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

[Garfinkel1]

Those 2nd pairings proposed above as a 'stop gap' would get terrorized. Even if Skeki is two years away, we can't relie on him his rookie year anchoring the 2nd pair for at least 3 years.

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong having three top pairing guys right now. With Hank in net and guys like G, McD and Staal in front of him, we will be a very hard team to score on. That's who we are.

I say sign him for 5 years and decide what you want to do in his 4th year. Anyone mentioning his age,
1) He's 27... and after missing some time he's much more fresh than most 27 year olds in the NHL (Entering his prime...)
2) Why not talk about G being on the wrong side of 30 if that's the case.

Also - this could be a crazy idea, but right now McD's value is as high as it ever could be. Would you consider trading McD for McKinnon or McK type player? We keep the 'Mc' but.. in all seriousness, I think that could make the Rangers very dangerous.

 

[Riverdale]

'I'd resign him if the term is fair'

 

[haveandare]

You have to re-sign him. I haven't seen one potential set up without him that doesn't look absolutely terrible. Those defenses would be eaten alive even worse than this years was against big strong teams with forward depth.

He absolutely has to come back unless someone thinks of a way to lose him and not have a clown show of a top 6 after.

Why does everyone suddenly have such irrational faith that D prospects can step into such big shoes? I suggested letting Miller learn the 3C spot this year and nobody seemed to like that, but now we're handing over the defense to a bunch of rookies?

 

[we want cup]

You have to re-sign him. I haven't seen one potential set up without him that doesn't look absolutely terrible. Those defenses would be eaten alive even worse than this years was against big strong teams with forward depth.

He absolutely has to come back unless someone thinks of a way to lose him and not have a clown show of a top 6 after.

Why does everyone suddenly have such irrational faith that D prospects can step into such big shoes? I suggested letting Miller learn the 3C spot this year and nobody seemed to like that, but now we're handing over the defense to a bunch of rookies?

Seriously. Staal has played in 460 NHL games over 7 seasons, with 68 games of playoff experience to boot, and people are banking on a kid who is still in college and a guy with 3 career NHL games to replace him. Staal is a guy who you can safely put out against any player in the world. Barring any more injuries (which is the one question mark attached to him), there's no reason he couldn't get back to his once dominant level of play. People also like to say he has "no offensive ability" when he put up 27 and 29 point seasons only a few years ago (before he caught the injury bug) on middle of the road offensive teams.

The organization is obviously trying to set up another Cup run within the next couple of years. Barring an unlikely McDonagh-like emergence by a young defenseman, trading Staal is just filling one hole by creating an even bigger one.

 

[Raspewtin]

Those 2nd pairings proposed above as a 'stop gap' would get terrorized. Even if Skeki is two years away, we can't relie on him his rookie year anchoring the 2nd pair for at least 3 years.

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong having three top pairing guys right now. With Hank in net and guys like G, McD and Staal in front of him, we will be a very hard team to score on. That's who we are.

I say sign him for 5 years and decide what you want to do in his 4th year. Anyone mentioning his age,
1) He's 27... and after missing some time he's much more fresh than most 27 year olds in the NHL (Entering his prime...)
2) Why not talk about G being on the wrong side of 30 if that's the case.

Also - this could be a crazy idea, but right now McD's value is as high as it ever could be. Would you consider trading McD for McKinnon or McK type player? We keep the 'Mc' but.. in all seriousness, I think that could make the Rangers very dangerous.

Absolutely ****ing not.

 

[Raspewtin]

You have to re-sign him. I haven't seen one potential set up without him that doesn't look absolutely terrible. Those defenses would be eaten alive even worse than this years was against big strong teams with forward depth.

He absolutely has to come back unless someone thinks of a way to lose him and not have a clown show of a top 6 after.

Why does everyone suddenly have such irrational faith that D prospects can step into such big shoes? I suggested letting Miller learn the 3C spot this year and nobody seemed to like that, but now we're handing over the defense to a bunch of rookies?

It's more that Staal is playing on the 2nd pair and will make 6 million+, which he isn't worth.

I don't think Staal is as good as you think he is. I guess we'll leave it at that.

 

[bernmeister]

Went with
I'd re-sign him if the term was fair.

However the correct answer was not listed, IMO.
I'd sign him (worth more to everybody extended), THEN try to flip him.

Value lower as a rental.

