Business of HockeyGoaltendingIrresponsible Rumormongering

Trading Lundqvist is a fool’s errand

Photo Credit: Kathleen Malone-Van Dyke

With the possibility of the Rangers selling for the first time in forever coming more acutely possible, the focus from the fan base has understandably turned to hypothetical returns for the teams’ more attractive trade chips.  Naturally, the logical discussions (many of which have been examined in this space) involve Ryan McDonagh, Rick Nash, Michael Grabner and Mats Zuccarello.  One target that a fairly vocal minority of the fan base has consistently brough up has been, oddly enough, Henrik Lundqvist.

Now, the reasons why Hank’s detractors (or trade advocates) feel moving the King would be a prudent move aren’t all that far-fetched.  He takes up a significant amount of cap space.  His overall performance has delayed a (probably necessary) rebuild longer than it should have taken.  The organization clearly wants to win as long as they have a generational talent on the roster, etc., etc.  These are valid opinions.

The problem with the concept is that not only are goalie trade returns historically putrid, but a trade structured like this is literally unprecedented since the last lockout.  Goaltenders tend to get traded in three scenarios: 1) they are a proven backup getting a shot at a start job (e.g., Cory Schneider, Cam Talbot, Martin Jones, Scott Darling, Antti Raanta, etc.) 2) they are pending UFA’s (e.g., Ryan Miller, Jaroslav Halak, Devan Dubnyk, etc.) 3) they are traded for each other as smaller parts in a bigger deal.  Only Roberto Luongo has been a star goalie traded with multiple years on his contract during this era.

Luongo was a special case.  He was a legacy player in Florida who had a decaying relationship with the organization and fan base in Vancouver.  His contract was largely viewed as an albatross (which runs for 4 (!) more seasons after this one) and his expected performance was a negative relative to his deal.  Lundqvist on the otherhand, while expensive, is still performing at a high level, and his contact runs for three more seasons, finishing up when Lundqvist is only a year older than Luongo is now. 

Understandably, Luongo was traded for basically peanuts because of his previous relationship with the Panthers.  Beyond this, there are basically no trade comparables for Hank.  Goalies are typically developed, signed or traded for much earlier in their careers.

The biggest hurdle to any Lundqvist deal is easily his NTC.  Hank is a brand in NYC, with much of his off-ice value tied up in this market.  He is a legacy player who has the rare opportunity to play his entire career in one city, and a marquee city, at that.  Now, Hank would be a pretty clear upgrade on probably 25 teams’ current goaltenders, but context is important.  Many teams have goaltenders that they either just acquired, are more youthful with solid upside, or entrenched veteran starters that teams won’t give up a haul for Lundqvist just to displace.

Looking around the league, the only teams that have a no-doubt opening in net (and a willingness to upgrade) are teams that are, understandably, toward the bottom of the league.  Could anyone really see Hank waiving his NTC to head to Buffalo, Ottawa or Vancouver?

The next hurdle would be expected return.  As a GM, you are taking on a hefty contract in the 3.5 year, almost $30 million commitment to a soon-to-be 36 year-old goaltender.  The Rangers made their bed with Lundqvist and the fan base was fine with giving him that contract to keep him in NYC for the remainder of his career.  There is serious risk for an outside GM to gut his farm system to acquire the same situation.  So, for the privilege of taking this risk, how much are you willing to part with?

When you look at what other goaltenders fetch in trades, the answer is not much.  By far the most valuable goaltending assets are those whose best years are ostensibly in front of them, not behind.  Even then, they typically fetch a combination of 2nd and 3rd round draft choices, with the occasional first rounder for perceived top-end talent (Varlamov, Jones, etc.).

So, I pose this question to those advocating trading Hank.  Would you accept two 2nd round picks, a 3rd and a depth player for your franchise goaltender?  Me either.  That is the going rate.  At the end of the day, Hank is far more valuable to the Rangers than anything they would receive in a trade.  He still has several good years left in him, and when he starts to falter, he can be a hall of fame mentor to Igor Shestyorkin as he transitions to the North American game.

