Do you think the Rangers should re-sign Marc Staal long term?

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Having half your D core locked up long term with NMC's is not flexibility, lol. Its a total lack of flexibility. No team in the league does that sort of a thing.

I wonder what all the teams in the league would prefer:

1. Having McDonagh, Girardi, and Staal locked up longterm to anchor their blue line

or.

2. Having "flexibility," which - via your definition - means having more questions than answers.

 

[Fletch]

Having half your D core locked up long term with NMC's is not flexibility, lol. Its a total lack of flexibility. No team in the league does that sort of a thing.

Chicago has 5 defensemen with some form of NMC/NTC. Limited, modified, combo, what have you. Boston has three. If you don't give one, the player will cost more. Of course that's borrowing from the future in a sense, but they're out there. I get the need to be fleixble, but you also need to be good and if you have decent players, very often you will have to give these out.

 

[RangerBoy]

The player has too much control with the NMC or full NTC. Even a limited NTC with 10 teams limits the options. Kesler and Garrison controlled their situations. Spezza too. Too many of the those clauses and your hands are tied. Kesler wanted to be play for 2 or 3 teams. Garrison waived to play in the state of Florida again.

 

[Fletch]

The player has too much control with the NMC or full NTC. Even a limited NTC with 10 teams limits the options. Kesler and Garrison controlled their situations. Spezza too. Too many of the those clauses and your hands are tied. Kesler wanted to be play for 2 or 3 teams. Garrison waived to play in the state of Florida again.

they do have too much control. The only way to get rid of that control, though, is to pay more.

 

[haveandare]

There are people on here acting as if NTC/NMCs mean the player is here for their career. Meanwhile, nearly every notable player traded over the last 5 years has had a NTC/NMC. Nearly all of those deals got fair return. All those clauses do is give the player the ability to choose their destination. Only the very rare case does it prevent the team from moving the player. Why? Because, really, why would you want to play for someone who doesn't want you?



11 of the 29 other teams in the league have 3 or more defensemen with NTC/NMCs in their contracts (it's actually 10, but I think we can safely assume Subban is getting one). About another 10 have 2.

So, I would say that sort of thing is standard operating procedure around the league.

Thank you!

NTC/NMC doesn't mean untradable by any stretch of the imagination. And having 3 long term D men with NTC/NMCs isn't odd in the scheme of the league.

I truly think that management knew that they had/have to keep one of Staal or Stralman barring a miraculous first season from Allen or McIlrath. I think this decision has already been made.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Here's whats confusing me:

Why everyone thinks filling the void of Marc Staal is going to be as simple as letting someone like Skeij step in? No one is allowed to appreciate the Dan Boyle signing, not to mention he's getting crucified, because he has 'literally never worn the jersey yet'-- and we're talking about an established high end defensemen in the league.

Yet on the other hand, we can afford to let Staal go because he deserves a pay day and we have Skeij in the wings waiting, who literally hasn't even worn the jersey yet. So we can pencil in Skeij to reach Marc's level AND he will be ready to take big time minutes near flawlessly in no time? I wish someone told me we had such a stellar prospect on our hands.

Not to mention, everyone crucifies Sather when we sign someone 32 or older saying 'we just missed their prime and now we pay them?!" Now our own homegrown product is at that point and people want to ship him out or let him walk because he will want a NMC or will cost $6 mil. These are the standards of business. Pay the man and start drafting heavily down the middle up front. Hope you boom on a diamond in the rough. Start using the trade market to bolster the offense. We are fairly set on D for at least two, maybe even more, years if we lock up Staal. EDIT: I meant to make the point he's at his prime and is going to sign his last contract before he's "over the hill" or "on the way out".

 

[vipernsx]

Anyone saying he has more value in a trade is silly. "Need him resigned' is the only option. If he doesn't want to, then the Rangers are forced to trade. Otherwise you sign him and keep control of the asset.

Look at SJS or TML, they've both chosen to extend players, then it was rumored they were available for trade. Maybe it doesn't happen year one, but Staal signed long term is more valuable via trade then as a rental. Further, even with as much of a stud that I believe Brady Skjei will be in the NHL, he's not ready to take Marc Staal's spot, yet.

A few years back the Rangers were packed with defensive youth on the blueline. I advocated trading Girardi and selling high on him because the Rangers had such a dirth of young talent on the blueline. Just a season or two later, Sauer was gone due to injury, Staal was out long term with injury, MDZ was struggling mightily, and McIlrath was slowed by injuries. If the Rangers dealt Girardi then, they'd be buried. It'd be silly to trade Staal now before Skjei has a full season under his belt.

Ideal situation is to extend Staal, give Skjei a half season, minimum in the AHL to adjust to the pro game. Then call him up to fill injuries. If he advances on a McDonagh like schedule, which I believe he can defensively. Then deadline in Staal's extended year or the following offseason, trade him for max return.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Anyone saying he has more value in a trade is silly. "Need him resigned' is the only option

Theres plenty of options, but I agree about the value part - especially considering he only has 1 year left on his deal.

