Except that he WAS in fact the franchise player. Were not for him, no sniffing Cup runs or playoffs in many of those years.
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
Hank was still a top player in the league when he signed his contract. In every way, he was the franchise.
Staal was clearly declining and looked bad once Stralman left. We had enough data to go on there that he was the weak link in that pairing. Even if his deal was market value, it was clear to anyone who watched the games that his best days were long gone and he wasn't going to get any better than he was at the time the ink dried (which was pretty bad. This turned into really bad immediately.)
We knew we'd pay on the back end of Hank's deal but we at least got good years out of that contract. Staal's performance has been that of either a low tier bottom pair defender or worse for the entire duration of his deal. I'm still baffled that with the talks about buyouts, almost all of the signs point towards it being Hank instead of Staal. One of these guys will have his number retired and will go into the hall of fame, the other has been a terrible player for more than half of his career. Even if we were to just look at the 2 of them now, Hank is better at his job than Marc is at his.
Staal was clearly declining and looked bad once Stralman left. We had enough data to go on there that he was the weak link in that pairing. Even if his deal was market value, it was clear to anyone who watched the games that his best days were long gone and he wasn't going to get any better than he was at the time the ink dried (which was pretty bad. This turned into really bad immediately.)
We knew we'd pay on the back end of Hank's deal but we at least got good years out of that contract. Staal's performance has been that of either a low tier bottom pair defender or worse for the entire duration of his deal. I'm still baffled that with the talks about buyouts, almost all of the signs point towards it being Hank instead of Staal. One of these guys will have his number retired and will go into the hall of fame, the other has been a terrible player for more than half of his career. Even if we were to just look at the 2 of them now, Hank is better at his job than Marc is at his.
OrlandK
Registered User
True but both contracts are albatrosses at this point and there is at least somewhat of a spot for Staal for one more season whereas there is no spot for the King, as Georgiev beat him out as backup last season.
Georgiev should be traded regardless of what happens with Hank.
I'd say that there is more of a spot for Hank as at least, by the numbers, he can be an adequate backup. Staal in a bottom pairing role was still really, really, really bad.
I'd say that there is more of a spot for Hank as at least, by the numbers, he can be an adequate backup. Staal in a bottom pairing role was still really, really, really bad.
OrlandK
Registered User
But not at this time. Goalie market is a going to be a buyers market. Also Shesty has played 13 NHL games and was injured twice already. If Georgiev plays 30 games well his market value will increase significantly as well as helping the team as a significant backup.
... Or his value drops even more than it already has due to getting lit up. I've been of the impression that they've already held onto him for too long.
The injured twice thing is a bit of a cop out. One of them was a minor injury which occurred after a ton of time off (guys miss a few days during TC with some soreness all the time) and the other was an off ice incident which isn't something you can bank on happening again.
Even if it turns out that Shesty is too brittle to carry a starters load, they should still trade Georgiev.
The injured twice thing is a bit of a cop out. One of them was a minor injury which occurred after a ton of time off (guys miss a few days during TC with some soreness all the time) and the other was an off ice incident which isn't something you can bank on happening again.
Even if it turns out that Shesty is too brittle to carry a starters load, they should still trade Georgiev.
OrlandK
Registered User
That's true about anyone but not to be expected. Given his age and career to date Georgiev appears to be ascending to whatever his prime turns out to be.
Alternatively the King has been on a downward spiral for years:
| Season | Age | SV% | GAA |
| 2014-15 | 32 | 0.922 | 2.25 |
| 2015-16 | 33 | 0.92 | 2.48 |
| 2016-17 | 34 | 0.91 | 2.74 |
| 2017-18 | 35 | 0.915 | 2.98 |
| 2018-19 | 36 | 0.907 | 3.07 |
| 2019-20 | 37 | 0.905 | 3.16 |
