Do we buyout Marc Staal

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

By saying "Only a cup is a measure of whether a rebuild is successful" you're automatically ignoring luck, injuries, coaching or whether the team opposite yours happens to be one of the greatest teams in the history of the sport. Not saying any or all of this happened to the NYR (Although some of it did and more including the literal death of a potential 30+ goal scorer and one of the worst drafting decisions in team history costing us another 30+goal scorer.). What I am saying is that I truly believe the thought quoted above is completely invalid bc it ignores all the items I mentioned and more.

People have every right to put forth that argument but I'll always exercise my right to tell them they're wrong for all those reasons I mentioned.

 

[True Blue]

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

I understand it just fine. Just completely disagree with it. Disagreeing with something is all together different than outright not understanding it.

 

[True Blue]

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 saw it just fine.

Your stance it that a $4.5 dead cap space is simply not a big deal and can be worked around. My stance is that teams that are contenders should not enter battle with one arm tied behind them.

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?

Internal budgets still do not account by being hamstrung by real life dead cap space. No one prepares an internal budget with dead cap space in mind.

The difference in a bad contract vs dead cap space is that you still can have an asset. Rick Nash was a bad contract. But there is a rather large difference between having Nash as an asset on the team at an inflated price and not having him at all while incurring a dead cap space hit.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

Yes I agree it would be stupid and it would also be nuking. I didn't say nuking had to be smart. I think it probably would be stupid in almost any scenario. Then again "nuking" is a pretty subjective adjective we didn't define

The thought that we gave away a ton is just something I don't necessarily agree with so when I see that argument in different forms (In this case the nuking comment met my criteria) I often comment on it.

Since literal nuking includes the complete and utter vaporization of anything and everything I have to assume it's fair to say it'd take more than trading 4 guys (2 of them really not exactly lighting it up all season) to be considered nuking.

The word "nuking" sounds really weird when you say it over and over.

 

[True Blue]

People have every right to put forth that argument but I'll always exercise my right to tell them they're wrong for all those reasons I mentioned.

Sure, and I respect that. But there are those that feel differently. I fully admit that I lean more to the ultimate success being the Cup. Especially when there has been only one in so long. Does not mean I did not enjoy the run of the team.

 

[Rempe73]

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.

You're saying that buying players from the free agent pool is not the best recipe for success, right? Because I would agree. Better to build through the draft and make good trades.

 

[kovazub94]

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 would call your thesis an intellectual musings.

1. Gorton should be able to find a $2mm player that is better than Staal. Really? Even if it is so, wouldn’t it be just barely a marginal improvement? If so, would it worth hindering itself with the negative cap impact in years 3-4?

2. You say Staal should be bought out if the team intend to compete next year but don’t specify compete for what? Compete for a playoff spot - maybe, for SC - it would be an unreasonable expectations unless you think Gorton will go into ultra acceleration by going after and signing high priced FAs that will require cap space. Compare it to where FO should expect this team to be in years 3-4? I think the difference is pretty clear so wouldn’t you rather have the cap detriment from Staal contract now or then?

 

[TheTakedown]

Staal to me is a player who could have real value at the trade deadline. I know he will still have 2 years to run on his contract but defensemen are always in demand at the deadline and a significant amount of salary retention beats a buyout. No need to rush things along here.

This. Teams are never going to sign a #4-5 dman for 2 years at $2.85M/year

 

[TheTakedown]

Because I get an asset in exchange? And the retention only lasts three years, as opposed to six?

C'mon, MH, I know you can't stand the process and just want to be contending right away, but if you take a step back and analyze dispassionately, the decision is pretty obvious.

This is wrong. This is the second instance in this thread where you are not understanding this concept.

Staal @ 50% retention:
2018-19: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M
2019-20: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M
2020-21: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M

Staal Buyout:
2018-19: $2.06M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $3.64M
2019-20: $3.06M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.64M
2020-21: $3.86M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $1.84M
2021-22: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M
2022-23: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M
2023-24: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M

Obviously a 50% trade is ideal, but getting someone to take 3 years of that contract is hard even at that rate. Marc Staal is basically Nick Holden at 5 times the pay rate... tell me, what would you pay for in a trade for Marc Staal at 50%? I wouldn't give up more than a 7th, and I'd be sending a cap dump the other way. Oh, cap dump won't work? OK, I'll take a 1st rounder then please...

It's buyout or bust, unless we get to the 2020 or 2021 deadline and Staal has raised his game

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

This is wrong. This is the second instance in this thread where you are not understanding this concept.

Staal @ 50% retention:
2018-19: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M
2019-20: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M
2020-21: $2.85M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.85M

Staal Buyout:
2018-19: $2.06M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $3.64M
2019-20: $3.06M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $2.64M
2020-21: $3.86M Cap hit to NYR, savings of $1.84M
2021-22: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M
2022-23: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M
2023-24: $1.36M Cap hit to NYR, Cost of $1.36M

Obviously a 50% trade is ideal, but getting someone to take 3 years of that contract is hard even at that rate. Marc Staal is basically Nick Holden at 5 times the pay rate... tell me, what would you pay for in a trade for Marc Staal at 50%? I wouldn't give up more than a 7th, and I'd be sending a cap dump the other way. Oh, cap dump won't work? OK, I'll take a 1st rounder then please...

It's buyout or bust, unless we get to the 2020 or 2021 deadline and Staal has raised his game

I'm misunderstanding?

1) The paragraph you quoted was literally a simple answer to the question why the penalty incurred in a trade with salary retention is any different (superior) to that incurred in a buyout – a point with which you literally agree in your paragraph below the numbers, for crying out loud.

Whether or not it's possible, or what a deal would look like did not enter into the equation.

2) The point you seem to be trying to make with the numbers you quote is regarding the concept of "cap savings" in a buyout. For that discussion I refer you to my previous back-and-forth with @silverfish in posts #52-#59 of this same thread. (Please note how it ends.)

 

[silverfish]

(Please note how it ends.)

Tired, bloody, and nowhere near worth the amount of time it took.

 

[Off Sides]

You're saying that buying players from the free agent pool is not the best recipe for success, right? Because I would agree. Better to build through the draft and make good trades.

I believe teams sort of need to naturally find themselves to have a successful rebuild. That may take only a season or two, it may take 6 or 7, and I find the teams who draft their better players to have a big advantage over the teams who try to add them as free agents under a salary cap system. Much of that is because those better players if drafted have their cap hits set artificially low due to the boundaries within an entry level, and within a restricted free agent contract.

If there is a side benefit where those players find some sort of chemistry just because they are familiar with each others on ice tendencies, because they came up through the development system within the same time frame, all the better.