Value of: REALISTIC landing spots for Marc Staal

Oscar Lindberg

Registered User
Dec 14, 2015
16,123
15,587
CA
BOLDED: With what cap space/roster space...
ITALICS: And of course the expansion draft might be a bit problematic...

I don't care about their cap space. I'm just saying these are the teams I could see being interested.

And the expansion draft isn't really problematic at all. A team trades for him, says "we aren't honoring your NMC" and then exposes him, should they so choose.

And yeah, it's not like you know any better than us, so that last sentence is irrelevant.

I never said that these teams ARE interested in Staal, like its a fact. I said these are the teams I could see being interested. Too many times on this site people claim fact about their teams, like they know what's going on. So no, it's really not irrelevant
 
Last edited:

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
24,327
21,248
Your logic is flawed here, because the situations aren't the same. Richards/Carter trades had little to do with play on the ice and everything to do with their off ice actions.

As for Nash, he requested a trade.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that things change. Staal might not have any desire to leave right now, but that could change. That doesn't mean we'll be able to find a deal for him, but it eliminates a potential problem in doing so.

There are lots of players who have waived NMCs or accepted trades to teams that were on their NTC list. I remember when the Rangers signed Ales Kotalik to a 3 year deal and gave him a limited NTC. By the trade deadline of the 1st year, he was traded to Calgary, a team that was on his list of teams he wouldn't accept a trade to.
 

Sabresruletheschool

Registered User
Jul 16, 2012
4,669
885
I still think there's a trade to be made between NY and Buffalo that could benefit both clubs.

To Buffalo
M Staal- 5 years left
R Nash- 2 years left
T Glass- 1 years left

To N.Y.
E Kane- 2 years left
M Moulson- 3 years left
J Georges- 1 year left

Or Buffalo could just stay the course.
 

Maukkis

EZ4ENCE
Mar 16, 2016
10,721
7,597
I don't care about their cap space. I'm just saying these are the teams I could see being interested.

And the expansion draft isn't really problematic at all. A team trades for him, says "we aren't honoring your NMC" and then exposes him, should they so choose.

I love how you make it sound sooooo easy. Teams worry about their cap space. A LOT. You'd think that Bowman didn't want to send Teräväinen to Carolina just to dump Bickell, but he had to do it. What about Laich, who cost the Capitals Carrick and a 2nd? The truth is, overpaid players with long term contracts are very difficult to move, especially if the player can essentially block any trade if he wants to.

And your second statement is just plain wrong. Staal already has his NMC in place, which means that his NMC has to be honored UNLESS he is willing to waive. And if he was moved once between now and the expansion draft, I think it's unlikely that he would risk having to move again next summer. (and on top of that, why the hell would ANYONE acquire a player of his caliber, and then expose him in the hopes of him getting taken? That makes no sense whatsoever.)

Staal is not the worst player to be stuck with, but he is not a good one regardless. And that's what the Rangers are looking at for a good few more years.
 

DraberlyakMcHallkins*

Guest
Despite what their fans will say, teams I could see having an interest in Staal would be Buffalo, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Colorado.

These would be the teams I see either having a need at LHD, or just make stupid trades and value guys for their character more then their actual skill.

For whatever reason the Staal name still has value in the league, so he isn't untradeable. It's about finding the package that works for both teams.

Also you can reply to this and say "My team will never trade for him", but guess what, you don't run the team, so you have no idea

Chiarelli stressed the importance of righty-lefty pairs in Edmonton, and on average L-R versus L-L or R-R means about a 6% difference in terms of possession. If EDM's LD depth chart is Klefbom-Sekera-Davidson-Nurse-Reinhart and their RD depth chart is Larsson-Fayne. It's safe to asume they wouldn't trade for yet another LD that doesn't produce much offence, especially at 5.75M with the impending gargantuan contract McDavid'll have in 2 years time
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
24,327
21,248
Doubt you can do that when the NMC is already in effect.