It’s really not fair for me to be able to dominate the article with my opinions, is it?  How about we hear yours.  Do you think the Rangers should be looking to trade Hank in any deadline sell-off?  Sound off in the comments and vote in the poll below.


Show More
  • As the King of Egypt said to his son Ramses in the “Ten Commandments”:

    “I cannot even speak of it…”

    • If the teams around the league value Hank like Stepan than I would say a big NO to the idea. That was a “1c” who had to have a backup goalie in the package with him in order to bring back that draft pick.JG wasn’t playing when he said that Raanta wasn’t just some throw in type piece in that deal. Add to the fact that the team had to settle with the Yotes 3rd best D man prospect.

      I rather do a blockbuster package that would contain Zucc, Mcd and Grabner in a single deal and even if a third party has to be involved.

      • Hank has 3 more years on his contract, what contender is going to take that on AND has a big need for a goalie.

        The only team I can see is Chicago with Crawford’s career in doubt.

  • I think if the Rangers are going to fully rebuild, he might want to move to a contender. As pointed out previously, I don’t personally know him, and for all I know he doesn’t give two hoots about what the Rangers do as long as he’s paid, but my (like probably many others) sense is that he wants to win a Cup. And if he wants to win as bad as I (and likely many of us) think, a full rebuild in his later stages may not be the best opportunity for that. The speculation, for me at least, is that, a) the Rangers, if they’re rebuilding, would be foolish to not at least look around the league at the options, and b) they’d be foolish not to ask what he wants to do in such a case.

    That doesn’t mean they’ll get a good return, or the return will be worth it. Though in fairness, as you (Justin) admit, nobody like this has been traded in a good long while, so nobody knows what he might bring back. Would I do it for what you suggested (the two 2nd rounders plus stuff)? No. But what if it was like three years of firsts, plus stuff? Then I’m definitely thinking about it harder. I’m not valuing the trade itself, because who knows what that would even look like, just that the opportunity presents itself, and it’s worth them looking into.

    Hank’s been great for this organization. I love the guy, I have his jersey, and I will forever be grateful for his time here, however it ultimately ends. But in the end, the Rangers are still a business. “Owing” their employees is not something they’re likely to consider. If the trade is there, and Hank OKs it, they should still pull the trigger.

    • From the quotes from Brook’s article, it sounds like Henrik wants no part of a trade. Some pretty firm words from the King. Respect for putting the team above his personal desires.

  • Not trading Lundqvist, no way… but I am intrigued to see the development of Igor Shestyorkin. I’m excited to see how he does in North America after his KHL contract is over. In recent history, we saw the Penguins and Lightning goalie prospects make the transition to starting roles. All I’m saying is IF, in a few years, Shestyorkin blows us away… then, and only then will we even CONSIDER possibly trading Hank.

    • The “trade Hank now” crowd is totally underselling how much value it will bring to Shesty to mentor under both Lundqvist and Allaire. I can think of a couple guys who looked like career backups until they had that same opportunity…you know, the fellas that the “trade Hank now” crowd always carry on about being better than Hank?

  • I don’t like any of the choices in your poll. I would more or less tell Hank what kind of a retool I had in mind and give him an estimate of prospects for the future. If he wants to go to a contender a la Ray Bourque (which I doubt), I trade him – and maybe for a lot less than you speculate. If he wants to take his chances in Ranger blue, I tell him I’m glad he feels that way and drop the matter.

  • Goalies usually don’t bring much in return, maybe a first round pick and a prospect and more then likely we’ll have to eat a bunch of his salary

    • Probably just pretending, so that he doesn’t have to play in that hot mess of a “process” we watched last evening.

      Jokes aside, that does rather suck, indeed.

