The Too Early but Not Too Distant Shesterkin Problem

[BrooksBurner]

Shesterkin has two years left on his deal before UFA. That means the Rangers probably have to make a decision sometime next summer, or at least have an idea that they want to commit big money long term or not before next summer ends.

 

At this stage, I think he would cost over $10M to sign long term and I think the Rangers would plan to do it. I'm undecided if I think that's the right thing to do, though what I've seen of late is a top 3-5 goalie is absolutely not required to win. This is probably a tug of war between the brain saying one thing and the heart saying the other, though I don't think Shesterkin is as endearing of a player to the fans and the team as Lundqvist was when they had to extend him long term to a rather anchor of a contract.

 

Thoughts? I was curious of what the temperature was on the subject around here.

Edited June 8, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Br4d]

Hopefully the cap will be expanding at exactly the time he is due and the deal will be appropriate for a cap that will be 20% greater in 3 years.

[Valriera]

Shesterkin is going to get paid and if recent history tells you anything, it's you don't need to pay your goalies to find a good goalie.

 

We have had pretty good luck finding a good goalie, so I would probably let him get paid elsewhere. He deserves it. 

[BrooksBurner]

Just now, Br4d said:

Hopefully the cap will be expanding at exactly the time he is due and the deal will be appropriate for a cap that will be 20% greater in 3 years.

 

Lundqvist's contract was 12.3% of the cap. Assuming Shesterkin costs a similar percentage, that is $10.3M today with an $83.5M cap. If the cap is $90M in two summers, that becomes $11M.

[Br4d]

1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Lundqvist's contract was 12.3% of the cap. Assuming Shesterkin costs a similar percentage, that is $10.3M today with an $83.5M cap. If the cap is $90M in two summers, that becomes $11M.

 

Who is going to make the offer that forces us to pay $11M a year?

[The Dude]

Walks as FA. Maybe they can trade his rights to someone,  so another team can get dibs on negotiating. 

 

He's awesome,  but he's not exactly young and I really don't like the idea of giving him his next contract.  He's very able to get in that 9-10 range and probably 7-8 years. It's too similar of a situation and age to the Lundqvist extension that everyone knew was a bad idea. I don't want to be paying a 34+ (much less a 38 at the end) year old goalie 10 mill. 

 

That's why the Rangers window is really just this coming season and possibly the year after. He goes.... iI's over. 

Edited June 8, 2023 by The Dude

[jsm7302]

Love when he is on but his flopping everytime he is touched really turns me off. I'm good with letting him walk and seeking out a new goalie for Allaire to work his magic with. Hopefully he gets us a cup in the next couple but in no way am I contributing more than 10% of the cap towards that position (including the backup). 

 

EDIT: But this franchise will absolutely pay him. So let's be ready to complain and do what we do best!!

Edited June 8, 2023 by jsm7302

[Phil]

Based on the framing of your question, what I think they will do is re-sign him and complete a return to the Lundqivst years in which the teams skaters will remain average or below average (especially as they age out) and the elite goaltending (that they pay through the nose for) will continue to prop them up.

 

What I wish they'd do is walk away. I have no desire to pay any goalie that much. They're 100% never trading him, though.

[Dunny]

If they are forced in to handing out what will almost certainly be an awful contract, it's because they'll have failed in their development of other goalies, which is almost assuredly what will happen, because this is the New York Rangers.

 

I'd like to see him stay, he's my kids hero, but it's gotta be in the 8 mil range, and that's not gonna happen. He's gotta go, and they have to have option ready to go.

 

In short, he'll stay for sure, and get 10.5 minimum for 8 years.

[RichieNextel305]

If the cap rises, and we give him something along the lines of $10.5 AAV over 8 years, then it’s on the Rangers to not turn this into the Lundqvist years. You’re allowed to pay your stars, even in the net. But you can’t be handing out brain dead contracts the way Sather did to people like Redden. The Rangers can live within the cap if the cap goes up by then so long as management doesn’t fumble the bag and fuck up the roster with horrible contracts to other shit players.

Edited June 8, 2023 by RichieNextel305

[Phil]

12 minutes ago, Dunny said:

If they are forced in to handing out what will almost certainly be an awful contract, it's because they'll have failed in their development of other goalies, which is almost assuredly what will happen, because this is the New York Rangers.

 

I'd like to see him stay, he's my kids hero, but it's gotta be in the 8 mil range, and that's not gonna happen. He's gotta go, and they have to have option ready to go.

 

In short, he'll stay for sure, and get 10.5 minimum for 8 years.

 

[Sod16]

If he starts gradually declining at age 33, he would be in decline for the last five years of the contract.

 

I'm okay with allowing maximum time to decide whether we want to do it.  If that means he goes into the last year without a contract or even completes that season without one, fine.  At that point, we still have the advantage of being the only team that can give him eight years and the only team that does not involve moving.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Sod16

[BrooksBurner]

31 minutes ago, Sod16 said:

If he starts gradually declining at age 33, he would be in decline for the last five years of the contract.

 

I'm okay with allowing maximum time to decide whether we want to do it.  If that means he goes into the last year without a contract or even completes that season without one, fine.  At that point, we still have the advantage of being the only team that can give him eight years and the only team that does not involve moving.

Great points. 

[Pete]

It's hard to say right now because nobody knows what the next two seasons will look like.

 

If we get a new coach and the same results, then it's time to start taking apart the team. And if you're going to be looking at trading Panarin or Zib or Kreider... You may as well move Shesty too at that point. Maybe even Fox. Because the teams going to go from bad to worse. 

[BrooksBurner]

2 hours ago, Sod16 said:

If he starts gradually declining at age 33, he would be in decline for the last five years of the contract.

 

I'm okay with allowing maximum time to decide whether we want to do it.  If that means he goes into the last year without a contract or even completes that season without one, fine.  At that point, we still have the advantage of being the only team that can give him eight years and the only team that does not involve moving.

 

Coming back to this, 8 years by $10 million is a better deal for him than, say, 7 years by 11M. Total value of the 8 year deal is still $3M more. The chances he's worth $3M, or even anything, at the end of a 7 year contract at 37 is slim to none. That's not a meaningless advantage.

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

It's hard to say right now because nobody knows what the next two seasons will look like.

 

If we get a new coach and the same results, then it's time to start taking apart the team. And if you're going to be looking at trading Panarin or Zib or Kreider... You may as well move Shesty too at that point. Maybe even Fox. Because the teams going to go from bad to worse. 

 

Are you on a lifetime contract with Robert Downey Jr avatars?

[BrooksBurner]

3 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

Who is going to make the offer that forces us to pay $11M a year?

 

I think the question will actually be what Shesterkin and his agent think he can get in the open market? That will drive how much he is willing to accept from the Rangers. If he puts up another Vezina season, or at couple of top 3 Vezina finishes, they might think they can hit the market asking for $12M. The Rangers would have to pony up to keep him off the market, or let him go to market and risk losing him for nothing.

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

Are you on a lifetime contract with Robert Downey Jr avatars?

[Br4d]

10 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

I think the question will actually be what Shesterkin and his agent think he can get in the open market? That will drive how much he is willing to accept from the Rangers. If he puts up another Vezina season, or at couple of top 3 Vezina finishes, they might think they can hit the market asking for $12M. The Rangers would have to pony up to keep him off the market, or let him go to market and risk losing him for nothing.

 

The risk to me with Shesterkin is that he decides to go to a complete team for less than he would take from the Rangers.  He goes through another couple of seasons like the last two with likely less impressive results and then he decides he wants to win a cup and he goes to Carolina or Boston for $7M AAV and there's nothing the Rangers can do to bring him back.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

The risk to me with Shesterkin is that he decides to go to a complete team for less than he would take from the Rangers.  He goes through another couple of seasons like the last two with likely less impressive results and then he decides he wants to win a cup and he goes to Carolina or Boston for $7M AAV and there's nothing the Rangers can do to bring him back.

There's no such thing as a complete team. Every team has holes. Carolina has a ton of players heading into free agency this year and next so there's no telling what they look like in a few years.

 

That said, you keep trying to perpetuate this myth that this team doesn't have the talent. That's certainly not the case. They have enough talent, they have some grit coming.

 

They lack coaching, for now. 

[Sharpshooter]

I could never get used to seeing Pete without a Downey avatar. At first I always thought it was someone else before seeing the name. lol

 

It's definitely hard to say, because yes, things can change. If I had to go one way or another, I think he stays for the long term is another long-time franchise goalie like a Richter, Lundqvist, etc. They've had a ton of them in their history. I guess it also depends how Garand develops? If he's looking really good right around when Igor becomes a UFA, it might make the decision to walk away easier.

 

 

[Br4d]

46 minutes ago, Pete said:

There's no such thing as a complete team. Every team has holes. Carolina has a ton of players heading into free agency this year and next so there's no telling what they look like in a few years.

 

That said, you keep trying to perpetuate this myth that this team doesn't have the talent. That's certainly not the case. They have enough talent, they have some grit coming.

 

They lack coaching, for now. 

 

You keep trying to perpetuate this myth that the Rangers had no coaching the last two years.  That's certainly not the case.  They have some talent, hopefully they have some grit coming.

 

They lack coaching, for now.

 

 

[Pete]

27 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

You keep trying to perpetuate this myth that the Rangers had no coaching the last two years.  That's certainly not the case.  They have some talent, hopefully they have some grit coming.

 

They lack coaching, for now.

 

 

They didn't have enough coaching, obviously. They said it themselves. When players are asking for more coaching, that's telling. 

[Br4d]

My take is they didn't have enough 5 on 5 talent when facing teams that actually had 5 on 5 talent.

 

You can talk zone entries and protecting their own crease as much as you want and it's not going to change the fact that the Rangers have nobody good at going to the goal and scoring.  High danger chances that don't turn into goals as often as the Rangers don't are a matter of scoring talent and the Rangers just don't have that at even strength.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Br4d

[Pete]

And that's a pretty hot take. There's no such thing as five on five talent.

 

The teams that are good at five on five are well coached.