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

[Pete]

57 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

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?

 

 

Well you can't stack and build your team well when you invest in a goalie. There's a budget. Think of suping a car...you can't spend on the engine if you spend double what you should have on tires. 

 

I also find a really strange that the people who are advocating to pay Igor are the same ones complaining about 5v5 offense. You can't fix it if you pay Igor.

 

I'd much rather see the team add to the forward group and shore up the defense and rely less on a goalie. 

[Sharpshooter]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Well you can't stack and build your team well when you invest in a goalie. There's a budget. Think of suping a car...you can't spend on the engine if you spend double what you should have on tires. 

 

I also find a really strange that the people who are advocating to pay Igor are the same ones complaining about 5v5 offense. You can't fix it if you pay Igor.

 

I'd much rather see the team add to the forward group and shore up the defense and rely less on a goalie. 

As good as Igor is, so would I. But, he's getting 8 years, at almost $100 million and we'll have to deal with it. I think it's like a 90% chance it happens.

[Pete]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

As good as Igor is, so would I. But, he's getting 8 years, at almost $100 million and we'll have to deal with it. I think it's like a 90% chance it happens.

That's exactly what's going to happen, and I'm going to hate it, but I'll stop talking about it during the season once the contract is signed. No point in going on about it once pen is to paper, what's done is done and we move on. 

[Br4d]

13 hours 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. 

 

We're probably going to give Laf a short-term deal if he steps up again this season, like 4x7.5 to take him to UFA.  We'll deal with the real deal in 2-3 years when we know where he is headed.  If it's where we want he'll be a $12M a year player at least.

 

The difference between Igor and a $6M replacement is that Laf's deal will be that 4 year thing instead of just locking him up before next season.  If Laf goes to 75-80 pts next season that's fine.  If he explodes it is not.  

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

We're probably going to give Laf a short-term deal if he steps up again this season, like 4x7.5 to take him to UFA.  We'll deal with the real deal in 2-3 years when we know where he is headed.  If it's where we want he'll be a $12M a year player at least.

 

The difference between Igor and a $6M replacement is that Laf's deal will be that 4 year thing instead of just locking him up before next season.  If Laf goes to 75-80 pts next season that's fine.  If he explodes it is not.  

I don't have the energy right now to play Tetris on the deals, it also doesn't change the overarching point that there is not a huge enough difference between a 6 million dollar goalie and a 12 million dollar goalie, so why would you spend 12 million on a goalie? You're paying +100% for +25% Delta. 

Edited September 27 by Pete

[Sharpshooter]

It is a tricky spot for Drury. While yes, it may make more sense to allocate that money around more, Igor is also one of the best goalies in the league, maybe the best right now. Letting him walk is also not the best look either. I would not want to be in his shoes now, or especially in the offseason.

[Br4d]

3 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

It is a tricky spot for Drury. While yes, it may make more sense to allocate that money around more, Igor is also one of the best goalies in the league, maybe the best right now. Letting him walk is also not the best look either. I would not want to be in his shoes now, or especially in the offseason.

 

The Rangers have been a top 8 team with Igor in goal.  If they trade him and then decline a bit (like Florida in 2022-23) the common perception is likely to be that Igor is the missing piece.

 

That's a very tough spot to be in if you're Drury.  This is a franchise that had to write a letter to explain a normal rebuild process.  Not sure we have the internal fortitude to make the Igor decision rationally.

[Pete]

12 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

It is a tricky spot for Drury. While yes, it may make more sense to allocate that money around more, Igor is also one of the best goalies in the league, maybe the best right now. Letting him walk is also not the best look either. I would not want to be in his shoes now, or especially in the offseason.

 

6 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

The Rangers have been a top 8 team with Igor in goal.  If they trade him and then decline a bit (like Florida in 2022-23) the common perception is likely to be that Igor is the missing piece.

 

That's a very tough spot to be in if you're Drury.  This is a franchise that had to write a letter to explain a normal rebuild process.  Not sure we have the internal fortitude to make the Igor decision rationally.

I worked in marketing for a tech company. I was a lead in my department, I never got a review rating lower than "leading" (Best score you could get). I was at the top of my pay band. I was 2 levels down from the CEO. 