      • Why pretend? Since he didn’t come back in the game AV, deployment genius that he is, would probably bench him for dogging it..,

  • Speaking of that contract, I said this a long time ago when he signed it: I’ve always wondered if Hank was willing to give $ back to NYR ( a la Shattdeuces) to help (hopefully) ensure they build a contender & win it, but his agent talked him out of it saying Sather will just waste it (most likely true) or he just said “I am in fact The King!” & just took the $ figuring this would happen…

    • Hank probably didn’t anticipate nearly all of Sather’s “big splash” roster moves during his career being some level of failure ranging from “not quite what we hoped for” to “holy hell, how was that guy ever good and what the hell happened the second he put on the blue sweater”.

  • Unfortunately goalies never yield the reward you hope they will. It’s not worth trading him…He has a big contract, but I think having him and Igor as a tandem for a year or 2 will benefit us in the long run and we should have plenty of cap space. And the be fair. He’s still playing very well…even for is age

  • Off topic but it made me smile remembering the flyers traded young Bob for a 2nd and two 4th rd draft picks. Screw those guys 🙂

  • Lundqvist has to go….he is fast becoming a hindrance vs an asset.

    If we are going to do a rebuild around Lundqvist then it will fail and hurt the club in the long run.

    Lundqvists feelings take a backseat to the future of the Rangers…..PERIOD!!!!

    • I really don’t understand your type of thinking because we all damn well know that there’s a greater chance whatever comes back from a Hank trade won’t be viable to build around.

      They should look to ice a team with a continuing of trying to build on the fly with now type of assets that should be under the age of 26 years old. They have the base already with Hank and like I said before, it’s not like those assets would be game changing draft picks unless the scout team has a underrated vision from building a team with 2nd and 3rd rounders.

    • Do you even read these articles? Gorton could feel the same way you do (psst: he most certainly does not), and his hands would be relatively tied. It isn’t one bit about Hank’s feelings…except in the context that, you know, he has that whole NMC thing going for him. As noted in the article, it would seem that the places that could feasibly use Hank and could feasibly figure out the money are not places that it seems he’d be keen to move to for the next third of a decade.

    • Great. Work isn’t going to be happy with me, now. Just spit water all over my monitor.

      There’s no way in hell, or in any of the potential various hells in any of the potential various parallel universes, that Anaheim would do this, unless their front office collectively lost their minds. I’m sure if they didn’t have a highly talented young goalie that they’ve spent years grooming and developing, it would be a different story. They do have that though, as Justin points out.

          • Enjoy 3 more years of same BS and another 7 years of building a team that can actually win

            you get to cheer your Leaky as I weep for the Rangers

          • It’s funny that when you consider how much you hate Hank that you are soooo grossly over valueing his trade value.

            Are you banking on Anaheims GM not having read your thesis on Hanks tendency to let up bad goals and bad times?

  • Gibson, Montour and a 1st and 3rd and a 2nd in the following years draft and if we eat part of his contract then another 1st instead of 2nd

  • I am not in the tear it down camp. The Rangers do need to reload and add some young talent but at the same time they should keep their core to build on. IMHO that means keeping MCD Zuc and Henk.

  • As a very longtime Ranger fan, I think every single player on this team should be for sale, including HL, but it should not be a fire sale. If he can’t get the right numbers, Jeff Gorton should sell no one, but if he does get reasonable offers relative to the value of the player to the future Rangers, he should sell without restriction.

  • If they really gonna tear it down, hank be better off some place else. But i know the rangers half ass rebuild most likely. they just dont get it. the leafs skated circles around this group. We need a new begining, no hank and no AV if you really want to do it right.

  • I think that the prospects of trading Hank and getting a return that makes any sense at all are very, very dim. He earns too much money over the next three seasons for most teams to afford, and he is 35 years-old. While he is still among the best in the league, in my opinion he is not quite as good as he once was consistently although still can often be stellar (which is understandable at his age.)

