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

[Ozzy]

I'm actually really happy to hear he rejected it!!!  

 

 

[Flynn]

We've seen this movie before- That's an absolute aircraft carrier sized boat anchor of a contract. 

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, Blue Heaven said:

I'm riding it out at this point.  Win the Cup you get your $12.5M, you don't win the Cup.....adios amigo....Sign and trade since the Rangers are the only team that can give him 8 years.  Better prove it and put the team on your back.  Look at Pete Alonso, did shit all year, probably lost millions b/c of his performance.  One HR last week is not going to regain the millions lost unless he goes out and takes this team to the World Series.

 

Correct approach. We offered you well over market. You rejected it. We're putting a pin in this and we'll try again later. Maybe he wants to talk mid-season. Maybe not. If not, no problem. Go play. Go win, if you can. We'll re-asses next summer when we'll have a better idea of what the market looks like.

 

If he still won't play ball, maybe Adin Hill or Logan Thompson go to market. Maybe some other options are available. We'll see.

[Pete]

Aiden Hill makes $4.9 and is 12-6-0 in 19 games with a goals against average of 2.09 and a save percentage of .932 in the playoffs in his career....Oh, and he won a Cup.

 

Jeremy Swayman just signed for 8ish and his GSAx last post season dwarfed Igor's.

 

Corey Crawford won 2 Cups making $6M against the cap, so let's adust for inflation to +8M.

 

Bananas to pay a goalie over $11M. 

 

It's  just  bad  business 

Edited October 8 by Pete

[LindG1000]

7 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

And only one of them lived up to their contract, the one we keep on reminding ourselves to «not do again», although it was never the problem. Staal and Girardi at 5m+ when they played like 3rd pair D’s and Nash making almost 8m while playing as a 3rd line shutdown guy were the problem.

 

Kinda like Panarin making 11.6m to be a perimeter middle 6 guy in the playoffs and Trouba making 8m to be an idiot is the problem now.

I want to be clear about this before I go in.

 

I love Henrik Lundqvist. Irrationally. I think he is the greatest Ranger of all time in many ways. I credit him exclusively for rekindling my love of hockey and the New York Rangers after the Dark Ages. My son is in part named after him. So when I say this, I need you to understand that this is not from malice, but from fact. 

 

He did not live up to that contract. And unfortunately, it was not close. 

 

Let's define "living up to the contract" as "being a top 5 goalie". That should be fair for being the top paid goalie, followed by a top paid goalie.

 

In 2014-15 - 8th in GAA, 10th in Sv%, 8th in shutouts. In the playoffs, he was a monster and top5 in most categories of any importance. I'll give him this year.

2015-16 - 25th in GAA, 14th in Sv%, 10th in shutouts. Still good, but not even top 10 here. He got absolutely shelled in the playoffs - finishing with an atrocious .867 sv% and a 4.39 GAA (good for 24th and dead last respectively)

2016-17 -  33rd in Sv%, 35th in GAA. Antii Raanta significantly outperformed him (.12% better on sv, .52 on GAA). But playoff Henrik was back - a .927 and a 2.25. This would be the last taste of "elite Henrik" we get.

2017-18 - The rebuild begins, and Hank rides that train. 56th in GAA (2.92), 36th in sv%

 

2 more years, no playoffs in either (we won't count the bubble. In both years, he was a 3+ GAA and a mid 900 sv. We paid 8.5 million dollars a year for what amounted to "low-mid range starter" for most of those seasons.

 

 

 

[Blue Heaven]

41 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Would like to think this is more negotiation. Really think about the teams he'd be willing to play for, places with significant Russian communities; Florida teams, Vegas, LA teams, Dallas, Chicago and Detroit. If he's all about $ he isn't going to Canada. Among those teams, how many are gonna bust their cap for a goalie, or even can? Both Florida teams(who each have Cup winning Gs, if older, already)  and Vegas pull shenanigans every year at the end of the season to get under the cap. Vegas won a Cup with a nobody G too.  Don't pretend to know what the others' caps and goalie situations  are in depth. But looks  like there isn't much of a market. 

 

I hate the cap, reason number 4,531. 

IMO, Utah would be the best place for him to land.  Up and coming team w/ no goalie, Owner will want to make a splash, got Logan Cooley, Lawson Crouse, and Barrett Hayton that they can maybe pry 1 or 2 of them away plus pick(s).  

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

3 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

I want to be clear about this before I go in.

 

I love Henrik Lundqvist. Irrationally. I think he is the greatest Ranger of all time in many ways. I credit him exclusively for rekindling my love of hockey and the New York Rangers after the Dark Ages. My son is in part named after him. So when I say this, I need you to understand that this is not from malice, but from fact. 

 

He did not live up to that contract. And unfortunately, it was not close. 

 

Let's define "living up to the contract" as "being a top 5 goalie". That should be fair for being the top paid goalie, followed by a top paid goalie.

 

In 2014-15 - 8th in GAA, 10th in Sv%, 8th in shutouts. In the playoffs, he was a monster and top5 in most categories of any importance. I'll give him this year.

2015-16 - 25th in GAA, 14th in Sv%, 10th in shutouts. Still good, but not even top 10 here. He got absolutely shelled in the playoffs - finishing with an atrocious .867 sv% and a 4.39 GAA (good for 24th and dead last respectively)

2016-17 -  33rd in Sv%, 35th in GAA. Antii Raanta significantly outperformed him (.12% better on sv, .52 on GAA). But playoff Henrik was back - a .927 and a 2.25. This would be the last taste of "elite Henrik" we get.

2017-18 - The rebuild begins, and Hank rides that train. 56th in GAA (2.92), 36th in sv%

 

2 more years, no playoffs in either (we won't count the bubble. In both years, he was a 3+ GAA and a mid 900 sv. We paid 8.5 million dollars a year for what amounted to "low-mid range starter" for most of those seasons.

 

 

 

You’re right, I actually thought he signed the contract before they made the finals in 14, which would’ve made it significantly better, but still not great.

 

Luckily Igor is 3 years younger then Hank was when he signed, so I don’t fear him having such a quick drop off. He’s got atleast 4-5 elite years left in him.

 

And the biggest difference between now and when Hank signed is the pipeline in the organization and the potential of a young core growing with Igor (Fox, Miller/Schneider, Laf, othmann, perrault). We didn’t even have a Cuylle during the end of Hank’s time.

 

I’m not overly excited about giving Igor 11m+ but I don’t really see a good alternative. If the solution is to sign a «good goalie» at 4-6m and then use the rest on re-signing our RFA’s and maybe enough for a middle 6/middle pair D I’m having a really hard time seeing that as an upgrade.

[Mistercosmic]

Read the news and started researching, which goalies will also be free agents next summer. Goodbye Shesty. 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Hank started more games per season than Shesterkin does.  Shesterkin is averaging roughly 55 games per season the last 3 years.  Hank played in over 60 games 5 seasons and over 70 in 4 other seasons.

[LindG1000]

Just now, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

You’re right, I actually thought he signed the contract before they made the finals in 14, which would’ve made it significantly better, but still not great.

 

Luckily Igor is 3 years younger then Hank was when he signed, so I don’t fear him having such a quick drop off. He’s got atleast 4-5 elite years left in him.

 

And the biggest difference between now and when Hank signed is the pipeline in the organization and the potential of a young core growing with Igor (Fox, Miller/Schneider, Laf, othmann, perrault). We didn’t even have a Cuylle during the end of Hank’s time.

 

I’m not overly excited about giving Igor 11m+ but I don’t really see a good alternative. If the solution is to sign a «good goalie» at 4-6m and then use the rest on re-signing our RFA’s and maybe enough for a middle 6/middle pair D I’m having a really hard time seeing that as an upgrade.

 

I might reframe the question. There is ALWAYS a competent starter available. Not a great one, mind you, but the "will get you a 2.6 and .910" guys are always there. 

 

Do you think you get further with Igor Shesterkin and our current LD depth or with, say, Logan Thompson and Shea Theodore? Are we better with Igor and our current RW depth, or with Adin Hill and Nik Ehlers?

 

The problem is that the gap between a 910 and a 920 goalie isn't the 7m Shesterkiin thinks it is.

[Jdog99]

1 hour ago, torontonyr said:

I just wish we could trade him. Losing him for nothing is gonna hurt.

 

why can't we?

 

i get this is an all in season, but i'm at least curious what kind of haul he would bring back right now.

 

And...you can't quite rule out Quick playing at a #1 level for one last hoorah.

Edited October 8 by Jdog99

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

why can't we?

