Not Unthinkable: Buying Out Hank

[Long live the King]

So whoever disagrees with your POV is a simpleton a.k.a. moron. Nice going with the name calling there.

 

Just because he’s the best goalie this franchise has ever had, doesnt mean we should suck his dick for all eternity. He got well compensated for his talents and got us nothing other than broken remotes and cracked TV sets. We owe him shit.

And if the mangmt decides to buy him out because some other kid may get us to the promised land, i say bye-bye Henrik, we’ll see you at the HOF inauguration

 

This response prove the point Gravesy was making

[RangersIn7]

Another option is if the mangmnt talks him into retiring. Get him some sort of a position foe couple of years to compensate

 

I think he gets a position, and for more than a couple of years, regardless.

[Ozzy]

I think he gets a position, and for more than a couple of years, regardless.

 

The only position I'd want after making that kinda cabbage for all those years, would be a "69" :rofl:

[Albatrosss]

This response prove the point Gravesy was making

 

That “simpletons” blame his salary for not winning the cup?

[CBrowningPI]

The talent that Georgiev has shown, especially for his age, is very rare. To trade that during a rebuild because you want to be loyal to a veteran player is absurd. Winning games is the bottom line. It's a disservice to a team that's trying to find their identity and gel together. This young Russian tandem is the future and should be the present. Steve Val said if Henrik doesn't think he can play at a high level and help the team win games, he wouldn't want to be in net. The problem seems to be that Hank thinks he can. Having 1 great game does not mean he's got his game back. He should be taking a real good look at the pasture because it awaits.

[RangersIn7]

The only position I'd want after making that kinda cabbage for all those years, would be a "69" :rofl:

 

Doggystyle too

[Sod16]

Another option is if the mangmnt talks him into retiring. Get him some sort of a position foe couple of years to compensate

 

I believe that works out worse cap-wise than a buy out when the player is over 35.

[Drew a Penalty]

I believe that works out worse cap-wise than a buy out when the player is over 35.

 

Only if the deal is signed after they turn 35. Not the case for Lundqvist.

[Gravesy]

So whoever disagrees with your POV is a simpleton a.k.a. moron. Nice going with the name calling there.

 

Just because he’s the best goalie this franchise has ever had, doesnt mean we should suck his dick for all eternity. He got well compensated for his talents and got us nothing other than broken remotes and cracked TV sets. We owe him shit.

And if the mangmt decides to buy him out because some other kid may get us to the promised land, i say bye-bye Henrik, we’ll see you at the HOF inauguration

 

Well, to be fair, I wasn't going for name calling there. I didn't know you held that point of view. So apologies for that.

But I stand by what I said. It's an absurd idea.

I mean, the basis of that argument - that the Rangers, with an inferior goaltender and 3-4m extra cap space, would've won the cup during that span - is the mother of all assumptions. The amount of moving parts in that argument is ridiculous. And then using that wild assumption as an argument to shit on one of the greatest players in franchise history?

Yeah, I'm sorry for the name calling, but that makes absolutely no sense.

 

I certainly agree the Rangers don't have to "suck his dick for all eternity". I also agree that the best solution for the Rangers would probably be to get Lundqvist off the books and platoon the young Russians. If they can get that done in a fitting way I'm all for it.

[Albatrosss]

Well, to be fair, I wasn't going for name calling there. I didn't know you held that point of view. So apologies for that.

But I stand by what I said. It's an absurd idea.

I mean, the basis of that argument - that the Rangers, with an inferior goaltender and 3-4m extra cap space, would've won the cup during that span - is the mother of all assumptions. The amount of moving parts in that argument is ridiculous. And then using that wild assumption as an argument to shit on one of the greatest players in franchise history?

Yeah, I'm sorry for the name calling, but that makes absolutely no sense.

 

I certainly agree the Rangers don't have to "suck his dick for all eternity". I also agree that the best solution for the Rangers would probably be to get Lundqvist off the books and platoon the young Russians. If they can get that done in a fitting way I'm all for it.