    So, I think that discussing trading him is an exercise that really has very little chance of ever taking place. The most likely scenario is that he finishes his career with the Rangers with the Rangers bringing Igor to New York in the next couple of years to be groomed as The King’s successor. If not Igor, then someone else. I doubt we will see Lundqvist playing elsewhere ever.

  • This team is doomed….Mark my words….no Cup for the Rangers for another 10 years

    Lundqvist wants to stay according to Rotter….so that’s 3 years of Leaky in net….no Cup and 7 years to get a real contending team after that Leaky dude is gone. So you Leaky fans….mark this day and statements

    No Cup for the Rangers till 2029…..enjoy the mediocrity

    • “no Cup for the Rangers for another 10 years”

      2 Cups in 78 years, this is hardly going out on a limb my friend.

    • Another ridiculous take Leather. Continuing to call Henrik “Leaky” after what he has done this year seals the fact that your bias undermines all credibility.

        • I assume you missed the previous 30 starts for Hank, too? I guess when you eat a sandwich you’ve solved world hunger too.

          • I see it’s ok to bash the team but Sir Leakqvist is above criticism by the lowly fan base. He has played extremely well for the most part this season. Other times he is downright awful and isn’t ready to go when the puck drops.

          • All-star status not good enough for you and your high standards? Being the best player for this team night in night out isn’t good enough?Only hope you hold yourself to the same absurd standard.

  • Well, Brooks’ article this afternoon on Henrik says it all: Henrik is here, sell off or not.

    That’s what I thought, that he would never leave NY, but you never know. This seals it.

    • I was thrilled to read that article and to hear it from Henrik. Love his attitude and passion. And, oh yeah, his unbelievable talent.

      • Exactly my friend. I don’t want to hear what Brooks or any other beat writer has to say, it was great to hear, and I’m paraphrasing: “no matter what the Rangers do, I’m in.”

        Made my day. I’m sure you too.

        HOF lock.

    • You wish. Just because Lundqvist has a NTC and has no intention of waiving it – and just because we have lots of other things to talk about as all but three players can be traded — doesn’t mean people won’t continue to bring it up.

      If opinions doesn’t matter anyway, why stick to the possible.

      Seriously, while we disagree about how good Hank really is, Hank is a damn good goalie and if the Rangers end up trusting a bunch of kids who are not yet ready, it’ll be great for morale if every miscue doesn’t end up in the back of the net.

      Like you, I am ready to see the trade Hank stuff go away, but it won’t happen.

      • Raymond, I always ask what is it that fans think the Rangers would do if the Rangers had $3M more in cap space that would make them a better team than they are now. Here are some tidbits I have read over the years that says that the Rangers would be worse than now:

        1) The King accounts for at least 1 goal against less than an NHL goalie that is slightly better than average.
        2) Travis Yost wrote an article that says the Rangers cap space for goalies is in line with elite goalie tandems with the rest of the league.
        3) The Rangers have been near the bottom of basically all defensive related stats in the league for the past 2-3 years.
        4) The improvements the Rangers would need to overcome NOT having Henrik would cost more like $25M, not $3M to $5M, IMO.

        Henrik is one of the best PLAYERS of his era, forget about just his position, and one of the greatest Rangers of all time. He’s a HOF lock and it’s disgraceful how some Ranger fans do not give him his due and enjoy watching him perform his elite play year after year.

        I feel very bad for those fans because players like Henrik do not come around very often for the Rangers. As a matter of fact, the last one was Jagr and the one before Jagr was traded in 2004, Brian Leetch.

        • First of all, I am not in the trade Hank club. Second, to win the cap game, you need to land some bargains, have enough young players and avoid having a bunch of bad mistakes. Just hypothetically, paying a $7M/yr player $8.5M is not a blunder. Hank is the goalie; he deserves a lot; he makes a lot; move on.

