New York Rangers: Was the Henrik Lundqvist plan a mistake?

In designing an NHL roster, every general manager needs to put a priority on a certain skill position. In a salary cap sport, every single dollar counts and roster construction needs to be well thought out.

For all intents and purposes, professional sports is a right now business. The windows that teams have to contend for a championship can open and close in a matter of just one single season. It takes a talented roster, intelligent coaching as well as a  bit of luck to survive the grueling 82 games season and four best of seven series to win the Stanley Cup.

In the thirteen years of Henrik Lundqvist’s career with the New York Rangers, the team has always been oriented around the goaltender. With every passing year, the front office made moves with Lundqvist serving as the focal point for a successful team. While having one of the league’s best goaltenders helps win during the regular season and playoffs, it comes at a price.

Anytime an organization has one of the best players at a position group, that superstar needs to be paid. The Rangers have gotten fair value from Lundqvist’s contract many times over. Whenever number 30 was in between the pipes, New York had a chance to win the game. Yet, in terms of roster construction, it forced the team down a certain path.

Before everyone goes and grabs their pitchforks and torches, I’m not saying Lundqvist was signed to a bad contract or overpaid. I’m arguing that the modern NHL does not put a premium on goaltending but instead on scoring.

Recent history

With all due respect to Marc-Andre Fleury, the goaltenders on Stanley Cup final winners this decade make my point for me. Aside from Braden Holtby of the Washington Capitals last year, no goaltender on a Stanley Cup championship winning team this decade was anything more than a hot goaltender behind a good team.

Let’s break it down, the Pittsburgh Penguins won two, the Chicago Blackhawks won three, the Los Angeles Kings won two and the Boston Bruins won one.

Starting with Chicago who won the most, the team won three cups with Corey Crawford in net. The now 34-year-old goaltender has been a starter ever since 2009-2010, the year of the first Blackhawk title. While there are flashes of a great goaltender, his lack of long-term consistency knocks him to the peg below an elite goaltender.

Next, we turn to the Kings who won two with arguably the most overrated goaltender in recent NHL history, Jonathan Quick. In the Connecticut native’s 12 year career, he has only had a save percentage above .920 percent twice. Putting his numbers into the context of the team he played behind deflates a lot of his success.

The Kings played the stingiest defensive system in the entire league for a majority of Quick’s time with the team. That’s why the goaltender has won the Jennings trophy for fewest goals allowed during the course of a season two separate times.

Being that Pittsburgh won their two cups with two different goaltenders playing a majority of the games, Fleury and Matt Murray, their story is a tad different but the point still remains. Neither is an out of this world goaltender, they are a compliment to the team in front of them.

A complementary goalie is one capable of playing well when things are okay in front of them. It’s the same concept as a complimentary defense in the NFL. When a team’s defense is good at playing with a lead because it can pass rush, it’s only a piece to the puzzle. It won’t outright win the game on their own and neither will Fleury or Murray.

Lastly, we round out this list with Tim Thomas, who won the cup with the Bruins at age 36 in which he finished fifth in Hart Trophy voting and had a goals against average of 2.00. Of the goaltenders on cup winners this decade, Thomas arguably had the highest ceiling when it came to winning big games.

What it all means

As the style of play in the NHL has changed, so has what it takes to win games. Once upon a time, a team could survive the dead puck era with great defense in front of a Hall of Fame caliber goaltender. This was the formula that the Rangers ran with for the entirety of Lundqvist’s career. While it was the hand the front office was dealt, this made the roster construction flawed.

Instead of trying to give Lundqvist help in certain areas, the front office used the Swede as duct tape to fix problems. Sure, at the beginning of the decade, the Rangers’ defensemen talent was amongst the best in the entire league. The 1-3 punch of Ryan McDonagh, Dan Girardi and Marc Staal was a dependable shutdown force at one point in time.

However this unit deteriorated rapidly and instead of trying to fix the defense with the changing times, the front office extended the two who played the more physical games to contracts right before they turned 30 years old. This would be the equivalent of an NFL team signing a running back and fullback to long-term extensions at age 30 in the year 2016.

Although both were once vital components to success, the game has changed. What once worked in roster construction may not be the case anymore. The teams that win the Stanley Cup do it with a high flying offense that can come in waves over the course of a game. It’s more a matter of having a hot goaltender than a great one.

Final thoughts

This is no indictment of Lundqvist, or the Rangers’ front office decision to make him the focal point. However, the way the league is designed, it makes winning that way more difficult. Teams can win with great goaltending as evident by Holtby and the Capitals last year.

New York’s front office failed to keep with the times and it closed the team’s window after just three years as legitimate cup contenders. Going back to the football analogy, there’s a reason that the Pittsburgh Steelers failed to win a Super Bowl with Le’veon Bell as the team’s best player while the Patriots kept chugging along with Tom Brady at the helm.

The Rangers are lucky to have had Lundqvist as long as the organization has. However, the front office failed to give him the right complimentary team and it led to a short window that bore no fruit.