Do you think the Rangers should re-sign Marc Staal long term?
- Thread starter Raspewtin
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Staal is one of the major reasons this team can play against top teams.
He is truly a strong #2 playing on the second pairing.
Remember, this guy had a number of freak injuries and I think is still regaining his form.
You just don't give up on a guy like this unless they are getting something major in return.
Let's fact it. The offense will never have the players to make us elite.
Making the D as strong as possible in front of Hank is the ONLY way this team remains in contention for the next 3-5 years.
He is truly a strong #2 playing on the second pairing.
Remember, this guy had a number of freak injuries and I think is still regaining his form.
You just don't give up on a guy like this unless they are getting something major in return.
Let's fact it. The offense will never have the players to make us elite.
Making the D as strong as possible in front of Hank is the ONLY way this team remains in contention for the next 3-5 years.
SA16
Sixstring
If we have the best goalie in the league why is it necessary to stack the defense to help him when he will be great on his own and doesn't need that help and we can use that money to help out the offense which is something Hank has no control over.
SA16
Sixstring
Well in that case we wasted our money signing him since we could have just signed a cheaper goalie and put him behind our great defensive group and this unknown player would still put up adequate numbers and we could shift that 8M into multiple offensive pieces.
haveandare
Registered User
Yeah, maybe. Thing is, we have to operate in the reality that exists, and in this reality, Hank is the Rangers goalie going forward and great D depth + Hank has got this team pretty far multiple times.
SA16
Sixstring
haveandare
Registered User
The fact that it's led to repeated success doesn't mean it's a good strategy?
I disagree.
SA16
Sixstring
Yes. It does not mean it is the best or close to the best strategy. It might be a good strategy. It could also very well be the worst possible strategy. Success is relative to all the possibilities. A successful strategy does not imply a good strategy.
A simple example would be imagine the case of a weighted coin that you knew would land heads 75% of the time and tails 25% of the time. You could bet $1 every flip and your expected value would be to win 50c a flip. That's success. But why bet $1 every time? You could bet $10 every time and then your expected value is $5 a flip. The optimal strategy here is basically to bet the maximum up to the point where you have determined your risk of ruin is too great (e.g. betting your entire bankroll is a bad strategy because you have a 25% chance of going broke).
Last edited:
jerseyjinx94
I jinx players.
You're reaching here, man. This "might be a good strategy" has seen us win more playoff series than nearly every team in the league the past 3 seasons. It's a damn fine strategy.
SA16
Sixstring
What I said is very general and is all logic/statistics/probability. That paragraph could be used to apply to almost anything. Successful strategies do not necessarily imply good strategies. In something like coin flipping or poker we can run thousands of trials trying different strategies to empirically see which is best. In hockey obviously we cannot do that - you can basically pick one strategy and see how it goes but you will never be able to compare it to another all else being equal.
At this point which strategy would be best is all opinion. It is my opinion, despite the success we have had, it would be a better strategy to be weak on defense and strong on offense and let our top goalie bail us out of dangerous situations. You might think otherwise and that's ok too. I'm not saying my concept is necessarily the best but I'm reasonably confident that it would be superior.
We had Staal in the ECF and SCF and he was a complete non factor for us. He was closer to detrimental than helpful.
So to imply we wouldn't be able to make it that far again without him, I personally don't feel is 100% accurate.
The Rangers didn't lose the Cup because of their lack of defense. They lost for a few reasons, but not that.
Lack of scoring, lack of size up front.
If they can solve one of those issues (preferably scoring), with a Staal trade and find a value guy that can adequately play a defensive game in his own end to play in his spot, that is an upgrade for this club.
Due to cap reatraints, I can't see them pulling off a trade like that right now. Maybe at the deadline. But, either way, committing to Staal for big money and long-term is unwise.
So to imply we wouldn't be able to make it that far again without him, I personally don't feel is 100% accurate.
The Rangers didn't lose the Cup because of their lack of defense. They lost for a few reasons, but not that.
Lack of scoring, lack of size up front.
If they can solve one of those issues (preferably scoring), with a Staal trade and find a value guy that can adequately play a defensive game in his own end to play in his spot, that is an upgrade for this club.
Due to cap reatraints, I can't see them pulling off a trade like that right now. Maybe at the deadline. But, either way, committing to Staal for big money and long-term is unwise.
Staal was also a huge reason we got by Pittsburgh in the 2nd round. Obviously, his play in the ECF and SCF isn't indicative of him. It was weird...
Rick Nash 61
The Best
Edmonton seems like the logical trade partner with us for Staal. They need a true #1 defenseman and we could use a young, cap friendly forward. I'm thinking they give is Yakupov and a first or a defensive prospect like Martin Marincin or Oscar Klefbom who are both NHL ready. There are going to be people who say no way we trade Staal for Yakupov and a prospect, and people who say that Yakupov was the #1 pick and Staal is not enough for him. But I think this is a pretty fair trade on both ends.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,070
- 17,710
If we trade Staal we have John Moore playing on the second pair. And we're going to trade him for a fourth RW?
Rick Nash 61
The Best
I think the pairings would shape up like this
McD-Klein
Marincin/Klefbom-Girardi
Moore-Boyle
Yakupov has had his struggled but he still has superstar potential. This would be a risky trade but I would do it.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,070
- 17,710
We already have MSL/Nash/Zuccarello at RW. Why are we massively downgrading our defense to add to a position of strength?
slipknottin
Registered User
Rick Nash 61
The Best
Nash could move to LW. That's his natural position. Wouldn't mind seeing a first line of Nash-Stepan-Yak. Nash played LW the short time he played with Gabby on the same line.
Rick Nash 61
The Best
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,070
- 17,710
It's still trading for a position of strength while making another position a weakness, so it's still counter productive.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Except for the idea that it is very unlikely Staal would re-sign in Edmonton, so why would they give up an asset like Yakupov for essentially a one-year rental? This isn't Garth Snow we are talking about.
Rick Nash 61
The Best
I thought of this but you know Edmonton will give Staal the Money he wants and more. So unless he really has a problem staying in Edmonton, which is a possibility, I think he would re-sign there. And can't they discuss that with Staal before the trade or something? I never know how that works.
Rick Nash 61
The Best
Lines could shape up like this
Nash-Stepan-Yak
Kreider-Brass-Zucc
Hags-JT-Heatley*(1 year 2 Mil maybe?)
Glass(ugh)-Moore-Carcillo
Would leave us way more than enough to sign the rest of our core guys long term. I still don't like JT at 3rd line center but I can't think of any other options at this point Maybe Lindberg. Or else we get another center via trade.
redwhiteandblue
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2013
- 1,112
- 1,032
Too much of a risk he bolts just to go play with his brothers, and that's a reality. He may not bolt NY but for all we know he would rather go there than take a pay cut for the Rangers. He offers a perplexing situation moving forward.
I personally would love to lock him up at like 5 years/26.25. That's a $5.5 AAV and he can be a guy to anchor no the second pairing. If it doesn't look like we can get him around there with in reason than I would have to say dangle him and see what comes back.
I'm more for keeping Staaly though.
