Poll: Are You Happy With Henrik Lundqvist Contract Extension?

12:55PM: Katie Strang tweets that the deal includes a full No-Move clause for Lundqvist

12:17PM: Nick Kypreos said on Hockey Central at Noon, “They were fighting tooth and nail. They didn’t want to go 7 or 8. The feeling was that the vultures were out there and that the Flyers would have gone $9+ for Lundqvist and the Rangers knew it. I think the Rangers feel today that they got a bargain.”

Kypreos added, “What he needed was $10 or $11 million a year for four years. What they didn’t need was to go seven years. If he goes south in 3 or 4 years….”

10:30AM:The Rangers are set to announce that they have come to terms with Henrik Lundqvist on a seven-year deal worth $8.5 million per season.

As Pierre LeBrun tweets, “I know the Rangers might get criticized for the term/money but what else are they going to do? Let Lundqvist walk July 1? Then what?”

Chris Botta tweets “In the real world of his value to MSG on and off the ice, Lundqvist is a bargain. Soaring salary cap also makes this not a problem.”

Adam Rotter: To me, the Rangers had no choice but to agree to what Henrik Lundqvist wanted. It’s only about $1.625 million more per season than his cap hit already is which isn’t that much more for the Rangers. With the salary cap rising, the increase in Lundqvist’s cap hit doesn’t mean that much. It just looks like a big number, but when you see that his cap charge is already $6.875, it’s not that big of a deal. The Rangers, understandably, wanted a shorter contract, but Lundqvist was getting seven-years from someone in a new contract and it’s better for everyone that he gets that from the Rangers.

Greg Alzner
Greg Alzner

Haha. Love that people are complaining that he finally signed a deal.

Jimmy Passadino
Jimmy Passadino

When does a long term contract for a goalie ever work out? 2 years too long IMO.