They'll probably pick up someone like LaBarbera for 1m to spell Cam for a few. I actually am curious about Skapski and wouldn't mind if they gave him one start.
Labarbera has a lot of NHL experience he wouldn't be bad. The first Rangers game I ever went to he was there starting goalie back in 2003 2004 and he won his start against the Caps on 3/5/04
Ranger brass likes Skapski; I am curious to see him at NHL level. Saw him in Hartford on three occasions( 2 wins, 1 loss ).....plays with a edge though he flops a lot. We shall see. Don't want to see LaBarbera again.
3:26PM: Kevin Weekes says that a “top neurologist” discovered the vascular injury Lundqvist suffered and that a full recovery is expected. (Weekes) 3:24PM: Larry Brooks says that he is hearing a range of 4-6 weeks for Lundqvist. (Brooks) 2:44PM: The Rangers have released the following statement about Lundqvist: “Henrik Lundqvist suffered a vascular injury on Saturday. We have been conferring with leading medical experts to ensure the best possible care. Henrik will remain sidelined at least three weeks, until he is revaluated and we have completed the process of conferring with the medical experts.” 5:12PM: Bob McKenzie said on TSN Drive on TSN 1050 that the Rangers are hoping that Talbot will be good enough that they won’t have to go out and get a goalie
I think we all agree that if Hank misses 4 weeks or so we'll be fine. Figure 15 games +/-. We are fine for the playoffs. I am confident we can even hold down a top 3 spot in the Met (I would like 2). The issue is if he misses longer. Ideally we hope he is back before the end of March. Then he will get 7 or 8 games in prior to the playoffs. I think he'll need a handful to get back up to speed, don't want 1 or 2 games and then playoffs. So we will be okay if he is back in 4 weeks or so. BUT when you read at least 3 weeks. Revaluated after that. Vascular injury. Those things are scary. Like we'll rest him for 3 weeks and hope he is okay. He might not be okay. Who knows. So yeah I am concerned. 4 weeks no biggie. If there is still an issue in 3 weeks...could be season and then we are F'd. All we can do is wait and see where he is at in 3 weeks. BTW...I would love him back on March 2nd. Go look at the 5 games stretch starting that day. Until then we have 8 or 9 out of 12 games that I think we are the better team no doubt.
Yet again the Rangers crack training staff misses what seemed like an obvious injury to the game watching layman. The good news is that concussion symptoms & blot clotting issues have been ruled out. He probably had a significant amount of blood vessel rupturing where the puck impacted. I was surprised by the training/coaching staff's failure to immediately remove Hank after the play and shocked when AV played him in the Florida game, makes one wonder if this turned a 1-2 week injury into a 3-4 week injury. Same crap has happened too many times when premier Rangers get hurt, get misdiagnosed and end up on the DL. Why McDonough's stick is even anywhere near Hank's mask let alone underneath it mystifies. Why isn't Cam getting any love here? Cam's only played 33 career games but he's 17-10 with a .935 save % and 1.81 GAA, doubtful there's some crusty old veteran lying around who couldn't match those numbers but would love to pad his retirement account (why not Fatso?). I thought Glen made a smart move extending Cam's contract so now we can see what he paid for. If Hank's out the month of February he misses 12 games, would be a slap in the face to Talbot if he wasn't even given a chance. Glen still needs to make a deal to improve the size of this club. According to the NBC broadcast the Rangers are already in talks with Zucc so Hags may be the guy on his way out.
They will be fine. Cam is way above average in most of his games. They will hold the fort. Team often plays harder when Cam is in net. I'm not worried.
Thank you Al and Dump. The sky isn't falling. Everyone else just relax. Three weeks or a month at this point in the season isn't catastrophic in the position they are in. Talbot has shown himself to be a more than capable starter. Count me in the 'not worried' camp. If they go 2-10 for the rest of the month then yeah it may be worry time. Until March 1st....
Yeah I'm really not worried about the situation at all, Talbot needs to step up and prove to the league he's a starter, it will be beneficial to him and to the team
To me the issue with Cam is rebound control. He is very loose with those rebounds sometimes. That is what makes Hank so great, he has ridiculous rebound control. Very rarely, SC winning goal not withstanding, does Hank leave big rebounds. Cam very often leaves pucks in bad areas off rebounds. That is something I will watch closely with Cam.
Right, not sure what your point is though. This is the hand we are dealt at the moment, so Cam is the topic, and to improve I think he needs to work on rebound control (we saw it on the 1st goal today). And BTW...Cam said he only signed through next season because he wants to be a starter somewhere the following season, well working on rebound control will go a long way in deciding if he can be a starter someday.
Every goalie has a weakness or two. Hank has been bad at handling the puck for years and never really fixed it. His high glove side was also an issue for some time.
I think Staal has been good. Mcd and G have been bad. Moore is Moore. He is serviceable but not sure if this guy will ever progress. Boyle has been alright.
Would you stop with the D sc. It is crazy now bro. Staal, McD, Girardi...on and on. You complain about these guys not stop. The D is fine. The D is not an issue. This team ranks near the top of the league in goals allowed per game every single season. It isn't the D's fault Cam let in the 3rd goal. The D held Boston to 2 goals. The D is fine. There are not many teams in the NHL with a better D. I have not been the biggest Staal fan, but he has been really good this season...really good. Girardi has been his usual solid self. McDonagh has not played up to his level, I agree there. He is a -5 in his last 11 games, and clearly needs to step up his game. But even with that being the case the D overall is very good. How many D's in the NHL are better 1-6 than the Rangers...not many. The D is not an issue. Depth upfront is a clear issue. Either the top 5 or 6 guys score or we do not score. That simply will not cut it in the payoffs. There is your issue my friend. You want to tell me against bigger physical teams they get pounded sometimes, yeah they do I agree. But the D isn't an issue overall. They do need to play better against bigger teams, but I don't see the D as this big issue. The forward depth is a way bigger issue. And with our top 4 signed long term, this is your D for better or worse.
