Value of: REALISTIC landing spots for Marc Staal

[gump116]

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.

Have a lot of thoughts about this trade. There's something here around these two teams trading essentially crap for crap, although think this is a bit worse for the Rangers. Even if it's not much, Nash still has positive value at full salary with only 2 years left on his deal. Also, Gorges also has 2 years left on his deal, not 1. In order of trade value (positive to negative, with most players being negative), it's probably something like:

Nash
Gorges
Glass (only because there's only 1 year left on his deal)
Kane
Staal
Moulson

Maybe just Staal and Nash for Kane and Gorges.

 

[nexusrage21]

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:



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

I may be looking at this wrong, but if a player is traded while they have a no-movement clause haven't they already waived said clause?

Do they get it back after?

 

[Maukkis]

My replies in bold

Then what is the problem? You might as well keep your #3 defenseman if there's nothing wrong with him. And by the way, if Staal is your 3D, McDonagh's a 1D, Klein is a 3 or 4, why do most sources claim that it's the weak defense which keeps the Rangers from contending? You'd think that they have everything it takes, aside from a 2D. Forwards are good, goalie is even better, so what's the problem?

 

[I am I]

I may be looking at this wrong, but if a player is traded while they have a no-movement clause haven't they already waived said clause?

Do they get it back after?

Pretty sure the technical mechanism is that the player chooses to not enforce the NMC for that trade. They don't lose it or waive it.

The CBA clearly spells out (section 11.8) that if a player is traded before the NMC comes into force then the acquiring team has the option to honour it or not. There is nothing specifying if a player allowed a trade while the NMC is in force, so since the CBA doesn't cancel it it is still valid.

 

[bossram]

Staal at this point can really only play on a 3rd pairing. And may decline as he ages. I can't see any teams wanting that kind of contract to play on their 3rd pair.

NYR best bet is to just call dumb GMs and hope they get lucky. But there isn't a team who has a "need" for him out there.

 

[Human]

New Jersey will NEVER help out the Rags with their cap problems. That should have been the reason for Jersey

Let's say theoretically NYR includes two firsts to take one of Staal/Girardi... Yeah, that's what I thought...

 

[tsujimoto74]

I've floated the idea on the Rangers board of Staal for E Kane, assuming Buffalo wants to get rid of him. I'd be willing to throw in Ottawa's 2018 2nd round pick that we got in the Brassard deal.

For the Rangers it would be a no brainer IMO. Even if Kane bombs, we can trade him or buy him out next summer at minimal cap cost.

For Buffalo, it depends on how willing they are to move on from Kane. Staal is paid more than you would like for a 2nd pair dman, but Buffalo could use him. Kulikov and Franson are both UFAs after this year. Gorges will be UFA in 2 years. Though if they trade for Staal, who sits? Franson probably. Or maybe he's part of the deal. Kane + Franson for Staal + 2nd + B prospect.

I'm sure Buffalo fans will hate the idea, but you never know. Who would have thought the devils would get Hall for Larsson straight up?

Even if Buffalo wants to get rid of Kane, that's still an absolutely horrendous deal for them. 1) Kane is a better player than Staal at this point; and 2) Staal's contract is an albatross.

The only way you might be able to offload Staal on the Sabres is by taking back Moulson.

 

[Seventy7]

Staal + for Edler

 

[Blitzago*]

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.

This is plain wrong, you should really understand the rule before saying stuff.

The new team has to honour it, the only time they don't have to is if the player is traded before the NMC is active, for example the subban trade

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

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:



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

From what I've read, This isn't true entirely, if the player agrees to waive his clause, the team aquiring said player can choose to not have the clause "travel" with him to the new team. If that's the case, and the team doesn't sign off on it, the clause can be voided

 

[go4hockey]

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.

The huge problem with the first two players listed is cap hit, term and they are both on the down side of their careers. These kind of contracts are tough to move in the cap world.

 

[Skobel24]

The NTC's make dealing them damn near impossible with the expansion coming up. Rangers are going to be in a very difficult situation soon.

