Value of: REALISTIC landing spots for Marc Staal

[PB37]

Would say around end of his 2nd year up to about a year before the eye injury, plus/minus.

Again, other guys faster, stronger, better this, better that, but I felt for one guy across the board excellence, as to D only, not as to anything on offense, Staal passed the eye test more than pretty much everybody.

You'd be absolutely wrong, but to each his own.

 

[Maukkis]

I would tend to agree if the scenario were anything other than legit retirement. But I don't see how league can defeat right of player to retire, and if so, why should a club be penalized for helping out a guy whose played a whole career of mostly hard minutes?

I think this would especially be the case if the player FIRST said no mas and ripped up his deal. He would be taking a huge gamble the club would follow through with the retirement offer...

This, my friends, is a prime example of how wording can have such a big impact on the message. Earlier, you said this.

It seems the last option is to bump upstairs.
Increase the pay, for a consultant/announcer position.

Player voluntarily retires to get bigger paycheck on softer gig

What earlier was essentially bribing Staal to retire early is now "helping him out" after his retirement, which WOULD NOT IN A MILLION YEARS HAPPEN without a career-ending injury this soon. Sure, a player can retire whenever he wants. Notice the words "WHEN HE WANTS". In your stupid scenario, Staal gets paid to retire. That is cap circumvention at its finest.

It's against the league's rules to get any sort of cap relief by paying the players in other ways than the base salary/bonuses. How is this any different? Staal gets paid by the team just to have his cap hit off the books.

Your posts literally make no sense. When you started the thread and named it "REALISTIC landing spots for Marc Staal", did you just ditch the realism when you realized the obvious: he is pretty much unmovable because of his contract? There's a big problem in most of your posts. You only take the Rangers into consideration, and expect the other side to do whatever you can think of. Everything from playing defensemen as forwards, bullying the player to make him waive NMCs, robbing the other team's future for overpaid veterans... it's just ridiculous. Stick to NHL 16 if you want to see that kind of stuff.

 

[Weltschmerz]

I was thinking of him at 3RD, not in conflict w/Bogo/Risto
who is your current 3RD? used to be Pysyk, I think, but he's gone...

Franson, then there is Nelson too

Would be nice to move Moulson but he was giving Eichel a home last season not sure he lives there still. But they seem to do everything to make Eichel happy so not sure about moving him and the buyout would be still much better than Giradis.

 

[Blue Goose]

As others have said, I think the most realistic spot for Staal is with the Rangers. I'm not ready to say "he's garbage", and I know that some Rangers fans find him valuable, so he should just stay there. Plug him into the #2LD spot for the rest of the contract.

What I DO see as a more realistic scenario is buying out Girardi next summer. If Bern is correct and his NMC becomes a NTC in time to leave him exposed for the expansion draft, I'm still not sure that LV would take him - the Rangers might be better off exposing Nash, and I would imagine LV would take one year of Nash rather than three years of Girardi. Let Girardi play this coming season out, and then if he continues to regress and you can't dump his contract in a trade, do the buyout and protect Staal, McDonagh and Klein (or Skjei, if he's not exempt).

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

Franson, then there is Nelson too

Would be nice to move Moulson but he was giving Eichel a home last season not sure he lives there still. But they seem to do everything to make Eichel happy so not sure about moving him and the buyout would be still much better than Giradis.

Not only that but if Buffalo takes a NMC, then Jake McCabe wouldn't be able to be protected. I don't think Buffalo would chance that. Its probably best if Buffalo just stays put

 

[bernmeister]

This, my friends, is a prime example of how wording can have such a big impact on the message. Earlier, you said this.



What earlier was essentially bribing Staal to retire early is now "helping him out" after his retirement, which WOULD NOT IN A MILLION YEARS HAPPEN without a career-ending injury this soon. Sure, a player can retire whenever he wants. Notice the words "WHEN HE WANTS". In your stupid scenario, Staal gets paid to retire. That is cap circumvention at its finest.

It's against the league's rules to get any sort of cap relief by paying the players in other ways than the base salary/bonuses. How is this any different? Staal gets paid by the team just to have his cap hit off the books.

Your posts literally make no sense. When you started the thread and named it "REALISTIC landing spots for Marc Staal", did you just ditch the realism when you realized the obvious: he is pretty much unmovable because of his contract? There's a big problem in most of your posts. You only take the Rangers into consideration, and expect the other side to do whatever you can think of. Everything from playing defensemen as forwards, bullying the player to make him waive NMCs, robbing the other team's future for overpaid veterans... it's just ridiculous. Stick to NHL 16 if you want to see that kind of stuff.

thanks and will respond in more detail when time permits...

 

[bernmeister]

Franson, then there is Nelson too

Would be nice to move Moulson but he was giving Eichel a home last season not sure he lives there still. But they seem to do everything to make Eichel happy so not sure about moving him and the buyout would be still much better than Giradis.

thanks, and I appreciate you letting me be thorough

As others have said, I think the most realistic spot for Staal is with the Rangers. I'm not ready to say "he's garbage", and I know that some Rangers fans find him valuable, so he should just stay there. Plug him into the #2LD spot for the rest of the contract.

What I DO see as a more realistic scenario is buying out Girardi next summer. If Bern is correct and his NMC becomes a NTC in time to leave him exposed for the expansion draft, I'm still not sure that LV would take him - the Rangers might be better off exposing Nash, and I would imagine LV would take one year of Nash rather than three years of Girardi. Let Girardi play this coming season out, and then if he continues to regress and you can't dump his contract in a trade, do the buyout and protect Staal, McDonagh and Klein (or Skjei, if he's not exempt).

