Rangerland Forum Information

[SpanishJack]

I know people around here don't think Lundqvist is a big money goaltender, and it's a fair argument. But do you remember the years between Richter and Lundqvist? I DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK THERE.

I fully undrstand those dark years between Richter and Lundqvist, but unless something drastic is done by Sather, then I am afraid Rangers as currently build will not contend for Cup. Sather can't seat dumb and happy with this roster.

I think is safe to say Lundqvist is not going to Flyers. I expect Holmgreen to go for Vokoun.

[Paul Smachetti]

Giroux, JVR, Bobvrosky, First round pick and maybe someone like Versteeg for Henrik.

The Flyers would never give up that much for one player.

This post has been edited by Paul Smachetti: May 18 2011, 04:45 PM

[HDH]

Do you all actually think the Flyers would trade Giroux, JVR, and whoever (Carter? Richards?) for Lundqvist??

I doubt it.

Absolutely not. If Lundqvist were that good that the Flyers could win a Stanley Cup while trading away three of their top six or seven scorers (YOUNG guys too), then the Rangers should be A LOT better than they are.

You trade away those guys for a Malkin or something like that. Someone who is going to make up the scoring.

They'd be better off just continuing to look to catch lightning in a bottle with a Roloson/Biron/Nabokov type player.

[Eric]

I wouldn't accept any trade involving Lundqvist unless there was a goalie also coming back. We have no one in the pipeline in goal.

[Tex]

I wouldn't accept any trade involving Lundqvist unless there was a goalie also coming back. We have no one in the pipeline in goal.

Trashcanikov?

[Eric]

Bobrovsky is good and I bet he can be made better by Allaire.

[Dunc]

Do you all actually think the Flyers would trade Giroux, JVR, and whoever (Carter? Richards?) for Lundqvist??

I doubt it.

I think they're practically chomping on the bit to unload Carterdue to a number of related factors:

1.) they need another goalie;
2.) they are tight against the cap now and would need to dump salary in order to sign a goalie;
3.) they need to re-sign (or lose) Leino
4.) Carter's contract is large and lengthy

[Paul Smachetti]

Trashcanikov?

[jkman61494]

You realize by trading Lundqvist to the Flyers for the packages you guys are mentioning, the Rangers would essentially become the Flyers, right? No goaltending with some decent pieces up front. And the Flyers show every year that they're not going to do much without a goaltender.

Someone said this in another thread, but the Flyers have been to two finals, and a host of deep runs since we made it to the Conf Finals in '97 against the Flyers.

So I agree with you in once sense but their mess of a goalie situation still has yielded more success

[Eric]

Trashcanikov?

Trashcanahan is way better, right Taki?

[CsideEr]

The reason the levels of success reached by the bad goaltending/good scoring flyers over the last several years is higher than the good goaltending/weak offense rangers is because of chris pronger. Elite defensemen like him, chara, duncan keith, shea weber, etc. enable teams with less than elite goaltending make legit runs at the cup. They also help solid goalies reach elite status, as we've see with thomas in boston and possibly rinne in nashvile. Unfortunately the rangers strong goaltending can't do much for their offense.

Edit: by several I mean last 2 years. As in getting to the finals last year and being tops in the division this year.

And it will take carter/richards (assuming they would rather move carter and his contract) + giroux, jvr, and bobrovsky for me to move hank to one of our biggest rivals. Don't want draft picks because a. they don't have their first this year, went to toronto for versteeg, and b. it would be at the back of the first round anyway.

This post has been edited by CsideEr: May 18 2011, 07:31 PM

[VerdDogg]

Nevermind the Rangers, Has there been a goalie more consistant than Lundqvist in the NHL? I don't think so. Ar spme point Luongo, Miller, Fleaury, Thomas and even Brodeur have struggled in their careers. Lundqvist has been exceptionally steady and consistant. Look at teams like the Capitals, Flyers and even Tampa who struggled at the beginning of the season in goal before acquiring Roloson. all have very talented forwards and can practically score at will but in the end their goalie was their weakest link. I think once the Rangers free up cap space with however they handle Drury, they willbe fine. That 7 mil a year cap hit can go from a 3rd line center to a top center or winger.

