Thursday, November 19, 2009

Trade Lundqvist?

That's what the Masked Man over at WFAN.com is proposing...

"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.

9 comments :

zg said...

You can analyze this on two levels, a hockey level and an organizational level. On both levels, any possible trade is very very bad.

On a hockey level, there are no possible trades that would bring any kind of long or short term improvement for to the Rangers. Subtract all the games you win over the next four years because of Lundqvist, then add all the games you would win with who ever you get back. There is no deal in the league where you are better off from a wins perspective that doesn't bring back a Lundqvist salary. Trading down makes you much worse off over the long run. No disrespect to any other goaltender, but the there is no way the Rangers would be better off trading Henrik for Heward +. They would need Zetterberg coming back, and I am not sure the Rangers would be better off. Plus, that deal would never, ever happen.

From an organizational stand point, think of all the merchandise that the Rangers were absolutly going to sell with Henrik on their team for two olympics under this contract. That is gone. Then there is the uncertainty about future season ticket prices due to the fall in demand. A single player usually can't effect it that much, but a keeper does more than any other position to ensure future wins. It would be an awful play. The rangers can continue as they are with Henrik and make more money then they would with a cheeper alternative.

Considering this seriously for any amount of time and not coming to conclusion that it is awful is an epic fail.

-DO said...

That's just crazy-talk! Kane? Toews? Maybe with Dubi and Wade for Nabokov, Thornton and Vlasic. Wade could go play with his old pal Heatley. Never happen, I know, but trading Hank for Huet? Blargh!

Joshua said...

The only way it could ever even be considered, and I"m not saying I would ever think about such an awful shortsighted move, would be if the other team took Drury and Redden along with him, and they got back a solid middle of the pack goalie, a superstar scorer, and a whole lot of draft picks. That helps team X win the cup while helps the NYR a) clear tons of cap space, b) provide the opportunity to stockpile prospects, and c) finish lower in the standings so they can pick even lower.

Still, it would NEVER HAPPEN.

Jack said...

Well, Toews and Kane have been resigned. That said, let's keep playing "what ifs" ? Move Drury, Redden and Lundqvist for....? I'm curious...

William said...

henrik is untouchable. that should go without saying

NYRFan said...

Not that this trade would ever happen, but Jack I think you're wrong about Kane and Toews re-signing. I know the Hawks are trying to sign them both as well as Keith, but nothing has been done yet.

Jack said...

Ok, so I'm a few hours premature.

"Blackhawks will re-sign their big 3"

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/allen/2009-11-19-blackhawks-cap-numbers_N.htm

mike said...

Right now, the Rangers have a 50/50 chance of making the playoffs. If they trade the King, they have a 50/50 chance of getting the first pick in next years draft. 'Nuff said.

zg said...

Upon retrospection, I have come to another conclusion.

The only way the Rangers trade Lundqvist is if they decide to fold the francise after this season.