 

I also knew that I would never make as much money as a software engineer at the same level. Because they just don't pay as much to marketers as they do to software engineers. 

 

Igor could be the best goalie on the planet, but you're playing a position that does not require that level of investment. 

 

It's like a running back in football. There's just no need to spend on them, and they might go on to other teams and do really well individually, But it's just not the right decision for your team to spend money on that position. 

[jsm7302]

If he gets Draisaitl $$, I'll be the first in line for the fire Drury train; and I really like the guy!!

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

It's like a running back in football. There's just no need to spend on them, and they might go on to other teams and do really well individually, But it's just not the right decision for your team to spend money on that position. 

 

This is because the NFL is pass-happy right now, which allows the teams with the best passers to dominate the league, because everybody is pass-happy.

 

It wasn't so long ago that this was not the case: Drew Brees being the poster boy for great passer whose teams generally underperformed for other reasons.

 

It's a copycat league and so everybody pays the guy who is taking the ball on each snap even if that guy is not good enough to carry the team.

 

[Br4d]

4 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

If he gets Draisaitl $$, I'll be the first in line for the fire Drury train; and I really like the guy!!

 

It's nice to have a 48-year old GM on a team that is knocking on the doorstep.  Hopefully soon we'll be able to see his design not constrained by Gorton decisions made 6 seasons ago.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

This is because the NFL is pass-happy right now, which allows the teams with the best passers to dominate the league, because everybody is pass-happy.

 

It wasn't so long ago that this was not the case: Drew Brees being the poster boy for great passer whose teams generally underperformed for other reasons.

 

It's a copycat league and so everybody pays the guy who is taking the ball on each snap even if that guy is not good enough to carry the team.

 

That's fine, I'm not interested in making this about football. The point stands. You don't overspend on a position just because you have the best player at that position. Because when the difference between "the best" and "good enough" is 2x cash but only .2x on the ice, it's wiser to just get "good enough".

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said:

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?

 

 

Being over-reliant on a goalie is not directly tied to a goalie’s contract though. The Rangers have had Igor at a great cap hit for the last few seasons, with multiple high point getters, and every time the playoffs roll around they remain over-reliant on him to hard carry most games. All it means is no matter how much you give your goalie, the rest of the money has to be used on the right collection of players who buy in and play the right way. Tampa’s done it and Florida’s done it with a high paid goalie. The Rangers just don’t play the right way for Cup winning success, and that’s not something that saving $4 million on a goalie to go throw at a free agent corrects.

Edited September 27 by BrooksBurner

[Br4d]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

That's fine, I'm not interested in making this about football. The point stands. You don't overspend on a position just because you have the best player at that position. Because when the difference between "the best" and "good enough" is 2x cash but only .2x on the ice, it's wiser to just get "good enough".

 

I would disagree with this analysis.  The question is whether the contribution that the player makes is worth the extra premium you need to pay to retain him.

 

It is not easy to get a top 3 player at any position.  The Rangers happen to have had great goalies back-to-back but they also have had long droughts in franchise history where they couldn't find a goalie good enough to win with.  With Benoit Allaire out of the picture, and lets be serious about what "taking a step back" really means, there is no reason to believe the Rangers will have plus goal tending when they let Igor go.

 

So the question becomes at what level is an overpay too much and I don't think we definitively know that answer to that question yet.  Florida overpaid Bob and won the cup.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

All it means is no matter how much you give your goalie, the rest of the money has to be used on the right collection of players who buy in and play the right way.

This is true.

 

But the pool of "the rest of the money" gets much smaller when you are overpaying at a position you don't need to spend on to win. You've pointed at 2 teams who've done it with massive caveats but I can give you 10 teams who've won Cups or been to finals with a mid goalie. 

 

Let's not speak in generalities, speak in specifics. This team, today, would be hard-pressed to attract or retain their talent over the next 3-4 seasons if they paid Igor +$12M. And there is no one coming who is better than who we have sans the outside chance Perrault becomes a superstar.

 

This team, right now, would be making a bad move.

[BrooksBurner]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I would disagree with this analysis.  The question is whether the contribution that the player makes is worth the extra premium you need to pay to retain him.