You don't trade Lundqvist....ever.

[Nilan 666]

Why are you using Lundqvist and consistent in the same sentence without a negation between the two?

[xcheck24]

But we had Mike Dunham!

Yeah...and it wasn't a good thing.

And Pete, I get what you're saying, but I'd rather they stay on this path than trade one of the big cornerstones of getting them onto the right road.
That being said, they need to do something before Lundqvist is beyond the prime years to helping them win something. You know, like some scoring.

[toph]

Nevermind the Rangers, Has there been a goalie more consistant than Lundqvist in the NHL?

Yeah, quite a few of them, actually.

[Tex]

Trashcanrahan is way better, right Taki?

He hasn't been the same since his wife "came out"...

[Eric]

I've decided that no, I wouldn't.

[VerdDogg]

Yeah, quite a few of them, actually.

Actually no, not many. Including his rookie season, Lundqvist's overall average ranking is top 10 in GS, W, SV, SV%, GAA, and Shutouts.

He is damn good.

[jkman61494]

The one reason I posted this is I have a funny feeling Philly is going to be so desperate to land a "franchise goalie" that they're going to overprice it and trade away so many prime assets. Their fan base (I live in PA) is LIVID over what happened this post season. With the East being so winnable, to see that Flyers team with what I think is the deepest roster in the conference is inexcusable. Yes Progner hurt them, but still, getting swept by the Bruins?

I could half see the Flyers giving up as much as you guys see in your proposals. I wonder frankly if the Canucks would be willing to give up Luongo given their good backup they have.

I think in the end, if not a free agent, the best option in terms of quality and value will be Jonathan Quick.

[Andy from the LE...]

So let's say, Carter, Richards, Versteeg for Henrik.

Biron's a pretty good goalie.

Hm.

Hmmm.

Throw in Bobrovsky (and from the Rags throw in MDZ along with 2nd/3rd to make it quasi-equal) and you may have a deal.

[Andy from the LE...]

You guys do realize though that the instant Lundqvist is traded, he's winning a Stanley Cup elsewhere, right? You know it'll happen. That's just the way it is. Then, JVR will blow out both his achilles tendons; effectively ending his career, while Giroux overdoses on an eightball of cocaine in a hotel room underneath a pile of dead hookers and they'll be right back where they started...only without a decent goalie. Yay Rangers!

Pretty much, yeah.

See, this is why I don't think this deal can happen - for the Flyers to get Lundqvist, they'd have to (if Slats were smart) decimate their roster and set themselves back, so much so as to make getting Lundqvist in the first place pointless.

[Nilan 666]

Let's make this more controversial, Henke and Gaborik for whatever you guys decide.

[Andy from the LE...]

[Greatone]

Let's make this more controversial, Henke and Gaborik for whatever you guys decide.

Philly doesnt have the cap space.

[Nilan 666]

Personally the only goalie that makes sense for Philly is Vesa Toskala.

[LisaLisa]

That's friggin' awesome.

[CsideEr]

Philly doesnt have the cap space.

cap space? now you're being too logical.

Personally the only goalie that makes sense for Philly is Vesa Toskala.

looking at the upcoming ufa list, the deepest position is probably in net. giguere, vokoun, bryzgalov all will be available for nothing but money.

This post has been edited by CsideEr: May 18 2011, 08:22 PM

[leetchie69]

I dunno...would Sather really trade Henrik to Philly? If he is holding the cup next year he would be the guy who gave philly a cup....ouch.

Why are we focusing on Philly...I am sure if Henrik was on the block a bunch more teams would be more than happy to take him off our hands.

[Rocha]

And Pete, I get what you're saying, but I'd rather they stay on this path

But what path are they on? In the past three seasons they

- Made the playoffs on one of the final days of the season, lost in the 1st round.
- Missed the playoffs on one of the final days of the season.
- Made the playoffs on one of the final days of the season, lost in the 1st round.

