Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Roster Building Thread Part IV: High Hopes

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
not interested in tavares what so ever.

numbers show that 27 is the age that guys begin to regress production wise. peak production years are 23-27.

2nd contracts are dangerous. and this contract he's looking for will be a monster. not interested in those numbers for a guy who turns 27 in 60 days. 10 mil per and then the term which is prob 8 yrs is too rich for me.

pass.
 
Leetch3 said:
there is nothing to tweet about. they aren't even thinking about doing it
Click to expand...

eh?

BBKers said he has heard they are discussing it, and Brooks didn't just magically come up with the idea himself.

They are at the very least preliminary discussions about doing it

I don't think they will, for the record
 
NickyFotiu said:
Yes I did read this board. I did not realize that some fans on a hockey fan board hoping Stamkos would come here=Stamkos was supposed to be a Ranger in reality. I also read it in September when I believe you said more than once that Zooks would be traded after the World Cup finished.
Click to expand...

That was a joke. The Rangers traded Brassard for Zibanejad and another move was coming because the Rangers had the extra cap space. No way Gorton wasn't using the extra money right there and now. The Rangers signed Zinanejad last Tuesday and all of these moves were supposed to take place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mikos87 said:
The Tavares talk is grossly unrealistic.

If there is a guy that's a no 1 center that may be attainable in a year, it's Tyler Seguin.

That may happen if DAL doesn't make the playoffs again, and are faced with giving him a $9M+ extension.

Tyler isn't the type of guy that traditional hockey guys would give a huge pay day to. DAL may move on since they'll need to fill out their line up with depth.
Click to expand...


Seguin will get 11m per. Easily.
 
Oscar Lindberg said:
eh?

BBKers said he has heard they are discussing it, and Brooks didn't just magically come up with the idea himself.

They are at the very least preliminary discussions about doing it

I don't think they will, for the record
Click to expand...

yeah definitely not possible that brooks would vaguely throw out the idea to get clicks
 
RangerBoy said:
Delay the start of the buyout by one season. If you look at the numbers,Gorton doesn't want four big buyout years on the cap.
Click to expand...

Great. We get three 'big buyout' years on the cap instead, plus an extra season of Staal not only on the ice negatively impacting the game, but also with a $5.7m cap hit.

Savvy maneuvering for sure.

EDIT - Both situations are less than ideal. But let's see the mood of the board when Staal is logging 20 minutes a night and Skjei is getting 16, and DeAngelo is in the pressbox or the AHL.
 
Last edited:
silverfish said:
Great. We get three 'big buyout' years on the cap instead, plus an extra season of Staal not only on the ice negatively impacting the game, but also with a $5.7m cap hit.

Savvy maneuvering for sure.

EDIT - Both situations are less than ideal. But let's see the mood of the board when Staal is logging 20 minutes a night and Skjei is getting 16, and DeAngelo is in the pressbox or the AHL.
Click to expand...

We don't need the cap space right now. We might in 3 or 4 years...may as well do what we can to minimize the impact.

Staal can always be scratched or buried or whatever else. If you give him 3rd pairing minutes, he can still reclaim a career as a good #5. You have to trust Gorton will make that call as necessary, though I know I don't always, personally-speaking. Especially not AV.

Best case scenario is Staal plays well and we can sucker another team into taking the contract. Worst-case scenario we buy him out next summer and save ourselves an extra year of dead cap.

It's not ideal, no, but there's really no need to explain there's a lot of moving parts to every hockey deal, and no one wants to get suckered.


EDIT -- As for your edit, I agree. We'll be unhappy either way, but there's no use in stressing or getting angry about something we have zero control over. It is what it is.

One of the nice things about sports is the illusion we have some measure of control over the outcome of these games, but we really just buy into a kind of collective consciousness we think we have a bit more control over.

Personally, I watch hockey because it's something I can put time into that really has very little real-world consequence (barring injuries, of course, which no one wants). I work my tail off each day, and it's good to 'let go' for a bit and get lost in the world. Some people binge 8 hours of Netflix. I follow hockey.
 
silverfish said:
Great. We get three 'big buyout' years on the cap instead, plus an extra season of Staal not only on the ice negatively impacting the game, but also with a $5.7m cap hit.

Savvy maneuvering for sure.
Click to expand...

The team doesn't need the cap savings this season. There isn't anywhere to spend the money right now. You want to buy him out because you don't want to watch him anymore. That's not how this works.

What would you do with the money THIS SEASON if the Rangers bought him out now?


Let's compare:

Staal bought out this year:
$2.133m - Year 1
$2.133m - Year 2
$3.133m - Year 3
$3.933m - Year 4
$1.433m - Year 5
$1.433m - Year 6
$1.433m - Year 7
$1.433m - Year 8
- All dead cap space, so you also need to replace him this year


Staal Bought out next year:
$5.7m - Year 1
$2.055m - Year 2
$3.055m - Year 3
$3.855m - Year 4
$1.355m - Year 5
$1.355m - Year 6
$1.355m - Year 7
- This also allows for Staal to come back and potentially play well and allow the Rangers to trade him with $$ retained. Or in a cap swap deal (ala Ottawa with Phaneuf).
- This also creates the possibility (and I am by no means hoping for this to occur) that he decides he can't play anymore due to the head injuries and goes on LTIR after this season

It's the smart financial decision
 
NYR Viper said:
The team doesn't need the cap savings this season. There isn't anywhere to spend the money right now. You want to buy him out because you don't want to watch him anymore. That's not how this works.

What would you do with the money THIS SEASON if the Rangers bought him out now?


Let's compare:

Staal bought out this year:
$2.133m - Year 1
$2.133m - Year 2
$3.133m - Year 3
$3.933m - Year 4
$1.433m - Year 5
$1.433m - Year 6
$1.433m - Year 7
$1.433m - Year 8
- All dead cap space, so you also need to replace him this year


Staal Bought out next year:
$5.7m - Year 1
$2.055m - Year 2
$3.055m - Year 3
$3.855m - Year 4
$1.355m - Year 5
$1.355m - Year 6
$1.355m - Year 7
- This also allows for Staal to come back and potentially play well and allow the Rangers to trade him with $$ retained. Or in a cap swap deal (ala Ottawa with Phaneuf).
- This also creates the possibility (and I am by no means hoping for this to occur) that he decides he can't play anymore due to the head injuries and goes on LTIR after this season

It's the smart financial decision
Click to expand...

We differ ideologically. You paint the entire buyout above in your post as 'dead cap space'. It's not a fair picture. You also need to show the cap savings in the years where Staal would've been on the team.

Further, I believe, foundationally, that Marc Staal is one of the most untradeable players in the NHL. I believe this because there is no 'bounce back' for Staal. He's bad. He's been bad. He's not at an age where players get better. His contract is a complete albatross. He has a full NMC.

How are we trading him? Who are we trading him to?

This also doesn't take into account the $ we'd need to retain in a deal, and the asset we'd need to trade with Staal in a deal, in this hypothetical world where there is a GM stupid enough to trade for Staal.

I'd buy him out this year, and use the cap space on Jagr, and go into the season with extra money for a deadline acquisition if the Rangers are in a position to make such a deal.

I'd buy him out this season to make sure we get the most out of our defense, because whoever is paired with Staal is going to be worse for it this season. The on-ice impacts are absurd. You have Staal on the ice, and you're wasting four other skaters every time he's out there.

Go look at the Bickell deal. This was before the (truly terrible) MS diagnosis. He had one year left on his deal and a modified NTC. The Blackhawks STILL needed to add Teravainen to him with ONE YEAR remaining.

I ask again what we're trading Staal for next off-season? With three years left on his $5.7m AAV contract and a full NMC?
 
