Walker Shesterkin Aiming for Historic Contract; Rejects 8-Year/$88M Deal ($11M AAV)

[Phil]

27 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

More specifically, a roster player you don't want to lose. Not just Trouba.

 

Correct. Not just Lindgren, either. I'm actually assuming you are losing both players. This is in addition to both these players. A $12 million Shesterkin means needing to move off, probably, one your middlemen — Kreider (6.5), Chytil (4.4), or possibly not pay a non-zero number of future RFAs like Lafreniere, Miller, Schneider, and Cuylle.

 

It's just fucking ugly. All to keep a goalie who wants to "reset the goalie market" by millions. Get fucked, Igor.

[Phil]

37 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Who?

 

It all depends on how you dice this up. What's your Shesterkin number, $12 million? I don't see a world in which you keep Lafreniere for a penny less than Slavkovsky (7.6), Miller depends a lot on what he does this year, but he's getting at *least* the Rasmus Andersson deal (4.5x6). Cuylle is probably coming in around $2.5 million (Logan O'Connor 2.5x6), and Schneider... I have no idea.

 

The dollars evaporate quickly, and any players you cut out need to be replaced, likely at the free agent level in order to recoup the same level of production. For example, don't tell me "I'm just not keeping Kreider and playing Berard." Same would go for Perreault and Panarin. Maybe long-term these are appropriate replacements, but to expect no immediate drop off is nuts.

[4EverRangerFrank]

I’m all for unlimited income when there are no limits. I’m a salesperson who works entirely on commission so this is part of my constitution. Hockey?

 

It doesn’t work that  way with a CAP. Shesty really want to hand-cuff the team? In a room full of millionaires everyone still looks at the next guy sitting next to him in the pecking order. Their individual benefit might just be compromised by 1 player making outsized money. Why? 
 

Pay Shesty by have to gut roster spots? Replacements not quite replacing the lost talent? Games lost? Impact on your own personal stats? That spells trouble for your own next contract - here or elsewhere. 
 

I’m no Crosby fan but you have to give props about how he’s handled the latest contract. I know, he’s on the way out and Shesty is on the way up. Loose parallels can still be drawn. 
 

For me the bottom line as a fan is, “Get real or get out!” We’d get good returns offloading his salary. Plenty of room for Drury to improve our squad. #WeWantTheCuo

[RangersIn7]

They just can’t go as high as he wants them to go on him and logically have any chance of winning.

 

Its too much money for a goalie 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

 

It all depends on how you dice this up. What's your Shesterkin number, $12 million? I don't see a world in which you keep Lafreniere for a penny less than Slavkovsky (7.6), Miller depends a lot on what he does this year, but he's getting at *least* the Rasmus Andersson deal (4.5x6). Cuylle is probably coming in around $2.5 million (Logan O'Connor 2.5x6), and Schneider... I have no idea.

 

The dollars evaporate quickly, and any players you cut out need to be replaced, likely at the free agent level in order to recoup the same level of production. For example, don't tell me "I'm just not keeping Kreider and playing Berard." Same would go for Perreault and Panarin. Maybe long-term these are appropriate replacements, but to expect no immediate drop off is nuts.

 

A cap crunch only exists depending on what your expectations are for the 2025-2026 season. My expectations would be that any roster spots will be almost exclusively filled by ELC players. Perreault is in. Othmann is in. Berard/Sykora is in. Mancini is in. Rempe re-signed cheap. Edstrom cheap. If Zac Jones has a decent year, re-signed cheap (RFA). There's no cap crunch with $4-8 million of Trouba out. You just can't go spend frivolously in UFA.

 

Schneider is summer of 2026 when Panarin is done. I couldn't be any less concerned about his contract with respect to Shesterkin's contract being a factor.

Edited September 26 by BrooksBurner

[Phil]

27 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

A cap crunch only exists depending on what your expectations are for the 2025-2026 season. My expectations would be that any roster spots will be almost exclusively filled by ELC players. Perreault is in. Othmann is in. Berard/Sykora is in. Mancini is in. Rempe re-signed cheap. Edstrom cheap. If Zac Jones has a decent year, re-signed cheap (RFA). There's no cap crunch with $4-8 million of Trouba out. You just can't go spend frivolously in UFA.