 

[bernmeister]

I want to thank everyone who replied, this has been an extremely constructive thread, feel free to keep it coming.

Summary:
I am fully aware NYR will have to add to get the contract moved. I want an idea of how much, which we are getting, but more constructively, who would either
a) have any use for him as LD, recognizing some of this is likely on AV as I postulated and again, he will never be what he was, but if NY eats half price on his deal to 3.75, at that point he may get takers
AND
b) regardless of whether or not there is actual use for him as a player, is someone willing to take him based on goodies also going along. Recent example is Chicago moved TT to unload Bickell.

coupla thoughts in response:

Didnt he just sign that contract last year, got a NMC and publicly said that he was planning to stay a long time in NY, buy a house, raise a family, etc? You know what that means OP? That means that he's NOT waiving and Rangers fans have to stop with the Marc Staal proposals that are all over the place. You guys need to start to face reality here and include him in your plans for the next 5 years. Build around him, he's not going anywhere.

You wanted realistic, that's realistic.

That is realistic, thank you.
We can buy out his fancy CT digs.
The future is Skjei and Graves, assuming McDonagh is moved, which may/may not be the case.
He can stay, but his ass will sit.
Therefore, IF there is a place he may be comfortable, which has to likewise be good with taking him, that is the play and the exercise here.

Immediately count out these teams (due to expansion and/or cap space):

PIT, LA, MTL, SJS, CHI, WSH, NYI, FLA, CBJ, STL, MIN, COL, TBL, CAL, OTT, WIN, ANA, EDM, NSH, VAN.

You're left with TOR, DET, PHI, BOS, DAL, BUF, NJ, ARI, CAR.

Then count out teams who need cap flexibility long term, which they would lose by acquiring Staal:

PHI, BOS, BUF, DAL, DET.

You're left with TOR, NJ, ARI, CAR.

Then, count out those teams who just simply don't have any kind of need for Staal:

ARI, CAR.

You're left with Toronto and New Jersey.

Now, count out teams who have just cleaned their house from overpaid contracts and guaranteedly don't want to take one back:

TOR.

You're left with New Jersey.

Now count out the team who is a young, up-and-coming team and doesn't need Staal because of that:

NJ.

You'll keep him.

This was brilliant and thorough and I generally agree, though I could see Buf and Det and Winni as maybe spots, if there was a package with enough upside to make it worth taking on that NMC.

someone will take staal if you add a 1st round pick to him.

I'm guessing that is the minimum.

Buffalo has no incentive to take on Girardi. Taking him on makes little sense for the Sabres, and while they may be looking to rid themselves of Kane, they won't take on an anchor like that it would pretty much punch McCabe's ticket out of town and stick them with a terrible player on a terrible contract. I think the Rangers will have a very difficult time moving either one of Staal and Girardi given their cap hit, contract length, and most importantly with the NMC they have.

I get you but don't fully agree.
First, we do agree that the ONLY reason Sabes go there is if it is decided Kane is personna non grata.
Then, it becomes a question of how much does NY add, besides doing half on Staal, to move his NMC which immediately is too prohibitive to buy out, but in a couple of years, not so much.

Plus, I think if NY is eating half for the full duration, at some point Buf could eat a little more to move him if absol. nec

losing power, later... lights back on,lol

No worries. Buffalo has no interest in Kane for Staal, and they don't have interest in Girardi for Kane either, so you're going to have to find another team to move him to.

Neither of those trades make Buffalo a better team than they are with Kane. Both of those trades would make them worse. Tim Murray is not looking to just dump Kane anyway. People don't seem to understand that Murray just gave up,a ton of assets for Kane barely over 1 season ago. Dumping him for spare parts would be a good way to put his job in jeopardy. That would be terrible asset management and Tim Murray is smarter than that. He is absolutely Not a GM who acts on emotion or makes rash decisions. The Only way Kane gets traded is if it makes the Sabres better with the return. Neither Staal or Girardi do that.

