A More Forceful Decision Is Needed With Lundqvist

And when I say forceful, I mean telling Hank that n to year he will not be playing for the New York Rangers. There are two ways that happens. Retire or buyout. It’s his choice which one but either way it happens. Let him decide if new wants to do one last thing for this organization so we can use his money elsewhere or if he wants to pursue another team post buyout. At the vest least it might open up the idea of him accepting a trade as well where we retain half salary and get an additional 1-2m cap space instead of the buyout #

Well I?m very sorry you find it ?comical?. I find it a necessary evil if the Rangers want to be more serious about their future, especially when another goalie 15 years younger is being moved because of his presence. Difficult decisions are made all the time in sports, local legends included. Having him off this roster next year is the right move for the future of this team. Do I really think he retires? Doubtful. Do I think them sitting him down and explaining to him that he will be bought out next year might trigger something? Doubtful but possible. This team is still better set up next year with Georgiev making Hanks buyout space at 3m x 2 and Shesh in net than they are with Hank and Shesh for the same overall cost.

 

There's no arm twisting here, IF he doesn't want to move he's not gonna move. Sitting down with him and trying to change his mind isn't happening. It's the price you pay when you hand out NTCs especially to the face of the franchise. The only way to move him off this team if he doesn't want to go is to buy him out. It seems like it's groundhog day with these threads where the underlying theme is ok now this time for real we need to convince him to move or retire.

So they tell him they're going to buy him out, hoping he'll then request a trade? Why would he do that?

 

Then he calls their bluff, says, "Go ahead, buy me out." And... then what?

 

They buy him out? That doesn't help much next year - $5.5M buyout cap hit - and he knows it.

Then the next day you approach Georgiev and offer him a 3m x 2 year deal. At the very least what it helps is to solidify the goalie situation and take away any drama. Ok, it doesn’t help the cap ideally but it keeps both young goalies here and the following year in 21/22 hanks additional cap hit is 1.5. That’s not a big deal really. Having two talented young goalies is though.

And when I say forceful, I mean telling Hank that n to year he will not be playing for the New York Rangers. There are two ways that happens. Retire or buyout. It’s his choice which one but either way it happens. Let him decide if new wants to do one last thing for this organization so we can use his money elsewhere or if he wants to pursue another team post buyout. At the vest least it might open up the idea of him accepting a trade as well where we retain half salary and get an additional 1-2m cap space instead of the buyout #

rostering 3 goalies could be a part of that

There's no arm twisting here, IF he doesn't want to move he's not gonna move. Sitting down with him and trying to change his mind isn't happening. It's the price you pay when you hand out NTCs especially to the face of the franchise. The only way to move him off this team if he doesn't want to go is to buy him out. It seems like it's groundhog day with these threads where the underlying theme is ok now this time for real we need to convince him to move.

I don’t know where you are getting that from what I’m saying. Im saying BUY HIM OUT. I’m just saying there is a conversation to be had before hand. Also it’s not ground hog day at all. Until a few weeks ago we didn’t have 3 goalies platooning. Hank has played like 3 times this year so far. This is the first time outside of injury Henrik was in a position where he’s borderline third string here. Anaheim bought out Perry. He was one of the faces of their franchise. It happens.

Henrik isn’t even the face anymore. It’s Panarin. It’s Kakko, albeit too early. It’s moved on. Time moves on. No one player is bigger than the team. It’s not like buying him out next summer is going to make other players balk at coming here. It’s clearly the end. He’s soon to be 38 and they are not in a position where they will win. It’s not one last kick at the cup.

So they tell him they're going to buy him out, hoping he'll then request a trade? Why would he do that?

 

Then he calls their bluff, says, "Go ahead, buy me out." And... then what?

 

They buy him out? That doesn't help much next year - $5.5M buyout cap hit - and he knows it.

 

5.5M cap hit yeah, but it gives them 3M in cap savings. That would be plenty to keep Georgiev around, and probably have some left over.

 

It's the least favorable result, but if he refused a trade or retirement, then buyout. Again, this is only if Georgiev isn't getting fair offers on the market. If the best being offered is, say, a 3rd round pick? No thanks.

