Do we buyout Marc Staal

[silverfish]

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...?

No. I want YOUR thesis now. Machiavelli eye for an eye shit.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

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

wrong staal and board, buddy.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

No. I want YOUR thesis now. Machiavelli eye for an eye ****.

I've already given it to you a dozen times! And in this case, we come out to the same conclusion, so... sorry?

 

[silverfish]

I've already given it to you a dozen times! And in this case, we come out to the same conclusion, so... sorry?

 

[Irishguy42]

You post this enough that I think it either needs to be your avi or your sig. It just...emobdies your time spent on HFNYR.

 

[silverfish]

You post this enough that I think it either needs to be your avi or your sig. It just...emobdies your time spent on HFNYR.

It is a self-portrait.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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

Glorifying individuals and specific lines or players is one thing. Looking at a run over 4/5 years where they were a top team is another. That run from 11-15 was extremely rare for the Rangers. It was sustained excellence. When it comes to that whole "have to rebuild to win, it's the only way" argument, then massive things like President's trophy wins, multiple ECF's and a SCF appearance should not be ignored. There's too much variance and too many factors that can influence things for the argument to be "Only cups are a valid measure of whether rebuilding is the right way to success"

 

[Machinehead]

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.



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

I'd call it stupid. All of those players are young.

Whatever you want to call it, I think we've stripped this roster of available assets, outside of maybe Zuccarello, and should be thinking about getting better.

 

[Off Sides]

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

There are more reasons too, one of them being some of those teams do not spend to near the cap ceiling even as their rebuilds progressed, which could be seen as a competitive disadvantage, similar to a team who would be using cap space on players who are no longer on the team. I wonder what other spending constraint those teams may have, scouting, management, coaching?

Given that 5 of those 7 rebuilds that are given as examples of struggling also rank in the bottom 9 in cap space used, perhaps there is something to financials playing a part in a successful rebuild?

The Jets are an interesting study since up until this year they would have likely been included in the struggling rebuild category, since 2011, once they moved, they have drafted in the first round at #2, 17, 9, 13, 9, 7, and last draft 24. It took them about 6 years, they did not try to take, or were unable to take too many shortcuts, but they look to be on the rise finally even as one of the lesser spending teams.

 

[Miamipuck]

People like to come after the king

 

[Rempe73]

There are more reasons too, one of them being some of those teams do not spend to near the cap ceiling even as their rebuilds progressed, which could be seen as a competitive disadvantage, similar to a team who would be using cap space on players who are no longer on the team. I wonder what other spending constraint those teams may have, scouting, management, coaching?

Given that 5 of those 7 rebuilds that are given as examples of struggling also rank in the bottom 9 in cap space used, perhaps there is something to financials playing a part in a successful rebuild?

The Jets are an interesting study since up until this year they would have likely been included in the struggling rebuild category, since 2011, once they moved, they have drafted in the first round at #2, 17, 9, 13, 9, 7, and last draft 24. It took them about 6 years, they did not try to take, or were unable to take too many shortcuts, but they look to be on the rise finally even as one of the lesser spending teams.

Great points. Definitely an interesting story with the Jets. That's how you rebuild right there.

 

[Rempe73]

Glorifying individuals and specific lines or players is one thing. Looking at a run over 4/5 years where they were a top team is another. That run from 11-15 was extremely rare for the Rangers. It was sustained excellence. When it comes to that whole "have to rebuild to win, it's the only way" argument, then massive things like President's trophy wins, multiple ECF's and a SCF appearance should not be ignored. There's too much variance and too many factors that can influence things for the argument to be "Only cups are a valid measure of whether rebuilding is the right way to success"

In my opinion, the only team that had a chance was the 2015 team. The 2014 team got pretty lucky until the end, but I guess luck is part of it.

 

[True Blue]

This place is predictable.

As is the insistence of ignoring outright reality to suit your own agenda.

 

[silverfish]

As is the insistence of ignoring outright reality to suit your own agenda.

What agenda? I don't care if the Rangers do or do not buyout Staal. How can I have an agenda here?

 

[True Blue]

There's too much variance and too many factors that can influence things for the argument to be "Only cups are a valid measure of whether rebuilding is the right way to success"

That is however a valid viewpoint. As is yours that there are other ways to measure success. Just a matter of how you look at it. Being a longtime suffering Rangers fan, my view is that it is pitiful that this is the least successful of the Original 6 franchises. And the 1 Cup in 77 years is mind bogging and pitiful.