 

It is not easy to get a top 3 player at any position.  The Rangers happen to have had great goalies back-to-back but they also have had long droughts in franchise history where they couldn't find a goalie good enough to win with.  With Benoit Allaire out of the picture, and lets be serious about what "taking a step back" really means, there is no reason to believe the Rangers will have plus goal tending when they let Igor go.

 

So the question becomes at what level is an overpay too much and I don't think we definitively know that answer to that question yet.  Florida overpaid Bob and won the cup.

Right. It’s PTSD from not winning a Cup with Lundqvist, when the driver behind not winning was that they could not find the high quality talent to out in front of him. Not that they couldn’t afford it on the cap. They didn’t draft it and they couldn’t get it in UFA/trade. Their best two shots were a soft one dimensional scorer in Gaborik, and a playoff choker in Nash (who quite frankly was extremely overrated to boot).

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

So the question becomes at what level is an overpay too much and I don't think we definitively know that answer to that question yet.  Florida overpaid Bob and won the cup.

I'm not engaging in any debate predicted on Florida or Tampa because that argument has been thoroughly rebutted. Y'all are going to need to find another proof point, but I'll save you the time—you won't find one.

 

Quote

I would disagree with this analysis.  The question is whether the contribution that the player makes is worth the extra premium you need to pay to retain him.

You say you disagree but then you repeat what I said about the contribution being worth it. It isn't. It's clear.

 

There is very little difference in the performance of a Igor at $12M and the next best goalie at $6M. Igor had similar playoff GAA to Logan Thompson and Stuart Skinner. He had GSAx similar to Swayman, who Boston won't give 10M to. And if the team was better 5v5, that xG would level out because you wouldn't need your goalie to be the hero.

 

Quote

 

It is not easy to get a top 3 player at any position.  The Rangers happen to have had great goalies back-to-back but they also have had long droughts in franchise history where they couldn't find a goalie good enough to win with.  With Benoit Allaire out of the picture, and lets be serious about what "taking a step back" really means, there is no reason to believe the Rangers will have plus goal tending when they let Igor go.

Allaire isn't out of the picture. He's still there. But if he's out of the picture, he's out of the picture for Igor, too. What happens next time he loses his game like he did just last season?

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Right. It’s PTSD from not winning a Cup with Lundqvist, when the driver behind not winning was that they could not find the high quality talent to out in front of him. Not that they couldn’t afford it on the cap. They didn’t draft it and they couldn’t get it in UFA/trade. Their best two shots were a soft one dimensional scorer in Gaborik, and a playoff choker in Nash (who quite frankly was extremely overrated to boot).

This isn't accurate, it's already been addressed.

Edited September 27 by Pete

[Phil]

15 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

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.

 

Not necessarily. It's two different windows in my estimation. I'm attempting to smooth the bridge as best they can.

 

Best case scenario, they ride his final year out and go for broke with this team, as-is. They use the $6M~ or so they'll have at the deadline to pick up at least one impact RW (Alex Tuch please) and an LD. This is window one. Whatever happens, I'm not paying a goalie $12 million (or double digits), so thanks, but bye. Now comes window two. The money they'll save in not making that financially disastrous decision they will then invest in their own future pillars (Lafreniere, Miller) as well as suitable raises for others. Then, as Panarin comes off the books, they'll open even more cap in which to continue awarding appropriate raises, all while very likely keeping themselves in the running for an impact player anywhere they think they can get one.

 

As to who's in net, literally any mid-tier goalie will due. I'll happily sacrifice some GA positioning for a more balanced skating roster and financial stability/flexibility. Linus Ullmark would be top of my list.

 

Window two, to me, is not slammed shut by not giving a goalie $12 million. Not even remotely. If anything, it's a more balanced approach, because it reallocates those would-be stupidly-allocated dollars into more important positions that are likely to improve the team's 5v5 numbers, thus making them a better, more balanced playoff team. Do they lose the elite advantage they've had in net in the process? Yup, but it's not net loss, because if they make the right decisions, the money they save by not signing Shesterkin then gets reinvested into bolstering a good, but imperfect skater group to be even better. I'll take my chances there ten times out of ten over paying a goalie double digits, ever.