          Where we differ is on just how good Hank actually is. Imagine rating players on a 0-100 scale where 80 represents good enough to play in the NHL and 85 is a marginal starting goalie. I give Hank a 93 and you give him a 102. Maybe I am low, but geez, 102. Yeah, I guess Gretzy and Orr were 102s and Lemieux a 101, but no goalie, not even Brodeur (better than Hank, sorry) is off the scale.

          Seriously “1) The King accounts for at least 1 goal against less than an NHL goalie that is slightly better than average.” 1 goal per season is not much and 1 goal per game is absurd.

          And (3) is crazy too. If stats seem unbelievable, they likely are. And no, there is no reason why advanced stats have to work.


          Henrik Lundqvist has been a top ten goalie for a helluva long time and I don’t begrudge him his HOF entry (and nowadays goalies just don’t get in). But I refuse to grant him super-human status and I don’t like using him as a stick to bash guys like Girardi, who were really pretty good.

          • Raymond, the man has faced more high danger shots than any goalie in his era. Yet, if not for the idiot Bettman, Hank would still have his 30 win streak going, a record that would never be broken.

            As it is, he has the most consecutive 20 win seasons to start a career in NHL history. A record that grows each season.

            Playoffs? How many series has he stolen in his career? A ton.

            This team would be no where without him. The best Ranger team was 2013-14 and they almost won the Cup. Bad officiating played a major role, not to mention that they couldn’t score when they needed to.

            Nash’s shot finds the net instead of Voynov’s shaft of his stick then the series might have been different. King gets called for goalie interference then the series might be different.

            With all of that, other than a flat Game 3, they lost in OT, games that could have gone either way.

            It amazes me how under appreciated this man is.

          • You confuse fact with opinion. I’ll go through your comment one line at a time.

            High danger shots are a subjective idea which doesn’t holld water.

            The win totals are valid. They testify to his extended excellence, which I have already agreed with, but the elimination of ties and longer seasons make these a little less impressive than they would have been fifty years ago.

            How many playoff series has he stolen? Actually stolen. One, I believe (Pittsburgh 2014). He has been a positive force in a decent number yes, but let’s not sell the rest of the team short.

            Please note that IF Cam Talbot played at exactly Lundqvist’s level, the Rangers would have been further out of the playoff picture in February 2014 than they are now and likely would not have made the St. Louis trade. Yes, it was a fluke of sorts but in their best year, Hank was not their best goalie.


            Three actual facts in summary:

            Looking at Edmonton this year and Talbot’s performance underlines just how hard it is to be a top tier goalie year in year out. And Marc-Andre Fleury, perhaps better this year than anything we have seen from Hank, has likewise had an up and down career. Hank’s consistency is the exception, not the rule.

            W-L is real, GAA is real, Save % is real. Everything else is subjective (high danger shots, etc.) When the real data says that Hank did not exceed his backups over the four year Talbot-Raanta period (mind you Talbot and Raanta are good goalies so this does not malign Hank) while the subjective data tells you that the 2015-2016 Hank was a better tender than Gretzky was a center, well the subjective stuff has to be wrong.

            Finally, the record tells us exactly how good the Rangers have been since 2005 (forever really). Deciding who gets credit is a zero sum game. Building up Lundqvist is, to a certain extent, tearing down Jagr, Gaborik, Nash, Zuccarello, McDonagh, Girardi, Staal, Stepan, ….. I agree with E3 that the Ranger skaters have not been the Detroit Red Wings of a decade ago or the Penguins or Blackhawks of more recent years — but the team that get to the semi-finals two years in a row was still a damn good team and to say that they would have had a winless season without Hank (a bit of an exaggeration of what you have said) is running down the other guys. AND SERIOUSLY, Rob pretty much said last week that Hank was all that separated the current Rangers from Buffalo and Arizona.

            Seriously, if Hank really saved one full goal a game and you are Edmonton and NYR offered you Hank for five #1’s, would you take it? I sure would. Connor McDavid is not even worth a goal a game.

          • I start to read your response and yo were doing fine until you mention Talbot and then you lose me.

