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

Is Henrik really in the driver's seat?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-28-2013, 08:12 PM
  #51
Ail
Kidmograph tho.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKjEi o2 View Post
Hat offense will never improve if we pay our goalie 8M/year. Trade him now for a solid starter on a cheap contract and a young offensive threat.
Where from?

Anaheim has a glut of goalies, but they don't need Henrik. They move a young goalie to fill a need, not to bring in Henrik.

Most of the other promising goalies in the league have been moved recently. Bernier, Bishop, Schneider.

Ail is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 08:43 PM
  #52
Leetch3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKjEi o2 View Post
Hat offense will never improve if we pay our goalie 8M/year. Trade him now for a solid starter on a cheap contract and a young offensive threat.
Bs plenty of teams spend less on forwards then us and they have no problem scoring. The idea that replacing hank with one forward would make us good offensively is laughable

Leetch3 is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 10:43 PM
  #53
SKjEi o2
Registered User
 
SKjEi o2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Country: Nepal
Posts: 187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
Bs plenty of teams spend less on forwards then us and they have no problem scoring. The idea that replacing hank with one forward would make us good offensively is laughable
I never said it would. Are you saying it wouldn't help? We're 28th or something like that in the league in goals/game. Are you honestly telling me we don't need to improve our offense?

SKjEi o2 is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 10:47 PM
  #54
SKjEi o2
Registered User
 
SKjEi o2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Country: Nepal
Posts: 187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
Where from?

Anaheim has a glut of goalies, but they don't need Henrik. They move a young goalie to fill a need, not to bring in Henrik.

Most of the other promising goalies in the league have been moved recently. Bernier, Bishop, Schneider.
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.

SKjEi o2 is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:07 PM
  #55
Hire Sather
Still Good Enough
 
Hire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 25,878
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKjEi o2 View Post
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
So you want to send Hank to a Metro rival?

Comical

Hire Sather is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:09 PM
  #56
Ail
Kidmograph tho.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 25,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKjEi o2 View Post
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
Chicago doesn't need Lundqvist. They just proved that by winning the Cup last year without him.

Is Washington a Henrik away from the Cup finals? I don't think so. If they were, that'd just mean Holtby is not reliable enough to carry them through the playoffs and therefore won't be of any use to the Rangers.

Basically the only team that sees a need for Lundqvist at the deadline is the one who has everything else going right for them except their goaltending, or a team who sees their starter go down right around the deadline. Right now the only team in the league I could even see possibly ponying up at the deadline is St. Louis, and even that's a stretch. They do have superb depth on F and D, but their goaltending is streaky. They have the assets to get him at the deadline.

Other than that, there is no market for him as a pending UFA.

Ail is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:13 PM
  #57
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
So you want to send Hank to a Metro rival?

Comical
Might be getting the better playoff goalie in that deal.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:13 PM
  #58
Kahuna Nanu
Old & Slow NYR
 
Kahuna Nanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Playing video games
Country: United States
Posts: 62,829
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKjEi o2 View Post
Trade Hank to WSH for Holtby+ or to CHI for Crawford+. There are lots of places to send him and even if we don't get the return we were hoping for something is better than nothing.
THis doesn't even make any sense, why would we want Crawford making $6M when Hank will only make about $2M more?

__________________
Kahuna Nanu is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:21 PM
  #59
zuckera1
#35
 
zuckera1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 435
vCash: 500
All you guys throwing around the 8 million/year number are forgetting one thing: he'll want 8 years at that figure. Therefore, do we really want to be paying Hank 8 million when he's 38-40 years old? I don't.

Why not give him a little more on a shorter deal so we're not locked into him for so long? 9 million for 5-6 years. That additional million won't hurt as much in the short term as having an injured, average goaltender making 8 million when he's 38-40

zuckera1 is offline  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:26 PM
  #60
DudMan28
Registered User
 
DudMan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
I don't want to pay Hank for what's he has done in the past. I want to pay him for what he will do in the future.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everything Hank has done for this team. I just don't want Sather to hand him a boatload of money for getting a mediocre team to the playoffs the past few years. Management really needs to sit down and decide, is he really worth this much money for x amount of years moving forward? Or can we find a decent replacement and use that leftover money elsewhere.

DudMan28 is online now  
Old
11-28-2013, 11:26 PM
  #61
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuckera1 View Post
All you guys throwing around the 8 million/year number are forgetting one thing: he'll want 8 years at that figure. Therefore, do we really want to be paying Hank 8 million when he's 38-40 years old? I don't.

Why not give him a little more on a shorter deal so we're not locked into him for so long? 9 million for 5-6 years. That additional million won't hurt as much in the short term as having an injured, average goaltender making 8 million when he's 38-40
I agree to an extent. I certainly don't want to pay a 38 year old Lundqvist an 8-spot. That said, you just can't tie up 9m of cap space with the starting goalie and ice a competitive team unless you're getting exceptional offensive output from guys on ELCs and bridge deals.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 12:46 AM
  #62
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
 
TheTakedown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I agree to an extent. I certainly don't want to pay a 38 year old Lundqvist an 8-spot. That said, you just can't tie up 9m of cap space with the starting goalie and ice a competitive team unless you're getting exceptional offensive output from guys on ELCs and bridge deals.
Sather is good with ELC's and bridge deals...

