest serving player is immature and childish for wanting to be the best payed player on the team is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing ive ever read on hfboards.
So, he should be compensated for being here longer than anyone else? There's monetary value in that?

He's the best player at his position. Why is 7.5 not enough?

To me, it's ridiculous to want to be the highest paid guy on the team. If I'm the best at my position and paid accordingly, my position on the salary scale on my team is irrelevant.

I'm the best at what I do. Pay me as such. The Rangers will. Still doesn't have to mean he becomes the highest paid guy on the team.

don't see the logic in that.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 03:06 PM
  #49
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,626
vCash: 659
Rick Nash's contract expires when he's 34. If Lundqvist will take a contract that expires when he's 34, I'm sure the Rangers would be more than willing to make him their highest paid player. Otherwise it shouldn't be comparable.

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2013, 03:12 PM
  #50
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Rick Nash's contract expires when he's 34. If Lundqvist will take a contract that expires when he's 34, I'm sure the Rangers would be more than willing to make him their highest paid player. Otherwise it shouldn't be comparable.

Jersey Girl 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 11:02 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.