 

[charliemurphy]

Still holding out hope Slats is working on a trade for O'Reilly with Staal involved. Otherwise I would keep him till the deadline and revisit a trade option.

Right on.
The only way Staal gets dealt is for an impact player like ROR.
Not interested in trading Staal for a 1st round pick and a prospect. If they can lock him up for something like 5/25 then it becomes a numbers game of getting it done in contract terms.
Having said that, looking at the roster it looks as if Sather is somewhat forced to make a trade for a player like ROR or a Kadri. It wouldn't surprise me if Staal is involved or players like Brassard and J Moore which would mean they'll be banking on players like Miller, Lindberg and Allen out of camp.

 

[MartysMidgetMeat]

Those 2nd pairings proposed above as a 'stop gap' would get terrorized. Even if Skeki is two years away, we can't relie on him his rookie year anchoring the 2nd pair for at least 3 years.

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong having three top pairing guys right now. With Hank in net and guys like G, McD and Staal in front of him, we will be a very hard team to score on. That's who we are.

I say sign him for 5 years and decide what you want to do in his 4th year. Anyone mentioning his age,
1) He's 27... and after missing some time he's much more fresh than most 27 year olds in the NHL (Entering his prime...)
2) Why not talk about G being on the wrong side of 30 if that's the case.

Also - this could be a crazy idea, but right now McD's value is as high as it ever could be. Would you consider trading McD for McKinnon or McK type player? We keep the 'Mc' but.. in all seriousness, I think that could make the Rangers very dangerous.

While i like the idea Mcdonaghs speed on D is too valuable. If you get rid of Mcdonagh you're left with staal and Dan G as the first pair. No. Too damn slow.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

id say no. i think its irresponsible to sign so many defenseman to so many huge contracts. hes a monster asset that can bring back a lot of pieces that could help us now and long term.

Look at the market for defenseman the past few years.

I'd hardly call McD and Girardis contracts huge. They're rather small actually, and amazing bang for buck.

I've watched plenty of Brady Skjei. I like him a lot, but he's not even in the same stratosphere as Staal was at that age, and I would bet a lot of money he won't be close to the player Staal is. If he hadn't had a rough series against Montreal the tone in this thread would be completely different. The fickleness of this board in a nutshell.

Our team is built around Lundqvist, it's abundantly clear. No reason why we can't stay as a defense-first team, which we have been for the last 5 years...

 

[THE BIG WHISTLE]

Look at the market for defenseman the past few years.

I'd hardly call McD and Girardis contracts huge. They're rather small actually, and amazing bang for buck.

I've watched plenty of Brady Skjei. I like him a lot, but he's not even in the same stratosphere as Staal was at that age, and I would bet a lot of money he won't be close to the player Staal is. If he hadn't had a rough series against Montreal the tone in this thread would be completely different. The fickleness of this board in a nutshell.

Our team is built around Lundqvist, it's abundantly clear. No reason why we can't stay as a defense-first team, which we have been for the last 5 years...

Well said

 

[ltrangerfan]

I fully understand what those advocating moving Staal are saying.

They are simply pointing out that this team as currently constructed has peaked out. Thus, the team is on the way down anyway, so talent has to be moved in order to bridge the way into the future. They are basically arguing that the team needs to start blowing up the core now since a new direction needs to be taken (or they expect rookies to play with 5 yrs NHL maturity?) Move towards youth
and let the kids play as we move out MSL, Boyle, etc and in a few years Nash, and eventually Lundy. If the team can compete for the next 4 years would anyone be calling for moving Staal at a competitive NHL salary?

 

[Calad]

We are currently in win now mode, we need to resign him because he will not be easily replaced and is very important for our defensive core. Moving him for a pick and a prospect does not make sense in conjunction with our other moves. The only move I see making sense as far as the direction of this team is a player like ROR, someone who is at comparable age who is able to contribute now at similar levels as Staal. Otherwise, I want to see Staal get a contract this summer.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Absolutely ****ing not.

Don't say that on the main boards, you'll get shredded to pieces and told that #1D's aren't as valuable as TRUE 1CS

And that McDonagh is OVEREATTEGVETDBHBVE

 

[Mac n Gs]

I'm hoping he can be re-signed for a reasonably fair deal, but idiot contracts like Orpik may have hurt our negotiations with Staal. With the current window we have, Staal has to be re-signed, and then he can moved at a later date.

