Update, 1:45 p.m.:
A few additional items on Lundqvist. He has a full no movement clause in his contract.
...this is expected and really isn't a big deal. Until he's terrible in five years and I'm irate that the Rangers gave it to him.
He also showed up at practice with a new bucket today (via Rangers Twitter)...
...in the past, Lundqvist's masks were bedazzled with sparkles. With the new deal, I hear this one is diamond incrusted.
Lundqvist added that it was never an option for him to leave the club.
...i don't want anyone to misconstrue that my concerns about the length of the contract means I'm unhappy having The King back. Couldn't be further from the truth. But as I've mentioned the last couple of days, Hank is at the pinnacle of his career right now. So what does that mean? It's all downhill from here. Now I don't expect it to be a dramatic dropoff and he'll remain keeping this team competitive, but if you think he'll still be competing at his Vezina winning form of two years ago, you're only fooling yourself. His stats the last two years have already begun to sag, so where are they going to be in two or three years?
...a perfect example of this is Brad Richards. He was at the top of his game four years ago at age 29 when he scored 91 points for the Stars. His point total dropped to 77 the next season in Dallas and then the Rangers decided to throw a long term contract at him while he was at the zenith of his career. And look at what's happened? His point totals have continued to drop every season and fans can't wait for him to be bought out.
Darren Dreger at TSN is reporting that the Rangers will be announcing a contract extention for Henrik Lundqvist soon.
Dreger says the terms will be seven years at $8.5 million per year.
...wow, i figured Talbot's performance on Monday put to rest any ideas that Lundqvist wasn't the number one goaltender, but I didn't realize it would have sparked this.
...to the deal itself, while I'm happy that Lundqvist will be ending his career with the Rangers, I think it's way too long. I've stated this numerous times on the blog, but the Rangers are going to regret having $8.5 million tied into a broken down 38 year old goaltender. It's not the way you build a winner.
Hey it worked for Brodeur. Hank deserves every dollar and every year. He's stood on his head for us for a long time and will continue to for years to come. Couldn't be happier
one day i wish we have a top line that we know is going to produce most of the time, hey a guy can dream can't he…imagine we were all blackhawk fans… must be nice haha
hank is starting fresh new mask and all and we are going to all love him again…thank you and goodnight
Meh...typical Sather move..sign an aging, veteran star player to a high-paying long term contract as their career moves in an undeniable downward progression. Drury, Gomez, Richards...all of these come to mind.
This is not unexpected. No disrespect to Hank...love the guy...but why not 4 years? Sather just pisses me off.
I can't help,thinking about a certain NY quarterback that makes like 20% of the teams salary cap leaving not enough money to build a championship team around him. Hope that does not turn out to be the case with Hank and understand it is a business but concerned about the future.
Honestly, I'm just happy we've signed him. Yeah, the contract isn't ideal, but I'm far less worried about Hank having a dramatic dropoff where we want him bought out in a couple years. He and Richards are a little different, for obvious reasons.
...Anyways, [swooning over Hank intensifies]
BTW, great debates in here today. Both sides with very intelligent arguments. But I think we can all agree, it's nice to get this out of the way and hopefully Lundqvist can now focus on winning games for the Rangers. LGR!!!!
that the stadium series mask? looks like its fits that crap i mean chrome logo they came out with. islanders have dark colors, im thinking navy blue scheme like the heritage jersey.
Even though it's a long contract, my opinion is it's quite a fair deal for both parties.
1. Hank is the face of the rangers. Guess owners consider more aspects than just the cap hit.
2. Most likely, in four / five years time the cap room will be much higher and we won't consider 8,5M as a HIGH cap hit. As long as hank still is pure class..
3. Hank had the chance to demand a much better or a SHORTER contract last time. No one could expect the such reduction of cap space. Just take a guess of the terms if the contract would have ended after the vezina season.
I've to say fair for both parties and let's all hope the king isn't satisfied with only receiving the pay checks! I believe hanks performance now on will be vezina class!
In other news have to wonder who Glen asked for?
My guesses would be: Nielsen (2.750), Matt Martin (1), Okposo (2.80), and Grabner (3) were all names that Slats was throwing around.
No wonder NYI balked at that.. I am usually not one for trading with the Isles, but if we could get Nielsen, Okposo or Grabner for him I would get it done in a second.
Clearly his new mask is created from a new Tony Stark created element that is more valuable than Gold, Diamonds, and Platinum combined. It's aptly named Hankidium and it disorients shooters as they approach Hank. Strangely, it has the opposite effect on Michael Del Zotto where he can shoot with amazing accuracy.
All hate aside on the length of this deal...that new lid is SICK! Hank had a brain fart with every helmet he had last year, but he's nailing it this year!!!
Pyatt in for Pouliot playing with Hagelin, and Brassard. That should spark both of their games.
This goes with my prior post whether you think Hank deserves the money and years or not is not the problem. Teams have to give top players money no matter what, but going into a season with Pyatt,Pouliot, MDZ etc....
The way the cap is a team needs a smart GM that can find quality support to fit in with top players money. Time will tell if Hank is worth the money but it won't mean shit without the right support personal like now and that comes down to the GM
Can't even read your blogs anymore already being negative saying hank is past his prime...you and brooks should hang out...I bet you never played sports a day in your life how do I unsubscribe to this
This whole "stat" game is hysterical. Want a "stat?" For Hank's 8 years Rangers average is 18th in the league in goals for, 6th (close to 5th) in the league in goals against. Attribute that to ONE player. By that stat he's worth double the money and that's why he was a Vezina finalist 5 out of 8 years and in legit consideration the other 3. Tack on the fact that most recent Vezina repeaters are Tim Thomas, Fatty Brodeur and Dom Hasek and the "old guy" tag goes out the window too. Goaltending has certainly NOT been the Ranger's problem and how soon we forget Hank standing on his head and still losing 2-1 or losing empty net goal games while he sits there acting like he isn't pissed. He's the franchise. Period.
Best Case for Rangers- 5 year deal in the 8 million per range= $40 million. Best case for Hank was become a free agent and 2-3 teams battle and he gets a max year and max contract or close to it (8 years 9.5 per)
So hank gave up a year and Rangers got some relief in the per year cap hit.
Win/Win in my opinion. It is called a negotiation for a reason. Both sides move off their best case scenario.
any decline cant be pinned solely on lundqvist. the team lost key players last year because of the nash trade and the protection he was getting infront of the net required adjustment and adjusted expectations of stats.
I think its a little overly pessimistic to think he's already on the decline. I'm not going to say he'll be winning cups at 40, but to simply use last season's stats as proof that the decline has begun is short sighted. As has been pointed out here before, Tim Thomas wasn't even competitive until he was in his 30s,and frankly, he didn't have nearly as much skill as most guys, simply desire.
I hope Hank can channel that. No more talk on here about trades and free agency and what we can get back. Time to get behind our back stop, the face of the franchise. In 2018 when he has two years left and is 36 we can revisit if the contract was a smart one. With McD and Hank signed for the next few years, hopefully the dust can settle on the rest of our D corp, and we'll continue to have a defense that other teams are envious of.
Let's Go Rangers!!!
@PacNYR44 Let's bring back Nylander, Straka and Jagr. They're all still playing right?
@johnpnj Cause realistically, Hank was not going to take a 4 year contract when teams on the open market were rumored to be willing to offer him 8. That's a big difference.
@Kevin DeLury LGR!!!!
@KreiderisTheChosenOne I'd take Matt Martin in a second. Pretty tough guy and is a not bad player and good enough to play on the PK. Just the type of player the Rangers need. Doubt the Isles would trade him, tough guy who can play.
@johnAMIRANTESrug The mask was originally blue and silver, but they added real gold into it after he signed the contract. heh.
@Ryan Anthony Whoa man! What's with the hostility? This is a guy who works his butt off for very little/no money to provide us fans with a place to talk and discuss our team. He's entitled to his opinion don't you think? Don't know why you would belittle a person who is not only a fellow fan, but a fan who is so devoted that he spends his nights and weekends providing others fans such a great platform.
And, also, pretty sure the writer has played Hockey through high school as well as College Lacrosse (just based on what he said in previous posts)
@MikeMagoo Agreed. Very few goalies have had that level of consistent success over that many years.
@johnnyb3910 Thomas also didn't have the same wear and tear as Lundqvist.
Even Brodeur, while having the same if not more of a workload was never asked to do the heavy lifting Lundqvist has.
@IcyCup I like it as it was written. Made sense. LOL
Thats true Kevin but that speaks to how valuable he is. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but as I said and backed up with examples, an elite goaltender can play at an elite level into their late 30's and win championships.
@Kevin DeLury @johnnyb3910 Maybe that's why AV is trying to get him down closer to 50 games per season, he knew this was coming. Maybe next time our backup starts 2 games in a row, we shouldn't panic, we need our main guy for 7 more years.
Youre right, he's been through the ringer already, but (knock on wood), he has yet to suffer some terrible injury. It's mostly been bumps and bruises. No tears, no breaks, no sprains, no surgeries. He could go for a while. He just needs to find a way to get his compete level up without having to play every single game.
@MikeMagoo @GiveGartneraCup @GraigGiuliani Whoa man! Take it easy. You said Brodeur has been good even up until his current age of 65. To which I responded, he's a freak of nature and is in a different league than Hank, to which you said, Hank is in the same league. Which I don't think he is - that was my only point.
You used Marty as an example of a goalie who has lasted past his expiration date. My whole point was, you can't pay Hank as if you expect him to be as good as Brodeur for as long. There's very little chance that is going to happen because Brodeur is Brodeur and Hank is not.
And I don't think Thomas should even be in the discussion. He doesn't get paid big money (his top salary was 5 million per) and he was given that contract prior to his Vezina winning season not after. Now, at 39 (1 year older thank Hank will be at the end of this contract) Thomas only makes 2.5 million per. Not 8.5!
Not sure when it became a Brodeur vs Lundquist debate. I never said a negative thing about Brodeur. I said he had more scoring support, especially in the post season. He was unbelieveably lights out HoF worthy in 2000 and 2003, no question. However year in year out, Hank's stats remain steady despite horrendous offensive production. That's my point. A dozen teams will pay big money for Lundquist and would give the same years. It has nothing to do with Brodeur, except that he confirms age is not the most important factor. Funny I mention Tim Thomas and get crickets in response but mention Brodeur (MY REFERENCE WAS ABOUT AGING GOALIES if you bother to read back) so it's clear who has the "bias" on here. Relax, Marty has his place in history. The article isn't about him.
@MikeMagoo @GiveGartneraCup @GraigGiuliani You think the Devils were top 5 in goal scoring the years they won the cup? In 2003 they were 15th in the league with 2.63 GPG. Come on man! You're talking about Brodeur, a guy who has every single record known to goaltending. You cannot tell me, if you put bias aside, that the average NHL fan would not take Brodeur in his prime over Hank. It's not even a question.
Not sure about the "not in his category" thing. True Marty won cups and is a big game player. They are both amazing goalies. Back to silly stats but Rangers 18th in goals for, 5th in goals against...NJ 8th in goals for, 6th (as in BEHIND Lundquist) in goals against. So lb for lb that makes Lundquist doing more with a lot less production. Could THAT have something to do with winning the cup? Probably. Just a factor of course, as stats always are. Never tell the whole story. NJ in top 5 goal production 3 out of 8 years. Rangers...zilch. That tells a BIG story of why the Rangers don't go all the way. Can't score for beans. If Richards is getting 6.6m, Hank should get 2 Brink's trucks per game!
Based on Thomas, Brodeur and many others I think it's very possible to deny he "won't be as good in 5 years." Then again, everything is based on today and not the past. As of today, he's difficult to replace at any cost. 8 years is long and I'm surprised he got it, but if they can't win with 15 years of Ludquist, well, they just can't win. Like Sweden proved, put a few biscuits in the basket and you won't lose with Hank between the pipes. :)