I see no reason why not. When a player waives his NMC for a trade, it's up to the new team to decide whether or not to honor the NMC going forward. Most of the time, teams do, but they could choose not to given the implications with the expansion.
 

is the answer jesus

Registered User
Mar 10, 2008
6,627
3,160
Tonawanda, NY
I see no reason why not. When a player waives his NMC for a trade, it's up to the new team to decide whether or not to honor the NMC going forward. Most of the time, teams do, but they could choose not to given the implications with the expansion.

I don't think this is correct. The only time a NMC becomes voided is if the player is traded before their NMC has kicked in. So any team trading for Girardi and/or Staal would have to honor their NMC and would be forced to protect them in the coming expansion draft. So that makes it extremely unlikely they get moved between now and then.
 

StephenPeat

Registered User
Jul 19, 2015
4,654
1,617
I see no reason why not. When a player waives his NMC for a trade, it's up to the new team to decide whether or not to honor the NMC going forward. Most of the time, teams do, but they could choose not to given the implications with the expansion.

You know what I hear with all these conditions you're listing? More and more reasons to doubt that any GM is going to trade for him. The stars would absolutely have to align and even in that circumstance I'd guess you're going to have to add a good asset to Staal.

The OP cited realism, you're living in fantasy.
 

Weltschmerz

Front Running Fan
Apr 22, 2007
5,373
3,536
I see no reason why not. When a player waives his NMC for a trade, it's up to the new team to decide whether or not to honor the NMC going forward. Most of the time, teams do, but they could choose not to given the implications with the expansion.

Let's assume it could be not honored, why would the player waive it when it means he could be moved around for 5 years?
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
49,389
102,350
And the expansion draft isn't really problematic at all. A team trades for him, says "we aren't honoring your NMC" and then exposes him, should they so choose.

I see no reason why not. When a player waives his NMC for a trade, it's up to the new team to decide whether or not to honor the NMC going forward. Most of the time, teams do, but they could choose not to given the implications with the expansion.

As has been stated by others, the choice of a team to honor or not honor a players NMC / NTC is only if the player is traded BEFORE his clause takes effect. Here's the exact wording from the CBA:

If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

The CBA doesn't say anything about a team getting a choice if a player is traded after the clause is already in effect.
 

go4hockey

Registered User
Oct 14, 2007
6,216
2,469
Alta Loma CA
I don't care about their cap space. I'm just saying these are the teams I could see being interested.

And the expansion draft isn't really problematic at all. A team trades for him, says "we aren't honoring your NMC" and then exposes him, should they so choose.



I never said that these teams ARE interested in Staal, like its a fact. I said these are the teams I could see being interested. Too many times on this site people claim fact about their teams, like they know what's going on. So no, it's really not irrelevant

Good luck nobody will be taking either of your slower overpriced defenseman. Your stuck with them just like LA is stuck withs Browns contract. Deal with it they will both be NYR for their whole contracts or your team buys them out.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
49,389
102,350
I actually expect Staal to have a bit of a bounce back season this year. He's been injured a lot and that takes a lot out of offseason training, preparation, etc.. As you get older, being healthy and able to fully train in the offseason is so much more important.
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
24,327
21,248
You know what I hear with all these conditions you're listing? More and more reasons to doubt that any GM is going to trade for him. The stars would absolutely have to align and even in that circumstance I'd guess you're going to have to add a good asset to Staal.

The OP cited realism, you're living in fantasy.

I'm not saying any of these things are likely. I'm just talking about what is possible.
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
BOLDED: And yeah, it's not like you know any better than us, so that last sentence is irrelevant.

Problem is that very few people know the value of non-star players on other teams. If a middling player is offered on this forum, at first most don't know his value, but some inevitably say, "we don't want your crap." If offers continue, the rest of this forum pucks up on the idea that he's crap.

