Jan
10

Henrik Lundqvist named a 2018 All Star

January 10, 2018, by

Henrik Lundqvist will be the Rangers’ lone representative at the 2018 All Star Game, having been selected for a now fourth time (2009, 2011, 2012, 2018). Hank has single-handedly kept the Rangers relevant this season, being pummeled by shots all year and still posting a .924 SV%.

Hank also has a 19-10-4 record with a 2.54 GAA. His GAA is only that high because the team doesn’t play defense, ever. He is legitimately the only reason why the Rangers are in the playoff hunt this season. This is a well earned honor.

"Henrik Lundqvist named a 2018 All Star", 5 out of 5 based on 1 ratings.
Categories : Awards

27 comments

  1. Al Dugan says:

    Hope he comes down with an “injury” before the weekend.

  2. Buch Nieves says:

    Certainly a well deserved selection. In my opinion, our best and most valuable skater has been Skjei, although he does not have gaudy numbers at all.

  3. Mancunian Candidate says:

    Congrats Hank! And by the way: Talbot is 15-16-2, 3.09 GAA, .902 SV%. Raanta is 6-11-3, 2.71 GAA, .917 SV%. Looks like that Lundqvist fella has been the right choice for NYR this year….and every year since 2005. Special note to the Hank haters: you are all completely wrong.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      10,000 thumbs up!!!!

    • Richter1994 says:

      well done.

      Every year, the back up is better than a HOF goalie.

      Oh, and BTW, those same goalies have missed a lot of time due to injury.

      Remember about 5-6 years ago when Henrik had knee issues and everyone thought that he would have a short career? Nyet.

  4. Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

    Must drive the Hank Haters crazy! What, no Talbot on the team? How can that be?

    Once again, the Rangers have just one lone All-Star. We don’t even have a guy on the list as an injury backup. But I don’t understand how that can be! I keep hearing we have a team of elite beasts, and the ONLY thing holding us back is our coach. I’m just so confused here! I mean, the Islanders have two guys and one as backup. The Devils have one and have their goalie as a backup. The Pens have two guys and a backup. Columbus has a guy and a backup. The Caps have two and a backup. Even the Flyers have three guys in total (one and two backups). But hey, we are right there with the Hurricanes so no excuses if they beat us out for a playoff spot, right? 🙂

    I was checking and the last time the Rangers had more than one all-star? That would be 2011-12, when they had Lundqvist, Girardi, and Gaborik. But wait, haven’t I been told over and over that Torts NEVER had any talented players to work with, that AV had FAR more talent, and in fact all Torts had to do was walk into the room, growl and snark, and voila……the team would respond?

    I’m just so, so confused today. But very happy for Hank, who, if he keep this up, will be in the Vezina discussion and maybe even the Hart conversation. Not bad for a guy that a few geniuses out there call “Leaky” and even one said is “done” and should be in the minors!

    Just loving life today guys! 🙂

    • pavel_burrito says:

      I wish rules would allow Hank to be captain. Someone has to fire up this team, and remind them that once the anthem is sang, the game actually starts. He seems to be the only one that actually gives his all.

      As for “Leaky” and “Sievequest”. Well, there are people who think the earth is flat flu vaccines cause autism.

    • Walt says:

      E3

      In fairness, every team has to be represented, so that reduces the number of quality guys being put on the team in the first place. With Connor Mc Jesus being on the Oilers, maybe some deserving player won’t be there, while other lesser players, say from the Sabers, will be.

      Having said that, congrats to Hank for this accomplishment, well earned!

    • Egelstein says:

      LOL. Hyperbole, thy name is Eddie!Eddie!Eddie!

      I fully agree with you about Hank. I also would agree that no other Ranger belongs on the Metro team, at least in this current format and given the competition. A case could be made for Grabby as at least a backup, though.

      Now, however, to the hyperbole…I really don’t think much of anyone has said Torts had NO talent to work with. I personally don’t think he’s had the depth AV has, however, and it seems many feel that way. I certainly don’t think Torts was given as much rope as AV has been for mistakes, and repeating said mistakes, either.

      As for the “team of elite beasts” claim, you seem to be taking the opinion of someone, or a couple someones, and attributing it to the many. Most Rangers fans right now admit that our only true superstar is in net, and depth is the offensive key to the success of this team rather than riding any elite single-player scoring. We don’t have a sniper; a lot of teams don’t have a bottom six that is worth a damn. Pros and cons.

