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

Lundqvist to be best paid player?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2013, 12:13 PM
  #126
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Unless we see drastic offensive growth from Kreider, Hagelin, Miller we are going to be worse off offensively in 2014 than we have been in the last few years.

I'm not sure that we should be relying on those guys along with Kristo and Fast to provide secondary scoring at the NHL Level that we were not gettign from more established NHL players that were playing their position.

there's alot of reaching going on there.

Maybe Vanek isn't the guy, maybe you split that cap hit on Setoguchi and Downie. Or, if he makes it to UFA, you go after a younger guy like Kessel and shift Nash to LW

Until the younger guys show that theya re ready and capable of taking over a scoring role, I'm not sure we should pencil them in to those roles.
More established guys like Powe, Asham and Pyatt? The kids can't be any worse offensively. Kessel is going to get as much or more than Vanek.

The point is, we have the money to make it work and still bring in a vet or two, depending on how much we want to spend. We have a year before we need to figure it out. We'll see where the kids are and evaluate then.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 12:16 PM
  #127
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,823
vCash: 130
Quick was the Kings best player, they seemed to do ok...

Aren't there simpler ways to obtain $2M in space? Like Biron, Powe, Pyatt, Asham, etc.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 12:19 PM
  #128
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,360
vCash: 500
Lets see what happens this year with a more offensive minded coach before we write off our offense huh? torts was definitely part of the problem

Lundsanity30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 12:19 PM
  #129
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,250
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
And Boston proved you don't need a forward superstar. There is no set formula to winning.
never said that it required one.

However, using one outlier doesn't really prove anything now does it.

Carolina - E. Staal
Anaheim - Teemu Selanne
Detroit - Datsyuk, Zetterberg
Pittsburgh - Sid and Malkin
Chicago - Toews and Kane
Boston - outlier
Kings - another outlier although Kopitar coudl be considered elite, but I'll give you that.
Chicago - Toews, Kane and Hossa (still elite)

Post 04-05 lockout.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 12:29 PM
  #130
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,250
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
Quick was the Kings best player, they seemed to do ok...

Aren't there simpler ways to obtain $2M in space? Like Biron, Powe, Pyatt, Asham, etc.
Quick was the kings best player in the PO's.

Kopitar, it could be argued, was during the Reg. Season.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:17 PM
  #131
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
We let Hank walk - 6.875 off the books.
Buy out Richards - 6.66 off the books.
Cap increases 70 million.

Sign Kessel at 7 per

Sign Stepan long term at 4.5
Sign Girardi long term at 5.5
Sign Callahan long term at 5.25

Derek Stepan C $4,500,000.00
Rick Nash LW $7,800,000.00
Phil Kessel RW $7,000,000.00
Derick Brassard C $4,000,000.00
Ryan Callahan RW $5,250,000.00
Chris Kreider LW $1,500,000.00
Carl Hagelin LW $2,250,000.00
JT Miller C $1,250,000.00
Derek Dorsett RW $1,650,000.00
Mats Zuccarello RW $1,500,000.00
Oscar Lindberg C $760,000.00
Jasper Fast LW $900,000.00
Danny Kristo LW $1,500,000.00



Defenceman
Dan Girardi D $5,500,000.00
Ryan McDonagh D $4,700,000.00
Michael Del Zotto D $4,000,000.00
Marc Staal D $3,975,000.00
John Moore D $2,000,000.00
Dylan McIlrath D $1,300,000.00
Justin Falk D $1,250,000.00


Goalie
Corey Crawford G $5,500,000.00
Martin Biron G $1,500,000.00

All of these are doable.

Not much of a change to the team seeing as most here think we're OK up front and the lack of scoring was all systemic.

Kessel to much of a reach for you? take the 7 and split that amongst Setoguchi and Downie. Both are proven 20 goal guys with speed and fiestiness

Crawford has shown that while not an elite level goalie, he can and will make important saves.

Its my opinion and I don't care if anyone shares it.

