Also, the idea that we're creating blockers for kids by re-signing players is bogus. If the kid can play, they'll find a spot for him or they'll trade him for a piece they need. You don't forego re-signing an elite defender just because a kid might be ready to step in.
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
slipknottin
Registered User
I never said Skjei was the answer. But you can't lock yourself in to having two guys with NMCs at LD.
If Skjei in another year or two can perform roughly as well as Staal then you are wasting 5+ mil in cap and have an asset that is potentially tradable stuck on the roster that could be used elsewhere.
The point overall is to always give the team options going forward. Locking guys in with large NMC contracts is a terrible business strategy
Bingo.
Whats the best case scenario for Skjei? In a year or two he might be able to handle 3rd pairing minutes?
OH ****! Better trade Staal now!
The bolded is the key here. It shows a stunning lack of awareness as to how good of a player Staal is.
And puts a lot of pressure on a very young player that, quite frankly, is many years away from reaching that level...if he does at all.
Ill take locking up good NHL players to longer contracts over rushing to get rid of them with large assumptions that kids will fill the need
Or couldn't we just look at it like we have two top defenders with size at our disposal? What's wrong with that? Would we just be forced to bury Skjei in the minors until Staal's deal ran out? No, of course not. We could trade one of them and get a valuable piece in return. What's the market right now for a 6'3 200lb two-way defender on an ELC who can play 22 hard minutes a night?
If Skjei is the real deal, then he'll always have value. If he surpasses Staal and the Rangers want to trade Staal, they certainly can do that as well. But keeping a spot warm for a kid who hasn't even skated in a pre-season NHL game is absurd.
silverfish
got perma'd
Staal is a very important piece to this team's D. You don't trade him because Skjei "might" be ready in a couple of years. You trade him when Skjei is ready, and you lock him up to a 5/$5.5m deal just in case. That contract is quite easily tradeable for a player like Staal. Give him a limited NTC, and be done with it.
Hopefully next season, McIlrath can push Klein for the 3RD spot, and we can trade Klein. Another very tradeable player IF that scenario raises it's head. But you don't trade Klein today just because you think McIlrath is a year away from being a full-time guy.
I think Staal is easily this team's 2nd best defenseman.
Hopefully next season, McIlrath can push Klein for the 3RD spot, and we can trade Klein. Another very tradeable player IF that scenario raises it's head. But you don't trade Klein today just because you think McIlrath is a year away from being a full-time guy.
I think Staal is easily this team's 2nd best defenseman.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Bingo.
Whats the best case scenario for Skjei? In a year or two he might be able to handle 3rd pairing minutes?
OH ****! Better trade Staal now!
I love that on one hand Staal can be replaced serviceably by Allen or Skjei yet, on the other hand, can fetch a 1C in a trade.
It's all on the Internet, which I hear is going to be a big thing! But seriously, I'd imagine people are thinking that the "1C" is more important than the defensive pairing that went up against the likes of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young...OK, don't know a Stills that played. Also, seems like Staal isn't exactly loved around here and the consensus is he's on the decline, or will be shortly. To me, it's tough to move any top four defenseman, top six forward without creating a hole. One needs to look at the organization and make a guess as to where the strengths are in youth for replacement down the road. The team is already weaker on paper than the team that finished the season (although the team is only as strong as Lundqvist is, for the most part). Which holes do you fill and how to fill them is the question, and UFAs are mostly out of the question since this team is near cap with everyone signed.
NYR Viper
Registered User
Yeah, losing any player to UFA is the WORST possible option. Either trade him to refill the cupboard or keep him.
slipknottin
Registered User
You are missing the point again. My point wasent that they should trade staal because Skeji will be as good.
My point was you don't lock yourself into things because you don't know how the future will work.
Staal if resigned, can not have a full NMC. It makes no sense for the rangers at all
NYR Viper
Registered User
haveandare
Registered User
Even if Staal is extended with an NMC there are still three spots that can be taken by kids. That's half the defense.
Theres pro's and con's to signing Staal long-term.
I know that "you dont know how the future will work" is not a credible issue. Even if McDonagh, Girardi, and Staal are signed long-term (all very good players), theres still a lot of flexibility in the 4-6 spots.