      The ONLY thing holding the Rangers back isn’t coaching…but it’s arguably one of the biggest things, and (here’s the rub), absolutely without a doubt, much easier to change than the whole roster. AV’s system could be absolute brilliance (I don’t think it is, especially on the defensive end and compounded by his scattershot deployment at times…but, let’s pretend)…if he doesn’t have the correct players for said system yet still tries to force it, sorry…not the right guy for the job. That’s the gripe most fans have. Different rosters, different assistants, same exact problems.

      • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

        Eg-

        I just felt like “riffing” yesterday. Was only half-serious. 🙂

        But to your points…

        Torts—Sure, I was exaggerating. But the overblown narratives about Torts out here get a little silly after a while. There are some folks that act like he was the savior of the Rangers (they were already good under Renney), and that his tenure in NY was like some kind of Golden Age, when it was not. Folks have made the argument that AV has had more talent to work with. I would say that is very much open to debate. Maybe more depth. But more high end talent? Disagree. Especially the last few seasons.

        In terms of “rope”, if you mean the press, I would agree. but as I said the other day, rope is something you earn. Neither coach would give you much. But Torts would act like an a** when someone asked him a question he didnt like. The press didnt take very kindly to that. AV just would politely give a non-answer. Fair or not, right or wrong, reporters are human too. Treat ‘em right, they might give you a longer leash. Act like a pretend tough guy, then you probably get a shorter leash.

        Elite beasts—again, just having some fun. Yes, that’s focused on a select few who have gone there (especially my buddy Rich), who seems to think we have a team of all-stars here. But I do think that the depth argument is overblown. Sometimes the “depth” argument is a cover for a lack of overall talent. I mean in reality, every team has depth. The question is…how good is that depth. I think at our best, when healthy, when its all clicking, it can be effective. But you saw last year down the stretch and in the playoffs, our “depth” can only take us so far when our “faux stars” fail to show up.

        I agree that changing coaches is the easier thing to do, obviously. But that’s just it. It is usually nothing more than a knee jerk reaction that doesnt actually accomplish anything and often sets the team back. I’m all in favor of a change…..IF there is a chance to upgrade. I’m not in favor of change for the sake of change. That’s only done in the most desperate of situations, and thats because change for the sake of change usually backfires.

        In the end of the day, if the talent isnt upgraded, either through maturation of said talent or through acquisition of better talent, it is highly improbable that we are going to see dramatically different results, IMO. It’s not specifically an “AV thing” with me. I just feel that fans tire of coaches must faster than executives do, and I really believe in this day and age, there are few if any “bad” coaches. Put any of the top tier coaches behind the Pens bench and I believe they still win the same amount of Cups that they have won. Sully was in the right place at the right time. Q was AV before he got to Chicago. Etc, etc.

        • Egelstein says:

          To start by clarifying “rope”, I actually meant the front office giving rope to the coach. That Ottawa series was a firable offense, plainly put. However, it certainly applies to the press as well – for sure. They were polar opposites in a lot of ways, but especially in the press. Torts had no filter, was far too ornery with the press, and clearly was prone to overreaction and cases of “the blurts”. AV filters everything ten times (with the rare exception of calling out his best player…but, I digress) to the point that when he says things, he is using many more words to say much less.

          There is a middle ground, though, between those two guys. Both in terms of strategy and personality/conduct with the team and press.

          I think you are correct that most fans tire of coaches before executives do. Not always…but more times, I’d say so. There’s a lot that goes into that, though – namely, that in many cases, those people are friends. Sometimes they even worked together in the past for teams in lesser leagues. Other times it is simply a matter of pro hockey being a small world, and paths crossing regularly. There is a certain lack of objectivity in some (I’d contend most…but we should all be able to agree, at least some) of these situations, as is the case in many industries were most jobs are, to some degree, referral-based in origin. It’s much harder to fire or even just reprimand a friend than it is someone who is purely a colleague.

          As for “chance to upgrade”, that’s not quantifiable. It really just isn’t. It gets said a lot, but there is NEVER a guarantee. That’s not just the NHL, either – that’s pretty much coaching in sports, in general. While I appreciate the sentiment, you could bring in the ghost of Lord Stanley himself. Wouldn’t guarantee a Cup.

          What is quantifiable is how many mistakes the current coach seems to be making. This is what fans who turn on coaches tend to focus on. Sure, there are fans who always hate the coach, or always blame the superstar who is actually carrying the team most nights, or always blame the front office, etc. Some fans are never happy with anything, even when their team has had recent championships. I think many of those who are no longer big on AV – such as myself – have proven that it’s not just because we are sick of him for some arbitrary reason like too much gum-chewing.