I'm not too worried about filling Georgiev's spot if he's moved. Next year Hank can be Shesty's backup. If none of the other guy's in the minors step up, finding a veteran to backup Shesty shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world. Benoit Allaire has done a magnificant job working with goalies...I'm confident that whoever they had in the backup role next year and the year after could be as effective as Georgiev.

It appears that posters are treating a buy out as a more definite possibility now than a couple of months ago when I started a thread entitled "Thinking the unthinkable: buying out Hank." It simply makes no sense, from a rational unsentimental standpoint, to trade an excellent 23 year old goalie to facilitate one more season with a 38 year old goalie.

 

He's not going to retire nor should he, but it should be noted that there still is a significant cap penalty, I forget how it is calculated, for front loaded 7+ year contracts signed before age 35 upon retirement. Hank's contract is front loaded insofar as he has gotten bonuses and his final year the salary, at $5.5 million, is well below the AV.

 

Ranger fans were outraged at 36 year old Eddie Giacomin being put on waivers and booed Emile Francis every time he came back to the Garden for decades. The fact of the matter was that Eddie was on the downswing, and the same fans who chanted "Eddie Eddie" had been booing him in previous weeks and he was waived because there were no trade takers, not even for a used puck bag. Some people will react the same way if Hank get bought out.

Buyout is unlikely given the cost. Retirement is unlikely because Lundqvist has shown a desire to continue to compete and play. I see Lundqvist finishing out the next 1.5 years of his contract with the Rangers.

 

Forceful would be a conversation with Lundqvist that he is welcome to practice and travel with the team, but barring injury, Shesterkin and Georgiev are going to get the rest of the starts this year... and although there would be an evaluation between seasons, that would be the expected arrangement next season as well. In that scenario, Lundqvist might be willing to explore other options with other teams or retirement.

 

I would characterize this scenario as EXTREMELY unlikely, as the Rangers are most likely to carry 3 goalies until the situation resolves (likely with Georgiev traded).

It appears that posters are treating a buy out as a more definite possibility now than a couple of months ago when I started a thread entitled "Thinking the unthinkable: buying out Hank." It simply makes no sense, from a rational unsentimental standpoint, to trade an excellent 23 year old goalie to facilitate one more season with a 38 year old goalie.

 

He's not going to retire nor should he, but it should be noted that there still is a significant cap penalty, I forget how it is calculated, for front loaded 7+ year contracts signed before age 35 upon retirement. Hank's contract is front loaded insofar as he has gotten bonuses and his final year the salary, at $5.5 million, is well below the AV.

 

Ranger fans were outraged at 36 year old Eddie Giacomin being put on waivers and booed Emile Francis every time he came back to the Garden for decades. The fact of the matter was that Eddie was on the downswing, and the same fans who chanted "Eddie Eddie" had been booing him in previous weeks and he was waived because there were no trade takers, not even for a used puck bag. Some people will react the same way if Hank get bought out.

If they bought him out after this season his cap hit next year is 5.5m and the following year 1.5m.

He's not holding the team back in any way next year.

 

Georgiev is pretty average. There's a reason he's still here. Gorton wants too much.

He's not holding the team back in any way next year.

 

Georgiev is pretty average. There's a reason he's still here. Gorton wants too much.

It’s not just about Georgie. Even if you took Georgiev out of the equation and brought up a Huska with a 900k for next year with Shesh, the extra 2m cap space is the difference between an ADA or Strome getting the extra million or two to stay here.

It?s not just about Georgie. Even if you took Georgiev out of the equation and brought up a Huska with a 900k for next year with Shesh, the extra 2m cap space is the difference between an ADA or Strome getting the extra million or two to stay here.

Well depending who you ask, Strome is just riding coat tails and we don't need him, so it's not an issue.

 

Look, how you treat a player like Lundqvist matters. It's a business but it's a people business.