In some people's world, he could be traded for a 1C and easily replaced by John Moore or Connor Allen or some unnamed free agent. Its dreamland on all fronts

 

[vipernsx]

Theres plenty of options, but I agree about the value part - especially considering he only has 1 year left on his deal.

In some people's world, he could be traded for a 1C and easily replaced by John Moore or Connor Allen or some unnamed free agent. Its dreamland on all fronts

I absolutely love Skjei and I'm fond of Allen too. However, they don't come close to the elite blueliner that Staal is and there are no top4 blueliner available. Injuries happen and guys like Allen and Skjei will need to be called upon to fill holes. If they're on your NHL roster, what happens when injuries occur? We don't want to be relying on Matt Hunwick playing top4 minutes because of a lack of organizational depth. Definitely not when we traded away our 1st round pick in the draft.

NTC/NMC doesn't mean untradable by any stretch of the imagination. And having 3 long term D men with NTC/NMCs isn't odd in the scheme of the league.

Agreed. Teams can't offer huge differences in money any more because of the salary cap. So instead there are other features that they can add to make the deal a better one. A NTC/NMC does that and what it does is give the player security and some control as to who and when they're traded. It doesn't make them untradable.

The player has too much control with the NMC or full NTC. Even a limited NTC with 10 teams limits the options. Kesler and Garrison controlled their situations. Spezza too. Too many of the those clauses and your hands are tied. Kesler wanted to be play for 2 or 3 teams. Garrison waived to play in the state of Florida again.

Staal's contract isn't going to be moveable. Once he signs you're stuck with him because there's no way he's agreeing to something without an NMC.

Kesler's value v contract amount is very good and his return was substantial. Everyone gasped at Garisson's contract when he signed it and he's way over paid, his return was terrible. If the Rangers sign Staal to an appropriate amount and give him a NTC clause, Staal will have some influence to who and when he's traded, however the value is still there. Value is the important part because if the acquiring team isn't willing to pay the price, the Rangers don't have to move him. Rick Nash and Marty St. Louis had NTCs and both returned hefty amounts because of perceived value and the trading club wasn't in a position where they had to move the player.

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

Dude is making a hair under 4m for second pair. R Mac is making 4.7 to be captain of this team and carry us. If Staal wants to do a long term 4.6m i would be into it. He shouldn't be making more then Girardi or MacDonagh but I am sure he will ask for more. If thats the case he should be traded. Sucks. I like him a lot. But he shouldn't be getting that much more then players with a bigger role and better skill set.

 

[Trxjw]

Dude is making a hair under 4m for second pair. R Mac is making 4.7 to be captain of this team and carry us. If Staal wants to do a long term 4.6m i would be into it. He shouldn't be making more then Girardi or MacDonagh but I am sure he will ask for more. If thats the case he should be traded. Sucks. I like him a lot. But he shouldn't be getting that much more then players with a bigger role and better skill set.

That's not how contracts work. If McDonagh was eligible for UFA status the year after he signed his extension, you can bet he'd be well over $6M per year. With freaking Brooks Orpik getting over $5M on his FA contract, you really think Staal couldn't get over $6M as a UFA?

 

[haveandare]

Dude is making a hair under 4m for second pair. R Mac is making 4.7 to be captain of this team and carry us. If Staal wants to do a long term 4.6m i would be into it. He shouldn't be making more then Girardi or MacDonagh but I am sure he will ask for more. If thats the case he should be traded. Sucks. I like him a lot. But he shouldn't be getting that much more then players with a bigger role and better skill set.

If we're going to hold everyone to Mac's contract, we should literally never try to get talent on the backend behind him ever.

That contract is a sweet, sweet deal, not the type of thing that you use a measuring stick for other players. Plus, the whole UFA/RFA thing, which is huge. Plus, McD isn't the captain yet, and I'm not sure he "carried" us when we had Hank in the net the whole time.

I'd argue that Staal can make more than G, as he'd likely be in the spot if he played that side IMO. I think he's quite easily the second best defender on the team.

And again, you trade him...then what? Who plays the second pair with Boyle and does a passable job?

 

[n8]

I think we should but at that point we will need to move either him or Girardi next summer. Which isn't exactly a bad situation to be in. much better than losing him for nothing and much better value than if he was just an impending UFA.

 

[broadwayblue]

Dude is making a hair under 4m for second pair. R Mac is making 4.7 to be captain of this team and carry us. If Staal wants to do a long term 4.6m i would be into it. He shouldn't be making more then Girardi or MacDonagh but I am sure he will ask for more. If thats the case he should be traded. Sucks. I like him a lot. But he shouldn't be getting that much more then players with a bigger role and better skill set.

Sorry, but as others have said, that's not how it works. Staal is not extending his contract for less than 5.5M...and probably closer to 6. And that's not unreasonable considering what other UFAs have signed for.