BUT, he'll need to figure out some sort of way to find offense with this roster.

That said, having Hank right now, and several years into the future will help ease into that transition..

PLUS, lets think.. with how abysmal our offense is, are we really OK with an average goalie? I'd say the answer is no..

Solid goalies only make a few Million $ less than Hank would forseeably make... Fluery makes 5M per year, Crawford $6M, Rinne $7M, Rask $7M... Is $2M additional (worst case scenario, and of course on a 4-6 year term deal, which is realistic considering Hank's age and workload) REALLY going to "cripple" our cap space to acquire scoring forwards? I personally don't think so..
ALso, regarding workload, we don't have Torts as a coach, so we aren't as completely reliant on Hank as we used to be, since AV can trust Talbot with backup/minor starting duties. Something we never had (Biron would average 13-15 games per year... I'd say Talbot is good for at least 20, if not 25 per year)...

Look at this list. All the teams that are solid playoff contenders have a goalie that makes at least $5M per year: http://www.capgeek.com/comparables/?player_id=643

TheTakedown is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 01:10 AM
  #63
aemoreira1981
Registered User
 
aemoreira1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 6,266
vCash: 500
I would hope that the Rangers don't really have to go about 6/45 for Lundqvist (which would be a $7.5M AAV). It would be above what Rinne and Rask make.

aemoreira1981 is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 01:12 AM
  #64
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
 
TheTakedown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemoreira1981 View Post
I would hope that the Rangers don't really have to go about 6/45 for Lundqvist (which would be a $7.5M AAV). It would be above what Rinne and Rask make.
This is only a raise of $750k per year

TheTakedown is online now  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:01 AM
  #65
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Punisher View Post
Talbot gives the Rangers options. I think that the Rangers telling everyone in training camp that Talbot was NHL ready was part of a bigger strategy to let Lundqvist know that he can be replaced, & he could be replaced if push comes to shove. I would like to see Lundqvist back with the Rangers but not at the price of crippling this franchise for years to come. Lundqvist needs to understand this as well.
And why do we assume that he dont? I think 9 for 9 is to much, not that he dont deserve it but the fact that it may cripple the Rangers and i believe Hank understands this as well. With that said and with the impressing start by Talbot i still belive that Hank is this franchise best bet for a cup run.

Siddi is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 03:17 AM
  #66
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Might be getting the better playoff goalie in that deal.
Yeah, Holtby has really outplayed Hank the last couple of years in the playoffs


Last edited by Siddi: 11-29-2013 at 03:22 AM.
Siddi is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 08:37 AM
  #67
SKjEi o2
Registered User
 
SKjEi o2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Country: Nepal
Posts: 187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ailurophile View Post
Chicago doesn't need Lundqvist. They just proved that by winning the Cup last year without him.

Is Washington a Henrik away from the Cup finals? I don't think so. If they were, that'd just mean Holtby is not reliable enough to carry them through the playoffs and therefore won't be of any use to the Rangers.

Basically the only team that sees a need for Lundqvist at the deadline is the one who has everything else going right for them except their goaltending, or a team who sees their starter go down right around the deadline. Right now the only team in the league I could even see possibly ponying up at the deadline is St. Louis, and even that's a stretch. They do have superb depth on F and D, but their goaltending is streaky. They have the assets to get him at the deadline.

Other than that, there is no market for him as a pending UFA.
I can see Pittsburgh being interested too. And Philly depending on how they end up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianBoyle View Post
THis doesn't even make any sense, why would we want Crawford making $6M when Hank will only make about $2M more?
I was just showing that there are deals out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Sather View Post
So you want to send Hank to a Metro rival?

Comical
So you want to avoid just about 1/4 of the league? A deal will never get done with that mentality.

SKjEi o2 is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 08:55 AM
  #68
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddi View Post
Yeah, Holtby has really outplayed Hank the last couple of years in the playoffs
The Rangers may have beaten the Capitals both times but during those playoffs Holtby had a higher save percentage than Hank all while seeing more shots per game than Hank, playing behind a less talented defense than Hank, and playing in a more open system than Hank. It's not an uncontroversial statement, relax with the facepalm.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 09:16 AM
  #69
NYROrtsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
I love Hank, but in a salary cap world, it's probably not the best idea to allocate your resources to the goalie position. You can get good play out of a guy making 6 million less per year and that money can get you 1 or 2 very good players.


Goalie just isn't the most important position...

NYROrtsFan is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 09:32 AM
  #70
JHS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
I'll start by saying that Lundqvist is arguably the best player to have put on the Ranger sweater.

But is he really in as good a position as people make it out to be?

He makes a ton of money, and as an upcoming UFA, the thought has been that he is going to write his own check.

But really, this team has shown it plays arguably as well with a John Doe like Talbot as it does with him.