The salary structure of the team with the goalie position taking upwards of 15% of the total cap number is going to be a hinderance to becoming a team capable of winning one Stanley Cup, let alone multiple cups

If your goalie is your best player night in and night out then you have a serious personel problem. That problem is compounded when that goalie is the teams highest paid player to boot.
Doesnt take an accountant to figure out that the Richards buyout happening and the cap increasing has zero to do with Lundqvist.

You want to erase Lundqvist's 8-ish million dollar hit and give Corey Crawford $5.5M. A big downgrade.

Im sure that $2.5M and losing Lundqvist is whats going to turn this team from pretender to contender.

Won't even get into how I think your planned team isnt any better than the current roster.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:22 PM
  #132
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,894
vCash: 500
There is no set formula for winning the cup. Every year, people jump to the conclusion that all you need to do to win is be exactly like the last team that won. It almost never works, both because the logic is faulty and because nobody is going to a build a team that outplays the Hawks for example (or any recent winner) at their own game over one offseason.

If there's any trend that leads to success, it's having players that perform far above their contracts, whether they're on ELCs, or are just breaking out after signing a smaller contract a year or two before. That is a HUGE asset, and having a few guys like that gives a team a huge leg-up when the playoffs begin. With any luck, one or more of our current prospects will be able to do that, whether its CK, Lindberg or Fast playing solid upfront, or McI playing well on the backend. Or, perhaps a guy like Hagelin or McDonagh will develop the ability to score and end up playing far above their worth as defined this offseason. That's going to help the team win. Spending 2 million on someone other than Hank isn't going to be the difference. Depth is important, sure, but players who overperform based on their money are far, far more important IMO and pinching pennys on Hank isn't going to help the team get more of those players.

haveandare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:41 PM
  #133
Ilovemymum
recreational MD
 
Ilovemymum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 852
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
There is no set formula for winning the cup. Every year, people jump to the conclusion that all you need to do to win is be exactly like the last team that won. It almost never works, both because the logic is faulty and because nobody is going to a build a team that outplays the Hawks for example (or any recent winner) at their own game over one offseason.

If there's any trend that leads to success, it's having players that perform far above their contracts, whether they're on ELCs, or are just breaking out after signing a smaller contract a year or two before. That is a HUGE asset, and having a few guys like that gives a team a huge leg-up when the playoffs begin. With any luck, one or more of our current prospects will be able to do that, whether its CK, Lindberg or Fast playing solid upfront, or McI playing well on the backend. Or, perhaps a guy like Hagelin or McDonagh will develop the ability to score and end up playing far above their worth as defined this offseason. That's going to help the team win. Spending 2 million on someone other than Hank isn't going to be the difference. Depth is important, sure, but players who overperform based on their money are far, far more important IMO and pinching pennys on Hank isn't going to help the team get more of those players.
Seems resonable the whole post, that the common denominator seems to be getting players to play above their value. Doesn't really kill the argument though that it's easier to make a 3 million forward play like one, than make a 1 million guy play like a three million one. But Your point is that it's hardly enough?

Ilovemymum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:50 PM
  #134
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,430
vCash: 500
Take it with a grain of salt, but there's rumors going around in my town (Basking Ridge, NJ) that Lundqvist just bought a house here. Doubt he'd do that if he wasn't planning on resigning here.

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:54 PM
  #135
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,250
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Doesnt take an accountant to figure out that the Richards buyout happening and the cap increasing has zero to do with Lundqvist.

You want to erase Lundqvist's 8-ish million dollar hit and give Corey Crawford $5.5M. A big downgrade.

Im sure that $2.5M and losing Lundqvist is whats going to turn this team from pretender to contender.

Won't even get into how I think your planned team isnt any better than the current roster.
No duh it's a downgrade. Any goalie not named Lundqvist is a down grade.

I am of the belief, and 6 of the last 8 cup winning goalies agrees, that you do not need an elite level goalie to win a cup.

I believe we have one of the better defensive groups in the NHL. It's because of that that I am confident on taking the step back from Hank to Crawford.

While you attribute all of our medicore success to Hank, I attribute the LACK of significant success to our inability to score consistently.

