Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,693
    vCash
    1500

    Lundqvist's Contract: Should He Stay or Should He Go?

    So, our favorite writer at the NY Post recently stated (accurately, in my view) it behooves the Rangers to try and extend Lundqvist's contract before the season gets beyond the next few months, rather than let it extend into the season. It just seems the longer these things linger, the more risky it gets for an organization to possibly lose a key player.

    So, the question I pose for the board is, should the Rangers:

    a) sign him as soon as possible;
    b) attempt a mid-season renegotiation; or
    c) wait until end of season?

    Embedded in this question, though, is the broader and more important question of whether the Rangers should evaluate the package of assets The King could bring back in a trade, and whether the organization should seriously evaluate such a trade?

    So, I am curious to hear some views. Personally, I think the Rangers ought to attempt a mid-season renegotiation, knowing full well there is risk to it, and evaluate the package of assets that could be offered in a trade?

    Yes, I do view Hank as an elite goaltender, and I realize we have no true starting option behind him. Yet, it seems Hank will command an annual salary north of $8 million, and that kind of talent would bring back some special assets (including a quality goalie - Pavalec at $3.9mm per through 2017 looks looks like a steal).

    At a minimum, I think we need to explore what could be offered for Hank. I would even take that further and be willing to trade him because I am of the view our window for the Stanley Cup with this group of key players may have closed -- that is not to say the team is not built to compete well in upcoming seasons, just not well enough for Stanley Cup representation.

    Anxious to hear some thoughts around these questions; thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    22,134
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Redfish View Post
    So, our favorite writer at the NY Post recently stated (accurately, in my view) it behooves the Rangers to try and extend Lundqvist's contract before the season gets beyond the next few months, rather than let it extend into the season. It just seems the longer these things linger, the more risky it gets for an organization to possibly lose a key player.

    So, the question I pose for the board is, should the Rangers:

    a) sign him as soon as possible;
    b) attempt a mid-season renegotiation; or
    c) wait until end of season?

    Embedded in this question, though, is the broader and more important question of whether the Rangers should evaluate the package of assets The King could bring back in a trade, and whether the organization should seriously evaluate such a trade?

    So, I am curious to hear some views. Personally, I think the Rangers ought to attempt a mid-season renegotiation, knowing full well there is risk to it, and evaluate the package of assets that could be offered in a trade?

    Yes, I do view Hank as an elite goaltender, and I realize we have no true starting option behind him. Yet, it seems Hank will command an annual salary north of $8 million, and that kind of talent would bring back some special assets (including a quality goalie - Pavalec at $3.9mm per through 2017 looks looks like a steal).

    At a minimum, I think we need to explore what could be offered for Hank. I would even take that further and be willing to trade him because I am of the view our window for the Stanley Cup with this group of key players may have closed -- that is not to say the team is not built to compete well in upcoming seasons, just not well enough for Stanley Cup representation.

    Anxious to hear some thoughts around these questions; thanks.
    I agree with a lot of your points and I understand that Lundqvist will take up at least 1/8 of the salary cap presumably in his next contract but i don't think their window has closed specifically. If that was the case then imo their window was never really open under Torts either. I think Slats will do his due diligence in weighing his options with Henrik. The King is 32 years old but a lot of great goaltenders are very good into their late 30s so it's not an impossibility to see him continue to play at an elite level for the next 2-3 years before beginning to regress.

    It's a tough circumstance because this team will have a hard time being in the discussion among the elite EC teams without Henrik, even if you get a solid goaltending prospect in trade or find a good alternative. He's arguably the best goaltender in the league and if we do make a SC run in the next however many so seasons, it's going to be in large part due to him.

    I would keep my options open but i think the Rangers would have to be significantly overwhelmed to consider moving him even with the cap implications.
    Last edited by metswon69; 09-10-2013 at 06:55 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,886
    vCash
    500
    Not gonna get the return in a trade. You just sign him and ice teams that are good but probably not good enough to win it all.
    Bachelors III . . . In the Inn. . . Lanas Garage 4/18/75 . . . lpswitch with Snake, Hards and Mendy . . .B.D.W.B. . . Ambition: I want Dooleys Job . . . Saturday Night Live . . . Bathroom Brawls . . . Living at Snakes . . . WHERE IS MUSKY. - John Tortorella

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    76
    vCash
    1500
    We need Hank pure and simple. He is the backbone of the team. What would our options be without him? That is a scary thought.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,971
    vCash
    1500
    Again it all depends on the price

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    34,952
    vCash
    1500
    We will most likely have plenty of cap room next July.

    Lundy wants to be here. The team wants him. I'd be more concerned about how many years than whether the contract is 7.5 mill or 8.5 mill. I'd tell him we want you to be a Ranger. We feel you are one of the top 5 goalies every year so we would like to pay you an average of what the top 5 goalies are making. That will make him a salary that is in the top 3.
    I'm always happy to discuss anything from hoops, to hockey, to reality TV with anyone that is polite no matter what their opinion. With that said if you are disrespectful or dishonest poster please do not expect a reply.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    6,971
    vCash
    2181
    He is staying. /thread

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,297
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SLY WILLIAMS:27030657
    We will most likely have plenty of cap room next July.

    Lundy wants to be here. The team wants him. I'd be more concerned about how many years than whether the contract is 7.5 mill or 8.5 mill. I'd tell him we want you to be a Ranger. We feel you are one of the top 5 goalies every year so we would like to pay you an average of what the top 5 goalies are making. That will make him a salary that is in the top 3.
    Problem is that he's probably the #1 goalie, especially when you factor in his year to year consistency. I wouldn't trade him for any goalie in the league (age aside). So really he should be paid as the best but I hope he realizes that his teams success depends on him and the rest of the ufa and rfa's over the next couple years being reasonable with regards to their contracts. Unfortunately that would have been easier to convince him to do if we hadn't traded half our team in the last couple years. Its hard to convince him to take a 'Ranger' discount when it seems as though anyone could be traded.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •