1) It 100% does matter what RL earns, and it's not "irrelevant". Salary is always tied to expectation and Lu isn't immune to that. People want the players to perform according to salary. Whether it's the fans or the GM.
"He doesn't 'make' $10M. His cap hit is only $5.3M a year".
Well, that's false - he 'makes' what he's paid - and he only has a cap hit that low because of the incredibly risky contract that MG gave him.
I think you're begging the question here. Expectation is often tied to salary (as opposed to cap hit), but that doesn't doesn't make it reasonable.
I would not say, given Lou's track record (three Vezina noms, career numbers, etc, etc), that his contract is "risky". He is unquestionably, at WORST, a quality starting goaltender in the NHL. How many goalies in this league are not only starters, but UNQUESTIONABLE quality starters? Less than 30. Not every team has one.
If he were on the block there would be plenty of takers. What's the "risk"?
wienerdog wrote:Is he to blame for that loss? I think not, but he certainly didn't outperform the guy at the other end - 200' away as you say - that had had a much, much, much harder test than Louie did at that moment.
So whether the comparison is fair or not, he was nowhere near what Lundqvist's performance was. Not even in the same postal code.
And that, my friend, sums up why Roberto gets a hard time on nights like that.
My point is that the comparison is not fair. If Lundqvist were that good every night, then the Rangers would have a rafter full of recent Cup banners, and I'd want him instead of Lou. But Lundqvist ISN'T that good every night.
In fact, he has a whopping total of 4 (four) playoff wins in the last 3 (three) years. Luongo has won more ROUNDS in the last three years than Lundqvist has won GAMES. (Oh, and Lou's cap hit is quite a bit lower too )