For the record i don’t exactly hold that point of view but I look at it as a possibility. We didnt win the cup, so all possibilities of what went wrong are on the table, including overpaid Lundqvist

[RangersIn7]

For the record i don’t exactly hold that point of view but I look at it as a possibility. We didnt win the cup, so all possibilities of what went wrong are on the table, including overpaid Lundqvist

 

I’d argue that they failed to win the Cup because they lacked a premium offensive player in 14 and Zucc getting hurt in 15 as the biggest reasons

[Albatrosss]

Could be. I also think their bottom 6 wasn’t strong enough and didn’t do enough offensively

[Sod16]

We wouldn't have come close to winning the Cup without Hank. Every playoff series that we won was won with him holding on to late one goal leads for a team that did not have the firepower to ever make it easier. His signing was a good signing. He didn't start sagging half way through it like so many other guys with long term contracts (or others who sagged from the start of them). Now whether we want to pass up on a Sheshty-Georgie tandem to honor Hank's last year is another story.

[fletch]

We wouldn't have come close to winning the Cup without Hank. Every playoff series that we won was won with him holding on to late one goal leads for a team that did not have the firepower to ever make it easier. His signing was a good signing. He didn't start sagging half way through it like so many other guys with long term contracts (or others who sagged from the start of them). Now whether we want to pass up on a Sheshty-Georgie tandem to honor Hank's last year is another story.

 

Peak Lundqvist was a top-five goalie, exceptional at his position. But please do check his playoff overtime record, losing 3 OT games in the SCF against the Kings are not an aberration to his playoff record. In 2014, 23 players enabled NYR to win 3 playoff series, and came up short in the SCF. The narrative that no other goalie could have given us a chance to win the Cup, that Lundqvist carried us to that position, is false:deadhorse: so many times I've seen it. If you look at Stanley Cup winning goaltenders through the years, some are all-time greats, some have had solid years, and some are the equivalent of one-hit wonders - they just had an exceptional year and/or were hot in the playoffs. If you look at the Stanley Cup winners, without exception there are solid rosters that played well within the coach's system, and ground through 4 rounds of playoffs. If we had a different goalie from 2012-2015, we probably would not have done as well in the playoffs as we did with Lundqvist - there are few goalies in the league that match him in terms of consistency. But from my eye test, compared to other elite goalies, Lundqvist had a greater tendency to give up a soft goal. So with a different solid goalie, could have had a career year, and carried us to a cup sometime in that 2012-2015 stretch. When we signed Lundqvist to that long-term deal, we simultaneously made some decisions on roster composition and structure, which Torts's style played well to - shotblocking, minimize quality chances against, sacrifice offensive production. In retrospect, Lundqvist has had an exceptional career, and we have many great memories of games in the regular season and playoffs. The Rangers and Lundqvist have had an honorable stretch during his career, and Lundqvist has gotten deserved accolades during the course of his career. He will also have his number retired, and have other recognition events once he has retired. In present and near future, this Rangers squad is coalescing and figuring out how to win on a more regular basis around Quinn. Georgiev has been more consistent in turning in quality starts this season. Management and coaching simply have to figure out how to build toward being a Stanley Cup contender, focusing on the present and the future.

[ThirtyONE]

Just gonna respond to the headline:

 

You can't just buy everyone out. There are penalties. And it's bad business.

[Long live the King]

Peak Lundqvist was a top-five goalie, exceptional at his position. But please do check his playoff overtime record, losing 3 OT games in the SCF against the Kings are not an aberration to his playoff record. In 2014, 23 players enabled NYR to win 3 playoff series, and came up short in the SCF. The narrative that no other goalie could have given us a chance to win the Cup, that Lundqvist carried us to that position, is false:deadhorse: so many times I've seen it. If you look at Stanley Cup winning goaltenders through the years, some are all-time greats, some have had solid years, and some are the equivalent of one-hit wonders - they just had an exceptional year and/or were hot in the playoffs. If you look at the Stanley Cup winners, without exception there are solid rosters that played well within the coach's system, and ground through 4 rounds of playoffs. If we had a different goalie from 2012-2015, we probably would not have done as well in the playoffs as we did with Lundqvist - there are few goalies in the league that match him in terms of consistency. But from my eye test, compared to other elite goalies, Lundqvist had a greater tendency to give up a soft goal. So with a different solid goalie, could have had a career year, and carried us to a cup sometime in that 2012-2015 stretch. When we signed Lundqvist to that long-term deal, we simultaneously made some decisions on roster composition and structure, which Torts's style played well to - shotblocking, minimize quality chances against, sacrifice offensive production. In retrospect, Lundqvist has had an exceptional career, and we have many great memories of games in the regular season and playoffs. The Rangers and Lundqvist have had an honorable stretch during his career, and Lundqvist has gotten deserved accolades during the course of his career. He will also have his number retired, and have other recognition events once he has retired. In present and near future, this Rangers squad is coalescing and figuring out how to win on a more regular basis around Quinn. Georgiev has been more consistent in turning in quality starts this season. Management and coaching simply have to figure out how to build toward being a Stanley Cup contender, focusing on the present and the future.

