Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Neb00rs

Lundqvist, Rangers agree on extension

65 posts in this topic

This deserves its own thread:

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=694359&navid=DL|NHL|home

 

The New York Rangers and goaltender Henrik Lundqvist on Wednesday agreed on a seven-year contract extension with a reported average annual value of $8.5 million.

"Since his arrival in New York in 2005, Henrik has consistently been one of the elite goaltenders in the NHL," Rangers general manager Glen Sather said. "He is a proud representative of the tradition and class of this organization and we are excited to have him remain as a cornerstone of the franchise."

 

 

IMO, not even close to worth it.

Edited by Neb00rs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they really had no choice after Rask ran the market up but he hasn't won anything. only one deep playoff run and hes almost 32. cant help but laugh. cue the long term injury!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the King of No Rings will continue to be just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lot of money for sure, but the guy has shown he can do the job and at a high level, season after season after season.  Career .920 save% and he's 102 games over NHL .500.  What were their options?  Cam Talbot?  He's already 26 years old.   

 

I said this in the OOT thread, but it's hard to let a guy go who has proven he cannot only be a #1 goalie, but a very good one at that.  The main rub on him right now is that the crosstown 40-year-old who he supposedly "dominates" (as much as two players who don't interact on the ice can actually "dominate" each other) outplayed him in the biggest series of his career. 

 

If he struggles or isn't outstanding in the playoffs in the years to come, I expect he'll hear a lot more criticism than he did in the past. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at least Rask won a cup to somewhat justify his contract! haha

 

Rask didn't really win that Cup, although he was on the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good deal short-term, bad deal long-term.  Bad news for the Devils if they try to get Cory Schneider's name on anything this summer.  Either way I think the Rangers are paying a little more than they wanted to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good deal short-term, bad deal long-term.  Bad news for the Devils if they try to get Cory Schneider's name on anything this summer.  Either way I think the Rangers are paying a little more than they wanted to pay.

 

I always thought that Schneider is going to be offered something similar to Rask.  Doesn't have Rask's track record yet, but I think he'll realize that he has more bargaining power especially in light of what Lou had to trade to get him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rask didn't really win that Cup, although he was on the roster.

exactly. and therein lies the problem. worries me about our ability to lock Cory up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good deal short-term, bad deal long-term.  Bad news for the Devils if they try to get Cory Schneider's name on anything this summer.  Either way I think the Rangers are paying a little more than they wanted to pay.

 

Yeah but expectations are that the cap will go up significantly, some say $10 mil this off-season and be around $80 mil by 2015.. No doubt he's now expected to win a Cup, and I do think his best days are behind him, but I still can't see it being so bad long-term if the cap goes up as sharply as is expected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time will tell. If the smaller equipment truly has an adverse effect on his game, this will be a disaster for them.  If not, it's not surprising for NYC's team to overpay.

 

GO COREY!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. and therein lies the problem. worries me about our ability to lock Cory up.

 

There really shouldn't be any need to worry.  From a financial standpoint, the new owners have committed to paying whatever is necessary to make the team a cup contender (at least that's what they have said).  The money is clearly there to pay him a Rask type deal, and we can offer the 8th year that no other team can.  IMO, the only issue becomes if he wants out of NJ for some reason (i.e. Brodeur just won't ever retire and he is tired of splitting time year after year).

 

As for the Queen, it is a fair deal short term (not too much higher than he is already making), but could turn very bad long term.  The Rags had no choice here and these numbers are exactly where most people were predicting for him.  Hopefully he continues to deteriorate in his play year to year and that team wins nothing with him in net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but expectations are that the cap will go up significantly, some say $10 mil this off-season and be around $80 mil by 2015.. No doubt he's now expected to win a Cup, and I do think his best days are behind him, but I still can't see it being so bad long-term if the cap goes up as sharply as is expected

 

The problem isn't just the cap hit.  It's the expectations.  $8M isn't likely to be the salary for an average starting goalie even when Lundqvist is much older, but it'll be closer.  Still, with what the Devils have been through with Brodeur - it's now going on 4 years that he has been a well below average NHL goalie and has received more starts than his backup and has cost $20 million on the cap - it's that Lundqvist is going to be expected to be Lundqvist when he's not.  It's one thing to have a guy gobbling up your cap space and not performing at an elite level - it's still a problem even if he's not a cap issue, if they're expecting The Great Lundqvist and they get a .905 SV% guy out there who is actively costing the team games.  I don't think it's particularly likely to happen soon, but the Devils have dealt with it about as badly as you can manage - it's a bigger problem than GMs realize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's clearly their #1 and taking off the hatred colored glasses, he is a top goalie.  You can't let that talent go at that position if its already on your roster.  Sure we can take cheap shots at him (which I enjoy BTW) but the Rangers HAD to do this.  If they low balled him and he walked we'd kill the Rangers for being stupid. 

