ThirtyONE Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 I'm just saying that we haven't even seen Shesterkin play enough to know if he's actually that much better. Use a different example then - Jordan Binnington won a stanley cup in his rookie season and makes 6M. We're paying this guy almost the same who has barely won 25 games in the nhl. Anyway doesn't matter bc like we all agree this is not going to kill anyone if it goes bad. Jordan Binnington also isn't very good lol. So yeah, it's a decent number for Shesty. But it's not out of the ordinary. It's not shockingly high. I do wish it was 1 year longer but I'm not gonna be upset about that. I was expecting 6+ million so I'm actually quite relieved it's not that. Someone else said it but we have 4 years to see if we can develop anyone else. That should be allaire's goal. What can't happen again is that Hank contract. In the meantime we have 4 years to enjoy relatively cheap goaltending without much worry (injuries aside). The team should be taking 2-3 shots at winning the whole thing over that period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravesy Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Good, sensible deal. Absolutely zero complaints with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keirik Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Carter Hart just got 3yrs at 11.9M/3.96AAV. Has Shesterkin really proven that he's that much better? I can't say that the answer is yes. Can't help but feel that we're overpaying a bit. Even in the best case scenario this is probably an overpayment. This puts him at top #11 paid goalie in the league: https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contracts/goaltender/ Is Shesterkin really a top 10 goalie? I think we're not even sure if he's a top 20 goalie at this point. Anyway this is not going to kill us either way but it doesn't bode well for future contracts negotiated by the new brain trust Philly d was trash last year but Hart had a bad year as well. Likely his contest was indicative of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 we have benoit. totally o.k. with this. we always have goalies in the pipe. win us two cups and walk at 30. i'd sign up for that right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 we have benoit. totally o.k. with this. we always have goalies in the pipe. win us two cups and walk at 30. i'd sign up for that right now. I'd even settle for one, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 It's definitely an unusually rich contract for a goalie with 47 games in the NHL. There have been a lot of goalies who had good rookie seasons and then didn't pan out. The thing is, as others have noted, he's two years from UFA, which isn't usually the case with a guy who has played 47 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 It's definitely an unusually rich contract for a goalie with 47 games in the NHL. There have been a lot of goalies who had good rookie seasons and then didn't pan out. The thing is, as others have noted, he's two years from UFA, which isn't usually the case with a guy who has played 47 games. Yup. The way I see it, there were three options here: Option A: A one-year deal to turn that 47 games into 65~ and then negotiate a long-term deal in January. Not sure that would have been all that beneficial. It's another maybe 20 games really going to tell you what nearly 50 hasn't already? Or, even if you don't negotiate mid-season, you're still only looking at maybe 100 games. Maybe. Option B: An even longer-term contract, likely at a larger AAV price point (seeing as you'd be buying his free agency) which hardly seems logical if you're already hesitant about 47 games experience. Option C: What they did. -- Which looks better? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash or Czech Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 The thing that concerns me is his injury history. The guy is a top performer and a winner wherever he goes. Even his stats in those 47 career games align pretty well with what he did in the KHL and AHL. As long as he can remain durable, I think this will be a good contract. It also alleviates the issues we had cap-wise when we had Lundqvist on his monster contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 The thing that concerns me is his injury history. The guy is a top performer and a winner wherever he goes. Even his stats in those 47 career games align pretty well with what he did in the KHL and AHL. As long as he can remain durable, I think this will be a good contract. It also alleviates the issues we had cap-wise when we had Lundqvist on his monster contract. All the more reason for a short-term deal. I don't want to be locked into a $7 million goalie on the wrong side of 30 with multiple seasons left and serious injury concerns. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valriera Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Yup. The way I see it, there were three options here: Option A: A one-year deal to turn that 47 games into 65~ and then negotiate a long-term deal in January. Not sure that would have been all that beneficial. It's another maybe 20 games really going to tell you what nearly 50 hasn't already? Or, even if you don't negotiate mid-season, you're still only looking at maybe 100 games. Maybe. Option B: An even longer-term contract, likely at a larger AAV price point (seeing as you'd be buying his free agency) which hardly seems logical if you're already hesitant about 47 games experience. Option C: What they did. -- Which looks better? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro A looks better, because even if we're only talking 47 -> 65, it's 38% more signal on top of the 47 games we have currently which is significant when it comes to determining this stuff. I don't think it's a huge amount better but I do think it's better enough that I would have done that. Both of those options are way better than option B though, so if we're landing on one of those three where we're at is not the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 I mean, I'd rather go shorter than longer with goalies. Especially ones with injury history like Shesterkin. Goaltending is the position with the highest variance in the entire league. If this means they walk away in four years and sign a veteran, so be it. Exactly where I'm at with this. It's just right. Maybe a tiny bit high in AV, but this could be a franchise goalie if he gets back on track. This is one of those risks that I feel a GM has to make. The potential payoff of it working can be very beneficial for a team that is worried about cap space for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 A looks better, because even if we're only talking 47 -> 65, it's 38% more signal on top of the 47 games we have currently which is significant when it comes to determining this stuff. I don't think it's a huge amount better but I do think it's better enough that I would have done that. Both of those options are way better than option B though, so if we're landing on one of those three where we're at is not the worst You also have to factor in they just traded away his driving buddy. Maybe showing little faith with a 1 year deal ticks him off and he takes his ball and goes home. They've babied this guy and kinda kissed his ass since the beginning. Offering a 1 year deal, seriously might have annoyed him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Yup. The way I see it, there were three options here: Option A: A one-year deal to turn that 47 games into 65~ and then negotiate a long-term deal in January. Not sure that would have been all that beneficial. It's another maybe 20 games really going to tell you what nearly 50 hasn't already? Or, even if you don't negotiate mid-season, you're still only looking at maybe 100 games. Maybe. Option B: An even longer-term contract, likely at a larger AAV price point (seeing as you'd be buying his free agency) which hardly seems logical if you're already hesitant about 47 games experience. Option C: What they did. -- Which looks better? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ProA looks better, because even if we're only talking 47 -> 65, it's 38% more signal on top of the 47 games we have currently which is significant when it comes to determining this stuff. I don't think it's a huge amount better but I do think it's better enough that I would have done that. Both of those options are way better than option B though, so if we're landing on one of those three where we're at is not the worstIt's likely 50 more games, not 20. We're talking about games played, not wins. If he doesn't play 50-55 games, wtf we paying him for? And 50 games is double the 47 we've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 20 would be negotiating in January. 50 if you run the year out. And I'd have been fine doing that but he'd also be one year older, which means whatever deal you sign is one closer to 35. Marginal risk, but still a factor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Any word on any kind of NTC? I assume it's a given since they gave one to the 6th/7th Dman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Any word on any kind of NTC? I assume it's a given since they gave one to the 6th/7th Dman... CapFriendly has no clauses listed, but notes the full details of the deal aren't confirmed yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Can’t have any NTC during RFA years. So it would only be the last 2 (?) years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 Steve is such a dork, I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Can’t have any NTC during RFA years. So it would only be the last 2 (?) years Yes, but they bought two UFA, so it's possible it kicks in then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog99 Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Shesty flashed brilliance 2 seasons ago. If he can get back to playing that way, this contract will be a steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pws85nyr Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Good, sensible deal. Absolutely zero complaints with it. My thoughts exactly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Not only will the charismatic netminder be eligible for unrestricted free agency as a 29-year-old in 2025, but the deal is backloaded so that Shesterkin will receive a $2 million base (plus a $1 million signing bonus) this upcoming season when escrow will be set at 17 or 18 percent; a $6 million base in 2022-23 when escrow will be 10 percent; a $5 million base (plus a $2 million signing bonus) in 2023-24 and then a $6.667 million base in each of the final two seasons when escrow is capped at 6 percent. But the Rangers kept the number under $6 million and under the $7 million (at least) that would have accompanied a deal of six years or longer. Short-term objectives were achieved. As a result, and with all of the compulsory offseason work completed, Drury has approximately $6 million of space with which to maneuver entering the season. https://nypost.com/2021/08/09/rangers-agree-to-historic-contract-with-igor-shesterkin/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slobberknocker Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 the deal is worth the risk imho. i'm thinking this is it for him regardless. doubt they'd turn around at 30 and pay this guy another 6-7 years at 7mln plus. i wouldnt do it considering the top six will need to be locked up. better to keep developing kids through the draft. you gotta mirror the way the patriots do things. look how many guys they let walk slightly past their prime to keep costs in check. if you don't do that in this league as well your dead man walking at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirtyONE Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 the deal is worth the risk imho. i'm thinking this is it for him regardless. doubt they'd turn around at 30 and pay this guy another 6-7 years at 7mln plus. i wouldnt do it considering the top six will need to be locked up. better to keep developing kids through the draft. you gotta mirror the way the patriots do things. look how many guys they let walk slightly past their prime to keep costs in check. if you don't do that in this league as well your dead man walking at some point. Sure except they paid Tom Brady until he was 42 lol. To me, it totally depends on how Igor progresses. If he's the best goalie in the league at 29 and he has playoff success, it's nearly impossible not to stick with him, even if he is expensive. Goalies generally have longer, more productive careers into their 30s as well. If Igor remains average, then yeah, we can hope to have someone developed and waiting in the wings in 4 years. 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