I also see Staal getting the captaincy, so there's that also.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Marc is great, and there's two main things I think about when the issue of keeping him comes up:

1- The cap. With McD as our franchise 1D, I really don't wanna give Staal the money he probably deserves. Considering scrubs like Orpik are getting PAID, Marc is gonna make a **** ton of money.

2- Despite that...we're supposed to be competing for the Cup. Our third pairing LD is barely a d-man. Does he get bumped up? Do we sign someone? If we lose Marc and Stralman in back to back years, we go from having a great defense to having one good pair (and maybe even one good d-man if G's playoffs are an indicator of things to come).

It'll be interesting to see how management handles it.

 

[haveandare]

It's more that Staal is playing on the 2nd pair and will make 6 million+, which he isn't worth.

I don't think Staal is as good as you think he is. I guess we'll leave it at that.

Welcome to 2014 in the NHL. Good defenders get paid big. In fact, good players overall seem to be getting paid big. This is the new cap reality that everyone has to deal with. You can't stop taking part in it because you don't like it. You still need to field a complete team under those terms.

Even if Staal isn't a very solid shutdown D-man like I think he is, the question still remains: who on earth are we planning on giving that spot to? Trade Staal for a cheaper version of himself? Why would the other team do that? Trade Staal for a forward and bring Allen or someone up? A rookie, next to an old, slow Dan Boyle as the second pairing? Do you honestly think this team would stand a chance against any other decent team with that type of lineup?

There's just no way that it works. Without Staal, this D isn't just not great, it's not even good. D depth has been the core of this team for two ECF appearances and finals appearance. Let's break that all up in hopes of once again building the offense that this team literally never, ever succeeds in building? No, let's stick to what works and has worked repeatedly, and keep the solid D intact and try to build the offense through the draft, which was exactly what this team has done the last two times they had a lot of success.

Did people watch the playoffs? The team wouldn't have even made the ECF without the D depth that they had on that second pairing. Did people watch LA devour our D? Without Staal, that's just going to be even worse.

 

[Hire Sather]

Went with
I'd re-sign him if the term was fair.

However the correct answer was not listed, IMO.
I'd sign him (worth more to everybody extended), THEN try to flip him.

Value lower as a rental.

It doesn't work that way. Nobody does that. Other than the Flyers that one time.

 

[broadwayblue]

The key is whether he's going to want a NMC.

 

[Hire Sather]

He will. Any top FA will get one. They really shouldn't be in sports, but whatever.

 

[mrmovies779]

Some of you are funny.You say hes damaged goods,injury prone,etc etc...then turn around and hope to get back a 1st,prospect and an NHL ready player

LOL


If they do trade him,we will be lucky to get back half of that.

 

[AHB*]

Those 2nd pairings proposed above as a 'stop gap' would get terrorized. Even if Skeki is two years away, we can't relie on him his rookie year anchoring the 2nd pair for at least 3 years.

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong having three top pairing guys right now. With Hank in net and guys like G, McD and Staal in front of him, we will be a very hard team to score on. That's who we are.

I say sign him for 5 years and decide what you want to do in his 4th year. Anyone mentioning his age,
1) He's 27... and after missing some time he's much more fresh than most 27 year olds in the NHL (Entering his prime...)
2) Why not talk about G being on the wrong side of 30 if that's the case.

Also - this could be a crazy idea, but right now McD's value is as high as it ever could be. Would you consider trading McD for McKinnon or McK type player? We keep the 'Mc' but.. in all seriousness, I think that could make the Rangers very dangerous.

Horrid idea and the main board has said as much. Just stop.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

With Skjei going back to school for one more year, while simultaneously banging on the door for a LHD spot with the Rangers, is it worth it to re-sign Marc Staal for the undoubtedly huge paycheck he will command?

I wouldn't. Lots of quality LHD that are developing nicely, his contract will be outrageous for what he provides, and it's just not smart decision making to invest so much money in a defense core that can't score.

Not too related but looking at it now, I know I'm going to really hate Girardi's contract in a year or two.

I think we only have like 3 or 4/maybe 11 D prospects that are lefty. Sather has gone insane trying to get RHDs.

 

[Sayba]

We should have traded him already. Terrible off season for the rangers IMO

 

[BroadwayBlues]

I'd resign him. but would not give him a NMC.