And when I say forceful, I mean telling Hank that n to year he will not be playing for the New York Rangers. There are two ways that happens. Retire or buyout. It?s his choice which one but either way it happens. Let him decide if new wants to do one last thing for this organization so we can use his money elsewhere or if he wants to pursue another team post buyout. At the vest least it might open up the idea of him accepting a trade as well where we retain half salary and get an additional 1-2m cap space instead of the buyout #

 

 

You don't get much by giving ultimatums. It's up to the parties involved to work things out. H.L. might accept a trade if the team is to his liking. As usual, all the speculation about any of these situations is just that. All this chatter is meaningless as nobody knows what goes on behind the scene. Meanwhile. The team is set for tonite, which is vastly more important. BTW. Keep up the fantastic spelling, Bernard.

Well depending who you ask, Strome is just riding coat tails and we don't need him, so it's not an issue.

 

Look, how you treat a player like Lundqvist matters. It's a business but it's a people business.

Well I’m in the boat that sees young guys putting up offense that are 26 years old performing in NY need to be kept and added to, not expendable. Same goes for ADA

 

I do get it. He’s a special case and a fan favorite. However this organization has catered to him and his era. They made a serious cup run. They ran Torts out of town which partly was rumored to Heniks “suggestions.” He’s been paid well, honored, catered to, and respected for a long time. I’m not so sure this organization owes him any more than they have already given him.

 

As for the concept that buying him out might dissuade future players from signing here, I don’t buy it. Shattenkirk openly left money on the table and they walked away from him. Gerardi was bought out and a warrior forcus. It’s a people business but it’s still a business. They’ve waited long enough and they aren’t winning with him next year. They can however take longer due to his contract by losing out on keeping another player over a decade younger.

 

Hank and Staal. Neither should be on this team next year. Both of them combined in 21/22 only costs then about 2.5m cap penalty together. While it doesn’t really matter 2 years from now, the extra 5m between those two this coming offseason means we probably can keep both ADA and Strome for 3 more years without much of a penalty in 21/22 with that extra cap space to play with. In the grand scheme of things, Hank is still getting his jersey in the stands.

You don't get much by giving ultimatums. It's up to the parties involved to work things out. H.L. might accept a trade if the team is to his liking. As usual, all the speculation about any of these situations is just that. All this chatter is meaningless as nobody knows what goes on behind the scene. Meanwhile. The team is set for tonite, which is vastly more important. BTW. Keep up the fantastic spelling, Bernard.

Settle down Richard.

Well depending who you ask, Strome is just riding coat tails and we don't need him, so it's not an issue.

 

Look, how you treat a player like Lundqvist matters. It's a business but it's a people business.

 

He?s been treated as well as any player in the league for a long time

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

He?s been treated as well as any player in the league for a long time

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

And your point is?

If I can get assets for an average backup, at best, I taken it, especially when there are 4 other goalies developing in the pipeline

 

If Lundqvist returns more via trade, I'd do that... But he won't

 

I want no part of a rookie goalie tandem. This teams D sucks and a vet type goalie should stick around for clean up duties.

 

I don't think you want to push the envelope with the teams all time winningest, most famous, goalie who put this team on his back for how many years. They were dumb enough to give him the contract. See it out. If he accepts a trade, great. But you don't kick a guy like that out, as if he was a nobody. He was the face of the franchise and has been a good soldier.

 

The only thing he is holding back is cap space, and that may not be that big of a deal.

 

Don't forget what the guy meant to the franchise. Let it sink in.... Then re-ask yourself if your demands are fair.

Well I?m very sorry you find it ?comical?. I find it a necessary evil if the Rangers want to be more serious about their future, especially when another goalie 15 years younger is being moved because of his presence. Difficult decisions are made all the time in sports, local legends included. Having him off this roster next year is the right move for the future of this team. Do I really think he retires? Doubtful. Do I think them sitting him down and explaining to him that he will be bought out next year might trigger something? Doubtful but possible. This team is still better set up next year with Georgiev making Hanks buyout space at 3m x 2 and Shesh in net than they are with Hank and Shesh for the same overall cost.

 

If the Rangers have a player that isnt a MUST keep for the future, and they can get above market value for said player.... They have to deal him. I really don't see it as they have to trade Georgiev to make room for Lundqvist. It's nothing like that at all. I'd trade them BOTH if they could. I don't see Georgiev as this must keep guy. He's backup material. I think you are over valuing him by a ton. He's not a building block.