I think too many assumptions are made about Staal especially regarding playing time. I think our coaches need to see how DeAngelo, Pionk, and Bear play and then we can all make more logical decisions at that point. I think our top 4 dmen will play top 4 minutes. If Marc plays he should be on a bottom pairing or as a 7th dmen. That is baring injury and with the hope that Brady/Smith play near the top of their games. I personally would have been okay with a Staal buyout. I look at buyouts as 1/3 cap savings not 2/3 dead space since that is a already sunk cost in my mind. If management feels there is a better plan I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
The reality of Staal being tradeable needs to go away, he is not, if he was he'd already be off them team don't you think? Waiting a year makes no sense, the saving allow the team to carry 7 dmen, McDonagh, Shatty, Skjei, Smith, DeAngelo, Bergz, and Holden. They can then move Holden near the trade deadline for more then he'd be worth moving now. He's also insurance in case of injuries or if younger players can't handle the minutes. What happens next year if Staal is injured during the buyout window? Now you're looking at possibility of losing a young core player because of cap space. It's too risky not buying out Staal when we could.
 
silverfish said:
We differ ideologically. You paint the entire buyout above in your post as 'dead cap space'. It's not a fair picture. You also need to show the cap savings in the years where Staal would've been on the team.

Further, I believe, foundationally, that Marc Staal is one of the most untradeable players in the NHL. I believe this because there is no 'bounce back' for Staal. He's bad. He's been bad. He's not at an age where players get better. His contract is a complete albatross. He has a full NMC.

How are we trading him? Who are we trading him to?

This also doesn't take into account the $ we'd need to retain in a deal, and the asset we'd need to trade with Staal in a deal, in this hypothetical world where there is a GM stupid enough to trade for Staal.

I'd buy him out this year, and use the cap space on Jagr, and go into the season with extra money for a deadline acquisition if the Rangers are in a position to make such a deal.

I'd buy him out this season to make sure we get the most out of our defense, because whoever is paired with Staal is going to be worse for it this season. The on-ice impacts are absurd. You have Staal on the ice, and you're wasting four other skaters every time he's out there.

Go look at the Bickell deal. This was before the (truly terrible) MS diagnosis. He had one year left on his deal and a modified NTC. The Blackhawks STILL needed to add Teravainen to him with ONE YEAR remaining.

I ask again what we're trading Staal for next off-season? With three years left on his $5.7m AAV contract and a full NMC?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is likely to trade Staal. What I am saying is that even if there is a 1% chance, that is a higher chance (obviously) than if Gorton buys him out this year.

There is a large cap savings, but that savings isn't needed this year. If the Rangers needed the space right now to sign Miller or Hayes it's a no brainer. Next year it will come to that. Let him play or sit him for this season. If he is seriously considering LTIR (which he very well may be) then that is also an option.
 
NYR Viper said:
I'm not saying it is likely to trade Staal. What I am saying is that even if there is a 1% chance, that is a higher chance (obviously) than if Gorton buys him out this year.

There is a large cap savings, but that savings isn't needed this year. If the Rangers needed the space right now to sign Miller or Hayes it's a no brainer. Next year it will come to that. Let him play or sit him for this season. If he is seriously considering LTIR (which he very well may be) then that is also an option.
Click to expand...

I think we're just looking at the big-picture from two different sides. The way I see it, we're making the team worse this season by keeping Staal. On the books, and on the ice. If the plan is to buy him out next year, I'd just buy him out now. As I maintain there is no possible point where Staal can be traded. Maybe before the last year of his deal if the Rangers retain 50% and add an asset. I suspect/hope Staal will be bought out before then, though.

I have limited trust in AV to do the right thing here, meaning either benching Staal, or making sure Skjei gets more minutes. There's also nothing to suggest that Staal is considering LTIR time. The Rangers would have to prove that he's too injured to play, and how are they going to do that for a guy who played 84 total games last year with an avg ice time > 19 minutes, and finished the season healthy? He'd need to take another bump, and as you've said, nobody is hoping that happens.

We also have no tangible evidence to suggest that the FO/coaching staff view Staal as much as a detriment as the fans do. Outside of two games in last year's playoffs, home games where AV could dictate matchups, Staal-Holden was a more prominent pairing than Skjei-Smith. How much changed this off-season in AV's head to flip that? What do we have to suggest that Skjei-Smith is this team's legitimate 2nd pairing right now? None. Yet. But we know AV. And we know NHL coaching mentality. They always lean to the veteran.
 
it all comes down to...do you trust AV to use Staal properly..IE, as your 7th defenseman.