People act like Kane is going around punching babies or something. He has a trespassing charge and it will likely be dropped since the bar owner has already said Kane was not trespassing. The other charges are non criminal.

Tim Murray is not looking to just dump Kane anyway. People don't seem to understand that Murray just gave up,a ton of assets for Kane barely over 1 season ago. Dumping him for spare parts would be a good way to put his job in jeopardy. That would be terrible asset management and Tim Murray is smarter than that. He is absolutely Not a GM who acts on emotion or makes rash decisions.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
they are sticking w/Kane for better or worse, I agree with you.
If it appears there is too much worse, and he is a ticking bomb waiting to happen, then the thinking may well shift to recovering some of that by trade. But no one wants a problem child --- unless they can move a problem headache.

The Only way Kane gets traded is if it makes the Sabres better with the return. Neither Staal or Girardi do that.

That would depend on how many assets I am giving you.
Also, I believe Girardi is only 4 years as opposed to Staal's 5 with complete NMC, I think, whereas according to General Fanager:

NMC for whole duration of contract, modified NTC for 2017-2019 (player provides list of 15 teams to which he cannot be traded)
Source:
General Fanager

This means after next year he could conceivably be dealt.
Unfortunately for Rangers, it appears this is just right after the expansion draft, and all of this is to save a slot for expansion. We can't buy him out now, because the savings aren't there, with 8 years of hit on buy out. However, after a year + that changes dramatically.

Then in the case of Girardi, who is a very strong guy, but has taken on a lot of damage, there is always a chance that if he is played too much and breaks down at this point you could LTIR the guy.

Personally, I'd like to kick the guy upstairs, to the TV booth or something, for a half mil more than he makes, and be done with it. But fall back options are necessary.

It won't be Buffalo for both expansion draft and future cap reasons. They are 2 years from handing out the Eichel and Reinhart contracts. They aren't sinking all that money in with 5 years left. Zero chance.

Girardi is 4 years not 5.
As noted, he CAN be moved, the NMC morphs down into NTC.
Totally do-able if we can agree on a price.

....

Buffalo has no interest in Girardi or Staal....

The problem is their contract term suck. If Stasl had just 2 yrs left there might be some interest. He has 5. Years 3-5 buffalo needs their cap space...not dead weight. You n 2 yrs buffalo has to resign Eichel and Reinhart and their other young kids in years 3-5.

Pls note above comment.
Staal not an ideal fit.
Girardi can fit immediately and be moved if nec.

As the other poster said...there are only a few teams who could even afford him. One is Las Vegas.

This is a thought.
But can I strike a deal with them that they MUST use their pick on Staal? Or better yet do I want to make it they take Staal before and MUST draft like Tanner Glass in exchange for x? [presumably a ranger 2018 1st or similar]

THAT is one piece of leverage NY does have w/Marc.
If there is completely no choice, and he is not amenable to a move to any other team, we will have no choice but to seriously consider playing this card.

If you take on Evander Kane consider it done.

Realize you are a partial voice, which is apparently divided, but 100%, the core of the deal must be problem contract (Girardi) for problem child Kane.
While the pickings for Staal are slim (save the LV play which looks like the best move) I could see Girardi who is from near Buf to go home pushing him to make it work.

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.

I am not close minded to something that sends you Nash at the right price, and takes some of your crap.

The idea here for NY is not necessarily to have crap that stinks less, but to grab the bull by the horns and not have the NMC screw us in the expansion draft.

As noted, will listen with open mind but now seeing Girardi the better fit for both clubs and allows better chance for NY to move both.

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.

I am not the expert here but that may be the case.
There could be two separate interpretations, one about if the NMC is somehow turned off, and if so for how temporarily is that the case, if a player agrees to waive; and the other interpretation as to the expansion draft, which it appears is the case they MUST be protected.

Even if Buffalo wants to get rid of Kane, that's still an absolutely horrendous deal for them. 1) Kane is a better player than Staal at this point; and 2) Staal's contract is an albatross.

