BrooksBurner Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 Then you’re stuck paying him like Lundqvist Not if you pay him long term at the right age. The Rangers got stuck with Lundqvist because they gave him a 7 year deal at 32. Shesterkin will be 25 going on 26 when he starts his contract after an ELC. If he lights it up, give him an 8 year deal to take him to 33-34. At which point you can re-adjust the salary to something more appropriate given age. Also, what's the difference between paying a high end goalie 9M versus paying 2 goalies 4-5M each? Unless you get lucky with ELCs for backups that can play 25-30 quality games, and do that time after time, I'm not sure you save much in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Not if you pay him long term at the right age. The Rangers got stuck with Lundqvist because they gave him a 7 year deal at 32. Shesterkin will be 25 going on 26 when he starts his contract after an ELC. If he lights it up, give him an 8 year deal to take him to 33-34. At which point you can re-adjust the salary to something more appropriate given age. Also, what's the difference between paying a high end goalie 9M versus paying 2 goalies 4-5M each? Unless you get lucky with ELCs for backups that can play 25-30 quality games, and do that time after time, I'm not sure you save much in the long run. Well that's what happened with Lundqvist. He signed a league leading deal at 26. At 32, they saw no goalie in sight better than Lundqvist so they signed him to another max deal because what are they going to do? Roll the dice on another goalie? It was the right thing to do at the time and everyone knew the team would hate the last 2 years of the deal. It's kind of unrealistic to think a player will take less money for the same role, so thinking they can give Shesty a max 2nd deal and then he'll take less in his 3rd (and who knows what goalies are in the system by then). Unless when you say "readjust" you mean how you split that $12 or so million you've set aside for goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Well that's what happened with Lundqvist. He signed a league leading deal at 26. At 32, they saw no goalie in sight better than Lundqvist so they signed him to another max deal because what are they going to do? Roll the dice on another goalie? It was the right thing to do at the time and everyone knew the team would hate the last 2 years of the deal. It's kind of unrealistic to think a player will take less money for the same role, so thinking they can give Shesty a max 2nd deal and then he'll take less in his 3rd (and who knows what goalies are in the system by then). Unless when you say "readjust" you mean how you split that $12 or so million you've set aside for goalies. Lundqvist only signed a 6 year deal to carry him to 32. The Rangers would have been well advised to give him 8 years instead, but I'm not sure and don't remember if contract rules were the same back then where they could have. That would have carried him to the end of the 14-15 season and they could have made a more appropriate decision for his late 30s years, whether that's 1-2 year contracts at a time or what. At 32 he was still at the top of his game and could command what he did as the Rangers happened to be on the precipice of competing for a Cup. They rightfully went for it knowing the backend of that contract might be tough years to get through. It hasn't been that bad though. It's been a graceful decline, and still capable of contributing. By re-adjust, I really mean more being able to evaluate on a 1-2 year basis, or if he (Shesterkin) wants more years than it's the salary that decreases by a good margin. Negotiating power is much less at 34 than 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Lundqvist only signed a 6 year deal to carry him to 32. The Rangers would have been well advised to give him 8 years instead, but I'm not sure and don't remember if contract rules were the same back then where they could have. That would have carried him to the end of the 14-15 season and they could have made a more appropriate decision for his late 30s years, whether that's 1-2 year contracts at a time or what. At 32 he was still at the top of his game and could command what he did as the Rangers happened to be on the precipice of competing for a Cup. They rightfully went for it knowing the backend of that contract might be tough years to get through. It hasn't been that bad though. It's been a graceful decline, and still capable of contributing. By re-adjust, I really mean more being able to evaluate on a 1-2 year basis, or if he (Shesterkin) wants more years than it's the salary that decreases by a good margin. Negotiating power is much less at 34 than 32. Negotiating power also depends on the market and what's coming in the pipeline behind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 If Shestyorkin is a star, keeping him around will cost a bundle “I’ll give you a discount” is not a phrase in the Russian vocabulary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 If Shestyorkin is a star, keeping him around will cost a bundle “I’ll give you a discount” is not a phrase in the Russian vocabulary I wouldn't pay a 34 y.o. goalie to a long term deal anymore, star or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 There's always the factor that an agent would be stupid to have their client hit UFA for the first time at 34. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 There's always the factor that an agent would be stupid to have their client hit UFA for the first time at 34. Many stars never even actually make it to UFA. Regardless, there's ways to get around being locked into paying a goalie high end money until they are 39 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 I wouldn't pay a 34 y.o. goalie to a long term deal anymore, star or not. Who is talking about a 34 year old goalie? You shouldn’t pay anyone big money on a long-term deal starting after age 30 or so ideally. Sometimes though you have to. You hope you get your moneys worth on the front end and don’t get killed too badly on the back end. Hank hasn’t killed the Rangers with his play these last 2 seasons. Nor do I think he will kill them next year either. While his play has declined and his physical ability isn’t quite what it was, his decline has been gradual and moderate, not precipitous and severe. He’s still an above average to good NHL goalie. The cap hit sucks. But they’re in a rebuild, so it doesn’t make a huge difference. His hit isn’t preventing them from really doing anything. It shouldn’t next summer either. Don’t think they’ll be big players for the few big names out there anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Who is talking about a 34 year old goalie? You shouldn?t pay anyone big money on a long-term deal starting after age 30 or so ideally. Sometimes though you have to. You hope you get your moneys worth on the front end and don?t get killed too badly on the back end. Hank hasn?t killed the Rangers with his play these last 2 seasons. Nor do I think he will kill them next year either. While his play has declined and his physical ability isn?t quite what it was, his decline has been gradual and moderate, not precipitous and severe. He?s still an above average to good NHL goalie. The cap hit sucks. But they?re in a rebuild, so it doesn?t make a huge difference. His hit isn?t preventing them from really doing anything. It shouldn?t next summer either. Don?t think they?ll be big players for the few big names out there anyway.Exactly. This is all pie in the sky regarding how to handle Shesty, in the best interest of the team... With no regard for the player on the other end who's going to do what's best for his bank account. This team still plays way too loosey goosey with Hank in there, and way tighter with Georgiev. Hank's GSAA is almost double Geo 6.08 to 3.33, and hdSv% 5 points higher. It's the ldS% that Hank falls short and a perfect example is the waffle to Gudbranson where he completely over committed and the defense let the puck come right through the gut. Hank, on a team with a good defense, is not an anchor. It's unfortunate that Shesty, Geo and Hank are all here at the same time, but buying out Hank is a distant third behind 1. Trade Geo . . . . . 2. Make Shesty wait. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Buyout Hank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Valiquette is on Sirius radio right now embarrassing himself over this and other questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Actually, after going through his stupid analytics that seemingly identify Ranger goalies as the best in the world, he totally redeemed himself with stories about John Brophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 we all knew the last two years of hanks Contract would taste like ass and it does. 1-1/2 years from now however you have Hank, Smith and Staals contract off the books along with 13 million in dead money. my point is reduce hanks load, play the kids and no, i'm not trading Georgiev for a 2nd and a third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 we all knew the last two years of hanks Contract would taste like ass and it does. 1-1/2 years from now however you have Hank, Smith and Staals contract off the books along with 13 million in dead money. my point is reduce hanks load, play the kids and no, I'm not trading Georgiev for a 2nd and a third. Come on Slobby!!! Drink the Kool Aid with me, man!! :rofl: I wanna see Shesty!! He's our future! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 we all knew the last two years of hanks Contract would taste like ass and it does. 1-1/2 years from now however you have Hank, Smith and Staals contract off the books along with 13 million in dead money. my point is reduce hanks load, play the kids and no, i'm not trading Georgiev for a 2nd and a third. Notwithstanding rumors, Gorton has said repeatedly he is not looking to trade Georgiev. Could be a negotiating tactic, but that is what he has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 we all knew the last two years of hanks Contract would taste like ass and it does. 1-1/2 years from now however you have Hank, Smith and Staals contract off the books along with 13 million in dead money. my point is reduce hanks load, play the kids and no, i'm not trading Georgiev for a 2nd and a third. Are you saying carry 3 goalies? I don't think that's a viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 we all knew the last two years of hanks Contract would taste like ass and it does. 1-1/2 years from now however you have Hank, Smith and Staals contract off the books along with 13 million in dead money. my point is reduce hanks load, play the kids and no, i'm not trading Georgiev for a 2nd and a third. Taste like ass is an overstatement Yes, he’s making too much money for the goalie he currently is. But he’s still a quality NHL goalie. Ability and numbers are down, but he’s still competent and well above league average, especially behind a young team, with a 2nd year NHL coach, and playing questionable D in front of him. And the money he costs them right now and his cap hit aren’t getting in the way of anything. As