            Raymond, really? Effing Cam Talbot? The guy finally gets to start and he’s hurt as often as he plays.

            Guess what? Staying healthy is part of the deal. That’s what makes Henrik so effing amazing. All those games, all those seasons, and he is still one of the top goalies in the league.

            And stole one playoff series? LOL. ok.

  • Ok I thumbs downed this one….I typically don’t give a hoot about thumbs up or down BS as someone remarked to my post in regards to bias.

    When as you say one of the greatest Rangers of all time but you can’t win….who cares?? I would rather have no names and win a cup than Leaky.

    Had Leaky been 26, I would be a ton more lenient on him and be on the side of hope. Let’s face it he is not and now we are at a point that this Rangers will not win with him.

    He still has value in that a trade would’ve helped the Rangers, him wanting to stay a waste.

    As for you Leaky fans….the Girardi comparable are quite there. Girardi was once a warrior and then kicked to the curb by fans….same thing is true of this GQ glamour boy….

    Considering credibility is relative and reality based on results….I’ll take reality rather than be credible to people with said bias.

    So reality is we have at least 3 more years of futility and the 7 years of reality

      • Nah….I stole his….

        Richter, I am a Ranger fan, not a Leaky fan….I see Leaky as a clear and present danger to the organization now. I have never hated him but at the same time I dislike the bias he gets.
        He is no way even close to being the greatest Ranger of all time and not even in the top 10.

        When he became Lundqvist’s Rangers and the team having to do things around him, I see that as a illogical approach to bringing the health of this club back.

        I want to win the Cup, not appease Leaky

        • The guy is probably going to end his career with the 3 most wins for a goalie all time and he doesn’t crack the top 10 list for a franchise that has 2 cups in close to a millennium……. right.

        • The greatest all-time Rangers I have seen since 1965, in no particular order:

          Zubov (not here obviously but great)
          Mike Rogers

          That’s 11. You tell me who you are putting in your top 10 over Henrik.

          My top 5, in no particular order: Messier, Leetch, Gilbert, Henrik, Ratelle.

          Hank has single handedly impacted the Rangers in a positive way more than any other Ranger in their history, other than maybe Messier, but even Messier didn’t win it here until the Rangers were stacked in talent, so he needed a lot of help to win it.

          Hank has done it basically by himself over the years. Yeah, it’s hate my friend. Which there i nothing wrong with it but you should own it. 🙂

          • Yep, I did think of him but I don’t think he beats out any of the top 11 I named.

            He may be more “talented” that I agree with but as far as being part of a team, I take Rogers over him. Mike Rogers was a tremendous player.

            There’s also a case for Gartner as well. Bure would have been for sure but he got hurt soon after he got here.

    • No, the reality is that you’ve decided to blame the most blameless Ranger of all for the team’s overall struggles this year. That reality shows you to be an overly negative know-nothing about this sport, just another dude who’s bitterly jealous of the athletes on the team you allegedly support.

      Laughably, you’ve then stated that this supposedly overrated, overpaid netminder is worth two good players and three high-round picks in a trade. Not even the biggest Hank supporters would claim he’s worth such an incredible return. I guess that means that you know down in the depths of your heart that your hatred for Hank is unjustifiable.

      • I find it very funny that none of these Hank Haters ever complain about the rest of the team.

        Rangers lose the Cup in Game 7 2-1, it’s not that the Rangers couldn’t score goals but that Hank let in one more than the opposing goalie did.

        The last game against Toronto. Ok, 3 goals in 14 shots is not good, but just about every one of the Leafs’ shots were high danger chances.

        I forget what game it was but the Rangers finally outshot an opponent for the game but were outchanced 14-6 in that same game. It was about a month ago or so, don’t remember the opponent. The Rangers have some of the softest shots on goal that I have ever seen. Lollipops that any goal can stop.

          • Why watch the games? Just look at the score after the game is over.