          Again, going back to the Ottawa series, I’m sure AV was given a chance to justify himself, if he was even asked to. He doesn’t get that luxury in some organizations, and certainly not with many fans. I for one would be much more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if what happened in that series was not exactly what a lot of us “amateurs” were afraid of. I was praying for him to prove me wrong. He didn’t. He was exactly what many of us thought he would be.

          I’m not sure the Pens win the 2015-2016 Cup without that coaching change. Possible…sure. Anything’s possible when you have two of the best centers in the game, one of the game’s premier snipers, enough depth otherwise, and a goalie who is at least capable of getting hot for long stretches. The front office made a tough decision that Johnston wasn’t getting the most from the team, and it looks like they were correct to me. Was he a terrible coach? Nope. Not the point.

          • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

            Interesting points! My response…

            1) Ottawa series—disagree that was fireable. He had three different deployments and they ALL failed. That was much more about our “stars” doing a no show. Besides, even if you’re right, you don’t give a coach a massive raise and extension and then can him six months later because you disagree with his deployments. Obviously, the front office likes the guy or they would have parted ways already.

            2) relationships between coach and GM—I agree completely

            3) no guarantees on new hire. Agree. But is it any more or less quantifiable than arbitrarily deciding if a coach made a “bonehead” decision or not? How a fan sees a decision vs how a front office exec sees one are two very, very different things.

            Not that this means much of anything, but just indulge me for a moment. Are the fans REALLY done with AV? Or is it just the blogosphere? Opening night, he got a huge ovation. I was listening on the radio that night and after he was introduced, Dave Maloney said (paraphrasing) “I know on the blogosphere this guy gets killed, but let me tell you, he is a great coach!” Now sure, Maloney works for the Garden. I get that. But why even go there if you don’t believe it yourself? During the hideous stretch in October, did anyone start a “Fire AV” chant? Nope.

            I remain skeptical that rank and file fans, and league managers and scouts, and other coaches, think AV is not an excellent coach. Bloggers be damned. 🙂

            4) Pens— I should clarify what I meant here. Clearly, Johnston was not getting it done. When you have a roster like that, much, much more was expected and rightly so. He’s actually more ammo for me of my cautionary tale of falling in love with junior hockey league coaches and assuming their skill sets would translate to the NHL. He was in over his head and had to go.

            My contention is that if Hynes had not been hired away by Shero, likley he gets the call to take over and I’d say there’s a real good chance it’s Hynes’s name on the Cup and not Sully. Don’t get me wrong…Sully has done a wonderful job. But I’d bet even he would admit, right place, right time. The real hero of that turnaround was the GM Rutherford IMO.

  5. Richter1994 says:

    Congrats, but to be perfectly honest, his greatness is confirmed every day of every season, with or without the BS media accolades.

    LONG LIVE HENRIK!! One of my all-time favorite Rangers spanning 52 years of fandom.

  6. Richter1994 says:

    Andersson played with a separated shoulder after that hit I mentioned the day after it happened in the WJC last week.

    Looks like he will be out 2-4 weeks.

    • Hockey Sittoo says:

      Indeed. I didn’t realize he had only been in 3 other Allstar games. Seems odd he didn’t make it in 2013 when he was a Vezina finalist for the umpteenth time. Must have had a slow start…

  7. King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

    Now all the Hank blinders can cry that he’s tired and over played when he lets a few squeak past 😉 … Congrats on the Nod Hank

  8. Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

    Duclair and Clendo to the Hawks for Panik. Interesting.

  9. Hockey Sittoo says:

    Leather and Sieveqvist, will you both be tuning in hoping to see Henrik get torched? Let’s hope both of you are man enough to accept that he has had a stellar first half of the season and is deserving of this “honor.” Personally I wish he would be sitting on a beach somewhere with an umbrella in his drink…

    • King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

      Great he got the nod but by no means should he be in it …. 3-3 game is a joke and he should be sitting … So Hank lovers , does he play Saturday , ya all say he’s no good after a break ???

      • Hockey Sittoo says:

        Not sure he plays Saturday but I think they practice Friday so maybe that’s enough. Guessing Pavs Saturday and Henrik Sunday vs Pitt. But who knows… And I agree that it would be better for him not to play in the nonsense Allstar game.

    • pavel_burrito says:

      Does anyone remember how Hank did in the previous ASGs? He has a perfect personality for it, but I’m not sure how well he played?

    • Bloomer says:

      Even if Henk got torched who cares. The all-star game is a dog and pony show. I would of prefer watching Lundqvist play in the Olympic along with the other best of the best hockey players of the world.

  10. Larry says:

    Two 1st rounder for Hank?
    .

Leave a Reply