[brooks] "I expect Lundqvist to be bought out,"

That's if the replacement is worse than them. Then, even with a replacement, you have to take Lundqvist buyout + replacement cap hit = cost of replacement

 

You HAVE to settle for 4th line SMith, 3rd pairing Staal, and backup Lundqvist for 1 more season or you are just kicking to can. Someday, when the team is competitive, it will be a huge issue.

That said if I was the GM I wouldn't do it. Just saying it's a viable option if they need more room to sign ADA and/or Strome.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

If Hank and Smith are scratched then you have $12.85 million that you can't spend sitting in the press box.

 

If Hank and Smith are bought out then you have $8.3 million that you can't spend as 'dead space'.

 

Looks like the dead space option gives you about $4.5 million more to work with.

You’re assuming a better replacement than what you’re getting from those guys already. Don’t know how much of an upgrade that $4.5 million buys, especially on D. That’s like a 2nd to 3rd pairing vet, who’s likely close to or over 30 already. Not sure I like that type of expenditure. And it’s more likely they’re going the route of a younger guy in their system to replace Staal or Smith.

Even if those guys do sit in the press box, you still have them available to you. They’re still at practice everyday.

They’re still in your meetings and locker room.

They’re around the young guys.

The organization seems to want and value that and another season is a short term price to pay to give them what they want.

If you look at their buyout history, the only real true Ranger they’ve done it to was Girardi. Wherein they had no choice. Had big money and lots of term left and while they might have been transitioning into a rebuild they had a veteran team and were still trying to win. They weren’t in the rebuild mode they are in now.

Not the case with these other guys who are all in their final years next season.

Just saying I don’t see them doing it to Staal or Hank given what they represent and have meant to the organization.

And the extra $1.5 in savings for Smith isn’t worth it.

Hank doesn't need a replacement as there are already 3 goalies on the roster and I'd be comfortable playing Lundkvist over Smith so 1 ELC replacement still nets you $3.5 million.

 

That said if I was the GM I wouldn't do it. Just saying it's a viable option if they need more room to sign ADA and/or Strome.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I missed the part on your mention of Strome and ADA

If they feel that strongly about keeping both those guys long-term, under those circumstances I’d be open to it.

We've seen nothing indicating a drop in cap. What I think is more likely is a repeat of this season, with an amnesty buyout included to help teams get compliant.

 

I'd also imagine it's how they'd say goodbye to Hank.

 

 

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

If there is an amnesty buyout, NYR can live with Staal as your #6/7 D next season. Yes, he stinks, there are younger options, but you can live with that. But that makes Lundqvist being your #3 G completely senseless and his compliance buyout a given.

$1m signing bonus on July 1. After that, he's 4.5m for the rest of the season. It might be worth it to his pride to try to get a chance to be a starter elsewhere. If he sits on the bench, his career is over, he wont be able to get a starting job elsewhere in 2022. NOW, he might have a chance to rejuvenate his career else where, for 2, 3 seasons, maybe.

Has there been any word about the calendar changing? Doubt this is going to be a regular offseason when they cannot even yet say the season is done, nor when nor how the awards will be out, and with the draft date up in the air.

Has there been any word about the calendar changing? Doubt this is going to be a regular offseason when they cannot even yet say the season is done, nor when nor how the awards will be out, and with the draft date up in the air.

I think we're getting to the point where they need to admit this season is toast, figure out how they want to handle draft order, and just move into the off-season calendar as normally scheduled.

I think we're getting to the point where they need to admit this season is toast, figure out how they want to handle draft order, and just move into the off-season calendar as normally scheduled.

No way, hold out as long as possible. People will go crazy for sports when theyre back. money money money.

I dont see the point in not waiting? What if next season doesnt start? Hell, this might be the 2019-21 season.

Hank doesn't need a replacement as there are already 3 goalies on the roster and I'd be comfortable playing Lundkvist over Smith so 1 ELC replacement still nets you $3.5 million.

 

That said if I was the GM I wouldn't do it. Just saying it's a viable option if they need more room to sign ADA and/or Strome.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

No, you save .5m ($2,783,333 buyout hit + 925k replacement = 3.7) but add .8m cap hit the following season.

I?m with Pete on this one.. georgiev isn?t going to overtake shesty as the starter and let hank retire a ranger

 

 

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

It is the right thing to do considering how much he brought to the organization, in spite of having no cup. He was our rock for many seasons Let him go out the way he wants. Similar to Eli with the Giants.

Sure it does.

 

It’s money you can’t spend.

 

If it doesn’t matter than why are we talking about freeing up cap space, which is a direct result of them having $6 million in dead cap this next season due to the Shattenkirk buyout.

 

It’s not lost on me that whether or not the player is on the roster, they’re spending the money anyway and they’d get some savings in a buyout.

 

But the organization still feels these guys have value. If you buy them out, you pay the money but don’t have the player. As said they still seemingly want the player. So I’m saying that makes me think they won’t.

 

Long story short, I believe they think it’s a better course to have the player(s) and pay them for the next 15 months and then be free and clear vs buyout(s) and some savings and dead cap.

 

I totally get the mechanics. I see the merit of a buyout.

Just don’t see the Rangers doing it.

 

Staal and Hank have given blood to the organization. I think they don’t want to do them ugly.

Absolutely correct. For many years, Staal and Lundquvist have given their years to this organization. Just let them go the way they (Staal & Hank) want. Being fans, it would be painful to see since both are probably shells of themselves, but it's the right thing to do.

Absolutely correct. For many years, Staal and Lundquvist have given their years to this organization. Just let them go the way they (Staal & Hank) want. Being fans, it would be painful to see since both are probably shells of themselves, but it's the right thing to do.

At least in regards to Staal, he’s been what he is now for several years. If they wanted to buy him out, they’d have done so already, when they weren’t getting close to contending again and he’s got a year left.

Just ride the train you’ve ridden for a little while longer.

Absolutely correct. For many years, Staal and Lundquvist have given their years to this organization. Just let them go the way they (Staal & Hank) want. Being fans, it would be painful to see since both are probably shells of themselves, but it's the right thing to do.

What if they want to re-sign for 2 more years?

What if they want to re-sign for 2 more years?

I don’t know that they’d have any interest in that, so you move on. I’m ok with them letting them play out existing contracts. But doing new ones, that would be heavily based on sentiment.

Maybe Staal coming back to be your 7th D? But IDK.

Both have a lot of mileage, Staal has had multiple serious injuries, and Hank is 39 at end of contract.

Gotta think if they want to continue playing, they would want to do so in a bigger role than the Rangers are comfortable offering.

The last two months of the season must have been exactly what Henrik Lundqvist envisioned at the 2018 post-Letter deadline purge when he chose to remain with the Rangers after he was given the chance to opt out of an embryonic rebuild program and pursue his Stanley Cup dream somewhere else.

 

Because here were the Blueshirts, powered to a great extent by kids and big-money free agent and trade acquisitions, storming into the playoff race by going 16-6 under just the type of accelerated rebuild program that the King foresaw two years earlier when he pledged his heart to New York.

 

Which made it even more cruel that Lundqvist was more apart from it than a part of it. As much The Franchise as Tom Seaver ever was in Queens, the goaltender essentially was airbrushed out of the team picture and watched as the pair of 24-year-olds, Igor Shesterkin and Alex Georgiev, took his job and ran with it.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/rangers-excruciating-henrik-lundvist-choice-was-the-right-one/

https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/rangers-excruciating-henrik-lundvist-choice-was-the-right-one/

He can go elsewhere if he likes. Or he can be a backup or part-timer at best.

I do believe if he wanted to go, they could find a partner.

Whether or not it’s a place he’d want to be is anyone’s guess, but I think they could make it work.

Rangers could swallow half the cap hit and the real money in the deal is much lower.

It can be done if he wants to go elsewhere. Though I doubt he does.

If the price they gave to pay however is trading Georgiev and letting Hank play out his deal, it is what it is. Georgiev is almost certainly the backup as long as he’s here. Rangers have had little issue finding and getting good results out of capable backups over the last 15 years.

Except cold-blooded decisions look like this and leave an abominable taste in your mouth. And boy, was this one cold-blooded, even if supported by the numbers as the correct one. Even the most ardent of Lundqvist believers, and you are reading one right this very moment, would have to agree. Shesterkin was a powerful booster injection into the team?s bloodstream, Georgiev elevated his game in the midst of the three-pronged derby, and the Rangers charged into contention. Still, this was as cold-blooded as it gets.

 

It was as cold-blooded as Emile Francis putting 36-year-old Ed Giacomin on waivers at the end of October 1975 in order to clear the way for 22-year-old John Davidson; as cold-blooded as John Ferguson suddenly releasing 36-year-old Rod Gilbert 20 games into 1977-78. It was as cold-blooded as the Giants releasing 38-year-old Phil Simms during the 1994 offseason after he had quarterbacked the team to the second round of the playoffs the preceding year.

 

As cold-blooded as that.

 

Was it disrespectful? I don?t know. I do know that the executives and coaches involved in the decision believe they have been respectful in their communications with Lundqvist, and who am I to say that is untrue? Only the principals know the content of their conversations and none has revealed their nature. It may be a leap here, and I do not want to ascribe thoughts to Lundqvist that might not be his, but he sure didn?t appear overly respected over the last month or so of NHL activity.

Henrik Lundqvist is not a star-type player. He is a pending first-ballot Hall of Famer who has had one of the great careers in the history of New York pro sports.

 

That?s all. He chose to stay when given an escape route. That was not selfishness. That was loyalty.

 

There were just too many marginal goals that often offset the importance of spectacular saves. Lundqvist not only was getting beaten more often in games, he was getting beaten more often at practices. And the Rangers seemed more unsettled in front of him than in front of either of the younger netminders.

 

Some of that surely can be traced to the kids? superiority in handling the puck. But I wonder if part of the phenomenon wasn?t also a reflection of the gap between most of the Rangers, young and just getting their feet wet in the NHL, and Lundqvist, a generational player. Most were in grade school when Lundqvist first made his mark in New York.

 

The Rangers made their choice. That is why I cannot conceive of Lundqvist returning for the final season of his deal. I think a Shesterkin-Lundqvist tandem could have worked, but management obviously did not. That is why, as I first started writing a couple of months ago, to expect a buyout. I do not have any idea whether Lundqvist would seek to extend his career somewhere else or whether he will retire. I do not know whether Lundqvist knows what he wants to do next year and whether experiencing this pandemic would have an impact on that decision.

 

But this, before he goes:

 

Can we take a trip to a place where dreams are born (or achieved) and time is never planned? Can we take a trip to Neverland, where the 2019-20 playoffs will be held, and Lundqvist, having reported to a post-pause training camp as the Rangers? sharpest netminder, gets the call from Quinn and takes advantage of that one last chance and goes out with the glory of taking his team to the Stanley Cup?

 

Can we?

Link: https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/rangers-excruciating-henrik-lundvist-choice-was-the-right-one/

I’m a believer in buying out Hank as I’ve said many times here but let’s also keep one thing in mind. If you buy him out this offseason a chunk of that saved money will be used to retain Georgie in RFA. You figure at least 2m at arbitration, possibly more.

Another way to go that could save face a bit is use Georgie in a trade to entice a team to still get a young cost effective goalie but take on Smiths salary at team same time. Savings equal pretty much what you get if you do that as opposed to buying out Hank.

All careers come to an end. The list of old "legends" who had to be moved to make way for the fresh talent is long.

I assume Hank will get a job in the front office and still be around the team for a long time.

I’m a believer in buying out Hank as I’ve said many times here but let’s also keep one thing in mind. If you buy him out this offseason a chunk of that saved money will be used to retain Georgie in RFA. You figure at least 2m at arbitration, possibly more.

Another way to go that could save face a bit is use Georgie in a trade to entice a team to still get a young cost effective goalie but take on Smiths salary at team same time. Savings equal pretty much what you get if you do that as opposed to buying out Hank.

Yup

$3 million dollars in savings from a buyout, minus whatever it costs to keep Georgiev around, probably $1.5-2 million.

Are we assuming that if a team took Smith along with Georgiev, Rangers would retain some of Smith’s salary and cap hit?

Or are we thinking that whichever team did that would be buying him out?

A burial on Smith only saves like $1 million IIRC, so I don’t see that as what a team would do.

But I’m guessing this hypothetical team would want some sort if salary relief on Smith as it’s hard to see any team paying $6 million for a backup goalie and a 7th D.

I think we're getting to the point where they need to admit this season is toast, figure out how they want to handle draft order, and just move into the off-season calendar as normally scheduled.

Where are we as far as draft positions now?

I'd think teams that gave up first round picks around the deadline are going to be PISSED. Do these trades get reversed? Teams get awarded buyouts as compensation? This is going to get weird.

Where are we as far as draft positions now?

I'd think teams that gave up first round picks around the deadline are going to be PISSED. Do these trades get reversed? Teams get awarded buyouts as compensation? This is going to get weird.

Since they get the lower of Carolina’s 2 picks, currently they have their own pick at 13 (pre-lottery drawing) and Toronto’s pick (via Carolina) at 23.

I can’t see the league doing ANYTHING to protect or compensate any teams that traded picks for help to make a run at the deadline. Nor should they. Playoffs or not, either way, those teams wouldn’t have the picks.

This is “act of God” category. Those teams made those trades. Their picks are now no longer their property.

They’re just going to have to eat it, regardless of whether or not they made the deal hoping for a playoff run or not.

Whether or not they had the opportunity to pursue a Cup with the help of talent acquired for said pick(s) is really irrelevant. Either way, they wouldn’t have the pick(s) they traded.

I don’t see them as having any substantive complaint or recourse.

If they resume the season and do t let the bubble teams in or give them a chance to get in, are those teams going to see money from playoff TV?

League might do something to help there. Or help on any gate receipts lost from unplayed games that would have been high-drawing/high-interest, i.e. playoff games or regular season games played in pursuit of a playoff spot.

But I think the best any team could hope for is some financial help for lost revenue. Trades are done deals.

If buyouts are awarded, it’s not going to be to help teams that made trades. They took that salary on regardless.

Buyouts will be league wide and to help teams comply with any issues on salary cap and the like.

Since they get the lower of Carolina’s 2 picks, currently they have their own pick at 13 (pre-lottery drawing) and Toronto’s pick (via Carolina) at 23.

I can’t see the league doing ANYTHING to protect or compensate any teams that traded picks for help to make a run at the deadline. Nor should they. Playoffs or not, either way, those teams wouldn’t have the picks.

This is “act of God” category. Those teams made those trades. Their picks are now no longer their property.

They’re just going to have to eat it, regardless of whether or not they made the deal hoping for a playoff run or not.

 

Whether or not they had the opportunity to pursue a Cup with the help of talent acquired for said pick(s) is really irrelevant. Either way, they wouldn’t have the pick(s) they traded.

 

I don’t see them as having any substantive complaint or recourse.

 

If they resume the season and do t let the bubble teams in or give them a chance to get in, are those teams going to see money from playoff TV?

League might do something to help there. Or help on any gate receipts lost from unplayed games that would have been high-drawing/high-interest, i.e. playoff games or regular season games played in pursuit of a playoff spot.

 

But I think the best any team could hope for is some financial help for lost revenue. Trades are done deals.

 

If buyouts are awarded, it’s not going to be to help teams that made trades. They took that salary on regardless.

Buyouts will be league wide and to help teams comply with any issues on salary cap and the like.

It would be super huge for the league and the Rangers, if the league would award buyouts to every team, due to the lack of playoff revenue. A clean Lundquist contract exit would be huge for this team going into the summer. Nevermind if the draft lottery helps the Rangers get into a top 5 slot

Is there any chatter about this?

It would be super huge for the league and the Rangers, if the league would award buyouts to every team, due to the lack of playoff revenue. A clean Lundquist contract exit would be huge for this team going into the summer. Nevermind if the draft lottery helps the Rangers get into a top 5 slot

 

Is there any chatter about this?

As for any official comment from the teams or the league, no.

But there’s been ample chatter about this from multiple media sources

Here’s a couple of links.

There are numerous articles about this out there over the last few weeks. But it’s is purely speculative at this point as it will likely be something that can’t be decided until they figure out where they stand and what course of action they will take regarding the cap. They won’t know that until the COVID-19 situation is resolved and they can assign actual numbers to lost revenue. Obviously they’re losing money and whether or not they come back and play at some point under any circumstances they will still be losing money.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/us/amp/nhl/news/could-nhl-implement-compliance-buyouts-following-covid-19-shutdown/122xbrqzi8nty1x78mtj47p5z5

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/top-11-purely-hypothetical-nhl-compliance-buyout-candidates/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/puckprose.com/2020/04/04/new-york-rangers-top-3-potential-compliance-buyout-candidates/amp/

It is the right thing to do considering how much he brought to the organization, in spite of having no cup. He was our rock for many seasons Let him go out the way he wants. Similar to Eli with the Giants.

And what if he wants to play here past this contract?

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