 

Schneider is summer of 2026 when Panarin is done. I couldn't be any less concerned about his contract with respect to Shesterkin's contract being a factor.

 

And how is this making the roster better, or not worse? For a veteran-heavy coach like Laviolette, no less? That's a whole lotta rookie you're adding in, all because you actively support the idea of a double digit goalie. This literally highlights exactly why I find this so unpalatable, by the way. You are operating with near zero margin for error. I don't want to. Even it means increasing the club's GA numbers some.

 

And again, you are subtracting productive players and replacing them with basically rookies and expecting similar results? I get you want off Panarin and can't wait to subtract that cap hit. Great. This isn't about cap hit, exclusively. It's also about what the hell happens to all those points. I don't think you're getting that even by combining all the scoring totals of these players you're relying on.

[BrooksBurner]

30 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

And how is this making the roster better, or not worse? For a veteran-heavy coach like Laviolette, no less? That's a whole lotta rookie you're adding in, all because you actively support the idea of a double digit goalie. This literally highlights exactly why I find this so unpalatable, by the way. You are operating with near zero margin for error. I don't want to. Even it means increasing the club's GA numbers some.

 

And again, you are subtracting productive players and replacing them with basically rookies and expecting similar results? I get you want off Panarin and can't wait to subtract that cap hit. Great. This isn't about cap hit, exclusively. It's also about what the hell happens to all those points. I don't think you're getting that even by combining all the scoring totals of these players you're relying on.

 

Well, first, I never wanted to pay Shesterkin top dollar. My preference was to do what I already said, which was to start making a heavier transition this summer. Trade him and Kreider for boatloads. Acquire potential high cap players and free up cap to handle it at the same time. They didn't do it, and so now I have to re-evaluate based on what their options are now. I'm not sure yet, but I am more amenable to paying him than I was before the summer. If you dump Shesterkin, there better be a reasonable plan/attempt to replace him with an impact forward. If the driver for dumping him is "I need to do this so I can have an extra mid-6 forward or bottom 4 defender around", it's quite simply a bad idea.

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are trying to mix a win now/next year mindset in combination with dumping Shesterkin? I don't really track that. Generally the conversation about investing in a large goalie cap hit is with respect to how much it hampers a team years down the road, in exchange for a higher compete in the immediate next 1-2 years. If they dump him and replace him with a mid goalie and $4 million of wiggle room, do you see that as an immediate Cup winning move? I do not.

[Pete]

This is all overthinking. 

 

There's no reason to spend $12 million for the next 8 years on a position where teams are winning with players making half of that. 

 

It's just not good business sense and almost every other previous goalie contract shows this.

 

I might possibly be tempted to pay him 12 on a two or three year deal. But we all know that's not going to happen. 

Edited September 26 by Pete

[BrooksBurner]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is all overthinking. 

 

There's no reason to spend $12 million for the next 8 years on a position where teams are winning with players making half of that. 

 

It's just not good business sense and almost every other previous goalie contract shows this.

 

I might possibly be tempted to pay him 12 on a two or three year deal. But we all know that's not going to happen. 

And yet teams are also winning while spending heavy at the position. Bob made like 12% of the cap. Vasi was close to the same during their Cup wins. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and it doesn’t matter how many excuses you can come up with on why they won with high paid goalies.

 

Let’s not act like the Rangers are at a crossroads here and have to choose between an elite goalie and keeping an ensemble of young elite skaters together. They aren’t, because they don’t have the latter and don’t project to be at such a crossroad anytime soon. Keeping Shesterkin is a higher probability of pulling a rabbit out of the hat than whatever your non-plan is.

[BrooksBurner]

And by the way, every time a conversation comes up about long term contracts, people here always start talking about how they only care about the first few years in win now mode, and don’t care about the back half. All of a sudden those same people care a lot about years 6-8 of a goalie contract. It’s nonsensical.

Edited September 26 by BrooksBurner

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

And yet teams are also winning while spending heavy at the position. Bob made like 12% of the cap. Vasi was close to the same during their Cup wins. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and it doesn’t matter how many excuses you can come up with on why they won with high paid goalies.