            That’s what your analysis of Henrik consists of. You and the other Hank Haters.

  • The funny thing is …. if he gets traded to a contender it = automatic Cup … lmao

  • I am with Leatherneck in most of his posts. The guy is just over rated.

    1.) Never has he won a Stanley Cup.

    Winners since he has been in the league : C. Ward, S. Giguere, C. Osgood, M.Fleury, A. Nemni, T.Thomas, J.Quick x 2, C. Crawford x 2, M. Murray x 2. Are any of them any good compared to your savior? I mean he made it to the finals and couldn’t steal one game. Not one. In every game in those finals the rangers had the lead at some point and Hank couldn’t steal one.

    2.) Has won 1 Vezina in his whole career

    M. Kiprusoff, M. Broduer x 2, T. Thomas x 2, S. Brobosky x 2, B. Holtby, C. Price, R. Miller, T. Rask. The only one up here close to Hanks salary is T. Rask and he is 5 yrs younger then him. Now I am not saying this is in anyway judgement of a good goalie. I think the Vezina trophy just generally goes to the guy with the most wins in a season. But none the less it is something that people judge whether or not a goalie is elite.

    3.) Is extremely overpaid for a fierce competitor

    The BOB has 2 vezina’s and is 2.5 million less in salary then Hank. And I think he is overpaid. Most team realize that a goalie is no longer going to steal a cup. Since T.Thomas when has the goalie on the cup winning team stolen the cup?Most goalies are an after thought. To put this in better terms Hank’s cap hit is 200k more then Crosby’s. And only a million less then Malkin’s. Who would you rather have on your team? Crosby and Murray or Hank and Zibanejad? He should have taken a lesser salary in order to win a cup.

    4.) When the pressure is on he folds.

    See point number 1.

    And adding to that …the season which came down to a shootout to get into the playoffs against philly and he choked. When you need him to be on and steal a game the guy simply can’t. He is like tony romo fumbling the winning field goal snap in the playoff game. A good player when it doesn’t matter but when you really need him to be elite… he is just average. I mean did anyone else watch those World Cup games …hank was on a bonefide all star team and looked so bad. Poppin out rebound after rebound.

    I am all for a trade for the right return. Just could never see it happening for so many reasons. Therefore this is just total waste. But this undying belief he is Mr. Elite Super Goaltender worlds above ever other player in this league is just stupid at best. He has been a above average goaltender on some above average teams for most of his career. His career stats and playoff stats say the opposite. But ask yourself has he really ever stolen the show in a game that mattered? As everyone on here says about AV….. regular season wins are great but has he ever won the big one?

    • Oh no you didn’t ! Not here you didn’t ! Those are fighting words round here …. Can’t you read the top of the blog “in Hank we trust ” !
      PS – there was only one King … King Kenny Roberts , and he delivered

      • Oh look! Two of the three biggest idiots on this site agree! What a surprise. One ignores stats, the other shitehawk blames Hank for a shootout loss from 8 years ago in the last game of the season.

        Odie, since you are SO damn stupid, do you even remember the multiple playoff series in which Hank led the Rangers back from 3-1 deficits? You are a fool, as is your new playmate here.

        • ahhhhhh……it wasn’t just hank Mancun…..are YOU that stupid to think it was just Leaky that brought us back from 3-1 down???

          Ok then

          • Leather: “Hank sucks”

            also Leather: “Hank is worth two players, two first-rounders, and a third”

          • There he is butt it is back …. Had a little break when he was riding pine …. Let’s see how the Habs make out with the high Priced Pricelles contract …. Team should be built down the middle

          • That is my whole point. Contracts to elite goalies is not a winning formula. And whether people believe or not there certainly were some players on this team that left cause of his over inflated contract.

          • I don’t think hank sucks in anyway. I just think this is a team sport and giving the highest contract to the goalie is not very intelligent.
            If Fleury never got hurt and played the last to years and won both those cups everyone would be astounded at how great a goalie he is. Yet he got hurt and replaced by a rookie and he took the reigns and won 2 cups.