Even a star like Nash, the idea on this forum is that he's so worthless that even at $5 (with the Rangers retaining the else), he's so terrible that either the Rangers need to add a star prospect like Buchnevich for someone to take him or they need to take back a bad contract or both. Trades are something like Nash at 33% retained and Buch for a crappie third liner on a $5 salary, so the Rangers downgrade from Nash to a third liner, add a top prospect and pay the same in salary (between retention and the guy they acquire) ... and even then most people react with angry rejections. At some point, it gets crazy.

Staal has value. Even without anything retained. He is a good top 4 defenseman in his 20s. The salary he got is what teams generally pay for guys like him who hit the UFA. If the Rangers pick up even a million, he will bring back good value.

As you kick and scream that you don't want him, forget his name. Can you use a top 4 defenseman? If so, your team could be in on Staal. You may not want him specifically because his name got trashed and in your mind, he's a borderline NHLer on a $5.7 contract, but he's not. His name got trashed on this forum, but GMs don't go by this forum's opinion.

Forwards are sexier for fans, but teams are always in desperate need of defensemen. You don't sign someone you were going for, someone gets injured during the season, etc and you just blew a hole worth 20 minutes of ice time. Staal can defend against any superstar like a warrior. He used to be one of the best in the league defending, he's still very good at it. Certainly if you play him against second liners, he'll do a great job, but he'll be capable against first liners. All the teams that need that will take him, and pay a price for it.

Why should the Rangers trade him? Because they're on the way down, early in the rebuilding process that will take 6-10 years. No need to keep 29 year olds. That's why Brassard got traded. That's why most fans think Zuccarello, absolutely beloved by fans, should be traded. Klein is well liked, but people want him traded. There's a realization that if you're over 27, you probably won't be around for the Rangers up swing.
 

Johansen2Foligno

CBJ Realest
Jan 2, 2015
9,266
4,178
Despite what their fans will say, teams I could see having an interest in Staal would be Buffalo, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Colorado.

These would be the teams I see either having a need at LHD, or just make stupid trades and value guys for their character more then their actual skill.

For whatever reason the Staal name still has value in the league, so he isn't untradeable. It's about finding the package that works for both teams.

Also you can reply to this and say "My team will never trade for him", but guess what, you don't run the team, so you have no idea

I love this line because it can be used to justify any idea on here.
 

Djp

Registered User
Jul 28, 2012
24,688
6,039
Alexandria, VA
Despite what their fans will say, teams I could see having an interest in Staal would be Buffalo, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Colorado.

These would be the teams I see either having a need at LHD, or just make stupid trades and value guys for their character more then their actual skill.

For whatever reason the Staal name still has value in the league, so he isn't untradeable. It's about finding the package that works for both teams.

Also you can reply to this and say "My team will never trade for him", but guess what, you don't run the team, so you have no idea

I don't care about their cap space. I'm just saying these are the teams I could see being interested.

And the expansion draft isn't really problematic at all. A team trades for him, says "we aren't honoring your NMC" and then exposes him, should they so choose.



I never said that these teams ARE interested in Staal, like its a fact. I said these are the teams I could see being interested. Too many times on this site people claim fact about their teams, like they know what's going on. So no, it's really not irrelevant

You have no clue about buffaloand their cap situation

Reread my post above the first one


The issue is years 3-5 of staals contract buffalo will be tight for cap space.
 

mac

Registered User
Mar 19, 2002
227
19
Visit site
Rangers contracts in real money are not that bad.

Staal 5.1

Girardi 4.5

Lundquist 7.1

They were all front loaded.

Look around at the players who signed this summer.
 

aufheben

#Norris4Fox
Jan 31, 2013
53,866
27,721
New Jersey
Despite what their fans will say, teams I could see having an interest in Staal would be Buffalo, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Colorado.

These would be the teams I see either having a need at LHD, or just make stupid trades and value guys for their character more then their actual skill.

For whatever reason the Staal name still has value in the league, so he isn't untradeable. It's about finding the package that works for both teams.

Also you can reply to this and say "My team will never trade for him", but guess what, you don't run the team, so you have no idea
I think in the eyes of some GM's Marc Staal would still carry some value.

