lefty9 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Yep,it's Hank s fault ,cause he couldn't score a couple of goals,damn you Hank,you cost us the cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 It's quite likely they wouldn't even have been in the big ones without him. Whatever. I think it's ridiculous to suggest Lundqvist was the main reason they didn't win a cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodka Drunkenski Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6-2 with .958 save % and 1 SO in game 7's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 The only Stanley cup final we've played in the last 25 years would've never happend if it wasn't for Hank. "After the Rangers fell behind to the Penguins in their second round series 3-1, Lundqvist faced 32, 37, and 36 shots against in the final three games, all wins, respectively. His save percentage in those final three games? A not-so-pedestrian .971". In the conference final he was .922 and the Stanley cup final he was .923, but sure - He's fault we've never won anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 It is a belief that his play was masking a bad team - prevented them from properly rebuilding 4 times and counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Worst take in the history of this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Both opinions are correct. He was instrumental in any success we enjoyed, but also gave up brutal goals that changed series'. Karlsson goal was as bad at as bad a time as any I can remember anyone letting in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty9 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Would we be happy if any of our young goalies could ever become anywhere near like Hank ,the answer is yes. Having Hank around is like having a super star forward,like we never had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I would agree, but I'd also look to move on from such a goalie before they make 8 million/year. IMO the best goalie system is one where you're rotating 2-3 very good goalies through in a space of 3-5 years. Just keep them coming and move them as they become costly. There's just way too many fantastic goalies out there to saddle a large portion of cap to any one goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Lets not paint Lundqvist into this swedish Jesus. He only won the Vezina once and that only out of pity. His numbers weren’t even the best that year. He is just the flashiest that will make a crazy save. His salary is another thing might’ve prevented the team getting better upfront, especially in the beginning of his contract when $2-3M in cap made a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 while i wasn't a big fan of the 8 mln dollar contract, the guy has done as solid a job as anyone repping ranger blue. for a lot of years he was a goalie the rest of the league was envious not to have. sometimes you don't know what you have if your too close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Welp, I look forward to the day we're paying an average goalie 4-5m a year because I can tell you right now there will be some very bad goals given up at very bad times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 The past is the past. The present isn't great. The future is what we are building toward. I focus on where I'd like the team to be 2-5 years from now. I still watch (when I can, no MSG), and there are some tough games to watch right now. Eventually vets will be traded/retire/have their contracts expire and move on. It would be a great story if Lundqvist could backstop a Stanley Cup champion, hopefully the Rangers. Given where our roster is right now... I don't see it. I hope he proves me wrong. How are we going to build a consistent Stanley Cup contender for a five year window? 1940 and 1994 were great. Other franchises have had 4-10 year windows where they have won multiple Stanley Cups, or gone to multiple finals. Wouldn't that be great? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4EverRangerFrank Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Liked your article posted to Twitter. :clap: Questions to be considered next; Should Sather be the next to go in this rebuild? How about Ruff? The D is rough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I buy the argument about cap space, but that's neither here nor there and a separate discussion to whether Lundqvist was the main reason they didn't win a cup. Unless you're making the mother of all assumptions; the Rangers would have spent the extra cap space on a player or two that would have propelled them to the cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I buy the argument about cap space, but that's neither here nor there and a separate discussion to whether Lundqvist was the main reason they didn't win a cup. Unless you're making the mother of all assumptions; the Rangers would have spent the extra cap space on a player or two that would have propelled them to the cup. This is the only mental gymnastics that could make this argument somewhat valid but my brain is out of shape and I couldn't do a cartwheel to save my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty9 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 while i wasn't a big fan of the 8 mln dollar contract, the guy has done as solid a job as anyone repping ranger blue. for a lot of years he was a goalie the rest of the league was envious not to have. sometimes you don't know what you have if your too close to it.I agree ,I don't think anyone is ,but this ranger organisation cant seem to find a Stud up front to sign to a contract like Hanks ,of course now it would be more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 10, 2019 Author Share Posted January 10, 2019 Liked your article posted to Twitter. :clap: Questions to be considered next; Should Sather be the next to go in this rebuild? How about Ruff? The D is rough. Thanks, Frank. Link here, if anyone else wants to read it: https://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2019/1/10/18174888/for-better-not-worse-the-new-york-rangers-are-all-in-on-the-rebuild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Both opinions are correct. He was instrumental in any success we enjoyed, but also gave up brutal goals that changed series'. Karlsson goal was as bad at as bad a time as any I can remember anyone letting in.Bingo. The OT goal from Kucherov from the blueline, Federov from the circle, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Bingo. The OT goal from Kucherov from the blueline, Federov from the circle, etc. That 2015 series was a nightmare for Lundqvist. Don't forget that ridiculously weak Killorn goal in Game 7 to take the lead in the 3rd period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.