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

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

Brodeur wasn't an elite goalie?

 

And what has Luongo's contract got to do with what we were discussing? We're talking about elite goalies and how they maintain their play longer than other good goalies.

 

.915 was above average in 2017-18 btw, and if Shesterkin plays above average the season he turns 36 we're fine, cause then he has only 1 year left on his deal. It's the first 4-5 years he'll be the best goalie in the league and give us a great chance to win a Cup. The last couple years will be a problem to some extent, i'm not denying that, but I won't jeopardize the foreseeable future because it might hurt 6 years down the road.

 

And please just stop with the hyperbole. No one has said 13M and it obviously won't be. He's asking for 12m so the deal will be somewhere between 11 and 12.

What do overpaid goalie contracts have to do with the discussion? Is that a serious question?

 

Like I said your strategy is just to hope he doesn't fall off. I've been told many times that hope is not a strategy.

 

You don't know how much he's asking for. He clearly wants more than 11, which for me puts the low end at 12, but there's a chance he wants Draisaitl money so I split the difference at 13. Are you really going to quibble between 12 and 13 when you can get goaltending good enough to win for much less?

 

Okay, great, you bought yourself an extra Sam Carrick. 

[BrooksBurner]

 

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Why do you keep changing the subject? If you want to talk about how the data doesn't apply to this situation, then let's talk about it. 

 

Goalies are often inconsistent year to year, they break down severely after 33, you can't hide a bad goalie contract the way you can a skater. 

 

Which one of those don't apply to the 30-year-old goaltender entering the first year of an 8-year deal?

 

The conversation yesterday was about posting lineups. You’ve renegged. I also asked you yesterday who you are replacing Panarin with in 2 years. You renegged.

 

I’m keeping you honest. There’s no back and forth with a dishonest person.

[Sharpshooter]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

 

Of course that's what's going to happen. He already showed his cards offering $11M. I don't envy his position. 

 

I'm thinking he signs for $12ish and they ice a roster close to @RJWantsTheCup suggested. If there's no monster move up their sleeves, when Panarin leaves they will probably struggle to make the playoffs until Perrault develops. Bad part is, Shesterkin will be 33-34 by that time and likely starting to trend down.

Probably. lol Although I have no idea what the free agent landscape will look like in another year or so as far as a Panarin 'replacement' goes. There probably won't be one that is close. McDavid is a pipe dream. You hope other guys develop nicely, even if they may not be as good offensively, hopefully good enough. When I say good enough I mean hopefully at least a bit better than what they were during most of Lundqvist's tenure where there top offensive players were like Callahan, Dubinsky and Zucc. lol With the occasional Jagr and Gaborik thrown in.

[Pete]

Just now, BrooksBurner said:

 

 

The conversation yesterday was about posting lineups. You’ve renegged. I also asked you yesterday who you are replacing Panarin with in 2 years. You renegged.

 

I’m keeping you honest. There’s no back and forth with a dishonest person.

Why do you keep changing the subject? If you want to talk about how the data doesn't apply to this situation, then let's talk about it. 

 

 

 

Goalies are often inconsistent year to year, they break down severely after 33, you can't hide a bad goalie contract the way you can a skater. 

 

 

 

Which one of those don't apply to the 30-year-old goaltender entering the first year of an 8-year deal?

[Sharpshooter]

It's too bad he's not two or three years younger, then the deal would be a bit better. 

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Probably. lol Although I have no idea what the free agent landscape will look like in another year or so as far as a Panarin 'replacement' goes. There probably won't be one that is close. McDavid is a pipe dream. You hope other guys develop nicely, even if they may not be as good offensively, hopefully good enough. When I say good enough I mean hopefully at least a bit better than what they were during most of Lundqvist's tenure where there top offensive players were like Callahan, Dubinsky and Zucc. lol With the occasional Jagr and Gaborik thrown in.

Yes, unfortunately I think we'll be reduced to hoping the team will be greater than the sum of its parts. It's always possible.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Sharpshooter said:

It's too bad he's not two or three years younger, then the deal would be a bit better. 

Or if it were 3 or 4 years instead of 8. 

 

Then you have to take your chances that a lineup like RJ posted, rookies at key forward positions and half the defense, is good enough to win over that time frame.

[Sharpshooter]

Hope for that as well as Shesterkin aging well and staying healthy. If all of those things go right, then things may be fine. 