Benning pls respond
 

Maukkis

EZ4ENCE
Mar 16, 2016
10,721
7,597
Problem is that very few people know the value of non-star players on other teams. If a middling player is offered on this forum, at first most don't know his value, but some inevitably say, "we don't want your crap." If offers continue, the rest of this forum pucks up on the idea that he's crap.

Staal has value. Even without anything retained. He is a good top 4 defenseman in his 20s. The salary he got is what teams generally pay for guys like him who hit the UFA. If the Rangers pick up even a million, he will bring back good value.

As you kick and scream that you don't want him, forget his name. Can you use a top 4 defenseman? If so, your team could be in on Staal. You may not want him specifically because his name got trashed and in your mind, he's a borderline NHLer on a $5.7 contract, but he's not. His name got trashed on this forum, but GMs don't go by this forum's opinion.

Forwards are sexier for fans, but teams are always in desperate need of defensemen. You don't sign someone you were going for, someone gets injured during the season, etc and you just blew a hole worth 20 minutes of ice time. Staal can defend against any superstar like a warrior. He used to be one of the best in the league defending, he's still very good at it. Certainly if you play him against second liners, he'll do a great job, but he'll be capable against first liners. All the teams that need that will take him, and pay a price for it.

Why should the Rangers trade him? Because they're on the way down, early in the rebuilding process that will take 6-10 years. No need to keep 29 year olds. That's why Brassard got traded. That's why most fans think Zuccarello, absolutely beloved by fans, should be traded. Klein is well liked, but people want him traded. There's a realization that if you're over 27, you probably won't be around for the Rangers up swing.

You could literally read my post from the very beginning of this thread.

The fact is, while Staal might be a #4, he is well overpaid and has a NMC, one which can't be voided anymore. Combine that with the stagnant salary cap and the expansion draft, and more than half of the teams are suddenly not interested: they can't afford to add him, or they would lose something very significant in the expansion draft. Florida is a good example here: they could even send Bolland back to negate the cap coming with Staal, but when there's an expansion draft coming soon, they would lose Demers. There's no point in adding Staal, if you have to give up a better defenseman a year later for free.

The exact reason which you stated, which is the Rangers being on a downswing, is a valid reason to ship these highly paid players around the 30 year mark out, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every other team looks at those players in the same way. Most teams who are looking for a veteran defenseman have too little cap space, OR their need for flexibility down the road is too big to add someone for 4 (?) more years at almost six million per. You seem to not understand the importance of cap structuring, which is something that GMs have learned to do. That has made moving high AAV contracts tougher.

Here are some examples of trades involving a player being traded WITH a 6m+ contract in place:

Weber - Subban
Hall - Larsson
(E. Staal - 2x2nd, Saarela)
Phaneuf, 4 contracts - Michalek, Greening, Cowen, Lindberg, 2nd
Kessel, 2nd, 2 contracts - 1st, 3rd, Spaling, Harrington, Kapanen
Spezza, Karlsson - 2nd, Paul, Guptill, Chiasson

As you can see, the first one had a 1D going both ways, so it kind of doesn't fit here, but since the parameters are what they are, I included it here. Hall for Larsson doesn't also belong here, since both contracts are stupidly good with no clauses whatsoever. But the bottom four are wonderful examples.

Staal was retained from 8.25m by 50%, and even then, there was only one taker. Being a rental, moving him was easier, and the return was good for the Canes, but that just shows how contract clauses can make life harded for teams trying to trade their players. The Phaneuf deal sent a clear cut top 4 defenseman on an expensive long term deal to Ottawa, for... almost 9 million of dead cap, a pick and a prospect. Kessel had to be retained by a bit, and he got back some good pieces. But again, you'd think that a goalscorer of his caliber would fetch way more. He didn't. He had a NTC, which eventually left the Leafs with just one trading partner. Take it or leave it-situation, the Leafs chose to take an underwhelming return. And finally, Spezza had a 7 million AAV contract in place, and Ottawa got pretty meh pieces back.

Long story short, long, expensive contracts with clauses are very hard to move nowadays. There's no way around it, even if the player is good.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
85,840
86,566
Redmond, WA
The only value that Staal would have is due to his last name. GMs have made it habits to trade top assets for past their prime declining players, but that really doesn't support the idea that those players are good. Staal is less awful than Girardi is, but Staal is still awful. Whether a GM gets blinded by his last name is mostly irrelevant from whether he's a good player or not.

I really don't see any conceivable metric that makes me think Staal is a top-4 defenseman anymore, it's a pretty baseless claim at this point. Whether a GM would be interested in him or not (I doubt any GM would be interested in him) isn't relevant to that.
 

ATypicalCanadian

Registered User
Apr 30, 2015
4,896
2,703
Canada
Despite what their fans will say, teams I could see having an interest in Staal would be Buffalo, Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton, Colorado.

These would be the teams I see either having a need at LHD, or just make stupid trades and value guys for their character more then their actual skill.

For whatever reason the Staal name still has value in the league, so he isn't untradeable. It's about finding the package that works for both teams.

Also you can reply to this and say "My team will never trade for him", but guess what, you don't run the team, so you have no idea

We don't have the room on the left side and we already acquired Gudbranson to shore up the right side. I think I can be fairly confident. I could entirely eat my words though because I know who our GM is ...

Edler
Hutton
Tryamkin
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
My replies in bold

You could literally read my post from the very beginning of this thread. I did. It was not at all relevant to what I wrote.

The fact is, while Staal might be a #4 This is what I mean by fans don't know values of other teams' players, just base it on positive or negative hype. It's not true that he "might" be a #4. He's a #4 on his worst day of the season. He plays like a #1 on his best day. Realistically, he's a very solid #3.

he is well overpaid Compared to RFAs yes, compared to UFAs, no. The idea that he's overpaid is based on the idea that he "might" be a #4 if all things line up perfectly. In reality, he's better than almost every team's #4 and players like him get roughly the same salary on the UFA market

Combine that with the stagnant salary cap The cap was stagnant because the Canadian Dollar dropped. The league is getting more popular and even the mere stabilization of the Canadian dollar will cause the cap to go up. Expansion will help as well.

the expansion draft That's the one legitimate concern, but considering that half the teams have maybe 2 defensemen superior to him, they probably wouldn't expose him.

and more than half of the teams are suddenly not interested Strictly your opinion based on the negative hype on this forum, which you know is true based on your statement that he "might" be a #4

they can't afford to add him Presumably, they send someone back to the Rangers, so if it's a third pair guy on a $2.2 contract, it's only $3.5 to add, which a lot of teams can do. Any team that adds a top-4 defenseman will add this money. Keep in mind that players get injured and defensemen generally get paid more (since there's half of them and they get more ice time), so as soon as someone suffers an injury, that opens up a whole lot of cap space to acquire a guy. As GMs never tire of pointing out, there's always a run on defensemen because there's only half as many of them as forwards.


or they would lose something very significant in the expansion draft. That's eaggerated because fans overestimate the value of their role players. It's like every year fans freak out over losing a guy in the waiver draft - a player that no other team has heard of, a player no different than what everyone else exposes in the waiver draft, a player nobody will pick up. In the expansion draft, it's a somewhat higher class of players, but still probably nobody as good as Staal. What team is looking to expose a legit #3 defenseman?

The exact reason which you stated, which is the Rangers being on a downswing, is a valid reason to ship these highly paid players around the 30 year mark out, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every other team looks at those players in the same way.

This is ridiculous. Teams need vets to win. Fans imagine that rookies will suddenly come in and magically become stars as rookies, but coaches know that vets are more reliable on the ice and emotionally, and know what it takes to win in the playoffs. All fans prefer rookies, but all coaches prefer vets. The only reason to acquire young guys is if you do not expect to contend in the next few years.

All teams trying to win the Cup ship away young guys for vets, particularly those who are still in their 20s like Staal, Zuccarello and Brassard.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad