article: Zuccarello: Handling of Lundqvist "Disrespectful"

Well it's not just about saving cap space. It's also about what's best for the teams future. The fact there is also some cap space, albeit small amount extra, is a nice by product.

Down the line if Gio is a starter, let's say in year 2 of a 3 year contract or even at an expiring year, then he is also a much more valuable trade option for us and probably for a piece that might make the difference of a cup run. Having two young talented starting goalies would be a problem I'll sign up for any day of the week especially since I really don't think Georgie is breaking bank on this rfa contract coming up.

Georgie is much more tradeable the more time he has under his belt playing.

Georgiev won’t be here in 2 years anyway in all likelihood.

While he’ll be cheap now, on what would likely be a 2-year bridge at probably $1-1.5 per, both him and Shesty are up for new contracts in 22 as of now.

They’re not paying the big money that Shesty will likely require and also giving Georgiev a raise in the $2-3 million range which is where he’d project at that point. They’ll move on from him and find a replacement. Probably a cheap one from within. Wall or Lindbom are probably ready by then.

Yes you could trade him at that point. But he’s still unproven as a starter as he’ll have just played as a backup with another 45-50 games played under his belt. The return won’t be huge. Not too much bigger than he’d get now.

You move on now and deal with Hank as your backup for a year. He should perform comparably to what Georgiev gives you. He’s a veteran. Locker room leader on a still young team. And he’ll be someone that Igor can watch and learn from at the least even if there’s not actual mentoring going on

And there’s no messy split and bad PR from ditching Hank.

Yes i fully think two years from now they would have moved on from Georgiev as well. But at that point he either has shown NHL starter stuff with another 60+ games under his belt and has an NHL career of about 120 starts or shows to be backup and we let him go. If he shows to be a starter, he likely improves his numbers and is a lot more valuable to a team via trade for a 26 year old that has another 60+ starts under is belt.

Our prospects from what I remember are Wall and Huska. Huska didnt exactly steal the show after Sheshy left. Very average. Wall is coming out of college so who knows what he is yet facing next level competition. I get that neither one would be brought in as a starter but teams dont build a winning organization by just saying "okay, we are set in goal so lets just build backups." There are a ton of different scenarios that are plausable where Sheshty ends up not playing either be regressing, injury, who the hell knows.

In my mind, there just is no way in the world its smart hockey to get rid of a 24 year old goalie starting his career because we decided an aging 8m former franchise goalie needs his spot on the bench for one more season. If anything, this quarantine situation and the possibility of an amnesty buyout makes it even less sense to keep Hank around.

Hell, if they decided to really go for that Exception Player rule ( i don't think they would. I think they would just an amnesty buyout) then I still buyout Hank normally and use the Exception on Panarin. Then we really are talking about some nice wiggle room for years to come when guys like Ziby are on their next contract. Just my opinion. Try to keep the guy that has a possibility to trend up, not move him for the guy trending down for years.

For the record btw, its nice to discuss hockey again even if we disagree. Trust me, I really hate to see this happen to Hank. I just don't see a logical way where keeping him is the best decision for the future of this team though and I don't just want to win, I want to build a team that wins for years to come. At some point business has to overrule the heart.

Totally enjoy the conversation too Keirik. And I do often agree with your posts. Lol

How I see it is that whomever they keep is of little consequence to the future I guess is how I’d put it.

Either way, it’s my opinion they’d get roughly equivalent play from both of them in 25ish games next season.

No commitment to Hank beyond next season. Georgiev is likely a 2-year bridge at low money. Hank buyout saves them not much money. And it’s messy with bad optics. Trading Georgiev, as a backup, brings roughly the same return now as it would down the road a ways. Won’t be amazing.

Either way, they’re looking for a new backup goalie. It’s just whether it happens in offseason after 20-21 or offseason after of 21-22. And they’ve had no issue finding goalies.

Neither one is in the plan long-term.

But as stated, if compliance buyout is there, they need to use it on Hank.

I totally get what you are saying and I’d say the sentiment on keeping Hank seems to be like what you just said in a nutshell. Neither Georgie not Hank are part of the future so keep Hank because it saves you the bad optics.

I’m kind of looking at this from the 21/22 season. Hopefully at that time Sheshty is in the first year of his own bridge deal putting up fantastic numbers and Georgie is in the last of his bridge putting up somewhere in the .915 save % and good stats on a team that is in the upper echelon of the league.

That’s the point. We either are at a point where we have every chance to trade him at a value a bit higher for a piece that might help us or we keep him as insurance if we just think we are too close and need goalie insurance.

I totally get what you are saying and I’d say the sentiment on keeping Hank seems to be like what you just said in a nutshell. Neither Georgie not Hank are part of the future so keep Hank because it saves you the bad optics.

 

I’m kind of looking at this from the 21/22 season. Hopefully at that time Sheshty is in the first year of his own bridge deal putting up fantastic numbers and Georgie is in the last of his bridge putting up somewhere in the .915 save % and good stats on a team that is in the upper echelon of the league.

That’s the point. We either are at a point where we have every chance to trade him at a value a bit higher for a piece that might help us or we keep him as insurance if we just think we are too close and need goalie insurance.

If Shesty continues on current trajectory and ends up on a bridge deal in 2 years, something has gone wrong

If he emerges over next 2 years like we expect, as one of the best goalies in the league, they’ll do what they did with Hank and he’ll get a long-term deal at a good number early on.

Hank did 2 years on the ELC in 05-06 and 06-07, got a 1 year deal for $4.25 for 07-08, then signed his extension for 6 years and $41.25 which kicked in for 08-09 through 14.

I think Shesty, if he does what we think, gets a long-term deal for nice goalie money kicking in for 22-23.

If Shesty continues on current trajectory and ends up on a bridge deal in 2 years, something has gone wrong

 

If he emerges over next 2 years like we expect, as one of the best goalies in the league, they’ll do what they did with Hank and he’ll get a long-term deal at a good number early on.

Hank did 2 years on the ELC in 05-06 and 06-07, got a 1 year deal for $4.25 for 07-08, then signed his extension for 6 years and $41.25 which kicked in for 08-09 through 14.

 

I think Shesty, if he does what we think, gets a long-term deal for nice goalie money kicking in for 22-23.

Alright. I didn’t mean bridge deal as in 2m per. I think you’re reading too much into it. Technically, Hanks second deal was his bridge deal before getting an 8.5m deal. Poor choice of words by me. I just meant his second contract which would be in between what he eventually makes at top pay for lack of a better term. Some players (McDavid, Eichel, Crosby) went straight to a top contract after his entry.

Alright. I didn’t mean bridge deal as in 2m per. I think you’re reading too much into it. Technically, Hanks second deal was his bridge deal before getting an 8.5m deal. Poor choice of words by me. I just meant his second contract which would be in between what he eventually makes at top pay for lack of a better term. Some players (McDavid, Eichel, Crosby) went straight to a top contract after his entry.

If you’re referring to that 1 year deal he signed for the 07-08 season, then yes I guess you could count that as a bridge.

But it wasn’t really a bridge deal. Only 1 year. He got a 500% raise in that contract. And if I recall correctly, he signed that deal to accommodate the Drury and Gomez signings knowing he’d get the long-term deal in very short order, which he did in February of 08.

Hank’s deal in 08-09 was basically top dollar for a goalie at the time. It was maybe a little slanted to the team friendly side.

Can’t call 6 years and 41.25 in February of 2008 a bridge.

If all goes to plan with Igor, I think he gets a 6-8 year deal in 2 years. While I won’t speculate on the money yet, it will be a big but fair number.

I really have to admit that this is a very weary topic in general at this point.

So little to actually talk about we are beating this shit to death. And I’ve got drives of time on my hands now, so I’m the worst.

I guess the bottom line at this point is whichever route they go as the backup the team will be fine in that area.

There’s pros and cons to both. Neither is really in the plan long-term.

If you’re referring to that 1 year deal he signed for the 07-08 season, then yes I guess you could count that as a bridge.

But it wasn’t really a bridge deal. Only 1 year. He got a 500% raise in that contract. And if I recall correctly, he signed that deal to accommodate the Drury and Gomez signings knowing he’d get the long-term deal in very short order, which he did in February of 08.

 

Hank’s deal in 08-09 was basically top dollar for a goalie at the time. It was maybe a little slanted to the team friendly side.

Can’t call 6 years and 41.25 in February of 2008 a bridge.

 

If all goes to plan with Igor, I think he gets a 6-8 year deal in 2 years. While I won’t speculate on the money yet, it will be a big but fair number.

Yup. I count that as bridge. It says we will pay you about take this place holder for today, you’ll be really paid tomorrow. Really not much more to it but yeah, boredom makes us discuss things far too literal lol

It wasn't really a bridge because they signed him in January. It was more of a we need to wait until cap space opens up.

You mean like a bridge until there is an opening for the real deal? Yup:)

Technically speaking it is in that it came between ELC and long-term extension

Though it wasn’t really one in that it was only a 1 year, not the usual 2, gave him a massive raise not usually seen in a bridge, and it wasn’t given for the usual “prove it to us” reasons.

Really he just did them a favor, took a big raise for 1 season with a wink and a nod, and gave them another 6 months or so to maneuver and get an idea of how much the cap was going up.

It went up big between those 2 seasons.

$6 million jump I believe.

I think what you called it Keirik was actually most accurate.

A place holder deal.

To the original point, there won’t be that for Igor.

Big extension right away.

I’d forgotten Igor only signed a 2 year ELC.

RFA next year.

Doesn’t change anything

Actually helps. A long-term extension would start when he’s a year younger.

Even on an 8-year, it only goes to 33. Perfect.

It’s irrelevant. I just meant placeholder deal. In terms of Shesty, I figure they might do a 2-3 year deal if Georgie is still around taking 30+ starts still wahich helps keeps Shestys contract more of a conventional deal before his big payday.

It’s totally moot.

They’ve got some time to figure him out. And a decision on Hank and Georgiev first too.

A little hard to see them passing on locking him up young and long-term at 25. Especially if it gets them a bit cheaper price for doing it early, but we will see.