Do we buyout Marc Staal

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

If I'm trying to compete, I'd rather carry a $2.055m AAV of a Staal buyout than a $5.7m AAV of Staal the player.

This point presupposes the fact that you judge your chance of successfully competing to be worth the necessary cost you would bear for the five years thereafter. Please stop separating the two. 2018-2019 does not exist in a vacuum.

Is it possible that these teams who are competing, as you've listed, don't carry a ton of buyout cap because they don't sign players that necessitate buyouts?

What does that have to do with the Rangers and their situation as it stands during the 2018 offseason?

IPeople like to come after the king

 

[silverfish]

This point presupposes the fact that you judge your chance of successfully competing to be worth the necessary cost you would bear for the five years thereafter. Please stop separating the two. 2018-2019 does not exist in a vacuum.

I'm operating under the assumption that if a team is trying to compete, that they are also trying to successfuly compete.

What does that have to do with the Rangers and their situation as it stands during the 2018 offseason?

Ask @Off Sides and his incessant posting about buyout cap space and how it relates to the Rangers and teams around the league.

hatersgonnahate.gif

 

[Off Sides]

If I'm trying to compete, I'd rather carry a $2.055m AAV of a Staal buyout than a $5.7m AAV of Staal the player.

Is it possible that these teams who are competing, as you've listed, don't carry a ton of buyout cap because they don't sign players that necessitate buyouts?

Yes that is very possible that other teams have been more diligent with their cap structure, yet the Rangers currently are where they are.

I don't understand who the Rangers are trying to compete with given they are where they are.

They could buyout Staal, Smith, Girardi, use all that "cap savings" on actual better players and they are still unlikely to be very competitive against the teams who have already been more diligent with both their cap space and their player evaluations.

 

[silverfish]

Yes that is very possible that other teams have been more diligent with their cap structure, yet the Rangers currently are where they are.

I don't understand who the Rangers are trying to compete with given they are where they are.

They could buyout Staal, Smith, Girardi, use all that "cap savings" on actual better players and they are still unlikely to be very competitive against the teams who have already been more diligent with both their cap space and their player evaluations.

Okay, so there you go. You don't think that the Rangers can compete next year, regardless of how hard they try to, so you don't want to buyout Staal. I get that.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm operating under the assumption that if a team is trying to compete, that they are also trying to successfuly compete.


Ask @Off Sides and his incessant posting about buyout cap space and how it relates to the Rangers and teams around the league.



hatersgonnahate.gif

Nice try. You're deflecting away from my points.

Point 1) you cannot view a decision as regards Staal with only the current year in mind. It necessarily affects six years. It's not enough to say "I intend to compete this year"; you also need to address what you intend to do in years 2-6, and how the decision will impact your chances then. The net goal should be the overall increase of competing across the entire period. Yet, you talk about this year as if it stands alone.

Point 2) what does where other teams stand in terms of their cap have to do with the Rangers decision regarding Staal given their current cap structure? You were clearly stating that past f***ups have led them to be in a worse position, and really, it seems, want to relitigate the decisions to to sign Girardi and Staal. Doesn't matter. They are where they are, and need to deal with the reality. The fact that other teams don't currently have nearly as much dead cap space or bad contracts doesn't mean that the Rangers can fail to take their own into account when making decisions.

 

[silverfish]

Nice try. You're deflecting away from my points.

Point 1) you cannot view a decision as regards Staal with only the current year in mind. It necessarily affects six years. It's not enough to say "I intend to compete this year"; you also need to address what you intend to do in years 2-6, and how the decision will impact your chances then. The net goal should be the overall increase of competing across the entire period. Yet, you talk about this year as if it stands alone.

Point 2) what does where other teams stand in terms of their cap have to do with the Rangers decision regarding Staal given their current cap structure? You were clearly stating that past ****ups have led them to be in a worse position, and really, it seems, want to relitigate the decisions to to sign Girardi and Staal. Doesn't matter. They are where they are, and need to deal with the reality. The fact that other teams don't currently have nearly as much dead cap space or bad contracts doesn't mean that the Rangers can fail to take their own into account when making decisions.

Wait, what?