I enjoyed the Rangers run as much as anyone. I just think that it is sad when you just had one of the finest runs in franchise history and not a championship to show for it. Most sports franchises (Bills and Rangers aside) point to such times (finest runs in franchise history) and are able to show a championship or two.

 

[True Blue]

What agenda? I don't care if the Rangers do or do not buyout Staal. How can I have an agenda here?

I think that your $$$ argument is flawed. Let's just leave it at that. We can agree to disagree.

 

[silverfish]

I think that your $$$ argument is flawed. Let's just leave it at that. We can agree to disagree.

No. Let's agree to talk about why you think it's flawed.

The numbers are correct. Or do you think that the flaw is surrounded by my argument that 5% of the cap being tied up in players who were bought out shouldn't be that much of a hindrance to a good GM? You can disagree there, I suppose. Obviously it is not ideal, but the impact, IMO, should be negligible. Which is a subjective opinion that can be disagreed on and that is your prerogative.

 

[Off Sides]

Great points. Definitely an interesting story with the Jets. That's how you rebuild right there.

I honestly wonder if they took that approach out of design or because they had to.

It does not seem like a whole lot of players end up signing with them as free agents, yet on the flip side, many of the players who they drafted, or traded for have and still do re-sign there.

I think if it was by design to more of less avoid the unrestricted free agent import market, it was a smart move, and if it was just not many players wanted to sign there, it's still interesting that a team can rebuild while not being very active in that market and turn into to what looks to become a pretty good team.

 

[True Blue]

No. Let's agree to talk about why you think it's flawed.

Because outright ignoring a $4.5m dead cap hit in 4 & 5 years from, plus whatever the hit is in 6 years from now is flawed logic. That much of a cap hit is a hindrance to any GM.

 

[silverfish]

Because outright ignoring a $4.5m dead cap hit in 4 & 5 years from, plus whatever the hit is in 6 years from now is flawed logic. That much of a cap hit is a hindrance to any GM.

But I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out and saying that a clever GM can work around it without fail. So that's what you disagree with? Did you see my thesis? It's all there.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Because outright ignoring a $4.5m dead cap hit in 4 & 5 years from, plus whatever the hit is in 6 years from now is flawed logic. That much of a cap hit is a hindrance to any GM.

You clearly didnt' read (or at least understand) the original post where this was all explained.

 

[silverfish]

You clearly didnt' read (or at least understand) the original post where this was all explained.

The people demand a thesis they don't even read!

Sad!

Fake thesis!

With hunt!

 

[RalphyDanger]

But I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing it out and saying that a clever GM can work around it without fail. So that's what you disagree with? Did you see my thesis? It's all there.

I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would just argue that there are a lot of good GMs in the NHL. If one good GM only has 95% of the cap to work with, and the other good ones have 100% then one is at disadvantage.

 

[silverfish]

I agree with a lot of what your saying. I would just argue that there are a lot of good GMs in the NHL. If one good GM only has 95% of the cap to work with, and the other good ones have 100% then one is at disadvantage.

Yes, but how many teams in the league are operating without a bad contract on their books? When it's all cap room, what's the difference? What about teams who have internal budgets?

There are disadvantages everywhere. I'm pointing out that the major disadvantage of a buyout, the cap penalty, is a hindrance of course, but not a total roadblock. But I am certainly not ignoring it.

 

[Off Sides]

Part of my ongoing thesis

I would be less optimistic with cap growth.

More so than expansion setting HRR, as those teams would need to produce revenue beyond what they spent to be in the positive, we have seen currency value change in the Canadian markets cause the cap to come in lower than anticipated. Even the price of commodities, such as oil have an effect.

Should several of the markets who provide the most HRR, US or Canada, have a downturn economically that too would effect cap growth as at some point it's possible people, businesses no longer decide to use or even have disposable money to spend on what would become HRR.

Both the PA and NHL have options to opt out of the CBA in September 2019, and even if it runs the whole duration it expires after the 2021-22 season; right when the Staal cap hit would increase under a buyout scenario. If they already bought him out, an amnesty buyout, should one or more be available could not likely be used on a contract that has already been bought out.

There are no ideals in terms of efficiency, but if two or more teams have the same level of efficiency within their cap structure, the one with a 5% reduction on top of any other inefficiencies in my view puts such a team at a competitive disadvantage. That is not to say I expect the Rangers to run at 100% efficiency, just that if they and several other team are running at say 80%, should the Rangers only be at 75% due to the 5% extra, I would see that as something that could have been avoided.