Player Discussion Marc Staal: Part II
- Thread starter Fugazy
- 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
Captain Monglobster
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2005
- 2,041
- 1,566
Staal got paid for past services we all know that. Hes a bottom pairing D at the end of his career and has been a true blue Ranger. There really isnt much more to say about the guy.
smoneil
Registered User
First episode of Legend of Korra (toddler Avatar scene)?
I’ve always liked Staal. Was a very good defenseman until the injuries. Obviously Sather made a idiotic decision giving him that long term deal even though it was clear Staal was on his last legs even at that time before he got the extension. But he had kept his mouth shut and gone out there and tried his best even though which I appreciate even though it’s clearly been over for a while now
OrlandK
Registered User
Agree - in fact Sather made a lot (Girardi, Lundquist to name 2) of "idiotic decisions" on term because he didn't care about the out years. Given his age he didn't figure to be with the team when the non productive back end on these deals kicked in. He just wanted to do whatever he could to win the cup, which he almost did accomplish in fairness.
By all accounts Staal is one of the most popular and respected Rangers by the players. Unfortunate that the league has passed him, and his skill set, bye. At this point he is our third pair LHD and we don't have a much better option anyway given the current trajectory of our LHD prospects. Perhaps Hajek will advance past Staal but even that low bar may be a long shot for Libor given his play to date. Hopefully KAM, perhaps Robinson can be ready in 21-22.
haveandare
Registered User
I don’t think the Hank deal was stupid. Great players like that have leverage and often get a few more years than GMs would prefer. It’s not some mistake, it’s just important guys using their value in negotiations.
imagine if they resigned him to 1 year deals until he retires. i hope this does not happen with this bum.
OrlandK
Registered User
The Hank term was ridiculous and unnecessary. I recall Sather agreed to pay Hank 30% more than the highest paid goalie at the time. Given that premium it was not necessary to go out 7 years to King age 39, when realistically he was unlikely to still be a top goalie. Sather could have held firm at 5 or 6 years and we would not be in the pickle we are in now. Sather simply didn't care as he wanted to win the cup and he knew he would be gone when the pain of the out years kicked in. Love Hank and its all water under the bridge now but since you commented that the deal was OK I offer my perspective.
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
Sather offered too many long term contracts with NTC attached.
Considering that one of the best periods in franchise history was due to him, I would say it was money well spent. Henke carried this team on his back to the playoffs and through them. Those teams go nowhere without him.
will1066
If you score four, you better f'n win the game
- Oct 12, 2008
- 52,405
- 75,528
All lengthy contracts for superstars are written with the knowledge that the last couple of years will be disasters after the player leaves his prime and enters the twilight of his career. Teams know they are paying for those years to keep the superstar on the team and from going on the open market during the prime years. Shrewd or lucky teams will have traded said player when the going was good, but some teams aren't so lucky when the player during his prime was good enough to also get a NMC / NTC and stubbornly refuses to waive it in order to stay parked.
OrlandK
Registered User
The 8.5 cap / 5.5 actual for 2020-21 is not money well spent because it is harmful and unnecessary. When paying a 30% premium for each year vs. current market there is no need to add the back years "penalty". That is the point. The fact that Hank carried the franchise for so many years is noteworthy to his legacy but not meaningful to the current problem.
haveandare
Registered User
Exactly. This is what I mean. It’s not some mistake, it’s a known probable cost of signing big time players at that point in their careers. Imo trading them before is not about being shrewd it’s more about how necessary they are for the teams goals in those final years of what’s likely their prime.
and 99 others
i enjoy watching hockey
- Jul 27, 2011
- 719
- 793
is K'Andre living with the Staals this offseason? He's posting IG stories from a pretty nice looking backyard in Darien, CT. Does Staal even live in Darien? Lemme go ask Pierre
So they should have just let him walk? Seems to me a bit of a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. But ok. I will take the success that they had with one of the greatest homegrown players of all time.
OrlandK
Registered User
No Sather should have told the King that he was only authorized to go out 5 (or 6 years) at 8.5 per. Henrik wasn't leaving his beloved NY for a 7th year - just trying to push the envelope as far as he could and see if Sather bit, which he did.
haveandare
Registered User
Based on what though? That’s a lot of money to assume wasn’t important to somebody
Staal lives in Greenwich. Chris has a place in Darien. He trains at Prentisses gym in Darien too.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Everybody, including Henrik, knows that Dolan didn't have a leash on Sather. Ever. Nobody would've bought that line.
Pure conjecture. You have no idea what he would or wouldn't have done if only offered/hardlined 5 or 6 years.
Contracts in retrospect are easy.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
What a crock - if anything it's VERY smart because if you're trading him at the tail end of his career the actual money that the trade partner is paying is far less than the cap hit. This opens retention, less money paid, etc... and it costs the acquiring team a whole lot less than if it were just split out over the course of the contract.
And, especially for upper echelon players, this is pretty much standard fare and deviating from it would probably raise some eyebrows - particularly with the player and his agent. Look @ Panarin's contract, it's structured similarly because that's what UFA's that are in demand get.
Again, looking at contracts in retrospect is pretty easy. The market has certain norms for "stars" that, if you don't adhere to them, you don't sign the player because other teams will offer it.
You're refusing to agree bc it has a slightly negative connotation on hank.You often go a little too far trying to deflect anything even slightly negative about him
He deserved 8.5 or 9 but for one or two less years. Sure it wasn't the worst thing in the world to reward him with the extra year bc of what he's meant to the nyr. It would have been better for him to get a year less either
Latest posts
-
-
Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5- Latest: frightenedinmatenum2
