Blue Heaven Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 As I said, there are any number of ways to cut it so Hank is not actually out $5m. The Rangers might pay that just to free up the cap space early. Do you get the sense that all Hank cares about is the money? He seems deeply disappointed in his own play and downright despondent at the state of the team. Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk What loophole can the Rangers do so he?s not out of the $5 million? Rangers would still be hit with his $8.5 million cap hit. Whatever it would be would be against the rules. No he probably doesn?t care about the money BUT he is a competitor. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonGecko Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 $5.5 million reasons why Hank won't retire...better chance of him asking for a trade than him calling it quits.....and I doubt he even considers a trade. you're short 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 you're short 3Nope. Cap hit vs real salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodrigueGabriel Posted April 6, 2019 Share Posted April 6, 2019 What loophole can the Rangers do so he’s not out of the $5 million? Rangers would still be hit with his $8.5 million cap hit. Whatever it would be would be against the rules. No he probably doesn’t care about the money BUT he is a competitor. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Unless I'm reading the CBA wrongly (very possible), the $8.5m cap hit for 20/21 comes off the Rangers tab if Hank were to retire at the end of next season. They don’t get off scot free as the lever against early player retirement - and thus circumvention of the cap by front loaded contracts – is the Cap Recapture Penalty. As explained in this helpful Reddit post, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/3ctmu2/the_cap_recapture_penalty_what_it_is_and_why_it/, the Rangers would face a $3m cap penalty in the final year should Hank retire. They would be getting $5.5m in cap relief (not to mention $5.5m cash) in an absolutely critical year of the rebuild. As we know, cap dollars are worth more than non-cap dollars, particularly to the Rangers. If next year does not work out and Hank were to go to them and say, "this doesn't make sense anymore but I don't want to short my family," what is to prevent them from hiring him at some subsequent date as a special assistant allowed to telecommute from Sweden or E. 86th St. or some island in the Mediterranean, paid at whatever amount the parties might agree upon - say $1.1m/yr for 5 yrs? It would convey tangible benefits to the Rangers including allowing them to get to the future goalie solution a year earlier as well as freeing up some critical ability to secure top end free agents at the prime reloading moment. It would make the Lundquist family at least partially whole. Sounds like a win-win to me. I am not immune to faulty reasoning and look forward to being educated if that is the case. But kind of an interesting question. I agree that Hank is a world class competitor and I would not wish him anything less than full success. But this season did not provide a hopeful trajectory, particularly with a reduced workload. Time is a merciless opponent and its ultimate winning streak remains unbroken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Link: https://twitter.com/aj_ranger/status/1115956514437718022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddious Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Are rumors from Russia ever correct regarding players? I feel like it always ends up being bullshit. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 wonder if the rangers could get a first rounder for Georgiev if Shesty is a real deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 wonder if the rangers could get a first rounder for Georgiev if Shesty is a real deal Highly doubtful. He has 43 NHL games under his belt. Career .915 SV%. Talbot had 57 and was traded with the 209th pick for the 57th, 79th and 184th picks. He was a .926 goalie when he was dealt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Yah, probably not. Probably a 2nd rounder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Max, yeah. Like, I could see someone giving up the 50th~ pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 Max, yeah. Like, I could see someone giving up the 50th~ pick. I don't think I'd do that, but I'd flip him in a second for an older prospect, change of scenery, type player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenvold Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 I don't think I'd do that, but I'd flip him in a second for an older prospect, change of scenery, type player. Depends on the prospect. Right now, Georgiev has upside as an NHL starter and those aren't easy to come by. He shouldn't go cheap and definitely not until Shestyorkin has proven his worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I don't think I'd do that, but I'd flip him in a second for an older prospect, change of scenery, type player. Like Puljujarvi? Need more Finns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Unless I'm reading the CBA wrongly (very possible), the $8.5m cap hit for 20/21 comes off the Rangers tab if Hank were to retire at the end of next season. They don’t get off scot free as the lever against early player retirement - and thus circumvention of the cap by front loaded contracts – is the Cap Recapture Penalty. As explained in this helpful Reddit post, https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/3ctmu2/the_cap_recapture_penalty_what_it_is_and_why_it/, the Rangers would face a $3m cap penalty in the final year should Hank retire. They would be getting $5.5m in cap relief (not to mention $5.5m cash) in an absolutely critical year of the rebuild. As we know, cap dollars are worth more than non-cap dollars, particularly to the Rangers. If next year does not work out and Hank were to go to them and say, "this doesn't make sense anymore but I don't want to short my family," what is to prevent them from hiring him at some subsequent date as a special assistant allowed to telecommute from Sweden or E. 86th St. or some island in the Mediterranean, paid at whatever amount the parties might agree upon - say $1.1m/yr for 5 yrs? It would convey tangible benefits to the Rangers including allowing them to get to the future goalie solution a year earlier as well as freeing up some critical ability to secure top end free agents at the prime reloading moment. It would make the Lundquist family at least partially whole. Sounds like a win-win to me. I am not immune to faulty reasoning and look forward to being educated if that is the case. But kind of an interesting question. I agree that Hank is a world class competitor and I would not wish him anything less than full success. But this season did not provide a hopeful trajectory, particularly with a reduced workload. Time is a merciless opponent and its ultimate winning streak remains unbroken. Problem is Mrs. Lundqvist is not letting her husband walk away from that kind of scratch. A friend was for a time part of the NYR security staff. He noticed biggest problem retiring players face is going from high end shopping, primo condos, unbelievable cars and everyone kissing your ass to regular Joe status; radial change in lifestyle. Would like to think, but have no idea, if Lundqvist saved his money. But having houses in 2 countries isn't cheap and we know the guy doesn't walk around in sweats and a wifebeater. Simply he is not retiring, because of ego but also because of money. Being a coach or GM or commentator is never approaching this kind of income ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 He's made like 60 million dollars and he's not an idiot. If you can't make 2-3 million per annum from 60 million you probably need to talk to different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 He's made like 60 million dollars and he's not an idiot. If you can't make 2-3 million per annum from 60 million you probably need to talk to different people. True. But people don't walk away from another $17 million over 2 years. Everyone is greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Patrik Berglund disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Hes not retiring because he can still play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodrigueGabriel Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 True. But people don't walk away from another $17 million over 2 years. Everyone is greedy. If you read the post you quoted carefully, it was about how Hank and Mrs. Lundquist might not have to walk away from the money at all. But I agree with Josh's premise. It really depends on how he plays. He strikes me as an extremely proud guy who is accustomed to playing at a Hall of Fame level as a number 1 goaltender. If he can still even approximate his historic level this season with a closer to 50-50 (or perhaps less) workload, it is not an issue. Nobody is going to push him out. But if not, that very pride and ego could make him look for a financially amicable way out for 20/21, lest his overall reputation be tarnished by further decline or a year largely riding the pine at an $8.5m hit. Again, getting that $5.5m cap space back a year early - particularly if Kakko/Hughes speeds up the rebuild - could be worth significantly more than the cash itself to the Rangers. If he performs in a way that satisfies him, it's not going to be a question. But if he does not, both sides may want to have a conversation about whether there is an exit strategy that both preserves his dignity and cushions the financial blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodrigueGabriel Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I haven't seen anybody raise the issue of why in hell the team itself played much better for Georgiev than it did for Hank down the stretch. Hank wasn't great, but even faced with Quinn trying to get him 20 wins they came out flat and uninspired against Ottawa. Then they went and got 3 points in the last two playing fiercely against tough teams in front of Georgiev. What was that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I haven't seen anybody raise the issue of why in hell the team itself played much better for Georgiev than it did for Hank down the stretch. Hank wasn't great, but even faced with Quinn trying to get him 20 wins they came out flat and uninspired against Ottawa. Then they went and got 3 points in the last two playing fiercely against tough teams in front of Georgiev. What was that about? Quinn when asked why he basically said the premise was nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 I haven't seen anybody raise the issue of why in hell the team itself played much better for Georgiev than it did for Hank down the stretch. Hank wasn't great, but even faced with Quinn trying to get him 20 wins they came out flat and uninspired against Ottawa. Then they went and got 3 points in the last two playing fiercely against tough teams in front of Georgiev. What was that about? They said the same thing about Talbot and every other backup Henrik had. Im starting to think Henrik is somehow involved in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 They said the same thing about Talbot and every other backup Henrik had. Im starting to think Henrik is somehow involved in this. Then you spend too much time on Internet forums. lol I had teams where we didn’t play as hard in front of starters because we knew they’d bail us out. We also had some pretty bad back ups with good stats because guys stepped it up. It’s a bad habit among bad teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Only on here. Cant post BS anywhere else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now