"Find a team that needs a goalie as their last piece to winning the Cup. Is it Chicago, is it Detroit, is it Washington? Think about what you can get back from those teams in a trade if you moved Lundqvist now while he has good trade value. You’d need a goalie back; Steve Valiquette isn’t the guy to play 60 games for you. Let’s say hypothetically the Wings gave you Jimmy Howard back in the deal. Good goalie, can play in the NHL, has yet to prove himself as a #1 but certainly could be one (and he is an upstate NY kid). That gives you a season to see if he is your guy of the future or if you need to find a #1 but you certainly have the time to do it. Remember, this Ranger team is a good team but not a Cup contender so you are taking one step back to take three forward."
...you might have thought that I would start my comments by saying how ridiculous this is. But I ask you, is it? While Lundqvist is the main reason the Rangers have made the playoffs the last four years, what has he done when they got there? Not much. While I strongly disagree with the Masked Man that Howard would be the answer in goal, would you be interested in Keith, Kane or Toews (not sure how they're going to sign all three) and Huet from the Blackhawks for Lundqvist and maybe Staal? I thought so.
...having said all that, there is no way Sather is making that move. If you thought the Giacomin trade was unpopular, just wait to see the reaction of the Graden Faithful after a Lundqvist trade.
...h/t to reader David for the link.