The only way you might be able to offload Staal on the Sabres is by taking back Moulson.

according to Fanager, Moulson is a limited or modified NTC, not an NMC.
This means he can not block a move to a team that will take him if enough payment accompanies.
Rangers are already taking EKane, and want the Girardi in exchange matchup there, but
I could see how Rangers could OTHERWISE do a double deal and pay Sabes to swap similar Staal numbers for Moulson, same 5 year term; EXCEPT that I am expecting maybe 1 NMC add in Girardi is max Buf can handle, given how many Ds they have to protect in the expansion draft.

 

[StephenPeat]

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.

As a Caps fan, I've got an Orpik to sell you.

Good luck, for DMen, age hits and hits hard. Does Staal have value? Sure, but for 5 more years when he already appears to be in a steep decline, I'm sorry I don't see anyone taking that contract. If there were two years left, sure, someone would give him and his contract an audition, as it is, I find it highly doubtful. You would think a team like Edmonton might like a solid second pairing guy, ask their fans if they want to take Staal for 5 years and what they'll give for him.....I think they've already chimed in on this thread (and certainly in others). Even GMs understand how much it means to NYR to move these guys, that means you need to be open to the likelihood of significant salary retention and a poor return.

Look what Wsh paid to get rid of Laich (and you cant say "well none of us are GMs, that's a tangible, recent trade) and that was less salary and for basically only 1 year. Laich was also still a useful player but his role was diminished by advanced age and diminishing play (sound familiar).

 

[StephenPeat]

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.

With the recent Salary Cap dynamic this is only relevant to 5 or fewer teams (who operate on a tight internal budget) and there's not really much difference between the Cap hits and real dollars for most of those players.

 

[MessierII]

With the expansion draft coming up and his NMC and contract i just don't see him as moveable right now.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

If the Rangers eat 1.5 or 2 million on Staal I would offer Jonathan Ericsson and a mid-round pick...

 

[StephenPeat]

If the Rangers eat 1.5 or 2 million on Staal I would offer Jonathan Ericsson and a mid-round pick...

If Det management see Staal as an upgrade, this is the kind of trade I could actually see happening. But if Det thinks Staal is better than Ericsson, why would NYR do this?

 

[Maukkis]

I want to thank everyone who replied, this has been an extremely constructive thread, feel free to keep it coming.

Summary:
I am fully aware NYR will have to add to get the contract moved. I want an idea of how much, which we are getting, but more constructively, who would either
a) have any use for him as LD, recognizing some of this is likely on AV as I postulated and again, he will never be what he was, but if NY eats half price on his deal to 3.75, at that point he may get takers
AND
b) regardless of whether or not there is actual use for him as a player, is someone willing to take him based on goodies also going along. Recent example is Chicago moved TT to unload Bickell.

coupla thoughts in response:



That is realistic, thank you.
We can buy out his fancy CT digs.
The future is Skjei and Graves, assuming McDonagh is moved, which may/may not be the case.
He can stay, but his ass will sit.
Therefore, IF there is a place he may be comfortable, which has to likewise be good with taking him, that is the play and the exercise here.




This was brilliant and thorough and I generally agree, though I could see Buf and Det and Winni as maybe spots

Detroit is a maybe, I'll give you that one. You might need to take Ericsson back though. Winnipeg is a surefire no, we already have to protect four defensemen, so adding Staal is a no under any circumstances. Buffalo could use him, I think, but they need the cap flexibility when Eichel and Reinhart need their new deals in two years. And before Moulson gets suggested, I think it's easier for Buffalo to just buy his last year out. Also, they have a bit of an expansion problem with McCabe. But you never know what Murray has in his mind.

 

[Beacon]

Then what is the problem? You might as well keep your #3 defenseman if there's nothing wrong with him.