If the Rangers have a player that isnt a MUST keep for the future, and they can get above market value for said player.... They have to deal him. I really don't see it as they have to trade Georgiev to make room for Lundqvist. It's nothing like that at all. I'd trade them BOTH if they could. I don't see Georgiev as this must keep guy. He's backup material. I think you are over valuing him by a ton. He's not a building block.

 

It's not so much that as it is I'm looking bigger picture IMO. Hank in no way is part of our future. Georgie probably isn't either but i do think he's a very capable NHL goalie. Keeping him and trading him a year or two down the road probably brings you more than it does today in my mind. Besides, as I also said, even if u look at it as not doing this to keep Georgie and instead gave the job to Shesh and brought up a Huska at 995k, the extra 2m cap space csn mean the difference in retaining an ADA or Strome when otherwise they might fall just short.

 

As for the good soldier. I mean be helped run Torts out of town. He's also been treated very very well here. They made several cup runs with him. It just didn't work. Everyone has their time. It's now for him. It's just at a point where he detracts to this team more than he helps. Him and Staal both need to go for the good of our future. Better or equal players in the history of this sport have been cut, traded, not tendered, etc.

 

I'm just not willing to see a point where someone like ADA or Stroke gets away because we "owe" the King his Swan song

It's worth remembering that Hank is not here now as a function of loyalty so much as the structural dictates of an era with long term contracts, NMCs and caps. Before that stuff he'd have been gone, perhaps not long after the start of the rebuild. Dispatching him now not only allows us to keep a very good young goalie, at least until his value increases, but also a good player like ADA, Strome or perhaps even Kreider. Hank's discipline and mental game is the best of any player on the team in the 52 years that I have watched. I love the man, but however good he still is, and he still is good, he has outlived his usefulness. We've cut loose two captains in recent year, and the second, McDonaugh, was not even in the last year of his contract. Being a credit to the team is not a guarantee that you will be kept when exigencies dictate otherwise.

Thank Hank and then tell him he will be sitting for three week stretches because he is not the future. Eat some salary and take nothing in return, but at least his hanging around won?t have negatively influenced our chances in two or three years.

I want no part of a rookie goalie tandem. This teams D sucks and a vet type goalie should stick around for clean up duties.

 

I don't think you want to push the envelope with the teams all time winningest, most famous, goalie who put this team on his back for how many years. They were dumb enough to give him the contract. See it out. If he accepts a trade, great. But you don't kick a guy like that out, as if he was a nobody. He was the face of the franchise and has been a good soldier.

 

The only thing he is holding back is cap space, and that may not be that big of a deal.

 

Don't forget what the guy meant to the franchise. Let it sink in.... Then re-ask yourself if your demands are fair.

I look at it this way ,this team defense is very young ,not that they suck

I don?t know exactly how this is going to play out the rest of the season for Lundqvist, who has seemed serene and perhaps a bit wistful since Shesterkin?s Jan. 7 arrival. It is hard to envision him practicing every day and then backing up every game. (Though I guess that?s what Alex Auld did during his two months as Lundqvist?s backup in 2009-10).

 

But I foresee the team?s two 24-year-old goaltenders (Georgiev celebrates his birthday on Sunday) settling into a rotation as the Rangers dig in here for a final push to remain in the playoff conversation.

 

And, regardless of whether Lundqvist is dealt at the deadline, and I doubt that will happen, I cannot imagine he?d return next season. A June buyout of the final year of his contract would represent a clear, clean break that would allow both the team and the King to move independently into the future. A buyout would save $3 million on the cap next year and add $1.5 million in dead space to the 2021-22 ledger.

 

?I don?t know if I?ll stay with the Rangers my entire career,? Lundqvist had said to the Swedish newspaper, Expressen, before the May 6 email. ?I know what I want but if the club has other ideas, I?ll have to listen.

 

?You can?t just do your own thing.?

 

https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/henrik-lundqvists-rangers-prophecy-is-on-the-brink-of-coming-true/