[Br4d]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

Allaire isn't out of the picture. He's still there. But if he's out of the picture, he's out of the picture for Igor, too. What happens next time he loses his game like he did just last season?

 

He was injured last season early in the season and then returned.  This more than adequately explains the mid-season rust before the streak.

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

This isn't accurate, it's already been addressed.

 

Yes, it is accurate. The reasoning behind why they didn't draft top talent does not matter, be it they traded all their high picks away and/or did not hit big enough on any of the picks they did make. The point still remains. They could not find the right top talent that could shoulder the load when needed for the roster. It had nothing to do with affording. They had cap to pay Nash 11% of the cap and Lundqvist 12% at the same time. Nash just sucked when it mattered. They missed, but they were also limited to what top talent was available at the time.

[Pete]

14 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

He was injured last season early in the season and then returned.  This more than adequately explains the mid-season rust before the streak.

Yea, I'm not so sure about that. It was a confidence problem, and it was widely discussed in the media.

[Br4d]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yea, I'm not so sure about that. It was a confidence problem, and it was widely discussed in the media.

 

Well he had his left leg stretched out by a forward crashing the net.  Then he came back fairly quickly after staying in the game he was injured in.  Then he looked tentative for a couple of months.

 

It happens.

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Yes, it is accurate. The reasoning behind why they didn't draft top talent does not matter, be it they traded all their high picks away and/or did not hit big enough on any of the picks they did make. The point still remains. They could not find the right top talent that could shoulder the load when needed for the roster. It had nothing to do with affording. They had cap to pay Nash 11% of the cap and Lundqvist 12% at the same time. Nash just sucked when it mattered. They missed, but they were also limited to what top talent was available at the time.

But it does matter in the context of...This is where we are today. Going back to 2017, these are just the 1st rounders that didn't pan out:

• Liass
• Kravtsov
• Lundkvist
• Kakko

Not to mention those who don't project to be upper-echelon like Othmann and Schneider. They will be good, solid players, but they lack star power. Sounds like a team of Stepan, Callahan, McDonough...Yea they had room for 1 game-breaker in Nash, but that's not enough to win in 2024 just like it wasn't enough in 2014.

 

So you're advocating to go and do that again? That's a no from me, dawg. And are you even advocating for it? Because you said you didn't want to pay Igor either...So what are we doing here?

[BrooksBurner]

15 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Not necessarily. It's two different windows in my estimation. I'm attempting to smooth the bridge as best they can.

 

Best case scenario, they ride his final year out and go for broke with this team, as-is. They use the $6M~ or so they'll have at the deadline to pick up at least one impact RW (Alex Tuch please) and an LD. Whatever happens, I'm not paying a goalie $12 million (or double digits), so bye. They money they'll save in not making that financially disastrous decision they will then invest in their own future pillars (Lafreniere, Miller) as well as suitable raises for others. Then, as Panarin comes off the books, they'll open even more cap in which to continue awarding appropriate raises, all while very likely keeping themselves in the running for an impact player anywhere they think they can get one.

 

As to who's in net, literally any mid-tier goalie will due. I'll happily sacrifice some GA positioning for a more balanced skating roster and financial stability/flexibility. Linus Ullmark would be top of my list.

 

I don't see the significant cap concerns you seem to be worried out with Trouba out + Panarin out + the cap going up to 92+ million, and Shesterkin signed. Kreider's contract will fall off, or be a cheaper vet in 3 years. The money for raises to young kids on 2nd deals will come from eliminated veteran contracts or reduced contracts if they get re-signed. Fox is signed well under his real value for another 4 seasons after this one. Signing Shesterkin is not the death knell of a problem it's being made out to be.

 

Do you remember @josh's famed "danger zone"? That's likely going to be Miller. I wouldn't be concerned that paying an elite goalie is going to cost the team a 6 million dollar 2nd pairing defenseman who is mid in his own end. If that's the kind of thing you're worried about, I can't get on board. Now, if it costs us the extra cap required to land McDavid as a UFA, OK, ya'll would be right, but I wouldn't be putting my eggs in that extremely hopeful basket.