Player Discussion Marc Staal: Part II

[haohmaru]

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

Being realistic - has nothing to do with "negative connotation" about Hank. He deserved what the two sides agreed to and was right to ask/demand it. Every other premium UFA does the same thing.

The business side of things has nothing to do with "feelings". It would have been "better" for who? The Rangers? The Rangers paid fair market value to the face of their franchise.

 

[NYSPORTS]

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

the late George Young couldn’t adapt to the NFL salary cap while Glenn Sather couldn’t figure out a modified no trade clause. Both Hank and Staal are holding the Rangers hostage.

It’s ridiculous to see Hank start 1 of the last 19 games (i believe) yet he gets suit up and sit the bench while the kids who are playing wear street clothes on off days.

To top it off, Shes tweaks his groin so the Rangers go with Hank based on what appears to be a record based on yesteryears resume. Let’s in two softies in his back to back playoff starts. J.D. then makes it public he told Hank the org will not go with three goalies again. Why? To comfort the backup in 1 of the last 19 games so he can try again? He’s done yet i’m not sure the NY Celebrity in him can come to grips why he sat for 19 out of the last 20 games.

JD says the Rangers are going to do this right. Hoping that’s means a ceremony at the Garden to applaud his career rather than honor a contract holding the Rangers hostage.

 

[egelband]

Do we know to what extent Staal’s game is affected by his vision issue? Just curious. Because he is still pretty mobile for such a big guy and aside from two freak injuries, he has been durable. I wonder what kind of player we’d have in him now were his eyes ok.

 

[GordonGecko]

Sather offered too many long term contracts with NTC attached.

Look around, NTCs have been handed out like candy everywhere recently. I really wish this was addressed in the CBA, there should at least be some sort of cap on NTCs or special conditions to curb the impact because it screws up a team

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Being realistic - has nothing to do with "negative connotation" about Hank. He deserved what the two sides agreed to and was right to ask/demand it. Every other premium UFA does the same thing.

The business side of things has nothing to do with "feelings". It would have been "better" for who? The Rangers? The Rangers paid fair market value to the face of their franchise.

I already said it was fine to reward him with the extra year. But you're refusing to acknowledge that it's just as reasonable to have asked for 1 year less at thisAAV. That's what I mean about you refusing to acknowledge anything that might have even a slightly negative view of hank. It's not bad to say that the guy could never be reasonably expected to live up to this contract performance wise due to the length. Therefore sather probably could've stood firm on one less year

 

[haohmaru]

I already said it was fine to reward him with the extra year. But you're refusing to acknowledge that it's just as reasonable to have asked for 1 year less at thisAAV. That's what I mean about you refusing to acknowledge anything that might have even a slightly negative view of hank. It's not bad to say that the guy could never be reasonably expected to live up to this contract performance wise due to the length. Therefore sather probably could've stood firm on one less year

Wow, what? There’s nothing “negative “ about Hank. I don’t even know what you’re talking about here. What I’m saying is that max term for star players is normal. The Lundqvist deal is normal for a face of the franchise type player. I haven’t discussed living up to this contract anywhere. At all. Ever. Wishing terms of a contract were different six years after the fact is an exercise in futility. This is a pure business point of view.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Wow, what? There’s nothing “negative “ about Hank. I don’t even know what you’re talking about here. What I’m saying is that max term for star players is normal. The Lundqvist deal is normal for a face of the franchise type player. I haven’t discussed living up to this contract anywhere. At all. Ever. Wishing terms of a contract were different six years after the fact is an exercise in futility. This is a pure business point of view.

Nearly everything said on here is an exercise in futility based on that view so that's just dumb to say. You're saying it now though bc you don't like the discussion.

Hank and Staal both gave a ton to the NYR, both were compensated a ton for it and both probably should've been negotiated down one more year on their current contracts. You came in arguing against that in regards to hank...even though you're now saying it's not a bad thing to say and that it's futile to discuss it. Cool...So then sthu lol

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hey can we just all agree that Staal sucks and should retire?

 

[haohmaru]

Nearly everything said on here is an exercise in futility based on that view so that's just dumb to say. You're saying it now though bc you don't like the discussion.

I don’t mind the discussion. If I did I wouldn’t be having it. Clearly, I disagree with your take on it and you feel the need to speculate about my motivations which I’ve shot down now a bunch of times. You’re just plain wrong.

Hank and Staal both gave a ton to the NYR, both were compensated a ton for it and both probably should've been negotiated down one more year on their current contracts. You came in arguing against that in regards to hank...even though you're now saying it's not a bad thing to say and that it's futile to discuss it. Cool...So then sthu lol

Never liked the Staal contract and still don’t.

I’m saying max term contracts are the norm for star players and you’re saying the Rangers should’ve done something that few NHL teams do and fewer huge stars would agree to. One of us is full of shit, that’s for sure.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Look around, NTCs have been handed out like candy everywhere recently. I really wish this was addressed in the CBA, there should at least be some sort of cap on NTCs or special conditions to curb the impact because it screws up a team

if the GM’s are dumb enough to offer the agents are smart enough to accept them.

 

[haohmaru]

if the GM’s are dumb enough to offer the agents are smart enough to accept them.

Unfortunately GM's aren't being "dumb" to offer them, they're being competitive because it's standard fare.

Agree with GG, but the players union will never go for it.

 

[haohmaru]

Hey can we just all agree that Staal sucks and should retire?

That would make 2020 a lot more tolerable.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Unfortunately GM's aren't being "dumb" to offer them, they're being competitive because it's standard fare.

Agree with GG, but the players union will never go for it.

so how come Kreider has a modified NTC clause?

 

[haohmaru]

so how come Kreider has a modified NTC clause?

He has a full NMC the first 4 years and modified NTC after that. Not unusual. Not sure I understand your point.

 

[NYSPORTS]

He has a full NMC the first 4 years and modified NTC after that. Not unusual. Not sure I understand your point.

you just made my point which acknowledges this contract is different than what you called “standard fare”.

 

[haohmaru]

you just made my point which acknowledges this contract is different than what you called “standard fare”.

There are literally dozens of examples of contracts that provide NMC early in the contract term and modified NTC towards the end of the contract term. It is EXACTLY "standard fare" for a good but non elite player like Kreider.

 

[nyr2k2]

Stepan had nothing in years 1-2 (because those were RFA years), a NTC in years 3-4, and a limited NTC in years 5-6.

Girardi had a NMC for years 1-3, then a modified NTC+NMC in years 4-6; meaning those final years he could submit a list of 15 teams he couldn't be traded to and he couldn't be waived and assigned to Hartford.

Rick Nash had a NMC in years 1-5 and then a modified NTC+NMC like Girardi in years 6-8.

Those are just some examples from our guys, but the full NMC early, leading to a modified NTC/NMC later in the deal, is a pretty common deal structure. We could go team-by-team and find plenty of other examples, but who really wants to do that?

 

[Rangers394]

Maybe just don't sign certain players? Then you don't have to worry about any clauses

 

[NYSPORTS]

There are literally dozens of examples of contracts that provide NMC early in the contract term and modified NTC towards the end of the contract term. It is EXACTLY "standard fare" for a good but non elite player like Kreider.

the topic has been Hank and Staal’s contract which, of course is different. You’re on quite a roll of being wrong while nobody is buying your delusion you meant something else. “Standard fare” despite two different contract types, “softie” is “stoppable” and other bs.

 

[haohmaru]

the topic has been Hank and Staal’s contract which, of course is different. You’re on quite a roll of being wrong while nobody is buying your delusion you meant something else. “Standard fare” despite two different contract types, “softie” is “stoppable” and other bs.

Hank and Staal's contract are "standard fare" for the players they were when they signed the contract. Staal similar to Kreider, Hank similar to bigger name marquee UFA's. I've yet to see where I've been "wrong".

As far as "softie" (your take) and "stoppable" (my take) - you're co-mingling the two to suit your BS that Hank is "done". I never said they were the same thing and actually pointed out that pretty much every goalie in the playoffs has given up blocker side high goals. They aren't "soft".

If there's anyone around here whose BS people are not buying it's yours.

 

[True Blue]

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.

You have absolutely no idea of what would have happened. You are talking about a lot of money that would be left on the table. That was the going rate.

 

[OrlandK]

You have absolutely no idea of what would have happened. You are talking about a lot of money that would be left on the table. That was the going rate.

You have no idea either. You assume that Sather offered the going rate, based on nothing since there were no other offers. Glen offered 30% above the current alternative goalie. We both do not know for sure but I conclude that common sense indicates, given the 30% premium, that the extended length to age 39 was not necessary to keep the King in NY (the only place he wanted to be). There was no "money left on the table", that is your supposition not supported by facts or logic.

 

[True Blue]

You have no idea either. You assume that Sather offered the going rate, based on nothing since there were no other offers. Glen offered 30% above the current alternative goalie. We both do not know for sure but I conclude that common sense indicates, given the 30% premium, that the extended length to age 39 was not necessary to keep the King in NY (the only place he wanted to be). There was no "money left on the table", that is your supposition not supported by facts or logic.

No one has any idea. But one can ass-u-me certain things. Like your franchise player wanting to get the most years he possibly can and said franchise not being in a position that they could afford to let him go.

 

[OrlandK]

Hey can we just all agree that Staal sucks and should retire?

We can all mostly agree that the Staal contract is an albatross at this juncture, as happens to long contracts from time to time.

Why should he retire and walk away from 5.7 million? Seems silly to do so. Would you?

 

[OrlandK]

No one has any idea. But one can ass-u-me certain things. Like your franchise player wanting to get the most years he possibly can and said franchise not being in a position that they could afford to let him go.

No point in going on and on about this. But another related Sather blunder was to make your goalie your franchise player in the first place. Pretty much accepted now that it is a poor way to construct a Cup Contender, and best not to make your goalie your highest paid player. Almost never works well.