I do not. Because AV has repeatedly..year in, and year out, shown a complete and utter inability to properly allocate ice time among the defenseman.
 
silverfish said:
I think we're just looking at the big-picture from two different sides. The way I see it, we're making the team worse this season by keeping Staal. On the books, and on the ice. If the plan is to buy him out next year, I'd just buy him out now. As I maintain there is no possible point where Staal can be traded. Maybe before the last year of his deal if the Rangers retain 50% and add an asset. I suspect/hope Staal will be bought out before then, though.

I have limited trust in AV to do the right thing here, meaning either benching Staal, or making sure Skjei gets more minutes. There's also nothing to suggest that Staal is considering LTIR time. The Rangers would have to prove that he's too injured to play, and how are they going to do that for a guy who played 84 total games last year with an avg ice time > 19 minutes, and finished the season healthy? He'd need to take another bump, and as you've said, nobody is hoping that happens.

We also have no tangible evidence to suggest that the FO/coaching staff view Staal as much as a detriment as the fans do. Outside of two games in last year's playoffs, home games where AV could dictate matchups, Staal-Holden was a more prominent pairing than Skjei-Smith. How much changed this off-season in AV's head to flip that? What do we have to suggest that Skjei-Smith is this team's legitimate 2nd pairing right now? None. Yet. But we know AV. And we know NHL coaching mentality. They always lean to the veteran.
Click to expand...
maybe we can make Staal allergic to his equipment? Anyone got some itching powder on them?
 
NYR Viper said:
The team doesn't need the cap savings this season. There isn't anywhere to spend the money right now. You want to buy him out because you don't want to watch him anymore. That's not how this works.

What would you do with the money THIS SEASON if the Rangers bought him out now?


Let's compare:

Staal bought out this year:
$2.133m - Year 1
$2.133m - Year 2
$3.133m - Year 3
$3.933m - Year 4
$1.433m - Year 5
$1.433m - Year 6
$1.433m - Year 7
$1.433m - Year 8
- All dead cap space, so you also need to replace him this year


Staal Bought out next year:
$5.7m - Year 1
$2.055m - Year 2
$3.055m - Year 3
$3.855m - Year 4
$1.355m - Year 5
$1.355m - Year 6
$1.355m - Year 7
- This also allows for Staal to come back and potentially play well and allow the Rangers to trade him with $$ retained. Or in a cap swap deal (ala Ottawa with Phaneuf).
- This also creates the possibility (and I am by no means hoping for this to occur) that he decides he can't play anymore due to the head injuries and goes on LTIR after this season

It's the smart financial decision
Click to expand...

I'm going to post this again....

30SeWEO.png


I'm not against keeping Staal this year but his minutes need to be drastically reduced. Buying him out this year would have been ideal because the net cap gain percentages are only slightly lower in the next couple years, but those years happen to be Hank's twilight years, which is where we could have used the cap space on a guy like Duchene....

What's most likely happened is that Gorton tried to make some trades for another centerman, trades that would require us to take on cap space. If there was something available I have no doubt that Staal would have been bought out--I actually think Duchene was a target, just a gut check, but I see now reason as to why he wouldn't be. My guess is that there wasn't anything available, so they are going to keep Staal as a reserve option and hope that he has a bounce back year..

I'm not counting on it--last year was supposed to be that year.

Not that I would ever wish injury on someone, but the only possibility of getting Staal off this team scott-free would be LTIR or retirement. His NMC + the cost of packaging an asset to move the player is a net negative compared to the buyout cap space changes

Another side note, Spotrac has completely different contract info for Marc Staal compared to Cap Friendly.
http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/new-york-rangers/marc-staal-1938/
https://www.capfriendly.com/players/marc-staal

I can't figure out whether the $1M or $3M signing bonus is the correct number. There's also the matter of whether or not he has a modified or full NMC..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom