As if the Derek Stepan contract fiasco hasn't depressed you enough, Bob McKenzie at TSN tells us there will likely be a hang-up with contract terms in the on-going extension negotiations with Henrik Lundqvist and the Rangers.
McKenzie says the question for the Rangers is if they want to give a 31-year-old goaltender a long term deal.
McKenzie adds that no matter what the terms, Lundqvist is going to get north of $7 million per year.
...i have stated my opinion numerous times on the blog, but I will reiterate that it would be the height of stupidity for the Rangers to offer a max eight-year contract at $7M plus per year to a 31-year old goaltender. Even if it is Lundqvist.
...he is in his prime NOW. You will never see Lundqvist better than he is at this exact moment. So, once he's extended, the Rangers will maybe get two more years of this caliber of play and then the decline will begin. Just think about the albatross that contract will be when he's 37. Yikes.
...at the same time, Lundqvist is trying to make this the last contract he will ever sign. Which makes sense because if he signs a five-year deal, his price tag at the end of that contract will be much less than what it was at the beginning. So he will be losing a ton of money.
...similar to the Stepan contract negotiations, I can see both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, it likely means we could be in for some tense times with Lundqvist's contract as well. Ugh.
Agree. Can't pay him. You're splitting hairs when you call him the best goalie in the world. Really? By what margin? And, if he is then ipso facto it is not necessary to have the best goalie in the world in order to win the cup. Offer him terms that make sense and which you can live with AFTER 3 years when he is not as good, OR you will be looking at an A-Roid situation and that portends to cripple a team in a sport with no cap. I am all for the players trying to get all they can, but as an owner and a fan you have to simply not allow your heart to pay the bills. Fuck the players. Who gives a crap which particular names fill the jerseys. Just assemble the BEST assortment of talent across the board and cheer them on. You can't do that if every time you hold up a player you simply say "no...we HAVE to keep him!" If you can't, you can't. Use the savings to bolster other areas so there is no NET loss. Christ, it's simple economics and management.
Right now 8 mil seems like a lot but in 3 or 4 years when the cap goes up at least 20 Mil which is the projection, It's really fair. A max contract would not bother me in the least bit. Especially when you see young up and coming D-men signing for 5 Mil. right now. In fact, I say just go for it and get this over with. We'll have money to spend. I don't know, i don't think it's as easy as saying "I'd Rather have the Sedin twins than Lundqvist". Sedin twins had Lungo/Schneider behind them. They don't even sniff success without their goalies playing world class (save for some games in the cup.. but look, they lost and Tim Thomas won) We need Lundqvist. Also, say we trade him and look to sign a top FA goalie. How much is that goalie going to cost? 5 Mil? I don't know.. I don't think this is as complicated as it seems with Hank.
Hank has been the best goalie in the league since he entered the league 8 years ago. He has also been extremely consistent over time, unlike many other goalies (or players in general) who have amazing years followed by mediocrity. The number of goalies who are in the same league as Hank is very small and finding a suitable replacement is not a sure thing. Not to mention that a lot of top goalies keep their high level of play into their late 30s.
Im not a huge fan of really long contracts and think the max should be about 5 years, but if it takes 7-8 years to get Hank to stay in NY for the rest of his career, so be it. It is a big contract that he has earned and I dont see the quality of his play deteriorating like a lot of the big contracts Sather has signed in the past.
This is the same owner that key Mess go & realized his error and brought him back. I like his eye for talent but not when it comes to money management..
Cloutier, McLean, Blackburn, Dunham, Valiquette, Markkanen, Weekes...Those were good times after Richter was done eh? Granted, the trading of Cloutier was stupid and Blackburn's injury was highly unfortunate, but the carousel of goalies was painful to watch. They had the right idea by getting Cloutier in Richter's prime and making sure he was ready to start taking over, and I think that would have worked out pretty well if they didn't trade him. Do we really want to let Hank go an have another goalie circle jerk until we find the next true Rangers' goalie? Give Hank the years, let him mentor the future. $7M for 3 or 4 years to find continuity at a critical position, while still having a likely capable starter (i.e., Hank) in nets seems like a good decision to me. Besides. Hank is not a reactionary goalie, he is a sound technical goalie. His quickness will diminish, but not his ability to play at a high level. Here's what these guys did at 38...Belfour (2.13 GAA, .918 SV), Hedberg (2.23 GAA, .918 SV), Fatty (2.45 GAA, .903 SV, 756 boxes of donuts consumed), Boulin Wall (2.65 GAA, .910 SV), Burke (2.80 GAA, .895 SV), CuJo (2.91 GAA, .902 SV). I'll take my chances with Hank at 38 rather than trying to plug in whatever re-tread is available on the scrap heap!
I think it was you who said this Kevin, and I don't know if you were joking or not when you said it, but if Lundqvist really wants 8 or even 7 years, I'd be cool with signing Jonas Hiller. I love Hank so much but I wouldn't go past 6 years. Price wouldn't be an issue for me, just longevity. (But I'm also not paying the bills haha)
I think Hank is worth 7m for 7 years. He may even get 8m for 7 years and I wouldn't be annoyed. Goalies' seem to have better longevity than positional players in the NHL and I think Hank has at least 5-6 years left in him to be an elite goalie, maybe even more.
There's also intangibles when it comes to paying someone like Hank. He's a great teammate, his teammates believe in him, and when he does start to decline, he will be a fantastic mentor to the NYR goalie of the future.
Hank's a superstar and a face for the NYR/NHL. He puts people in the garden seats, sells jerseys/merchandise, gives good PR to the NYR as an organization, and does everything right. He's not only an asset to the NYR organization as a player, but as a marketing tool, which carries a lot of value to the NYR when they hand him a paycheck. To lose him, they lose more than just his numbers on the ice, so that's why I think he's going to get a nice contract in the end.
11:17AM: (9/20/13) Pierre LeBrunsays in a chat that the Rangers aren’t going over $3 million per year for Stepan and that Stepan is looking for $3.5 million per season.
So sather is not going to budge... Stepan should just take it... otherwise he is going to be sitting out for awhile
If I'm Sather, I would put two numbers in front of Hank: Offer #1 would be adequate years and dollars with room for the team to basically extend the current roster out for the next few years; Offer #2 would require Richards to be bought out, and the likelihood that at least one of the other "core" guys (Staal, Cally, Girardi, Brassard) would not be resigned or would be traded after this season. Then see which offer he takes.
Kevin, if mediocre 35 year old Mark Streit can get a 4 year 21 million dollar contract, do you think it's unreasonable for Hank to want seven years 56 million. After all, goalie is by far the most important player on the team and Hank is the best in the world. Btw, lots of goalies excel in their late thirties.
hes not worth more that Crawford or Quick .... he better not get more than 7 a year or he will be a CAP killer
I say give him the money, he is a franchise goalie type like brodeur, yes he wont be all star form in 6-7 years, but that's what happens in the nhl when you have a franchise goalie, if sather screws this up, I swear dolan better fire him so fast he cant see tomorrow...
If you don't give him the max, he'll just sign up with someone who will give it to him. Max leverage advantage to LQ. Kevin are you willing to give up any chance of winning the cup over the next five years just to shave a couple of years off his contract. Those couple of years will likely be piddling as salary caps are certain to rise.
@TheNYRBlog If they cut Richards then Step and Hank would have gotten paid by now.Would have had options after Stepan and Brassard at center
@TheNYRBlog lundqvist is 31, not 33
@TheNYRBlog so when is sathers contract up. I'm not blaming him 100% but he has made stupid moves, if brad was bought out step would be here
@TheNYRBlog Heart is just breaking a little more ...
@TheNYRBlog Stop. Just stop. I don't need this. Not just in the am. I don't need this ever.
@TheNYRBlog All this means is that the Rangers better play to WIN NOW. Trade everyone you can and win this year. It will last a lifetime.
@TheNYRBlog dude your blog leads to candy crush.
@TheNYRBlog thanks kev....
That said, I think it would be very nice of him to take a 6 yr deal and just keep doing 1-2 yr extensions a la Brodeur. Stay a Ranger but if you're not in your prime, take less. But that's not how things work now.
@gravey94 Hey! You forgot Jason Muzzatti!
@gravey94 If the Rangers are going to walk away, I agree that they need to have a plan and not hope a retread can find his game with them.
The only guy who jumps out at me is Hiller, so if they're not confident they'd be able to get him then yeah, they really have no choice but to bring Hank back at whatever he's asking.
@MichaelMaselNYR Yes, it was me and I agree on longevity.
@shishya100 How's Lundqvist's great play done getting the Rangers a Cup so far?
@Gasface99 Yeah, not sure why the hell I put 33. Thanks for the heads-up.
@GeorgeGrigorian1 Wow, were the hell did I get 33 from? Thanks for the heads-up.
@tditty Thanks for heads-up.
@tditty Supposed 2 b fixed that last night. Let me check. If you open in your browser you should be ok. Just link on Twiiter is an issue.
@KeepingItNashty Don't shoot the messenger.
@KevinDeLury @shishya100Plug ANY goaltender's name in that sentence and it would be the same result. To even possibly insinuate that Hank could have done anything more is nuts. He is THE reason we've had the success (relative) that we've had the past 5 years. And for those who are going to rip on his postseason numbers, here they are:
.920SV%, 2.28 GAA, 8 SO
There is no one better in the world right now except maybe Quick. Richie got 9 years. Hank is and should get what he wants and deserves.
@TheNYRBlog no worries man. Love the blog...
@TheNYRBlog that's me shooting you