Drew a Penalty Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Thanks, sure, you win. I'm just going to stop clicking view post. Oh no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I don't know...I think if anything he's shown that there are goalies to be had on the market who are Geo level. There are every year. Who? There are a couple of comparables who are also RFA controlled, which could dillute the trade market and Georgiev's trade value if they are available. Which UFAs from that list are similar in age and will be similar in cost? Where a team might feel like they might have their goalie for the next 6-10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Who? There are a couple of comparables who are also RFA controlled, which could dillute the trade market and Georgiev's trade value if they are available. Which UFAs from that list are similar in age and will be similar in cost? Where a team might feel like they might have their goalie for the next 6-10 years? Why does he need to be similar age? We have young goalies in the system. Our backup doesn't need to be young, just inexpensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Who? There are a couple of comparables who are also RFA controlled, which could dillute the trade market and Georgiev's trade value if they are available. Which UFAs from that list are similar in age and will be similar in cost? Where a team might feel like they might have their goalie for the next 6-10 years? Rangers dont need a goalie next season, so why are people caught up on comparables? Look at the UFA goalies in 2021 if that's the concern. Rangers also have several goalie prospects. Plus, they need to get someone to make available for the expansion draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Holtby: how the mighty have fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I don't know...I think if anything he's shown that there are goalies to be had on the market who are Geo level. There are every year. Right. What Georgiev has working in his favor are his age and RFA status. Among the UFA goalies he'd be about the 4th or 5th best option. Probably not good enough to be a bonafide starter but enough to confidently split a tandem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Why does he need to be similar age? We have young goalies in the system. Our backup doesn't need to be young, just inexpensive. My b. I typed that up quick and was conflating Georgiev's trade value to other teams as equaling his worth to us. Your point is fair. We don't need a young goalie. Just one who can match Georgiev. But I still don't see a UFA goalie on that list who is both as good as Georgiev and will be as cheap as Georgiev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Rangers dont need a goalie next season, so why are people caught up on comparables? Look at the UFA goalies in 2021 if that's the concern. Rangers also have several goalie prospects. Plus, they need to get someone to make available for the expansion draft. The Rangers need a good backup goalie next year. I'm not willing to downgrade backup G for a 2nd or 3rd round pick when I think our backup will probably net in the vicinity of 25-35 games. Shesterkin is used to playing 30 to 40 games a season, not 60 + playoffs. He will likely be eased into carrying the load. The bonus is Georgiev should be tracking upwards. These old UFA goalies have peaked. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 The bonus is Georgiev should be tracking upwards. These old UFA goalies have peaked. Meh. I agree with this. Georgiev hit a bit of a wall this season but didn't drop dramatically in any of his stats. The posts I made show that. Eight of the goalies I listed played fewer games than Georgiev this season. Nine are 32 or older. They're not really goaltenders you can count on in anything but the short-term. If I were looking at Georgiev as a trade piece he'd interest me over some of the comparable UFA options. Khudobin is his best statistical competition and he's 34. Holtby probably is the youngest one, 30, with the best track record but the last few seasons haven't been kind to him. He also won't come cheap. Crawford had himself a bit of a resurgence but he's 35. Lehner is 28 and has been good in the regular season. He might need to step it up a bit more in the playoffs because he's been mediocre. Markstrom, 30, has been solid in the last few seasons. I think he's probably the best of the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 The Rangers need a good backup goalie next year. They didnt have a good back up this season! I'm not willing to downgrade backup G for a 2nd or 3rd round pick when I think our backup will probably net in the vicinity of 25-35 games. Shesterkin is used to playing 30 to 40 games a season, not 60 + playoffs. He will likely be eased into carrying the load. Downgrade from what? Why are they downgrading? The bonus is Georgiev should be tracking upwards. These old UFA goalies have peaked. Meh. No one sitting on the bench tracks upwards. Goalies much better than Georgiev (Lehner) didn't bring back much via trade. But the Rangers should be looking to move him for a depth roster player with upside, not picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 They didnt have a good back up this season! Downgrade from what? Why are they downgrading? No one sitting on the bench tracks upwards. Goalies much better than Georgiev (Lehner) didn't bring back much via trade. But the Rangers should be looking to move him for a depth roster player with upside, not picks. I don't agree that Georgiev isn't a good backup. So I don't agree with the premise of your downgrade questions. Playing 30 games isn't just sitting and rotting on the bench. It's playing a very important role in whether the playoffs are made or not without burning Shesterkin out throughout the year. I wasn't talking about his trade value trending upwards. I was referring to his play trending upwards. His trade value will either remain relatively stagnant or decrease as he gets closer to UFA status. That's a price I am willing to pay for good, cost-controlled depth rather than playing backup roulette in the UFA market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMorganBarron Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I find it funny that the crowd that wants to trade away Georgiev are also a crowd that thinks he will bring back a low return (because as example they will cherry pick some goalie trades that received low returns). So why the hell do you traded him? Just to kiss Lunqvist's ass? We have to now trade away Georgiev for cheap to make Lundqvist and his fanclub happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Holtby: how the mighty have fallen. I find it funny that the crowd that wants to trade away Georgiev are also a crowd that thinks he will bring back a low return (because as example they will cherry pick some goalie trades that received low returns). So why the hell do you traded him? Just to kiss Lunqvist's ass? We have to now trade away Georgiev for cheap to make Lundqvist and his fanclub happy? It’s not about want with regards to Georgiev. It just makes the most sense if Hank is going to be here and there’s no indication he’s retiring as of now. A buyout is a bad idea with minimal benefit. And there’s zero chance he asks for or accepts a trade. If he retires, great. You give Georgiev a 2-year deal and he’s your backup. But even if you do that, guess what...? Georgiev leaves in 2 years. Either because he wants more than any team should pay a backup, or because he wants to be a starter and won’t be one here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 It’s not about want with regards to Georgiev. It just makes the most sense if Hank is going to be here and there’s no indication he’s retiring as of now. A buyout is a bad idea with minimal benefit. And there’s zero chance he asks for or accepts a trade. If he retires, great. You give Georgiev a 2-year deal and he’s your backup. But even if you do that, guess what...? Georgiev leaves in 2 years. Either because he wants more than any team should pay a backup, or because he wants to be a starter and won’t be one here. He'll still be an RFA in 2 years. But changing your statement to 3 years...what's wrong with that? That's 3 years of having a very good and cheap backup goalie. I assume if he has continued to look like a solid option, he will be tradeable at some point during that time to a team that wants him and is willing to give him a larger role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMorganBarron Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 (more wonderful plays from Trouba) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMorganBarron Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 It’s not about want with regards to Georgiev. It just makes the most sense if Hank is going to be here and there’s no indication he’s retiring as of now. A buyout is a bad idea with minimal benefit. And there’s zero chance he asks for or accepts a trade. If he retires, great. You give Georgiev a 2-year deal and he’s your backup. But even if you do that, guess what...? Georgiev leaves in 2 years. Either because he wants more than any team should pay a backup, or because he wants to be a starter and won’t be one here. Lundqvist needs to go, Georgiev should sign 4 year deal. We get a great inexpensive backup goalie that can arguably be 1B. If another prospects is pushing for a job we can trade Georgiev whose value likely went up for a 1st rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 The Rangers need a good backup goalie next year. I'm not willing to downgrade backup G for a 2nd or 3rd round pick when I think our backup will probably net in the vicinity of 25-35 games. Shesterkin is used to playing 30 to 40 games a season, not 60 + playoffs. He will likely be eased into carrying the load. The bonus is Georgiev should be tracking upwards. These old UFA goalies have peaked. Meh.I agree with him needing to be eased in. He's already missed games three times because of injury. I know one of them was the car accident, but the other two in a small handful of games doesn't look great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 He'll still be an RFA in 2 years. But changing your statement to 3 years...what's wrong with that? That's 3 years of having a very good and cheap backup goalie. I assume if he has continued to look like a solid option, he will be tradeable at some point during that time to a team that wants him and is willing to give him a larger role. Just because he’s an RFA doesn’t mean he’d still be here. And even under those circumstances, keeping him may be financially prohibitive as they might not be willing to pay him what he wants . He’d have arb rights by then, so there’s that factor too. What they have to pay him isn’t in their hands entirely. He has arb rights now in fact. Plus, Igor may get a long-term deal between now and then. That effects how much money you can commit and spend vs the cap on your goalies. We’ve already seen the issues it can cause when you’re paying a goalie a lot, and while it’s not likely that Igor to get anywhere near what Hank is getting, if he gets a long-term deal it’s going to be for a nice sized chunk of change. And don’t say they’re going to bridge Igor after next season.While it’s possible, I don’t think they’d pass up the opportunity to get him on a team friendly deal and buy up his best years at a relatively cheap number. And they’ll have that option next offseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 Just because he’s an RFA doesn’t mean he’d still be here. And even under those circumstances, keeping him may be financially prohibitive as they might not be willing to pay him what he wants . He’d have arb rights by then, so there’s that factor too. What they have to pay him isn’t in their hands entirely. He has arb rights now in fact. Plus, Igor may get a long-term deal between now and then. That effects how much money you can commit and spend vs the cap on your goalies. We’ve already seen the issues it can cause when you’re paying a goalie a lot, and while it’s not likely that Igor to get anywhere near what Hank is getting, if he gets a long-term deal it’s going to be for a nice sized chunk of change. And don’t say they’re going to bridge Igor after next season.While it’s possible, I don’t think they’d pass up the opportunity to get him on a team friendly deal and buy up his best years at a relatively cheap number. And they’ll have that option next offseason I'll worry about it when I have to worry about it. Not trading him for a depth player or mid pick because we might lose him in 2 or 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I'll worry about it when I have to worry about it. Not trading him for a depth player or mid pick because we might lose him in 2 or 3 years. But you get a player that’s going to help the team more than a backup goalie. Or in a package for such. I’m not looking for Gregg McKegg return. Rarely do goalies get you a good return via trade. If they can get that, they should. Sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 I'll worry about it when I have to worry about it. Not trading him for a depth player or mid pick because we might lose him in 2 or 3 years. That’s a fair point of view But as long as you have 3 goalies, you have all the speculation, questions, and distraction that comes with that I don’t see a feasible way wherein they can keep 3 goalies next season. Yeah, they had to deal with it through this season, it happened by chance and Igor’s play forced the issue. It’s no ones fault. It just happened. And they really had no solution when it happened. The longer it persists, the worse it gets. The more questions you have to answer. The more distraction it causes. Hopefully he retires. I agree that that is the ideal solution because it solves so many things. But I think the assumption has to be that he’ll want to be back. Time will tell. But they have to solve this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 21, 2020 Share Posted August 21, 2020 But you get a player that’s going to help the team more than a backup goalie. Or in a package for such. I’m not looking for Gregg McKegg return. Rarely do goalies get you a good return via trade. If they can get that, they should. Sooner rather than later. I feel like they would have dealt him for a good return if it was there. Maybe their idea of a good return differs from yours or mine. I would think market value is around a 2nd rounder. If they got an offer of a 1st round pick or a quality middle six player, well, even I would trade him. I just don't think it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMorganBarron Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 I feel like they would have dealt him for a good return if it was there. Maybe their idea of a good return differs from yours or mine. I would think market value is around a 2nd rounder. If they got an offer of a 1st round pick or a quality middle six player, well, even I would trade him. I just don't think it's there. they want a good return like a 1st rounder and other teams are not yet willing to do that, that will change soon enough and when Wall or Huska are pushing for the backup and Shesterkin established himself as #1 goalie then they will trade him. For now their focus has to be to convince our 3rd goalie to retire from NHL. That will be the best for everybody the Rangers, the Cap, the Rangers fans, the Rangers owners, the Rangers coaches, the Rangers goalies, Frolunda, SHL, SHL/Frolunda Fans, Lundqvist, Lundqvist's family and his twin, our RFAs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 I feel like they would have dealt him for a good return if it was there. Maybe their idea of a good return differs from yours or mine. I would think market value is around a 2nd rounder. If they got an offer of a 1st round pick or a quality middle six player, well, even I would trade him. I just don't think it's there. He’s not a guy you’d acquire at the deadline, (not a proven track record) like a Lehner. So Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto. Rebuilding teams aren’t going to trade for him at the deadline when they are selling. Detroit, Buffalo, Wild, Black Hawks, Sharks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersIn7 Posted August 22, 2020 Share Posted August 22, 2020 He’s not a guy you’d acquire at the deadline, (not a proven track record) like a Lehner. So Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto. Rebuilding teams aren’t going to trade for him at the deadline when they are selling. Detroit, Buffalo, Wild, Black Hawks, Sharks Agreed Not a ton of goalie trades happen at the deadline. Especially backup goaltending 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