 

Let’s not act like the Rangers are at a crossroads here and have to choose between an elite goalie and keeping an ensemble of young elite skaters together. They aren’t, because they don’t have the latter and don’t project to be at such a crossroad anytime soon. Keeping Shesterkin is a higher probability of pulling a rabbit out of the hat than whatever your non-plan is.

Bob....outsized contributions vs paycheck from 4-5 players.

 

Vasi...LTIR. 

 

The Rangers will need cap space, period. Whether that's for their own talent or free agents. There's no reason to cap strap the team at a position that you don't need to spend on. It's just bad business. 

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

And by the way, every time a conversation comes up about long term contracts, people here always start talking about how they only care about the first few years in win now mode, and don’t care about the back half. All of a sudden those same people care a lot about years 6-8 of a goalie contract. It’s nonsensical.

No, what people say is that GMs only care about the first couple years of the contract. 

 

I've never heard anybody here say that they don't care about long-term contracts. 

 

And again, it's about the position. We already saw what happened with Hank. That's why nobody wants to do it again. 

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

Bob....outsized contributions vs paycheck from 4-5 players.

 

Vasi...LTIR. 

 

The Rangers will need cap space, period. Whether that's for their own talent or free agents. There's no reason to cap strap the team at a position that you don't need to spend on. It's just bad business. 

Right, so as I said, no matter how many excuses you want to make, it doesn’t matter. Teams have found a way to make it work. Why can’t the Rangers? Call it an extra stroke of luck if you want. They already need a bunch with this roster and prospect pipeline.

 

Quote

And again, it's about the position. We already saw what happened with Hank. That's why nobody wants to do it again. 

Hank was a pube hair away from a Cup. Getting talent for him was about poor drafting and development of top talent to put around him, and poor choices in free agency to acquire it, not about money. They had all the mid depth pieces in the world but they didn’t have a Fox nor a Lafreniere if he pans out as expected.

[Pete]

31 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Right, so as I said, no matter how many excuses you want to make, it doesn’t matter. Teams have found a way to make it work. Why can’t the Rangers? Call it an extra stroke of luck if you want. They already need a bunch with this roster and prospect pipeline.

So your plan is to depend on the luck? And then you're saying that other posters have non plans?

 

Quote

Hank was a pube hair away from a Cup. Getting talent for him was about poor drafting and development of top talent to put around him, and poor choices in free agency to acquire it, not about money. They had all the mid depth pieces in the world but they didn’t have a Fox nor a Lafreniere if he pans out as expected.

The Rangers went to the finals year before they re-signed Lundqvist. 

 

In order for a player to have helped while the Rangers were peaking, they would have needed to be drafted around 2011. They drafted Miller and Skjei with their firsts in '11 and '12 respectively. They didn't have another first round pick until 2017 where they took Lias and Chytil, and at that point they were already rebuilding. 

 

Before that they only picked above the third round twice. 

 

I don't know that you can really blame poor drafting and development in that situation. Their first picks were in the third round which is always a lottery ticket to even make the NHL, and they used their 3rds on guys like Duclair and Buch and a 4th on Shesty himself. 

 

But that's neither here nor there. The point I was making is that we've seen what teams look like when they're built around the goalie being the best player, and it doesn't work, and if you pay Shesty It's just doing the same thing over again and hoping for a different result.

Edited September 27 by Pete

[Scott]

26 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Right, so as I said, no matter how many excuses you want to make, it doesn’t matter. Teams have found a way to make it work. Why can’t the Rangers? Call it an extra stroke of luck if you want. They already need a bunch with this roster and prospect pipeline.

 

Hank was a pube hair away from a Cup. Getting talent for him was about poor drafting and development of top talent to put around him, and poor choices in free agency to acquire it, not about money. They had all the mid depth pieces in the world but they didn’t have a Fox nor a Lafreniere if he pans out as expected.

Top forward picks underperforming over the last handful of seasons (if they have performed at all) has negatively impacted and has played a huge role in where they find themselves today.  If they would have gotten great or even v. good value on the performance while guys were on their ELC's and then under some team control on their comp after the ELC's the conversation could be  very different now and the last couple of seasons may have played out different. They could of possibly squeaked out a cup and  the level of desperation would be much less. For now though imo we're in a no win situation and will probably take a step or 2 at least away from that window that was open. I still don't see any scenario where they run the season with Igor then let him walk. 

 

In addition to that if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. 

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Pete said:

So your plan is to depend on the luck? And then you're saying that other posters have non plans?

 

The Rangers went to the finals year before they re-signed Lundqvist. 

 

In order for a player to have helped while the Rangers were peaking, they would have needed to be drafted around 2011. They drafted Miller and Skjei with their firsts in '11 and '12 respectively. They didn't have another first round pick until 2017 where they took Lias and Chytil, and at that point they were already rebuilding. 

 

Before that they only picked above the third round twice. 

 

I don't know that you can really blame poor drafting and development in that situation. Their first picks were in the third round which is always a lottery ticket to even make the NHL, and they used their 3rds on guys like Duclair and Buch and a 4th on Shesty himself. 

 

But that's neither here nor there. The point I was making is that we've seen what teams look like when they're built around the goalie being the best player, and it doesn't work, and if you pay Shesty It's just doing the same thing over again and hoping for a different result.

I said you could call it a stroke of luck. I wouldn’t. Those teams used strategy and made good roster choices. Something that is pretty unfamiliar for the franchise we root for, but we can only hope that changes.

 

I don’t care who you want to call the best player on the team. I do know Fox and possibly Lafreniere soon is better than any pieces Lundqvist ever had, so using him as an example is inapplicable. Different times.

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I said you could call it a stroke of luck. I wouldn’t. Those teams used strategy and made good roster choices. Something that is pretty unfamiliar for the franchise we root for, but we can only hope that changes.

Getting 60 goals from a 6 million dollar player is lucky, no matter how you slice it. So is getting 40 goals from a 4 million player. So is Forsling on a league minimum deal.

 

Quote

I don’t care who you want to call the best player on the team. I do know Fox and possibly Lafreniere soon is better than any pieces Lundqvist ever had, so using him as an example is inapplicable. Different times.

Lundqvist played on teams with Rick Nash and Marian Gaborik. The example of "You rarely win when you make your goalie the highest paid player on the team and build around him trying to win with goaltending" Will always be applicable. 

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

Getting 60 goals from a 6 million dollar player is lucky, no matter how you slice it. So is getting 40 goals from a 4 million player. So is Forsling on a league minimum deal.

 

Regular season production doesn't care about the playoffs, and the conversation isn't whether a team with a high paid goalie can have a nice regular season. It's if they can win a Cup. Reinhart was not 60 goal scoring quality in the playoffs by a long shot. More like 35.

 

Quote

Lundqvist played on teams with Rick Nash and Marian Gaborik. The example of "You rarely win when you make your goalie the highest paid player on the team and build around him trying to win with goaltending" Will always be applicable. 

 

Fox is a better player than both. I'd be willing to bet Lafreniere will be too. So your only example from a Rangers point-of-view is still not applicable.

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Regular season production doesn't care about the playoffs, and the conversation isn't whether a team with a high paid goalie can have a nice regular season. It's if they can win a Cup. Reinhart was not 60 goal scoring quality in the playoffs by a long shot. More like 35.

 

You're moving the goal posts, but not really interested in going further. Suffice to say the Bob argument is nullified. 

 

Quote

Fox is a better player than both. I'd be willing to bet Lafreniere will be too. So your only example from a Rangers point-of-view is still not applicable.

Yea I dunno about that. Both of those statements are a reach, especially the Lafreniere note. Until he is better, that's not an argument. 

 

It's pretty applicable. But even if it wasn't... It's like the fourth thing on a list of five reasons not to pay Shesterkin.

 

The biggest reason to extend him at his ego-fueled number is PR. That's not a good enough reason. 

 

They say you should buy the shittiest house on the best block...signing Shesty at close to $13M would be owning a mansion in Camden....and paying Short Hills pricing. 

Edited September 27 by Pete

[Keirik]

Since the lockout, here are the starting goalies save % of the winning cup team. Goes from 05/06 season first til most recent st bottom

 

.920

.922

.930

.908

.910

.940

.946

.922

.911

.924

.923

.924/.937 Fleury and Murray split duties

.922

.914

.927

.937

.902

.932

.906

 

  Just figured it would add to the conversation for some context. 

[BrooksBurner]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

You're moving the goal posts, but not really interested in going further. Suffice to say the Bob argument is nullified. 