Stopped reading at check his playoff overtime record. Two of the games against the Kings went into double OT. Is Hank supposed to score the OT goal too?

 

How is Hank in game 7's? How about when the were down 3 games to 1 against Pitt and he stopped 102 out the 105 shots?

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Pete]

Stopped reading at check his playoff overtime record. Two of the games against the Kings went into double OT. Is Hank supposed to score the OT goal too?

 

How is Hank in game 7's? How about when the were down 3 games to 1 against Pitt and he stopped 102 out the 105 shots?

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

There have been as many garbage goals as spectacular saves.

 

That's not a knock, that's just how it is.

 

Unfortunately the garbage has typically been on GWG (Fedorov, Kucherov, Turris) or at key moments.

[RangersIn7]

Could be. I also think their bottom 6 wasn’t strong enough and didn’t do enough offensively

 

That’s true too.

Especially in 11-12 when lost to Devils

 

Bottom pairing that year wasn’t so great either and Torts didn’t play them

 

Would have been interesting to see what that team would have been like if Sauer hadn’t gotten hurt and literally never played again.

[ThirtyONE]

There have been as many garbage goals as spectacular saves.

 

That's not a knock, that's just how it is.

 

Unfortunately the garbage has typically been on GWG (Fedorov, Kucherov, Turris) or at key moments.

 

How do you remember these things? lol. I barely remember these outcomes let alone who scored them.

[Pete]

How do you remember these things? lol. I barely remember these outcomes let alone who scored them.

 

It's easy to remember the nights where my hopes and dreams died.

[Mike]

Talbot wins a couple of games, get rid of Hank. Raanta wins a couple of games, get rid of Hank. Georgiev wins a couple of games, get rid of Hank.

 

What would be different if he was moved 5 years ago? They haven?t done shit with him here. I?m not saying it?s his fault at all, but they?d probably be in a better spot now if he was moved.

[fletch]

Stopped reading at check his playoff overtime record. Two of the games against the Kings went into double OT. Is Hank supposed to score the OT goal too?

 

How is Hank in game 7's? How about when the were down 3 games to 1 against Pitt and he stopped 102 out the 105 shots?

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

That Kings' series was 1-1 in regulation games. Quick had the same situation, and made every OT save until his team scored the GWG in all three OT games. Could have been a different series result if we found 1 or 2 OT wins. We all wish it turned out differently, but that's not what happened.

 

Lundqvist, Henrik: 11-19 all-time in playoff OT.

 

So over the course of Lundqvist's playoff career, the Rangers lost about 2 out of every 3 OT games he was involved in.

 

Roy, Patrick: 39-17

[Long live the King]

That Kings' series was 1-1 in regulation games. Quick had the same situation, and made every OT save until his team scored the GWG in all three OT games. Could have been a different series result if we found 1 or 2 OT wins. We all wish it turned out differently, but that's not what happened.

 

Lundqvist, Henrik: 11-19 all-time in playoff OT.

 

So over the course of Lundqvist's playoff career, the Rangers lost about 2 out of every 3 OT games he was involved in.

 

Roy, Patrick: 39-17

What do these records prove? How many minutes of OT did each play? Just briefly looks at Roy's playoff game log there's like 10+ games he 'won' less than 5 minutes into OT. Did he even see a shot in those games?