As I explained, and so did many others, the Rangers won't contend for a minimum of half a dozen years so anyone in their late 20s needs to go. What is wrong with Brassard, who's the same age as Staal? Why not even try to sign Yandle, also the same age? Zuccarello is a fan favorite, second behind Lundqvist, the whole Garden is always full of Zuccarello jerseys, yet people want him traded because he's the same age as Staal. It makes no sense to keep 29 year olds when your team is only beginning the rebuilding process.

And by the way, if Staal is your 3D, McDonagh's a 1D, Klein is a 3 or 4, why do most sources claim that it's the weak defense which keeps the Rangers from contending? You'd think that they have everything it takes, aside from a 2D. Forwards are good, goalie is even better, so what's the problem?

1. #2D is a huge hole. That's a 28 minute player who goes up against all the top opposition lines. How's that not a problem?

2. Klein is really not a 3/4, he's more of a 4/5 defenseman, closer to a #5 on a contender.

3. There right side is not good: Girardi shouldn't be a first pair RD, Klein can barely be a first pair RD and McIlrath is essentially a rookie, so he's unproven.

4. The left side just blew a hole losing Yandle. Skjei is a rookie who has looked good in his cups of coffee trips to New York, but not at all proven what he can do over a full season.

So the problems are: first pair RD, second pair RD, the whole third pair.

 

[Beacon]

If the Rangers eat 1.5 or 2 million on Staal I would offer Jonathan Ericsson and a mid-round pick...

So the Rangers will pay more money (between retention and Ericsson's salary) to have a defenseman who's older and significantly worse. Makes sense.

 

[Chainshot]

The expansion issue makes him undesirable for Buffalo. If the Rangers are still looking to unload him next summer and eat some salary, call back. Until then, nope.

 

[Maukkis]

As I explained, and so did many others, the Rangers won't contend for a minimum of half a dozen years so anyone in their late 20s needs to go. What is wrong with Brassard, who's the same age as Staal? Why not even try to sign Yandle, also the same age? Zuccarello is a fan favorite, second behind Lundqvist, the whole Garden is always full of Zuccarello jerseys, yet people want him traded because he's the same age as Staal. It makes no sense to keep 29 year olds when your team is only beginning the rebuilding process.

And by the way, if Staal is your 3D, McDonagh's a 1D, Klein is a 3 or 4, why do most sources claim that it's the weak defense which keeps the Rangers from contending? You'd think that they have everything it takes, aside from a 2D. Forwards are good, goalie is even better, so what's the problem?

1. #2D is a huge hole. That's a 28 minute player who goes up against all the top opposition lines. How's that not a problem?

2. Klein is really not a 3/4, he's more of a 4/5 defenseman, closer to a #5 on a contender.

3. There right side is not good: Girardi shouldn't be a first pair RD, Klein can barely be a first pair RD and McIlrath is essentially a rookie, so he's unproven.

4. The left side just blew a hole losing Yandle. Skjei is a rookie who has looked good in his cups of coffee trips to New York, but not at all proven what he can do over a full season.

So the problems are: first pair RD, second pair RD, the whole third pair.

You'd think that Klein, who played 20+ minutes a night and produced well doing so would be a top 4 guy. But I guess he isn't then. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you, but don't have high expectations about Staal leaving anytime soon.

 

[bernmeister]

Please keep it coming and thank you.
Applause all around, this was very constructive.

At this point, I see MAYBE Girardi reduced with sweeteners to Buf for EKane.
and
it looks like Staal to LV may be the best option.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

Have a lot of thoughts about this trade. There's something here around these two teams trading essentially crap for crap, although think this is a bit worse for the Rangers. Even if it's not much, Nash still has positive value at full salary with only 2 years left on his deal. Also, Gorges also has 2 years left on his deal, not 1. In order of trade value (positive to negative, with most players being negative), it's probably something like:

Nash
Gorges
Glass (only because there's only 1 year left on his deal)
Kane
Staal
Moulson

Maybe just Staal and Nash for Kane and Gorges.

I guess its all how you value Kane. As a player, He would be near Nash, not under Glass. Buffalo wouldn't trade him with a big discount. If that's the case, Buffalo just keeps him and moves on