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

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Phil said:

Yup. It's not a necessary evil. It's a choice. You are choosing to make your goalie the highest paid player.

If he comes in at something like 11.5 he won’t be the highest paid player. That label will still be applied to a player who was signed 5 years ago with a much lower max cap, and stinks in the playoffs.

[Phil]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

If he comes in at something like 11.5 he won’t be the highest paid player. That label will still be applied to a player who was signed 5 years ago with a much lower max cap, and stinks in the playoffs.

 

Obviously. But the consensus reporting has been that he wants to be the highest paid Ranger and the highest paid goalie in the NHL, so that means eclipsing 11.5 It's why 12 is the number IMO.

[Ozzy]

Fuck this guy!  I hope the first shot on goal hits him right in the balls!  ...what's worse is that everyone's predicting we're just gonna pay him.  I hope Drury trades his ass, I really do.  If not, let him walk! 

 

Blowing $12 million on a goalie???? 

 

If only we had a recent history of making a goalie the highest paid player on the team......oh, wait a minute!!!

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Ozzy said:

Fuck this guy!  I hope the first shot on goal hits him right in the balls!  ...what's worse is that everyone's predicting we're just gonna pay him.  I hope Drury trades his ass, I really do.  If not, let him walk! 

 

Blowing $12 million on a goalie???? 

 

If only we had a recent history of making a goalie the highest paid player on the team......oh, wait a minute!!!

 

 

You are referring to a team that was in the playoffs nearly every year, and went to the ECF 3x and Finals 1x. The mercenary talent they hired could not get it done - cap was a non-issue.

[Albatrosss]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

You are referring to a team that was in the playoffs nearly every year, and went to the ECF 3x and Finals 1x. The mercenary talent they hired could not get it done - cap was a non-issue.

cap was the issue why they hired mercenary talent.  

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Obviously. But the consensus reporting has been that he wants to be the highest paid Ranger and the highest paid goalie in the NHL, so that means eclipsing 11.5 It's why 12 is the number IMO.

 

Well, he is the best player on the team every year, especially when it matters. You don't get that level of consistency with cheaper goalies.

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

cap was the issue why they hired mercenary talent.  

 

The kind of talent they needed, is not the kind you can just go acquire. They had to choose from what was available during those years, and it wasn't good enough. They didn't miss out on anyone because of cap.

 

I'll continue to hammer that Fox and soon Lafreniere are more talented and highly skilled players than anything the Lundqvist teams had. We need a little more patience...and an assumption that Drury doesn't completely fuck the next window.

Edited October 7 by BrooksBurner

[LindG1000]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

You are referring to a team that was in the playoffs nearly every year, and went to the ECF 3x and Finals 1x. The mercenary talent they hired could not get it done - cap was a non-issue.

 

Let's split hairs on this for a second. We signed Lundqvist to two deals:

 

His first non-ELC deal was 6 years, 41.25m, with an AAV of 6.875M against a 56.7M cap.  12.12% of the cap at a time where the cap was going up by 15%+ a year. On that deal, the Rangers were able to make the ECF twice and the SCF once. 

 

His second deal was 7 years, 59.5M at an AAV of 8.5M against a 69M cap hit. 12.3% of an uncertain cap situation (out of the lockout) - ultimately, Lundqvist was bought out because the cap froze due to COVID (and Shesterkin's arrival). On that deal, we made another ECF.

 

What Shesterkin is asking for is to hold 14.8% of the cap, where the increase is closer to 5% a year until something changes. 

 

These are not the same thing. The "same thing" would be Shesterkin signing at around 10.7M, and even then we'd need to account for less "decay" against the cap.

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

50 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

you have issues with life comprehension. 

Well you have no life, so good for you. 

Edited October 7 by Pete

[Albatrosss]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

Well you have no life, so good for you. 

lol...i wouldnt go there, if I were you

[Ozzy]

I simply won't like the deal that he's asking for.  I also believe we've seen the best of Igor already, and I don't see him being the same goalie even 2-3 years from now. 

 

The bottom line is this in my opinion:

To succeed in the NHL you have to buy wins.

In order buy wins, you have to buy goals.

 

Igor doesn't score goals, he prevents them...fine.  Every other Stanley Cup winning team in the NHL, past and present has won a Stanley Cup without Igor.  To me, he's a luxury we can live without.  If we had a goalie like Helly, Markstrom, or even a guy like Vejmelka, I think we could win.

 

I'm not paying over $9 million for a goalie....sorry Igor!

 

[jsm7302]

27 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Let's split hairs on this for a second. We signed Lundqvist to two deals:

 

His first non-ELC deal was 6 years, 41.25m, with an AAV of 6.875M against a 56.7M cap.  12.12% of the cap at a time where the cap was going up by 15%+ a year. On that deal, the Rangers were able to make the ECF twice and the SCF once. 