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's clearly their #1 and taking off the hatred colored glasses, he is a top goalie. You can't let that talent go at that position if its already on your roster. Sure we can take cheap shots at him (which I enjoy BTW) but the Rangers HAD to do this. If they low balled him and he walked we'd kill the Rangers for being stupid.

this is definitely true, but what tri said about the final years when he's pushing 40 and is getting paid 11 million is also true.

They needed to resign him, and the with the cap going up the contract may never hinder them, but he could still look bad putting up average numbers at that high cap hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't just the cap hit.  It's the expectations.  $8M isn't likely to be the salary for an average starting goalie even when Lundqvist is much older, but it'll be closer.  Still, with what the Devils have been through with Brodeur - it's now going on 4 years that he has been a well below average NHL goalie and has received more starts than his backup and has cost $20 million on the cap - it's that Lundqvist is going to be expected to be Lundqvist when he's not.  It's one thing to have a guy gobbling up your cap space and not performing at an elite level - it's still a problem even if he's not a cap issue, if they're expecting The Great Lundqvist and they get a .905 SV% guy out there who is actively costing the team games.  I don't think it's particularly likely to happen soon, but the Devils have dealt with it about as badly as you can manage - it's a bigger problem than GMs realize.

 

I know you tend to look at these things from a very forensic POV, re:  Brodeur, but you have to stop making it sound like Brodeur has been consistently below average for the entire balance of the past three seasons.  What he's been is inconsistent, with the lows being painful-to-watch bad.  He was fine over the second half of 2010-11, and I've repeatedly pointed out the 50-game-or-so stretch of .920 save% play he provided all the way through the end of the 2012 playoffs.  He wasn't very good for much of last year's shortened season, and the backup was actually worse, and Brodeur also missed time to injury to boot.  This season has been a microcosm of the last three (inconsistency), and I definitely don't expect his play to get much better than what we've seen, which means the #1 job will be Schneider's to lose soon enough, IF he can stay healthy and IF he can put together a nice stretch that forces DeBoer's hand.  But it has NOT been three years of constant suckage.

 

When you say the Devils have dealt with it about as badly as you can manage, what should they have done differently?   

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He needs them and they need him.  At least he's not going to Pittsburgh now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you tend to look at these things from a very forensic POV, re:  Brodeur, but you have to stop making it sound like Brodeur has been consistently below average for the entire balance of the past three seasons.  What he's been is inconsistent, with the lows being painful-to-watch bad.  He was fine over the second half of 2010-11, and I've repeatedly pointed out the 50-game-or-so stretch of .920 save% play he provided all the way through the end of the 2012 playoffs.  He wasn't very good for much of last year's shortened season, and the backup was actually worse, and Brodeur also missed time to injury to boot.  This season has been a microcosm of the last three (inconsistency), and I definitely don't expect his play to get much better than what we've seen, which means the #1 job will be Schneider's to lose soon enough, IF he can stay healthy and IF he can put together a nice stretch that forces DeBoer's hand.  But it has NOT been three years of constant suckage.

 

When you say the Devils have dealt with it about as badly as you can manage, what should they have done differently?   

 

I basically agree with this.  Two years ago, the team tallied 102 points and made it to the SCF.  That doesn't happen if your goaltending is a black hole.  2010-11 was an anomoly that didn't have much to do with the goaltending, or at least it was a lot more than that.  You could basically say the same thing about last year.  During that time, and right now, Marty's contract hasn't been an albatross.

 

And if you want to read the tea leaves, and other speculation/rumors that have been thrown around, Lou has been trying for the past couple of years to find Marty's replacement, if you want to believe that he was inquiring into Schneider years ago and that he kept the 29th pick with the hope of getting Vasilevsky or Subban. 

 

If you don't take the save percentage to cap hit ratio uber alles, Lou has actually handled the goal tending situation pretty masterfully.  A much worse GM, would have thrown a ton of money at a guy like Bryzgolov when you had adequate, but perhaps overpriced goaltending.  Lou bided his time, more or less up point when the team couldn't win, and landed one of the best goalies in the league.  I don't know what else you could hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you tend to look at these things from a very forensic POV, re:  Brodeur, but you have to stop making it sound like Brodeur has been consistently below average for the entire balance of the past three seasons.  What he's been is inconsistent, with the lows being painful-to-watch bad.  He was fine over the second half of 2010-11, and I've repeatedly pointed out the 50-game-or-so stretch of .920 save% play he provided all the way through the end of the 2012 playoffs.  He wasn't very good for much of last year's shortened season, and the backup was actually worse, and Brodeur also missed time to injury to boot.  This season has been a microcosm of the last three (inconsistency), and I definitely don't expect his play to get much better than what we've seen, which means the #1 job will be Schneider's to lose soon enough, IF he can stay healthy and IF he can put together a nice stretch that forces DeBoer's hand.  But it has NOT been three years of constant suckage.

 

When you say the Devils have dealt with it about as badly as you can manage, what should they have done differently?   

 

They decided to backup a 38 year old goalie with one of the worst backups in the league who was also the same age.  Then they decided to repeat that when it was successful, beyond anyone's expectation.  They even decided to repeat it again.  They provided themselves with a safety net full of holes for a safety net full of holes.  

 

Goaltending is streaky.  Yes, Brodeur recovered in 2011, and he did the same thing in 2012.  You need a legitimate backup plan.  They finally got one this year, and they're still giving Brodeur too many starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They decided to backup a 38 year old goalie with one of the worst backups in the league who was also the same age.  Then they decided to repeat that when it was successful, beyond anyone's expectation.  They even decided to repeat it again.  They provided themselves with a safety net full of holes for a safety net full of holes.  

 

Goaltending is streaky.  Yes, Brodeur recovered in 2011, and he did the same thing in 2012.  You need a legitimate backup plan.  They finally got one this year, and they're still giving Brodeur too many starts.

 

So what you're saying is that it has more or less worked out despite the warts (and even you have admitted that Brodeur has played above expectations this year, or at least for a stretch).    That's better than virtually any GM could do, when dealt with the same cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I basically agree with this.  Two years ago, the team tallied 102 points and made it to the SCF.  That doesn't happen if your goaltending is a black hole.

 

Sure it does.  The Red Wings won a Stanley Cup with Chris Osgood in 2008.  Any goalie can get hot.

 

 

 

2010-11 was an anomoly that didn't have much to do with the goaltending, or at least it was a lot more than that.  You could basically say the same thing about last year.  During that time, and right now, Marty's contract hasn't been an albatross.

 

It has been an albatross insofar as the Devils have seen themselves unwilling to get anyone who could even think of challenging Brodeur's starting.  It definitely did not help the Devils last year - sure the team couldn't score, but the goalies could not stop anything.  They played Johan Hedberg for 10 straight games with a save percentage well under 90%.

 

 

 

 

And if you want to read the tea leaves, and other speculation/rumors that have been thrown around, Lou has been trying for the past couple of years to find Marty's replacement, if you want to believe that he was inquiring into Schneider years ago and that he kept the 29th pick with the hope of getting Vasilevsky or Subban.

 

I agree.  But he didn't come up with one.  Not even a flyer on a guy who's been real good in the AHL or overseas.  They signed a guy out of college.  That's about it.  And drafting either Vasilevski or Subban wouldn't've helped at all with this season or probably next season.

 

If you don't take the save percentage to cap hit ratio uber alles, Lou has actually handled the goal tending situation pretty masterfully.  A much worse GM, would have thrown a ton of money at a guy like Bryzgolov when you had adequate, but perhaps overpriced goaltending.  Lou bided his time, more or less up point when the team couldn't win, and landed one of the best goalies in the league.  I don't know what else you could hope for.

 

You could hope for the team to not go with horrendous goaltending for 3 years.  The Devils are extremely lucky to have come out of those 3 seasons with what they did, given the goaltending.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They decided to backup a 38 year old goalie with one of the worst backups in the league who was also the same age.  Then they decided to repeat that when it was successful, beyond anyone's expectation.  They even decided to repeat it again.  They provided themselves with a safety net full of holes for a safety net full of holes.  

 

Goaltending is streaky.  Yes, Brodeur recovered in 2011, and he did the same thing in 2012.  You need a legitimate backup plan.  They finally got one this year, and they're still giving Brodeur too many starts.

 

Having two guys in their late 30s as your goaltending tandem isn't ideal, no, but I'm guessing Lou was hoping Frazee would be able to be a 15-25 start backup at some point.  Didn't happen, unfortunately. 

 

In fairness, the tandem did work out fairly well those first two seasons...maybe on paper, it shouldn't have, but it did, and you can't take that away from the Devils.  Yeah, it imploded in a big way last season, and we all had a hunch that it might, and you can get on Lou for going to that well one too many times.   

 

Brodeur getting hot this season definitely made things more complicated, no doubt, but Schneider is just too good for Brodeur to keep getting playing time at his expense, especially if he's not stopping pucks.  It's one thing when Marty's around .917 in save% and in the midst of a hot streak, but quite another when he's at .906 and falling, and Schneider's at .927 and can be expected to stay around there.  The too many Brodeur starts issue won't last much longer.   

 

Re:  the "horrendous goaltending for 3 years" comment from above, again, not really accurate, there were long stretches of good goaltending in the first two years.  It was not a bottomless hole of suck, and you're making it sound like it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0