[Sharpshooter]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

Or if it were 3 or 4 years instead of 8. 

 

Then you have to take your chances that a lineup like RJ posted, rookies at key forward positions and half the defense, is good enough to win over that time frame.

Yeah, even five years max I would be okay with, but he wants the monster deal instead of doing what's best for the team. I mean, I don't blame him for wanting a bag long term, it just puts the team in a rough position. Like you said, I wouldn't want to be in Drury's position. He's kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[Pete]

Just now, Sharpshooter said:

Yeah, even five years max I would be okay with, but he wants the monster deal instead of doing what's best for the team. I mean, I don't blame him for wanting a bag long term, it just puts the team in a rough position. Like you said, I wouldn't want to be in Drury's position. He's kind of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Right. 

 

Nobody really complained about Hank's contract, but by the time there was three years left on it half of this board was ready to run him out of town. It would not be surprising if something similar happened in this case. 

[Albatrosss]

Damn, i’ll be 58 when Shesty’s contract expires. That’s old

[BrooksBurner]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

Why do you keep changing the subject? If you want to talk about how the data doesn't apply to this situation, then let's talk about it. 

 

 

 

Goalies are often inconsistent year to year, they break down severely after 33, you can't hide a bad goalie contract the way you can a skater. 

 

 

 

Which one of those don't apply to the 30-year-old goaltender entering the first year of an 8-year deal?

I’m going to take this as admittance that you’ve been talking in theory rather than reality this whole time, and you’ve seen realistically your idea of not keeping Shesterkin doesn’t really work with the current landscape of how this team is constructed and what is available to get. Theories sound nice, but it requires vetting them out with real examples of what the Rangers can actually do, or it’s just living in a utopia fantasy land.

 

I’ve answered your other question. There’s roughly a 5-6 year window with Shesterkin, through age 34-35. That goes through Fox’s prime and Lafreniere’s 20s. That’s the window.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I’m going to take this as admittance that you’ve been talking in theory rather than reality this whole time, and you’ve seen realistically your idea of not keeping Shesterkin doesn’t really work with the current landscape of how this team is constructed and what is available to get. Theories sound nice, but it requires vetting them out with real examples of what the Rangers can actually do, or it’s just living in a utopia fantasy land.

 

As usual you misunderstand the point. My theory is that the team is not going to be very good regardless of whether or not they sign Shesterkin. It's a decision on where to spend money and where there's value, and there's no value in spending money on goaltending. So I'd rather see a team mediocre and lose 6-4 then lose 2-1 because they can't score goals. 

 

Your stance seems to be just to spend the money because they have it. 

 

Quote

I’ve answered your other question. There’s roughly a 5-6 year window with Shesterkin, through age 34-35. That goes through Fox’s prime and Lafreniere’s 20s. That’s the window.

The contract will start when he's 30, so there's about three to four prime years, not five to six. 

 

So he should be breaking down right when Lafreniere is peaking. 

 

But you're hoping that doesn't happen. I hope you're right. But you can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. 

[BreakawayMachine]

I wonder if he would do a contract like 5 years x 50 million but broke down

 

Year 1: $12 million

Year 2: $12 million

Year 3: $10 million

Year 4: $8 million

Year 5: $8 million

 

He still gets paid a ton in his prime years but we are able to stay competitive. Then he can sign somewhere else at 34 if he ages well or does a cheaper retirement contract here.

[Sharpshooter]

He definitely would not do that. lol He has no interest in team friendly, it's Igor friendly or bust.

[BrooksBurner]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

As usual you misunderstand the point. My theory is that the team is not going to be very good regardless of whether or not they sign Shesterkin. It's a decision on where to spend money and where there's value, and there's no value in spending money on goaltending. So I'd rather see a team mediocre and lose 6-4 then lose 2-1 because they can't score goals. 
 

A pivot you made yesterday after looking to plot out a counter to the rosters yesterday.

 

I’ve said for a while now that next year is a step back, so you are somewhat aligning with me now. I don’t agree that they won’t still be a good team. They will still probably be a playoff team.

 

I’d rather go try to win a Cup then pick the most entertaining way to be a loser. Weird argument.

 

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Your stance seems to be just to spend the money because they have it. 
 

 

Roll eyes.

 

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

The contract will start when he's 30, so there's about three to four prime years, not five to six. 

 

So he should be breaking down right when Lafreniere is peaking. 

 

But you're hoping that doesn't happen. I hope you're right. But you can hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first. 

 

He’s not going from elite to shit in a year. He’ll go from elite and worth the contract to very good and overpaid by a million or two. I’m more worried about maxing out Fox’s prime and Lafreniere’s 20s since they overlap. It also coincides with Perreault’s 20s while he’s cheap. You keep ripping on hoping for young guys to step up and produce, when hope is involved no matter which direction you take a franchise. I’d rather hope in drafted Rangers in their 20s, than hope overpaid mercenaries in their 30s hired off the FA list work out. That’s just me.

Edited October 11 by BrooksBurner

[BreakawayMachine]

12 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

He definitely would not do that. lol He has no interest in team friendly, it's Igor friendly or bust.

  true, every now and then I am hopeful

[Pete]

8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

A pivot you made yesterday after looking to plot out a counter to the rosters yesterday.

 

I’ve said for a while now that next year is a step back, so you are somewhat aligning with me now. I don’t agree that they won’t still be a good team. They will still probably be a playoff team.

 

I’d rather go try to win a Cup then pick the most entertaining way to be a loser. Weird argument.

 

 

Roll eyes.

 

 

He’s not going from elite to shit in a year. He’ll go from elite and worth the contract to very good and overpaid by a million or two. I’m more worried about maxing out Fox’s prime and Lafreniere’s 20s since they overlap. It also coincides with Perreault’s 20s while he’s cheap. You keep ripping on hoping for young guys to step up and produce, when hope is involved no matter which direction you take a franchise. I’d rather hope in drafted Rangers in their 20s, than hope overpaid mercenaries in their 30s hired off the FA list work out. That’s just me.

Wasn't a pivot. It was an addition to the many reasons it's a bad idea to sign a goalie to a mega contract. 

 

I'm glad you think you can predict the aging curve though, but in reality that just hope.

 

The bottom line is I was never aligned with this contract, and I never will be. The surrounding evidence could change as the situation evolves and we get more data like what Mirtle wrote. 

 

I don't know why it upsets you so much when people offer different additional arguments. That's what people should do, alter their POV when the data changes.

 

But you seem to view it as a negative, which is weird."oh, you changed your mind, you must know you're wrong!" No, I added to my argument because more and more reasons are surfacing not to do this. (And I'm sure you'll attempt to de-ligitimize that POV too).

[BrooksBurner]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

Wasn't a pivot. It was an addition to the many reasons it's a bad idea to sign a goalie to a mega contract. 

 

I'm glad you think you can predict the aging curve though, but in reality that just hope.

 

The bottom line is I was never aligned with this contract, and I never will be. The surrounding evidence could change as the situation evolves and we get more data like what Mirtle wrote. 

 

I don't know why it upsets you so much when people offer different additional arguments. That's what people should do, alter their POV when the data changes.

 

But you seem to view it as a negative, which is weird."oh, you changed your mind, you must know you're wrong!" No, I added to my argument because more and more reasons are surfacing not to do this. (And I'm sure you'll attempt to de-ligitimize that POV too).

I don’t care that you changed your outlook. You were just being coy about it.

 

So here’s where we agree, I think:

 

- next year is a step back regardless of path

- the ideal model to mimic is stud skaters and a cheaper goalie

 

Here’s where you don’t agree, I think:

 

- the Rangers are not in a position to achieve the ideal model

- they can win with Shesterkin on a big contract

[Pete]

32 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

I don’t care that you changed your outlook. You were just being coy about it.

Nah. I was being pretty clear. Why don't we cut the sidebar nonsense and discuss the topic at hand.

 

Quote

 

So here’s where we agree, I think:

 

- next year is a step back regardless of path

- the ideal model to mimic is stud skaters and a cheaper goalie

 

Here’s where you don’t agree, I think:

 

- the Rangers are not in a position to achieve the ideal model

- they can win with Shesterkin on a big contract

Yes, great, let's just level-set and clarify. Yes, we agree at the top there.

 

The bottom section, bullet 1 we agree on, however we disagree on throwing good money after bad because they're not in the ideal position.

 

The second bullet, I mean I'm not a fortune teller. I think I've done my best to say "there's a good chance" or "this is likely" or "the data suggests". Of course there's a chance it could work. But those chances are slim. If I were handicapping it, I'd say there's an 75% chance they will regret this contract and a 25% they won't.