 

i get this is an all in season, but i'm at least curious what kind of haul he would bring back right now.

 

And...you can't quite rule out Quick playing at a #1 level for one last hoorah.

 

Because it would cripple their ability to win in a critical year. Losing him for nothing is significantly more palatable than trading him now ahead of what is arguably their Last Dance season. You can easily sabotage the entire year by doing that. Keeping him for the year at least gives them every chance to go deep again.

 

I get that every player has asset value, but the idea that all players must be liquidated for whatever that value might be is just inherently wrong. The point of this all is to win games, not win the Most Stocked Cupboard award.

[Jdog99]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

Because it would cripple their ability to win in a critical year. Losing him for nothing is significantly more palatable than trading him now ahead of what is arguably their Last Dance season. You can easily sabotage the entire year by doing that. Keeping him for the year at least gives them every chance to go deep again.

 

I will say this...to turn that kind of dough and term down, Igor is clearly confident that he can play out of his mind this season.

 

Impressive. But just not smart from a risk management perspective.

[BrooksBurner]

55 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Kinda like Panarin making 11.6m to be a perimeter middle 6 guy in the playoffs and Trouba making 8m to be an idiot is the problem now.

 

This is the crux of it. There's a cap problem, but it's not Shesterkin, and if he signs it very likely won't be a Shesterkin cap problem until he's 35. We have 3 players who cost $28 million and they accomplish next to nothing in the playoffs. Panarin, Trouba, Zibanejad. These are the guys to blame. The first 2 guys are the ones the cap space will come from to mold the next window.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Kinda like Panarin making 11.6m to be a perimeter middle 6 guy in the playoffs and Trouba making 8m to be an idiot is the problem now.

 

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

This is the crux of it. There's a cap problem, but it's not Shesterkin, and if he signs it very likely won't be a Shesterkin cap problem until he's 35. We have 3 players who cost $28 million and they accomplish next to nothing in the playoffs. Panarin, Trouba, Zibanejad. These are the guys to blame. The first 2 guys are the ones the cap space will come from to mold the next window.

 

Sure, if you operate in a world completely devoid of context.

 

1. You still need to replace Panarin and Trouba. This isn't some magical net gain by subtracting either or both.

2. Shesterkin made $5 and change while those two make what they do. Even if you subtract both, you're still more than doubling what Shesterkin will now make, which, by default, limits your ability to address my first point.

 

So yeah, it's a Shesterkin problem, because he wants to be paid millions more than his own peers. I'd rather sign Adin Hill to 7x7 than Shesterkin to 12x8 because the FIVE MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS you save can actually go to improving the roster, especially if you're also going to walk away from a 100-point winger in this process.

[Ozzy]

"Those aren't Boo's you're hearing from the crowd.....Oh wait!!!  Yes....Yes they are!"

 

Let Igor go play with fucking Devonte Adams!  LOL

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

 

 

Sure, if you operate in a world completely devoid of context.

 

1. You still need to replace Panarin and Trouba. This isn't some magical net gain by subtracting either or both.

2. Shesterkin made $5 and change while those two make what they do. Even if you subtract both, you're still more than doubling what Shesterkin will now make, which, by default, limits your ability to address my first point.

 

So yeah, it's a Shesterkin problem, because he wants to be paid millions more than his own peers. I'd rather sign Adin Hill to 7x7 than Shesterkin to 12x8 because the FIVE MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS you save can actually go to improving the roster, especially if you're also going to walk away from a 100-point winger in this process.

 

You cannot waste near a third of the cap on players who don't perform up to the necessary standard when it matters. No amount of context is changing that.

 

They don't need a magical net goals and points gain throughout the regular season. It is not that black and white. They could score 20 less goals as a team and be a better team. The goal isn't to stat pad on the powerplay against the bad teams of the world in December. It's to be a more cohesive team capable of skating with, and defending against, quality playoff teams. Florida went from a round 1 exit team scoring 340 goals in a year, to 268 goals scored last year and a Cup. This isn't fantasy hockey.

[Ozzy]

21 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Because it would cripple their ability to win in a critical year. Losing him for nothing is significantly more palatable than trading him now ahead of what is arguably their Last Dance season. You can easily sabotage the entire year by doing that. Keeping him for the year at least gives them every chance to go deep again.

 

I get that every player has asset value, but the idea that all players must be liquidated for whatever that value might be is just inherently wrong. The point of this all is to win games, not win the Most Stocked Cupboard award.

 

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

You cannot waste near a third of the cap on players who don't perform up to the necessary standard when it matters. No amount of context is changing that.

 

They don't need a magical net goals and points gain throughout the regular season. It is not that black and white. They could score 20 less goals as a team and be a better team. The goal isn't to stat pad on the powerplay against the bad teams of the world in December. It's to be a more cohesive team capable of skating with, and defending against, quality playoff teams. Florida went from a round 1 exit team scoring 340 goals in a year, to 268 goals scored last year and a Cup. This isn't fantasy hockey.

 

Correct. But the math still has to math. This is still a Shesterkin problem because his ask exacerbates the issues we agree on. They're not good enough 5v5, rely too heavily on goaltending and special teams, so the solution is pay the goalie we agree is NOT enough to win with, 140% more so we have even less money to address replacing the known skater problems?

[Pete]

42 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

The problem is that the gap between a 910 and a 920 goalie isn't the 7m Shesterkiin thinks it is.

This is the entire crux of the situation in a nutshell. 

[Pete]

9 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Correct. But the math still has to math. This is still a Shesterkin problem because his ask exacerbates the issues we agree on. They're not good enough 5v5, rely too heavily on goaltending and special teams, so the solution is pay the goalie we agree is NOT enough to win with, 140% more so we have even less money to address replacing the known skater problems?

Agree with this too. 

 

You can't complain that the team relies too much on goaltending and then advocate that the goalie is the highest paid player on the team in the same breath. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Correct. But the math still has to math. This is still a Shesterkin problem because his ask exacerbates the issues we agree on. They're not good enough 5v5, rely too heavily on goaltending and special teams, so the solution is pay the goalie we agree is NOT enough to win with, 140% more so we have even less money to address replacing the known skater problems?

 

But I don't agree with that. He's more than good enough to win with, and he's good enough to carry a team because he already does every time the playoffs come around. I haven't read anyone say the team would have a Cup without Shesterkin, for obvious reasons, but I will say they might have multiple Cups in the last few years if they had $28 million invested on more effective players than the 3 players who collect that money. The top of the core is rotten.

[Phil]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

But I don't agree with that. He's more than good enough to win with, and he's good enough to carry a team because he already does every time the playoffs come around. I haven't read anyone say the team would have a Cup without Shesterkin, for obvious reasons, but I will say they might have multiple Cups in the last few years if they had $28 million invested on more effective players than the 3 players who collect that money. The top of the core is rotten.

 

Again, context. You're comparing two different scenarios. They may have won multiple Cups in the last few years when the goalie made $5M~. Now, everyone's older, almost all of the core are 30+, and you're willingly wanting to give the goalie a 140% raise on top o fit.

 

The top of the core is rotten, so let's make it even harder to replace them, or build up reinforcements behind them to make up for their losses?

[Albatrosss]

2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

But I don't agree with that. He's more than good enough to win with, and he's good enough to carry a team because he already does every time the playoffs come around. I haven't read anyone say the team would have a Cup without Shesterkin, for obvious reasons, but I will say they might have multiple Cups in the last few years if they had $28 million invested on more effective players than the 3 players who collect that money. The top of the core is rotten.

i agree but it's not a reason to pay a goalie $12+M.  Just because Trouba and Panarin suck in the playoffs, you dont sign a goalie to a cosmic number, you trade Trouba and Panarin. You get rid of you problems, not mask them by making anohter mistake

[BrooksBurner]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Again, context. You're comparing two different scenarios. They may have won multiple Cups in the last few years when the goalie made $5M~. Now, everyone's older, almost all of the core are 30+, and you're willingly wanting to give the goalie a 140% raise on top o fit.

 

The top of the core is rotten, so let's make it even harder to replace them, or build up reinforcements behind them to make up for their losses?

 

Ok, here's the crux of it. You take away Panarin, Trouba, and Igor's current cap hits and you have 25.2 million. Given the choices that have been made to date, I'll keep Igor around 12 and use the $13 million to start re-shaping the roster for Fox/Lafreniere primes. The disclaimer here is that this is Plan B for me. I started talking about Plan A a year and a half ago after the Devils exit, when it was painfully obvious what really needed to happen.

Edited October 8 by BrooksBurner