Loved? Neither is Girardi. The solution seems simple.
1)Rather than playing to win in the next few years.....Trade Staal and G man before they decline (ask to waive ntc). Maybe for picks or younger D men of lesser quality?
2)Play MCD and 5 rookies / jouneymen.
3)Let's see how good Lundy truly is without shot blockers and a strong D in front of him. If he fails then ask Lundy to waive his NTC. He might be willing once he sees a defense without Giradi, Stralman, and Staal and he becomes the target of ire.
4)then maybe the Rangers can draw a first line center?
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
Because Miller doesn't have the highest of ceilings and isn't super likely to develop into a top six center?
I meant Krejci as a potential UFA target next year. I'm not trying to deal Staal for him.
I didn't say we could flip him for a 1C. I said we could flip him for a young forward with potential, preferably a center. Staal's name holds more value at this point than his actual play does.
Bingo.
Whats the best case scenario for Skjei? In a year or two he might be able to handle 3rd pairing minutes?
OH ****! Better trade Staal now!
Seriously? Way too overplay your hand. Skjei's our best defensive prospect. People forget that both McDonagh and Sauer handled second pairing minutes in their rookie seasons. By all reports his defensive game is stellar and it is his offense that is still rough around the edges. He has the talent and physical abilities to handle the stay at home side of his responsibilities.
Was. Staal was a dominant defenseman. Now he's an extremely inconsistent one with permanently impaired eyesight. He's still useful, but he's trading on his reputation at this point more than his game.
Last edited:
Zil, are you mainly basing all of this on the ECF and SCF? You forget that we don't advance past Pittsburgh without Staal completely shutting down Crosby. Made the best player in the world a non-factor.
Look, I'm with you that if we can get good value for Staal, then I would consider trading him. That being said, don't be naive and pretend that Allen (even though I like him and compare him to a Stralman type d-man) and Skjei can just replace what Staal brings to the table. If we resign Staal, and one of those two prove to be good d-man, then you maybe trade Staal.
Look, I'm with you that if we can get good value for Staal, then I would consider trading him. That being said, don't be naive and pretend that Allen (even though I like him and compare him to a Stralman type d-man) and Skjei can just replace what Staal brings to the table. If we resign Staal, and one of those two prove to be good d-man, then you maybe trade Staal.
Last edited:
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
No, I'm basing this on his inconsistent play all year and the fact that giving a $6 million+ cap hit with a NMC to a stay at home, second pairing defenseman is nuts.
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. This team as presently constructed isn't contending for the Cup, barring a miracle jump forward from Miller, Fast, and several others. It's one thing to continuously lock up your own guys when you're LA or Chicago. This roster isn't on that level.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
I think the point is that Staal has value around the league. If there was no salary cup, then sure, give Staal whatever he wants. But there is a cap, and we have an important decision here. Do you keep Staal and continue dominating on defense with an elite goalie, or trade Staal for some forward help (mainly at center)?
PS. I do think Allen will do a good job replacing Staal, but no one knows for sure. Staal is prove, Allen isn't.
slipknottin
Registered User
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.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
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.
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.
Blow up the whole team that just made it to the SCF so we can get a 1C? I think I would just rather wait to see how Stepan pans out.
I was lost early in the post, but got really lost when the Lundy part came up. The defense in front of Lundy does block a lot of shots. They also give up a fair amount of shots on goal. Lundy isn't facing 25 easy shots a night. He's closer to 30, and some of those block shots don't go in a favorable direction. Further, one needs to ask why so many blocked shots are needed. As another poster said, I don't think it's time to dismantle the team. The part about playing McD with give rookies/journeymen is tough - you don't want kids in that kind of environment, which is likely a losing environment.
As I was reading, I was going to say the bold, but instead just bolded what you said. nobody wants to keep moving for a job, and this is a job. I can't blame anyone for wanting an NMC/NTC. In the end, though, you want to work in an environment you enjoy and where you feel wanted. It sucks giving them out because as GM you do not want to be limited, but you also need to pay market and do what you can to put together, and keep together a team.