THe question is this:

Who can write him a high level check without wrecking their own salary structure?

Do any of those teams have a better chance of winning than the team he is on?

Does the team actually do itself a favor by letting Henrik hit UFA and then putting in an offer? Because the number of teams who:
A: Need a goalie
B: Can afford these crazy numbers
C: Can add a 7M+ contract without having to rip their team apart
leaves you with who, exactly, in the market for his UFA services?

Is it worth our cap space to pay him 7M+ when the difference is looking like 1 to 1.5 GAA per game? Does that money go further if you allocate it elsewhere?

I liken this situation to World War One.

All of the best and most experienced military geniuses were taught Cavalry charges.
Then they invented the machine gun (the salary cap)
As a result, the people making the decisions, were working from the old rules
(build from the goal out)
but they failed to realize than those tactics were obsolete.
And the tactics they employed failed terribly.

So, how much can someone reasonably expect to offer him, and who the hell is actually going to step up and do it?

Is this the reason why he appears to be not be quite the player we are used to seeing this year? Does he know it too?

Who would really offer the contract he wants with a better chance to win?

This is really a great post and something I've thought of for a long time. I've come to the conclusion that no goalie is worth 7 or 8 or more million dollars. The rangers problems are not defensive related and largely Hank has benefitted from a system where defense has come first. Case and point, earlier this season, when the rangers attempted an up tempo game where defense was less important. What happened, Hank did not look so good. Now we've all watched him play for years and we know he is a tremendous goalie, but the rangers, as currently set up with defense being important, would be about the same without him.

What's going to take this team beyond where we currently are is several upgrades in the forward core, a legitimate top line center, and one or two more capable defenseman. 8 million per year can buy a lot and, as much as I'd hate to see Hank go, I would not be crushed!

All this said, I'm fairly certain the Rangers will re-sign him and he will finish his career with the Rangers and we will finish .500 each year with maybe one or two nice runs.

JHS is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 09:41 AM
  #71
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The Rangers may have beaten the Capitals both times but during those playoffs Holtby had a higher save percentage than Hank all while seeing more shots per game than Hank, playing behind a less talented defense than Hank, and playing in a more open system than Hank. It's not an uncontroversial statement, relax with the facepalm.
Looking at the 2012-2013 series vs the Caps Hank faced 220 shots while Holtby faced 205. Hank let in 12 goals against Holtbys 16. Not to mention Hanks consecutive shutouts in game 6 & 7.

As you can see from my quick research your "statement" is full of all kinds of wrong.

Siddi is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 09:45 AM
  #72
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddi View Post
Looking at the 2012-2013 series vs the Caps Hank faced 220 shots while Holtby faced 205. Hank let in 12 goals against Holtbys 16. Not to mention Hanks consecutive shutouts in game 6 & 7.

As you can see from my quick research your "statement" is full of all kinds of wrong.
My statement is fine. I'm not just including head to head play. I said "during those playoffs" not "during those two series". I should have been more clear.


Last edited by Crease: 11-29-2013 at 09:52 AM.
Crease is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 10:00 AM
  #73
Siddi
Registered User
 
Siddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I'm not just including head to head play. I said "during those playoffs" not "during those two series". I should have been more clear.
And i should have read your post more carefully.

I still believe Hank is the far better goalie and lets not forget one important aspect of playing for the Rangers, the pressure that comes with putting on the jersey. Do think Holtby could handle that kind of pressure? Greater players than Holtby have crumbled under the pressure playing for the Rangers.

That is why i think the discussion about Hank being traded is severely premature. Sure Talbots been great and all but in Hank we have a proven ELIT goalie and hands down the best goalie post lock out. Once more, i believe Hank is this franschise best bet for a succesfull cup run.

Siddi is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 10:49 AM
  #74
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddi View Post
And i should have read your post more carefully.

I still believe Hank is the far better goalie and lets not forget one important aspect of playing for the Rangers, the pressure that comes with putting on the jersey. Do think Holtby could handle that kind of pressure? Greater players than Holtby have crumbled under the pressure playing for the Rangers.

That is why i think the discussion about Hank being traded is severely premature. Sure Talbots been great and all but in Hank we have a proven ELIT goalie and hands down the best goalie post lock out. Once more, i believe Hank is this franschise best bet for a succesfull cup run.
Good point about whether another goalie would be able to handle the pressure (and the distractions) of New York City. We've seen too many players over the years come in and fall off a cliff for that very reason.

Crease is offline  
Old
11-29-2013, 11:27 AM
  #75
Hunter Gathers
Raise hell and . . .
 
Hunter Gathers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: . . . eat cornbread.
Country: United States
Posts: 98,271
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Hunter Gathers
Quote:
Originally Posted by azaloum90 View Post
This is only a raise of $750k per year
Who gives a **** how much the raise is? He shouldn't be paid more than that.

__________________
"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
My MS Excel crashed so I couldn't watch the game. - ReggieDunlop68
Hunter Gathers is online now  
Closed Thread

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 11:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.