 

His second deal was 7 years, 59.5M at an AAV of 8.5M against a 69M cap hit. 12.3% of an uncertain cap situation (out of the lockout) - ultimately, Lundqvist was bought out because the cap froze due to COVID (and Shesterkin's arrival). On that deal, we made another ECF.

 

What Shesterkin is asking for is to hold 14.8% of the cap, where the increase is closer to 5% a year until something changes. 

 

These are not the same thing. The "same thing" would be Shesterkin signing at around 10.7M, and even then we'd need to account for less "decay" against the cap.

 

 

 

 

$10.75 makes him the highest paid goalie. Hard stop.  If that's doesn't make him happy....LET HIM GO.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

lol...i wouldnt go there, if I were you

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, LindG1000 said:

 

Let's split hairs on this for a second. We signed Lundqvist to two deals:

 

His first non-ELC deal was 6 years, 41.25m, with an AAV of 6.875M against a 56.7M cap.  12.12% of the cap at a time where the cap was going up by 15%+ a year. On that deal, the Rangers were able to make the ECF twice and the SCF once. 

 

His second deal was 7 years, 59.5M at an AAV of 8.5M against a 69M cap hit. 12.3% of an uncertain cap situation (out of the lockout) - ultimately, Lundqvist was bought out because the cap froze due to COVID (and Shesterkin's arrival). On that deal, we made another ECF.

 

What Shesterkin is asking for is to hold 14.8% of the cap, where the increase is closer to 5% a year until something changes. 

 

These are not the same thing. The "same thing" would be Shesterkin signing at around 10.7M, and even then we'd need to account for less "decay" against the cap.

 

 

 

 

 

It's all about timing. Lundqvist was 32 years old when his bigger contract started. Shesterkin will be 29. I don't know where the 14.8% of the cap number came from, but his ask is a hair under 13% of the 2025 NHL-projected 92.5 million cap.

 

In any event, the Rangers paid Lundqvist at 32 years old to take a clear last swing for the first 1, 2, maybe 3 years of it. That was the window. They made ECF Game 7 in the first year. They lost to the SC winning Penguins in R1 the 2nd year. The 3rd year 2nd round, but it was clear the team had started to hit an irrecoverable downtrend due to declining top paid talent like Nash, and overpaying too many grunts who became worthless like Staal and Girardi and Brendan Smith. Lundqvist fell off a cliff shortly after at age 35.

 

The circumstances here are different. Shesterkin is 3 years younger. They realistically have about 5 seasons of elite play out of him. During that time, Lafreniere will play out the rest of his 20s. Fox will play out until he is 32. That's the window. I'll be fucking damned if they waste Fox's prime years and Lafreniere's 20s by crossing their fingers on mercenary goalies to save $4-5m.

[jsm7302]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It's all about timing. Lundqvist was 32 years old when his bigger contract started. Shesterkin will be 29. I don't know where the 14.8% of the cap number came from, but his ask is a hair under 13% of the 2025 NHL-projected 92.5 million cap.

 

In any event, the Rangers paid Lundqvist at 32 years old to take a clear last swing for the first 1, 2, maybe 3 years of it. That was the window. They made ECF Game 7 in the first year. They lost to the SC winning Penguins in R1 the 2nd year. The 3rd year 2nd round, but it was clear the team had started to hit an irrecoverable downtrend due to declining top paid talent like Nash, and overpaying too many grunts who became worthless like Staal and Girardi and Brendan Smith. Lundqvist fell off a cliff shortly after at age 35.

 

The circumstances here are different. Shesterkin is 3 years younger. They realistically have about 5 seasons of elite play out of him. During that time, Lafreniere will play out the rest of his 20s. Fox will play out until he is 32. That's the window. I'll be fucking damned if they waste Fox's prime years and Lafreniere's 20s by crossing their fingers on mercenary goalies to save $4-5m.

I get what you're saying but spending that $4-5m on a non stop gap 1st line RW may be money better spent. 

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It's all about timing. Lundqvist was 32 years old when his bigger contract started. Shesterkin will be 29. I don't know where the 14.8% of the cap number came from, but his ask is a hair under 13% of the 2025 NHL-projected 92.5 million cap.

 

In any event, the Rangers paid Lundqvist at 32 years old to take a clear last swing for the first 1, 2, maybe 3 years of it. That was the window. They made ECF Game 7 in the first year. They lost to the SC winning Penguins in R1 the 2nd year. The 3rd year 2nd round, but it was clear the team had started to hit an irrecoverable downtrend due to declining top paid talent like Nash, and overpaying too many grunts who became worthless like Staal and Girardi and Brendan Smith. Lundqvist fell off a cliff shortly after at age 35.