I would gladly take the 2.5 million is savings and apply that towards addressing what has been the teams achillies heel the last few seasons.

If a team is able to score regularly both at ES and on the PP, the need to rely on the goalie to steal games is no longer there.

Lundqvist, as good as he is, has shown time and again that he is un-able to carry the team through the PO's.

He shouldn't have to.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:59 PM
  #136
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,542
vCash: 500
Just as a thing, but every goalie who has won a Cup since the lockout has played like an elite goalie in the playoffs. So, who do you think is more likely to put up that kind of play? Henrik Lundqvist or Corey Crawford?

Lundqvist has also played like the elite goalie that he is in the playoffs. His team just hasn't lived up to his play.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 01:59 PM
  #137
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
No duh it's a downgrade. Any goalie not named Lundqvist is a down grade.

I am of the belief, and 6 of the last 8 cup winning goalies agrees, that you do not need an elite level goalie to win a cup.

I believe we have one of the better defensive groups in the NHL. It's because of that that I am confident on taking the step back from Hank to Crawford.

While you attribute all of our medicore success to Hank, I attribute the LACK of significant success to our inability to score consistently.

I would gladly take the 2.5 million is savings and apply that towards addressing what has been the teams achillies heel the last few seasons.

If a team is able to score regularly both at ES and on the PP, the need to rely on the goalie to steal games is no longer there.

Lundqvist, as good as he is, has shown time and again that he is un-able to carry the team through the PO's.

He shouldn't have to.
I still cant believe you think $2.5M solves the Rangers' scoring problems. Thats incredible.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:03 PM
  #138
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Just as a thing, but every goalie who has won a Cup since the lockout has played like an elite goalie in the playoffs. So, who do you think is more likely to put up that kind of play? Henrik Lundqvist or Corey Crawford?

Lundqvist has also played like the elite goalie that he is in the playoffs. His team just hasn't lived up to his play.
Who cares man? Think about the $2.5M we could use to sign Steve Downie.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:05 PM
  #139
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,542
vCash: 500
I'm still surprised when you and I agree on something BRB.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:10 PM
  #140
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,360
vCash: 500
The Rangers best 2 players are Lundqvist and Nash. They should be paid as such, then build the rest of the team around them.

Lundsanity30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:20 PM
  #141
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,048
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundsanity30 View Post
The Rangers best 2 players are Lundqvist and Nash. They should be paid as such, then build the rest of the team around them.
I don't think anyone is debating that Lundqvist should be at least the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

__________________


Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:24 PM
  #142
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I don't think anyone is debating that Lundqvist should be at least the 2nd highest paid player on the team.
All in all, I think "you cant have your goalie be your top paid player" is a weak argument.

I think the argument against having your 2 best players making $16M+ yearly is a much better point.

If theres a post lockout cup winning trend, its that most teams have received elite production from lesser paid sources. I can't picture the Rangers ever getting to that point.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:26 PM
  #143
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I'm still surprised when you and I agree on something BRB.
Its nothing against you. I suppose Im naturally combative.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:29 PM
  #144
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,360
vCash: 500
16M might be tied up in 2 players, but it's at least 2 different positions.

Lundsanity30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:29 PM
  #145
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,048
vCash: 659
If Lundqvist has a legitimate offer from another team that he wants the Rangers to match, you'd have to think long and hard about almost any offer because life without him appears pretty bleak. (If it was Buffalo or Winnipeg, I'd consider calling his bluff.)

But right now, I don't think he has any intention of leaving, so I don't think it makes any sense to break all precedence to get him locked up 10 months before his contract's up.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:30 PM
  #146
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilovemymum View Post
Seems resonable the whole post, that the common denominator seems to be getting players to play above their value. Doesn't really kill the argument though that it's easier to make a 3 million forward play like one, than make a 1 million guy play like a three million one. But Your point is that it's hardly enough?
My point is that the idea that teams don't win with elite goalies isn't validated by the fact that 6/8 recent winners didn't have elite goalies. It's a correlation/causation thing in my opinion. The real causal link between those teams and their success is players playing above their value. Giving Hank what he deserves/wants isn't going to be the thing that holds this team back. It'll be lack of players playing over their value, or surplus of players playing under their value (Richards being the most obvious). Saving 2 million on Hank or not isn't going to be a huge deal. His value to the team is above even the highest numbers being thrown around. The types of players who play above their value are usually drafted or stolen from a team that has soured on them for silly reasons via trade (like McD). 2 mill in capspace saved from Hank at the risk of losing him isn't going to make a lick of difference IMO.