        • God I am so stupid to believe someone might be open minded and see that a goalie never deserves a 10 million a year contract no matter who he is.

          WhAt A StUpId IdIot I aM! I ShOulD NeVeR Be AlLoWeD tO SpEaK!

          Those 12 other teammates that played in those playoff series had absolutely nothing to do with those comebacks. NONE! WHAT WAS MY DUMBASS THINKING!?!!?!?!?


          • You are stupid. Admitting it is the first step on the road to recovery. Although in your case, things don’t look too promising.

          • yeah you can’t say nothing about Hank … all the butthurts get butthurt …. its not hate ,its pointing out the fact and then everyone gets upset 🙂 … of course the other team is gonna get shots. That’s the game. What was the Vezina trophy guys name the other night on the leafs,the backup goalie ,the one who had a shutout ,stopped all the the tips,screens,high danger shots etc … man whats his name McElhinney yeah that’s it ! Oh and Pav came in made some good stops,all of em to be exact.
            .The goals one plain snipe high danger shot from the blue line!,2nd he was opened up like a teenager on prom night (what was that ? ) , think the only one that was a goal was the break from his left side when staal blew it which MC Buttboy , Staal has been done since his brother hit him but that’s a whole story u miss.

          • But you never, ever point out the good things he does 99% of the time, so your “point out the fact” is really trolling because it’s always negative.

            The guy could make 5 highlight reel saves in a row and you are silent, but when he lets in a goal, no matter if it’s his fault or not, there you are.

            I think you’re a good person but your (and others) trolling of Henrik is beyond ridiculous.

            And yet, I keep responding, lol. It’s like being on crack, I can’t stop. 🙂

    • You’re not saying one important thing, the media votes on these awards and their bias is particularly brazen in hockey. For example, they think that Quick is a stud. He’s a stiff in comparison to Lundqvist.

      If Henrik had any kind of team that could defend then he would have multiple Vezinas and Cups. But his Ranger teams have been mostly average with him winning games in spite of his teammates.

      To simply say that Henrik hasn’t won a Cup when HE is the only reason they even have a chance to compete for a Cup is just wrong.

      • Don’t waste your breath Richter. You’re arguing with 2 of the biggest morons on this site with Odie & Sieve. They argue dishonestly and think like fools.

      • Not my point.

        Goalies are overrated and there is just no need for an “ELITE” goalie. I would rather have a team full of elite players and have a goalie that is a bum and win some cups. Then one that dominates the salary cap and can never come up with the “BIG” save.

        And your point on Quick is biased/Subjective. I am just looking at the facts. And Quick has 2 Stanley Cups and Hank has none. That is a Fact. No opinion there. And he won one of those cups against Hank.

      • Quick, 5.8, 2-Cups ,Hank , 8.5, 0-Cups but we get to call him the King and he won 30 games a bunch …. just sayin

  • The King is not even remotely close to being our problem. Anyone thinking that moving HL is as smart as AV.

    • no one is referencing his play as the problem. Just his cap hit. It factors in whether you want to believe it or not and to be one of the highest paid players in the league and not have a Cup with his name on it and only one Vezina trophy says he shouldn’t be or is overpaid.

      • but as 3E would say, who else would you sign with the extra $$$ , lol …. I’m sure someone could have fit in there ! 🙂

    • Look be honest with yourself. You are slightly biased and think way too highly of a guy who has never won a cup all because he has been the only consistent player for the last 10 years.

      • Most 20 win seasons consecutively to start an NHL career.
        One of the best save % on high danger shots and 5 on 5 in the league.
        Carrying otherwise ordinary Ranger teams year after year to the playoffs.

        Nah, I don’t think so. It’s not bias, it’s earned respect and admiration.

        • It is hard to be honest with yourself I know. That is about as worth while as AV’s 5 president trophies.

  • Back to top button