 

But if we agree there is a period of mediocrity coming (I think it's beyond next season, Panrin leaves, Perrault steps in, 2-3 seasons to peak...So tough to say—what were you thinking?), I would rather watch a bubble playoff team try to 6-4 with mediocre goaltending and hoping the ONE goalie gets hot, then try to eek out 2-1, 3-2 wins and hoping 5-6 players pop off in the playoffs. You don't generally see that, but you do more often see a goalie stand on his head for a run.

 

I just think that would be a more palatable path, even from an entertainment perspective. I've seen years where this team (and others) has a leading scorer with 70ish points, so maybe 1/3 of the game is worth watching and the other 2/3 where Lafreniere/Perrault isn't playing is fuckin lame.

Edited October 11 by Pete

[LindG1000]

I'm not sure I buy the "2025 is a step back year" narrative anymore. I feel like we've seen enough from the younger players, and perhaps enough from the older players at risk of being lost, that I just don't buy it anymore. 

 

Every time I play it out, we're a 2nd line RW and a 3LD "short".  That isn't enough to send us spiraling backwards.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, LindG1000 said:

I'm not sure I buy the "2025 is a step back year" narrative anymore. I feel like we've seen enough from the younger players, and perhaps enough from the older players at risk of being lost, that I just don't buy it anymore. 

 

Every time I play it out, we're a 2nd line RW and a 3LD "short".  That isn't enough to send us spiraling backwards.

This is RJ's lineup.

Quote

 

Panarin 11.6 - Trocheck 5.6 - Lafraniere 9.0

Kreider 6.5 - Zibanejad 8.5 - Berard .86

Cuylle 1.5 - Chytil 4.4 - Othmann .86

Edstrom 1.0 - Carrick 1.0 - Rempe .85

Brodzinski - .78

 

Miller 6.0 - Fox 9.5

Schneider 2.2 - Mancini .87

Jones 1.5 - Ruhwedel 1.0

Mackey .77

 

Shesterkin 11.5

Garand 1.0

 

86M 

 

That's more than a 2RW and 3LD short. That's also asking rookies and 2nd year players to make a significant impact while the vets get a year older.

[RJWantsTheCup]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is RJ's lineup.

That's more than a 2RW and 3LD short. That's also asking rookies and 2nd year players to make a significant impact while the vets get a year older.

If you’re using my roster there’s 6M+ to add a top 6 RW.   But they have to be able to get rid of Trouba and Kakko and not take much back in salary.   As you know that’s not going to be easy. 

[LindG1000]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

This is RJ's lineup.

That's more than a 2RW and 3LD short. That's also asking rookies and 2nd year players to make a significant impact while the vets get a year older.

Not knocking my dude RJ - he did a great job -  but he's also got ~7m in cap space to fuck with there (now that we know Laf is going to come in at 8-ish).  

 

Even if we go ahead and replace Pokemon Chad with a steady-eddy type RD - let's say Brayden McNabb at 3.75 or something...we're probably just fine here.

 

I'm not worried about asking a guy like Berard to play third line minutes or asking a guy like Mancini to play third pairing minutes - we have to at some point to keep the window open and by all accounts they look ready. Hell, Mancini's already here  It's that Othmann spot - where you can't be unproductive - that worries me most. The rest is navigable.

 

 

 

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, LindG1000 said:

Not knocking my dude RJ - he did a great job -  but he's also got ~7m in cap space to fuck with there (now that we know Laf is going to come in at 8-ish).  

 

Even if we go ahead and replace Pokemon Chad with a steady-eddy type RD - let's say Brayden McNabb at 3.75 or something...we're probably just fine here.

 

I'm not worried about asking a guy like Berard to play third line minutes or asking a guy like Mancini to play third pairing minutes - we have to at some point to keep the window open and by all accounts they look ready. Hell, Mancini's already here  It's that Othmann spot - where you can't be unproductive - that worries me most. The rest is navigable.

 

 

 

He's got Berard on the second line dude. 

 

What kind of second liner do you think you're getting for six or seven million on the open market? I don't think you're getting Boeser or Ehlers, A broke down Taylor Hall? Vatrano? Maybe. That would push Berard to the third line.

 

I don't have high expectations there.