 

I haven't moved anything. The conversation has always been focused on if a team with a high paid goalie can win a Cup. I'm not sure why you are shifting goal posts into what a guy's production is during the regular season. That doesn't make any sense. You're focused too much on regular season boxcar stats, but  it does explain why you have a hard time being critical of Panarin's postseason production. When goals in November translate to Cups in June, you'll have a point.

[Pete]

9 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I haven't moved anything. The conversation has always been focused on if a team with a high paid goalie can win a Cup. I'm not sure why you are shifting goal posts into what a guy's production is during the regular season. That doesn't make any sense. You're focused too much on regular season boxcar stats, but  it does explain why you have a hard time being critical of Panarin's postseason production. When goals in November translate to Cups in June, you'll have a point.

This is nowhere near as complicated as you're trying to make it out to be. 

 

Florida was able to pay Bob more than they should have paid for that position because they had underpaid (wildly underpaid) players at 4 or 5 other positions.

 

Tampa was able to pay Vas because they had Kuch on LTIR.

 

Those are the only proof points ever offered up when we talk about paying goalies double digits and winning Stanley cups, and those are caveats the size of the Grand canyon. 

 

Teams who overspend on the goaltending position rarely win cups. 

 

It's really just that simple.

Edited September 27 by Pete

[jsm7302]

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is nowhere near as complicated as you're trying to make it out to be. 

 

Florida was able to pay Bob more than they should have paid for that position because they had underpaid players at 4 or 5 other positions.

 

Tampa was able to pay Vas because they had Kuch on LTIR.

 

Those are the only proof points ever offered up when we talk about paying goalies double digits and winning Stanley cups, and those are caveats the size of the Grand canyon. 

 

Teams who overspend on the goaltending position rarely win cups. 

 

It's really just that simple.

It is like any other statistic or statement; there are and will be outliers but the vast majority is the rule. Most teams that overpay goalies do not have the success we are seeking. What kind of culture goes on in a locker room where a guy sits there and says he wants to be the highest paid Ranger of all time? I can't buy into it and don't think the team should either. The fact that they have publicly stated they are willing to go beyond Prices landmark deal is gross in itself just from a roster building standpoint.

 

As far as the draft pick argument goes, our picks have taken a long time to marinate and be productive sans Fox. But we havent gotten overproduction for their ELC's. They seem to start to perform during contract years and one year before expiration. 

[Sharpshooter]

Again, it's the Rangers over-reliance on goaltending that's probably going to burn them again as it did with the Lundqvist contract. Yeah, Colorado and Vegas were able to win with goalies not making a lot, but they were also stacked, extremely well-built teams. The Rangers aren't as really well built or as talented as those. They also get much, much better production from their young stars, or are truly stars. Plus, looking at Colorado winning with Keumper, I always felt their system was very goalie friendly anyway. I think they make Georgiev look better than he really is, perhaps because they give him enough support where he really doesn't have to be that great most of the time. Would you still trust him to lead you to a Cup?

 

 

[Pete]

25 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

It is like any other statistic or statement; there are and will be outliers but the vast majority is the rule. Most teams that overpay goalies do not have the success we are seeking. What kind of culture goes on in a locker room where a guy sits there and says he wants to be the highest paid Ranger of all time? I can't buy into it and don't think the team should either. The fact that they have publicly stated they are willing to go beyond Prices landmark deal is gross in itself just from a roster building standpoint.

 

As far as the draft pick argument goes, our picks have taken a long time to marinate and be productive sans Fox. But we havent gotten overproduction for their ELC's. They seem to start to perform during contract years and one year before expiration. 

Yea. It's pretty cut and dried from my POV. Can you hit the lottery? Sure, you can, but if that's your retirement plan you're in trouble. 

 

And even if we weren't speaking in hypotheticals, this team, today, would be hard pressed to field a competitive team if they were paying him that much money. We are lucky enough to have the benefit of seeing very good team this in front of him, while he's playing his best, and it's still not enough. Imagine what happens when there are lesser players in front of him... And to this point nobody has shown that the Rangers can field a highly competitive team while their paying him that much. The only argument has been "Florida did", an argument which has been nullified. 

 

The egocentric benchmarks Igor is setting also turn me off.