 

The circumstances here are different. Shesterkin is 3 years younger. They realistically have about 5 seasons of elite play out of him. During that time, Lafreniere will play out the rest of his 20s. Fox will play out until he is 32. That's the window. I'll be fucking damned if they waste Fox's prime years and Lafreniere's 20s by crossing their fingers on mercenary goalies to save $4-5m.

Igor isn't likely to get better. Neither is Fox, and if he does it will be negligible from what he is now, Lafreniere likely will get better.

 

But Fox and Laf aren't enough to get you a cup and there's no young cheap talent who will be peaking in the next 5 years. 

 

So where do the reinforcements come from? I'll tell you where they don't come from, investing 14 million in a position that you should only spend 8 or 9 on total.

 

And don't even get me started on Fox's playoffs performances. I don't know how you can solely bring up playoff performances when talking about any player, and then Point to Fox as somebody who's window needs to be maximized. He's as guilty as any of the other players that you complain about faltering in the playoffs. 

 

[BrooksBurner]

13 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

I simply won't like the deal that he's asking for.  I also believe we've seen the best of Igor already, and I don't see him being the same goalie even 2-3 years from now. 

 

The bottom line is this in my opinion:

To succeed in the NHL you have to buy wins.

In order buy wins, you have to buy goals.

 

Igor doesn't score goals, he prevents them...fine.  Every other Stanley Cup winning team in the NHL, past and present has won a Stanley Cup without Igor.  To me, he's a luxury we can live without.  If we had a goalie like Helly, Markstrom, or even a guy like Vejmelka, I think we could win.

 

I'm not paying over $9 million for a goalie....sorry Igor!

 

 

I don't even disagree with the bold on the face of it because his best year was historical, but I disagree with the insinuation that he's going to actively decline or become average so quickly. We may not see him post .935 again, no, but I don't think we've seen his last Vezina and I don't see why he wouldn't be in the conversation for it for the next 6 years or so - barring injury.

Edited October 7 by BrooksBurner

[Ozzy]

6 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I don't even disagree with the bold on the face of it because his best year was historical, but I disagree with the insinuation that he's going to actively decline or become average so quickly. We may not see him post .935 again, no, but I don't think we've seen his last Vezina and I don't see why he wouldn't be in the conversation for it for the next 6 years or so - barring injury.

 

I gotcha my man...you know I love ya to death, but I just can't see going down that same road again.  I know there are some differences with Hank, but I just won't like doing that again.  You have valid points, but I'm gonna stand on the idea that I've seen the best of Igor, and we could open up a world of possibilities without him or Trouba on the payroll after this season.

[Sharpshooter]

He's still well into the prime of his career, although I'd feel better about a long-term deal if he was a couple of years younger, at least.

[4EverRangerFrank]

Igor set the deadline for a deal being today? Did he say no negotiation during the season? In that case get the trade scenarios ready. There’s no sign-n-trade at anything north of $10M. 
 

Igor and Hank are two widely different personalities if he thinks he can become The King of NY…nope, not happening. But that’s not our concern, not hockey-wise. 
 

Get it done at $10M or GTFO. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

22 hours ago, Phil said:

Devoting 12 percent of next season’s salary cap to a goaltender who will be on the bench for 33 percent of the season is tough to swallow, but it’s a necessary evil. Can’t win without goaltending.

How does this argument make sense? Every skater is on the bench for at least 50% of every game and there's many skaters making around or above 12 percent.

 

When it really matters, in the playoffs, the goalie plays 100% of every game. Your best skater at bests plays 50% of every game.

[RichieNextel305]

Jesus fucking Christ Igor.

 

Come back to Earth.

 

Have to imagine he goes to free agency if this is the case.

 

$11 Million should be Drurys high water mark. 

Edited October 8 by RichieNextel305

[LindG1000]

Fine. Then you're playing for your next contract with someone else. If you want more than that, you'd best be winning a few individual trophies. 
 

Like a Vezina and a Conn Smythe. 

[Phil]

Insanity to even offer this much. Absurdity to reject it. I'm struggling to temper what is a developing hatred for this player over this shit.

[RichieNextel305]

I’ve been on the side of that this likely gets done eventually. But to reject $11 Million per year? Why? Because Panarin makes $11.6 and you want to be the highest paid player on the team? Why? You’re setting the mark for goaltenders in NHL history. You want to win, right? But you’re gonna hold the franchise hostage? That is a very fair offer that hits on all cylinders for Igor. It sets the mark for goalies. If that’s not enough, what is?

 

Jesus Christ.

 

This is going to be a distraction.

Edited October 8 by RichieNextel305