Point 1) As has been explicitly stated more times than I can count, if we buyout Staal, we get rid of a bad player, and add more cap to our books for years 1-3. In years 4-6, we are dealing with a very small cap penalty. One which should never hamper an efficient teams use of their cap. Any GM worth his weight will be able to EASILY work around a dead cap hit of $1.3m AAV in a year when the cap is slated to be, very likely, $80m+

Point 2) I didn't bring this shit up, Off Sides did, so I'm not going to respond to it.

f*** me, man. What the f***. It's not even noon.

 

[Off Sides]

Okay, so there you go. You don't think that the Rangers can compete next year, regardless of how hard they try to, so you don't want to buyout Staal. I get that.

Correct, I understand in a vacuum, buying out Staal and replacing him with a say 2M cap hit defender has a decent probability of providing better on ice results. Yet in the all encompassing version, and even though I don't really find any entertainment in watching him play, the competitive difference between next years version of the roster, Staal or 2M replacement player, overall I find to be pretty negligible.

 

[Mac n Gs]

People like to come after the king

Lunkers plz. SILVERFISH + CAP SPACE

 

[Larrybiv]

Bottom line is (without regard to his cap hit) you need that experience/umm, leadership in the defensive group. Otherwise it's a blind leading the blind, Apologies to Shatty as he wouldn't be enough and his defensive abilities are very questionable.

What are we going to have 5....... 23 year olds playing defense? Hank would absolutely lose his mind and his health would be in severe danger.

You have to keep him until the time is right.....maybe if they somehow aquire EK 2019?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Wait, what?

Point 1) As has been explicitly stated more times than I can count, if we buyout Staal, we get rid of a bad player, and add more cap to our books for years 1-3. In years 4-6, we are dealing with a very small cap penalty. One which should never hamper an efficient teams use of their cap. Any GM worth his weight will be able to EASILY work around a dead cap hit of $1.3m AAV in a year when the cap is slated to be, very likely, $80m+

Point 2) I didn't bring this **** up, Off Sides did, so I'm not going to respond to it.

**** me, man. What the ****. It's not even noon.

Fine, I'll let you have the last word, even though I think you are continuing to engage the points on oblique angles.

All I'll add, is that the bolded (which I see you added after the fact) are disrespectful and infuriating.

 

[True Blue]

Any GM worth his weight will be able to EASILY work around a dead cap hit of $1.3m AAV in a year when the cap is slated to be, very likely, $80m+

That ignores Girardi's cap hit. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive facts when it comes to cap space.

 

[Off Sides]

Wait, what?

Point 2) I didn't bring this **** up, Off Sides did, so I'm not going to respond to it.

**** me, man. What the ****. It's not even noon.

I only brought it up in context of "if the Rangers are trying to compete" Wouldn't the natural evolution of that thought be, what are they competing against?

You are a good poster, I'm not trying to get you riled up or anything, we just have different ways of viewing stuff.

 

[silverfish]

Fine, I'll let you have the last word, even though I think you are continuing to engage the points on oblique angles.

All I'll add, is that the bolded (which I see you added after the fact) are disrespectful and infuriating.

You think I'm coming at you on 'oblique angles' because I don't want to sit here and type up 1000 words on the pros and cons of buying out Staal when it can be sufficiently summed up in one sentence.

Every single move the Rangers make has implications on the season coming up, and future seasons. Is this a new HF mandate that we are now holding posters to having to explain the complete domino fallout from any speculation?

I haven't even said that I want to, or don't want to, buyout Staal. All I've said is: 'here's the foundation of the argument' and it blows up into some stupid pointless shit that isn't worth anyone's time.

Maybe I'm crazy. I've been in a shit mood all week. That's my fault.

 

[silverfish]

That ignores Girardi's cap hit. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive facts when it comes to cap space.

Yes, it does. It also ignores the cap hits of all the players here: New York Rangers 2017 Roster

BRB, preparing my thesis.

 

[silverfish]

Here you go, fam, here is my thesis for y'all:

Disclaimer: I'm neither for nor against this as a solution to the Rangers and Staal. I'm just pointing things out.

Let's assume that we buy Staal out this off-season, and Gorton "replaces" him with a $2m AAV player. If Gorton is actually a good GM, he can sign a guy worth a market value of $2m AAV and get better play out of him than he'd get out of $5.7m AAV Staal.

What this now does to the cap implications is still "save" us cap next year and the year after, even with Girardi's buyout cap hit which for some reason matters here.