 

Who has the best playoff OT SV%? I couldn't find that stat. However Hank is T-14th% (T-6th if you set min. at 50 games, trails only Hasek among goalies with more than 100 playoff games) all-time in playoff SV%, ahead of Roy.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[fletch]

What do these records prove? How many minutes of OT did each play? Just briefly looks at Roy's playoff game log there's like 10+ games he 'won' less than 5 minutes into OT. Did he even see a shot in those games?

 

Who has the best playoff OT SV%? I couldn't find that stat. However Hank is T-14th% (T-6th if you set min. at 50 games, trails only Hasek among goalies with more than 100 playoff games) all-time in playoff SV%, ahead of Roy.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

 

In the 1996 Western Conference semi-finals between the Colorado Avalanche and the Chicago Blackhawks, Jeremy Roenick was stopped by Roy on a break-away during OT in game 4, while apparently being tackled by an Avalanche player. The referees did not call for a penalty shot on the play and the Avalanche won in triple overtime on Joe Sakic's game winning goal. Earlier in game 3, Roenick scored on an unchallenged breakaway to tie the score at 3 and send the game to overtime; the Blackhawks ended up winning the game.

 

After game 4, Roenick told the media "It should have been a penalty shot, there's no doubt about it. I like Patrick's quote that he would've stopped me. I'd just want to know where he was in Game 3, probably getting his jock out of the rafters in the United Center maybe." Roy retorted with his now-famous line,

 

"I can't really hear what Jeremy says, because I've got my two Stanley Cup rings plugging my ears.?

Roy and the Avalanche beat the Blackhawks in 6 games and went on to win the Cup.

 

https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/Patrick_Roy

 

Patrick Roy is a consensus top-5 goalie of all-time, with 4 Stanley Cup rings.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/the-top-5-goalies-of-all-time/c-4709

[Bugg]

Peak Lundqvist was a top-five goalie, exceptional at his position. But please do check his playoff overtime record, losing 3 OT games in the SCF against the Kings are not an aberration to his playoff record. In 2014, 23 players enabled NYR to win 3 playoff series, and came up short in the SCF. The narrative that no other goalie could have given us a chance to win the Cup, that Lundqvist carried us to that position, is false:deadhorse: so many times I've seen it. If you look at Stanley Cup winning goaltenders through the years, some are all-time greats, some have had solid years, and some are the equivalent of one-hit wonders - they just had an exceptional year and/or were hot in the playoffs. If you look at the Stanley Cup winners, without exception there are solid rosters that played well within the coach's system, and ground through 4 rounds of playoffs. If we had a different goalie from 2012-2015, we probably would not have done as well in the playoffs as we did with Lundqvist - there are few goalies in the league that match him in terms of consistency. But from my eye test, compared to other elite goalies, Lundqvist had a greater tendency to give up a soft goal. So with a different solid goalie, could have had a career year, and carried us to a cup sometime in that 2012-2015 stretch. When we signed Lundqvist to that long-term deal, we simultaneously made some decisions on roster composition and structure, which Torts's style played well to - shotblocking, minimize quality chances against, sacrifice offensive production. In retrospect, Lundqvist has had an exceptional career, and we have many great memories of games in the regular season and playoffs. The Rangers and Lundqvist have had an honorable stretch during his career, and Lundqvist has gotten deserved accolades during the course of his career. He will also have his number retired, and have other recognition events once he has retired. In present and near future, this Rangers squad is coalescing and figuring out how to win on a more regular basis around Quinn. Georgiev has been more consistent in turning in quality starts this season. Management and coaching simply have to figure out how to build toward being a Stanley Cup contender, focusing on the present and the future.

 

One example of a pretty good but not HoF goalie; Mike Richter. From Spring 1994 through the World Cup of 1995(he was the MVP of the tournament) , he was excellent. Otherwise, he was pretty much okay to good. He also gave up the infamous 60 wrister vs. the Pens in the 1992 ECF that was a death knell for a good team. Never played in another playoff game after the 1997 ECF.

 

Don't want it to sound nasty, but Lundqvist's time has passed.He is much slower side to side, doesn't get off the ice as quick as once did, his glove was never great nor was his puck handling. He gets outplayed most nights, and the NYR play better in front of Georgiev.