haveandare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 02:38 PM
  #147
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,048
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
All in all, I think "you cant have your goalie be your top paid player" is a weak argument.
Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I think the argument against having your 2 best players making $16M+ yearly is a much better point.
That's a meh for me. I don't think mistakes in the past should affect future negotiations (and I personally don't feel Nash was a mistake). The only reason not to sign any player, IMO, is if his asking price is greater than what you think his value in use will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
If theres a post lockout cup winning trend, its that most teams have received elite production from lesser paid sources. I can't picture the Rangers ever getting to that point.
They have with Stepan, MDZ, Girardi etc. but those will be short lived.

Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 03:25 PM
  #148
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,250
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I still cant believe you think $2.5M solves the Rangers' scoring problems. Thats incredible.
And I still cant beliebve that you think tying that kind of cap space into your goalie is a smart thing regardless of how good he is.

He's been able to steal a round or two, but because of the significant defencies else where coughscoringcough we have been bounced time and again.

And for those that say there is no set way to win, I don't disagree, but looking up and down at the SC winners/losers and Conference final opponents that went home, the goalies CONSISTENTLY have not been one of the three highest paid players on their respective teams.

But you all know better. We're going to buck that trend.

We're going to do what no other team had the sense to do. We're going to be the team that changes the dynamics of salary structure throughout the NHL



I'll bet you a $1.00 we do not win a cup with Hank being the highest paid goalie.

ONE DOLLAR

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 03:41 PM
  #149
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
And I still cant beliebve that you think tying that kind of cap space into your goalie is a smart thing regardless of how good he is.

He's been able to steal a round or two, but because of the significant defencies else where coughscoringcough we have been bounced time and again.

And for those that say there is no set way to win, I don't disagree, but looking up and down at the SC winners/losers and Conference final opponents that went home, the goalies CONSISTENTLY have not been one of the three highest paid players on their respective teams.

But you all know better. We're going to buck that trend.

We're going to do what no other team had the sense to do. We're going to be the team that changes the dynamics of salary structure throughout the NHL



I'll bet you a $1.00 we do not win a cup with Hank being the highest paid goalie.

ONE DOLLAR
You are arguing 2 different things and trying to meld them together, and its making little sense.

We are all frustrated about the offense. Everyone wants it to improve. Sane people realize that $2.5M isn't the magic bullet that will improve scoring. And as a bonus, under your plan, the Rangers lose their best player.

And no, I won't take your bet. The Rangers have 1 cup in the last 73 years, so Ill play the percentages on that one. But I'll tell you this, this reason they likely won't win a cup isn't because Lundqvist is their highest paid player.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2013, 03:42 PM
  #150
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 5,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
And I still cant beliebve that you think tying that kind of cap space into your goalie is a smart thing regardless of how good he is.

He's been able to steal a round or two, but because of the significant defencies else where coughscoringcough we have been bounced time and again.

And for those that say there is no set way to win, I don't disagree, but looking up and down at the SC winners/losers and Conference final opponents that went home, the goalies CONSISTENTLY have not been one of the three highest paid players on their respective teams.

But you all know better. We're going to buck that trend.

We're going to do what no other team had the sense to do. We're going to be the team that changes the dynamics of salary structure throughout the NHL



I'll bet you a $1.00 we do not win a cup with Hank being the highest paid goalie.

ONE DOLLAR
At the risk of sounding too idealistic, none of those teams had Hank. It's not about changing the dynamics of salary structure, it's a question of whether or not this particular player is so good that the difference in salary structure from other teams will be negated by the difference of skill/performance between he and those other goalies.

haveandare is online now   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 02:25 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.