Yes, we do get penalized in years 3-6 here because of the buyout and replacing Staal with this $2m AAV player. Now, before you come at me on semantics "but 'fish, you say, this $2m AAV player isn't going to sign this off-season for a 6 year, $12m AAV deal". I know that shit. This is a generous aggregation of the 'replacement' of Staal. So calm down. Reality is that Staal is a third-pairing guy, so buying him out opens a hole at 3LD. We should NEVER pay more than $1m AAV for a guy to play on our third-pairing. Not f***ing ever. So here's a $2m AAV generous concept.

Now, years 2021-2024 sure look ugly, but keep in mind that the cap is not fixed. It's going up. Expansion is happening, which means more HRR, which means more cap. If the cap ceiling, for modesty, in 21-22 is $85m, that $4.46m of buyout cap + our replacement player is 5% of our total cap. And I mention again that this number should not inhibit any GM worth his weight in being a GM in fielding a competitive team. Which is important for the Rangers, as apparently HFNYR believes that is right around where we'll start being competitive again.

I suppose I should also mention that, well, who the f*** knows what the cap ceiling will be in 21-22? I don't. Who the f*** knows what this roster will look like then? I don't.

In conclusion: If the Rangers want to compete next year, buyout Staal. If the Rangers do not want to compete next year, wait. If the Rangers want to compete and are afraid of carrying too much 'dead cap' + replacement player cap, then continue waiting.

Thank you,
silverfish

Damn. Y'all fight with me all morning. Then I finally give you the content you ask for, and 30 minutes pass and no response?

I'm hurt.

 

[Rempe73]

You asked for rebuild that failed to win a championship, I gave you several, and you made excuses as to why they don't count.

Which is exactly what I said you would do.

But those reasons matter. It's not like you can build a cup winner overnight.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's so not even a question that I'm shocked OP even made this thread.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Again, if they are trying to compete next year, buy him out. If they are not trying to compete next year, wait.

Compete for a cup? Then yes buy him out although who would u use the extra money on that would guarantee u competing for the cup? Especially with all the question marks. So obviously I think most of us know this option ain't happening

Compete for a spot in the PO while acknowledge this isn't a cup team and it has too many holes and question marks? Then you can keep him. This is likely

Compete for the draft lottery? Keep him

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

We already took a step back by nuking the roster at the deadline. Conceding being bad for the next three years is unnecessarily piling on.

I don't think we even came close to nuking the roster.

If we had dumped Kreider, Zucc, Hayes and Zib in addition to what we had traded away then I'd call it a nuking. We trimmed aged, underperforming, declining or soon to be FA fat and got a damn good price for all of it.

Every time a rebuild that failed is brought up, the goalposts get moved as to why that wasn't a "real" rebuild. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that count.
.

I love how you called it and in the response you got the poster literally did this. Total lack of self awareness.

 

[True Blue]

Damn. Y'all fight with me all morning. Then I finally give you the content you ask for, and 30 minutes pass and no response?

Just will summarize by saying that having a $4.5 dead cap space for several years, when chances are the team will be competitive seems pretty silly.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

The Rangers have no cups in recent memory.

Your argument is automatically disqualified from consideration if you boil it down to this.

If you're going to ignore ECF and SCF appearances as well as a presidents trophy and boil it down to cup or not then you don't know enough to discuss what you're discussing

 

[silverfish]

Just will summarize by saying that having a $4.5 dead cap space for several years, when chances are the team will be competitive seems pretty silly.

This place is predictable.

 

[True Blue]

If you're going to ignore ECF and SCF appearances as well as a presidents trophy and boil it down to cup or not then you don't know enough to discuss what you're discussing

In all fairness and with no snark, one could say that your statement is what the state of the Rangers have come to. 1 Cup in 77 years causes other items to be glorified.

I did enjoy those runs, but the dearth of Cups hurts

 

[Jumptheshark]

You will need him to get to the cap floor. Even after you guys resign Hanifin

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

<snip>

In conclusion: If the Rangers want to compete next year, buyout Staal. If the Rangers do not want to compete next year, wait. If the Rangers want to compete and are afraid of carrying too much 'dead cap' + replacement player cap, then continue waiting.

Thank you,
silverfish

Damn. Y'all fight with me all morning. Then I finally give you the content you ask for, and 30 minutes pass and no response?

I'm hurt.

You and I already had our back and forth (for like the 12th time). I continue to disagree with your POV on a couple of the points, but I do agree with the conclusion, above. Did you really want me to get back into the underlying points...?