There's good and bad to this contract. The good is that they have their franchise goalie locked down for another 4 years at a fair cap hit. The bad is that NYR only bought 2 years of UFA status.

Although it would have been riskier I would have like to have seen them get more term on the contract. If he keeps performing the way he has he could be in for a big raise at the end of this contract.

47 games played. Not a steal for the rangers

I agree. The rangers had some leverage and they didn’t use it. He’ll be 30 in the first year of his new deal, the rangers should be drafting/trading for young goalies with upside over the next 2 years. There’s no reason to extend him after this contract.

Honestly it's kind of a risk, but if he pans (like he probably will) he will be incredible at this value.

This is classic case of too much money and too much term too soon.

I am of the mind set that make the guy earn it, 47 NHL games tells me he has not earned it yet.

Goalies are weird, hard to gauge a prime of goalie most of the time.

Could he be the exception? Sure, most likely not I think.
Time will tell as father time is undefeated.

.

It's a great deal when compared to Demko's contract:


Thatcher had a 0.907 SV% in 48 NHL games when he signed.
Shesterkin has a 0.921 SV% in 47 NHL games.


Quite the difference.

Yeah because that's what NYR wants

The guy has 47 games under his belt and you consider him to be equivalent to the greatest goalie in the league?

Bruh...

Who said they want that? Just saying he got himself to Ufa. Seems to have been his goal

I agree with you the issue was how soon he was a Ufa because of his age. I believe they only could give him a one year deal, as anything longer makes him a ufa

Fair

Did you not see the word can? I never said he is, so learn to read

Yes. And i can say your expectations are certainly a bit high for me to muster, but I suppose you have the right.

They might seem high to you, but as someone whos followed his career for the better part of 7 years, hes legitimately elite right now and hes not even in his prime, hes got all the tools and all the talent

This deal would be good if it was at 6 years or more, but at 4 years I have to say it is not a good deal.

Goodrow got a longer deal...

Drury is gonna regret not signing him long term. If he's even still the GM at that point.

No. Both deals can be bad. And in this case, they are.