for trading Georgiev, I do agree they should get a 1 for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Are you saying carry 3 goalies? I don't think that's a viable option. Nothing wrong with Igor playing in the K next year. we still have more young D men on the way as well. I know we are in the mix right now but "going for it" this year at the deadline assuming we're in position would be a long term mistake after what they have sold the fanbase on the rebuild. Patience is key now, imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Trading Georgiev has nothing to do with going for it... I don't understand that... And why would Shesty go to the KHL next year? If he does, he's probably not coming back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Trading Georgiev has nothing to do with going for it... I don't understand that... And why would Shesty go to the KHL next year? If he does, he's probably not coming back... Agreed Can’t let it get to a point where he goes back to the K. That would not bode well for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FleshistheFever Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 I suppose it doesnt matter if we lose or not this season. A buyout isnt happening and its clear that Hank needs to be in net every game to maintain his focus. This in-an-out approach just doesnt work for him. I say we play Geogie until he shits the bed 2 games straight. We have a better chance with him in net at the moment and we rarely lose 2 straight. Maybe Hank will get the message and embrace the new backup role. With every loss, his confidence takes a hit. During postgame interviews you can see that glint in his eyes which shows his hands in the air wondering where his game went. It's time, buddy. You look great on pine right now. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 I suppose it doesnt matter if we lose or not this season. A buyout isnt happening and its clear that Hank needs to be in net every game to maintain his focus. This in-an-out approach just doesnt work for him. I say we play Geogie until he shits the bed 2 games straight. We have a better chance with him in net at the moment and we rarely lose 2 straight. Maybe Hank will get the message and embrace the new backup role. With every loss, his confidence takes a hit. During postgame interviews you can see that glint in his eyes which shows his hands in the air wondering where his game went. It's time, buddy. You look great on pine right now. It is what it is. As much as we’d all love another pick super high, especially in this draft, it totally matter if they lose like the last couple of years Taking a step forward this year is important. Honestly, they already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBrowningPI Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 I just noticed in Georgies stats that his record shows 9-5-1 because he had to take the L when he replaced Hank in the third period vs. Boston. His record is still pretty great for a 23 yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 Trading Georgiev has nothing to do with going for it... I don't understand that... And why would Shesty go to the KHL next year? If he does, he's probably not coming back... because i don't want them to get this false sense of stability and cheat the retool. they have done so much right so far and are already ahead of schedule. good things are down the pipe. buying out hank and or staal right now shows me they are again chasing the short term playoff dollars. rather they let those contracts expire of natural causes and have a tremendous amount of financial bullets to apply to the young assets that are deserved of it. i still believe you will see more two goalie systems become invogue in the next 5 years. we are in the position of having an enviable one once hanks' off the books. i'd spend that capital wisely in the event of a trade being the best solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 because i don't want them to get this false sense of stability and cheat the retool. they have done so much right so far and are already ahead of schedule. good things are down the pipe. buying out hank and or staal right now shows me they are again chasing the short term playoff dollars. rather they let those contracts expire of natural causes and have a tremendous amount of financial bullets to apply to the young assets that are deserved of it. i still believe you will see more two goalie systems become invogue in the next 5 years. we are in the position of having an enviable one once hanks' off the books. i'd spend that capital wisely in the event of a trade being the best solution. They won’t be able to keep both Georgiev and Shestyorkin anyway, as one of them will be gone via the expansion draft. As for 2 goalie systems, that only translates in practical terms in today’s NHL to a 2/3 and 1/3 split, at best. And if they’re trading Georgiev, it’s likely not for a “going for it right now” return. It’s pick/prospects they’d likely pursue and get. A futures type deal. Don’t worry yourself on them buying out Hank or Staal. The organization is showing them loyalty. Despite anything else and their desire to play, I don’t think either of those guys don’t realize what they are and why they’re around at this point. They’re both seemingly as ok as one could be with the current arrangement. They might buy out Smith. But even that isn’t a given. I don’t think they want anymore dead space on the books They’re looking forward to be free of that burden after next season as much as we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now