Unlike the Capitals who have awesome regular seasons but fizzle out in the playoffs, or teams like Pittsburgh, Philly, Boston and Tampa Bay who have good regular seasons and then make deep playoff runs, this Ranger team has given no indications it's moving upward or there's a real good team there just waiting to mature.

Let's say the exact same roster came back next season -- would you really be surprised if they didn't make the playoffs? I'm not sure what some people are wanting to protect here. I'm not saying they need to scrap it all and start over, but this team needs to take a few risks to break out of their streak of barely keeping their heads above water.

[xcheck24]

Who said anything about the exact same roster? I said the path. They have worked to build up the "youth" of this team. They're going to have to supplement that youth somehow, like signing Richards this coming off season, as an example. And that's what they're going to have to do with the kind of draft picks they get every offseason. But trading part of the cornerstone of the foundation that's there? I'm not game to that. The goaltender is a pretty damn important position. I don't want to screw around with that. I wouldn't be game with trading Staal either, as another example.

[xcheck24]

teams like Pittsburgh, Philly, Boston and Tampa Bay

Also, aside from the Flyers, what is something important that those other three teams have?
Good goaltending. You yourself like Fleury and Thomas, and they're on two of those teams you just mentioned.

This post has been edited by xcheck24: May 18 2011, 09:15 PM

[Rocha]

Who said anything about the exact same roster? I said the path.

Right, I addressed the path comment and then to demonstrate my point that they're not really on a noticeably upward path, I presented a hypothetical that this same mediocre team next season wouldn't necessarily be any better. This is in contrast to the other EC teams I mentioned who are already pretty good and could very likely get better just by standing still because they have higher end talent than we do. The Rangers need some dazzle in their lineup. They need some serious goal scoring talent. So it's either take stabs at expensive UFAs, a strategy that has almost never worked, or maybe deal from strength (defense, goal tending) to improve weaknesses.

But trading part of the cornerstone of the foundation that's there? I'm not game to that. The goaltender is a pretty damn important position. I don't want to screw around with that.

And that's a perfectly valid opinion, of course. The only thing I'd mention is it's not like the hypothetical is to trade Lundqvist for the sake of trading him, it's to trade Lundqvist for three very good players. Arguably three players who are as good or better than anyone else on our team.

[jkman61494]

I dunno...would Sather really trade Henrik to Philly? If he is holding the cup next year he would be the guy who gave philly a cup....ouch.

Why are we focusing on Philly...I am sure if Henrik was on the block a bunch more teams would be more than happy to take him off our hands.

I started the thread because ESPN is saying the Flyers are exploring the idea of trying to trade for an elite goalie and Hank was on the list of those potentially considered.

[Knight of Dight]

If we were to trade Hank for a bunch of really good forwards, we'd just become the Capitals/Flyers 2.0-- another team with lots of firepower but no armor.

The reason you need a good goalie to succeed in the playoffs is because shot-blocking becomes more prevalent and players commit more fouls due to relaxed officiating, so teams aren't generally able to pot 4 or 5 goals a game. When your team's scoring in bunches during the regular season, it's easy to overlook shabby goaltending, but not so much in the postseason. Fewer goals puts more responsibility AND strain on your goalie to perform. Mediocre goalies crumble under the pressure.

This post has been edited by Knight of Dight: May 19 2011, 01:06 AM

[Rocha]

If we were to trade Hank for a bunch of really good forwards, we'd just become the Capitals/Flyers 2.0-- another team with lots of firepower but no armor.

The reason you need a good goalie to succeed in the playoffs is because shot-blocking becomes more prevalent and players commit more fouls due to relaxed officiating, so teams aren't generally able to pot 4 or 5 goals a game. When your team's scoring in bunches during the regular season, it's easy to overlook shabby goaltending, but not so much in the postseason. Fewer goals puts more responsibility AND strain on your goalie to perform. Mediocre goalies crumble under the pressure.

I haven't looked at any stats on this, but I'd say goals per game goes up significantly in the playoffs.

Let me look...

This season GPG was 5.59 (which is pathetic! boo NHL!).

Just glancing at playoff scores, it's gotta be well above that. Like around 6.50-7.00. So far in this round, the GPG is 8.25.

Quite the contrary to your points, having a team with 3 lines that can score seems crucial in the playoffs now, moreso than defense/goaltending. This seems a trend since the lockout, it doesn't seem like you can force your way deep into the playoffs winning a lot of tough 2-1 games anymore like you could pre-lockout.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

I think goaltending is being massively underrated here.

Philadelphia and the capitals haven't really won anything with their recent systems, it's like your arguing to go one more round in the playoffs.

[The Fast Choker]

I think goaltending is being massively underrated here.

Philadelphia and the capitals haven't really won anything with their recent systems, it's like your arguing to go one more round in the playoffs.

That's not necessarily a bad argument though. Going a round deeper gives you a better opportunity to win the Cup. Not making the playoffs or getting bumped in the first round? Not so much.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

That's not necessarily a bad argument though. Going a round deeper gives you a better opportunity to win the Cup. Not making the playoffs or getting bumped in the first round? Not so much.

So we're trading Henke, in a year when the Garden is being renovated, ticket prices just went up again and he's our ONLY Marquee perrenial all-star, to a DIVISION rival, for one more round.

There's a whole risk reward thing here that isn't adding up for me...

[SpanishJack]

I think goaltending is being massively underrated here.

Philadelphia and the capitals haven't really won anything with their recent systems, it's like your arguing to go one more round in the playoffs.

The reason they have not won is because of lack of consistently good goaltending. With that type of roster, all you need is a guy capable of stopping the normal shots coming his way. The Wings and Hawks last year proved you don't need a goalie to stand on his head every night to win. These teams showed the goalie to be a complementary piece and the not the primary piece of the puzzle, which traditionally had been the norm around the NHL. Given up goals on stoppable (softies) shots like Leighton/Brobovski/Boucher trio did this spring not only puts you down in the scoreboard and saps your drive, but more importantly impacts the manner the 5 guys in front of you play. You expose your goalie to constant odd-man rushes and play fundamentally poor all over the ice, then it won't mean squat if you have the best golie in the world between the pipes. A good roster and consistency in all facets of the game is part of teh winning recipe.

[The Fast Choker]

So we're trading Henke, in a year when the Garden is being renovated, ticket prices just went up again and he's our ONLY Marquee perrenial all-star, to a DIVISION rival, for one more round.

There's a whole risk reward thing here that isn't adding up for me...

I think that appeal is that if you go one more round, what's the issue with going one more? Like I said, it's not guaranteed, but if you're consistently getting to the second round, at least then you have a new hump to get over, instead of the hump of just making it to the playoffs.

I'm not a fan of the idea of trading Lundquist, but I see the appeal if they can add 3 good offensive players, to a team that plays well defensively, but needs guys who can score goals. the best goalie in the world won't help you if you can't score him at least one goal.

[Hockey101]

I think we should trade Lundqvist for Kane and Sharp.

Ok........sorry, i was playing fantasy hockey there.

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a trade would NEVER....EVER... happen, so why even debate about it in the first place. Let's debate about Christopher Walken becoming the next US president at this point.

You build a team from the back end and up. People whine about Lundqvist's inconsistencies. Yet at the end of each season the conclusion is that if it weren't for his stellar play the Rangers would not be in the playoffs. The Flyers had a great season this year, i understand that, but a total bust in the playoffs with such a "superb" offense. I think having such an offense would make you a great regular season team, but mediocre playoff team.

Besides, once you trade a top NHL goaltender by getting good offensive players, then guess what? You're in the market for a very good goaltender. How easy is it to get one? Not easy. I forgot which GM said this some years ago, but the quote was somewhere along the lines of "Lamoriello can go to sleep every night knowing he has Brodeur in net".

Unless you draft a very good goaltender, you will find yourself in the market for a goalie too frequently. You may trade for a goalie that gets you two..three good years. Then after that you have to trade for another goalie, or hope to sign one, maybe having to overpay that goalie, which means trading away good players to make room.

This is nonsense. When you get your franchise goalie, you keep him, period. Goalies are not plenty in the NHL. There are 60 goalies in the NHL. In theory, 30 of them are starters, the other 30 are backups. You eliminate the non-tradable goalies. You eliminate the goalies that are not worth trading for. How many do you really have left?

You never want to be in Philadelphia's situation where you have a strong team, but the uncertainty in goaltending to succeed will drive you nuts for years.

Lundqvist is not to be traded, period.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 19 2011, 11:33 AM

[jburns]

I think we should trade Lundqvist for Kane and Sharp.

Ok........sorry, i was playing fantasy hockey there.

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a trade would NEVER....EVER... happen, so why even debate about it in the first place. Let's debate about Christopher Walken becoming the next US president at this point.

You build a team from the back end and up. People whine about Lundqvist's inconsistencies. Yet at the end of each season the conclusion is that if it weren't for his stellar play the Rangers would not be in the playoffs. The Flyers had a great season this year, i understand that, but a total bust in the playoffs with such a "superb" offense. I think having such an offense would make you a great regular season team, but mediocre playoff team.

Besides, once you trade a top NHL goaltender by getting good offensive players, then guess what? You're in the market for a very good goaltender. How easy is it to get one? Not easy. I forgot which GM said this some years ago, but the quote was somewhere along the lines of "Lamoriello can go to sleep every night knowing he has Brodeur in net".

Unless you draft a very good goaltender, you will find yourself in the market for a goalie too frequently. You may trade for a goalie that gets you two..three good years. Then after that you have to trade for another goalie, or hope to sign one, maybe having to overpay that goalie, which means trading away good players to make room.

This is nonsense. When you get your franchise goalie, you keep him, period. Goalies are not plenty in the NHL. There are 60 goalies in the NHL. In theory, 30 of them are starters, the other 30 are backups. You eliminate the non-tradable goalies. You eliminate the goalies that are not worth trading for. How many do you really have left?

You never want to be in Philadelphia's situation where you have a strong team, but the uncertainty in goaltending to succeed will drive you nuts for years.

Lundqvist is not to be traded, period.

Killjoy.

[Hockey101]

Killjoy.

......

Ok fine. Lundqvist for Stamkos.

[HDH]

......

Ok fine. Lundqvist for Stamkos.

Was it ever revealed who was going the other way in the supposed handshake deal for Stamkos?

[Beamer]

Has anyone mentioned the theory, I think it was Ken Hitchcock's that a great goalie isn't needed to win a Cup, only a competent one? It mentioned all the Cups Osgood won.

If you flip through the finals from the past decade it's pretty full of just-ok goaltenders. I suppose the debate is in whether this is a fluke or a trend.

[HDH]

Nevermind:

By the time the Blueshirts visited Tampa on Thanksgiving of 2008, the talks had become serious. Barrie was asking to choose two or three from a wish list that featured Michael Del Zotto, Evgeny Grachev, Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky and Dan Girardi.

Imagine they took MDZ, Grachev, and Girardi? Hah.

[Beamer]

Actually, here's an interesting analysis:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/box-seats...cup_winner.html


According to this guy Cup winners average 4.6 elite players.
The Rangers have Lundqvist, Gabby, maybe Staal... 2.5 elite players.

[Charlie]

Nevermind:
Imagine they took MDZ, Grachev, and Girardi? Hah.

Wait a second, I would have dealt any 3 player combination of them.

[xcheck24]

Nevermind:
Imagine they took MDZ, Grachev, and Girardi? Hah.

Don't make me cry.

[SpanishJack]

Nevermind:
Imagine they took MDZ, Grachev, and Girardi? Hah.

That would have meant our fearless leader/the overlord/HOFamer would have traded away the current team's foundation.