Thank you for the courtesy of a detailed response.
The Rangers can address their best options w/Girardi once he is NTC after next season.
The whole point of doing this now, and seeing if a team would consider it if it could be made worth their while, was to avoid the NMC and its impact on the expansion draft.

Not only that but if Buffalo takes a NMC, then Jake McCabe wouldn't be able to be protected. I don't think Buffalo would chance that. Its probably best if Buffalo just stays put

You are probably right, but I wanted to leave no stone unturned which is why I asked. I'm too busy to check now vs the expansion draft thread to see your projected to verify that with the last suggestion made, where after the year Nash can be moved for futures that would still apply (like I said, if you kept Kane + Moulson = 2, if you (had to) keep Girardi, = 1, but then used and flipped Nash for futures not impacting the exp. draft, would effectively = 0, so 2 v 1 would net you 1, on paper.

However, this is a big assumption and I'm sure you know your roster better than I do.
again thanks.

 

[LaP]

You'll keep him.

There's always a fish somewhere.

We paid McDo and Higgins for an extremely overpaid Gomez coming out of an average season while NYR probably was ready to kick him out for not much to sign an UFA in the summer.

Staal's contract is awful (very awful) but if you are patient enough a fish will always bite as long as the player has a "good canadian boy playing good ol' canadian hockey" reputation and Staal certainly has that.

Personally i would not even give Emelin for Staal. But i would not be surprised if a dumb DG would bite based on reputation alone.

 

[trentmccleary]

What about Bolland (Fla) or Howard (Det) for Staal? They have roughly similar cap hits, but their deals are 3 years. NYR's get less useful players, but get out of the deal earlier. Those teams get a more useful player to them, but take on the last two years.

 

[goonybird]

I would tend to agree if the scenario were anything other than legit retirement. But I don't see how league can defeat right of player to retire, and if so, why should a club be penalized for helping out a guy whose played a whole career of mostly hard minutes?

I think this would especially be the case if the player FIRST said no mas and ripped up his deal. He would be taking a huge gamble the club would follow through with the retirement offer...

because that team is the one that signed him to that length and put him in those minutes.

 

[Blue Goose]

Thank you for the courtesy of a detailed response.
The Rangers can address their best options w/Girardi once he is NTC after next season.
The whole point of doing this now, and seeing if a team would consider it if it could be made worth their while, was to avoid the NMC and its impact on the expansion draft.

But why is that even an issue? You can protect 3D: if Girardi must be protected, then you ask him to waive his NMC to be exposed in the expansion draft and if he doesn't, then buy him out. It appears that Skjei is exempt, so you can still protect Staal, McDonagh and Klein - or were you worried about losing McIlrath?

What about Bolland (Fla) or Howard (Det) for Staal? They have roughly similar cap hits, but their deals are 3 years. NYR's get less useful players, but get out of the deal earlier. Those teams get a more useful player to them, but take on the last two years.

I think the issue here is that many non-Rangers fans see Staal as a liability, but he's still quite useful. Rangers aren't going to move him as a cap dump, and they have no reason to trade him unless it's going to improve their team - while most other teams can't absorb Staal's contract without sending someone back that the Rangers likely don't need (and Staal's NMC is also going to make it difficult to find a trade partner, so they're better off holding on to him).

 

[Off Sides]

But why is that even an issue? You can protect 3D: if Girardi must be protected, then you ask him to waive his NMC to be exposed in the expansion draft and if he doesn't, then buy him out. It appears that Skjei is exempt, so you can still protect Staal, McDonagh and Klein - or were you worried about losing McIlrath?

It's not an issue, you seem to have a pretty good grip on the situation for the Rangers, or at least similar to mine.

Skjei seems to be exempt, the D I think maybe Klein is moved prior to that draft and Girardi is bought out. Holden and McIlrath exposed.

The forwards is a little more foggy, they will likely not want to lose even guys like Fast, Lindberg so I am hoping they find trades for Nash and possible Zucc in order to get some more exempt players or picks out of them between now and then. Grabner is likely one of the forwards exposed, the others to be determined.

 

[Bfreezy40]

Staal has 5 yrs at 5.75 left. rangers can eat up to half.
He will never be the best pure shutdown D in NHL he once was, but continues to improve since eye injury coupla years back. AV system is part of the problem, and AVs personnel decisions are not a help.

If not for the NMC, I'd ride Staal out. It's not as though he brings nothing.

As for to Buf for EKane, that is a no, cause I have already set that aside for Girardi +, to move that NMC.

Not clear where he would agree to move.
Return is not critical, looking for moving his NMC want flexibility going forward including the expansion draft.

Thanks in advance, catch ya later....

Sabres have no interested at all in Girardi.. Another RHD we don't need at all lol.. PLUS hes wayyy over payed!

 

[Djp]

someone said Kane, another Moulson

Nash + Girardi
for
Kane + Moulson

Nash is solid team add for Eichel


Buf fans, does that work

NY gets lesser deal to be sure NMC not a factor

No it doesn't.....

Nash has significant risk. As I have said before his style of place falls off a cliff in his 30s. Some Rangers fans think he will rebound to the same 30 g player he was but he has much if not more chance to be a 10-15 g player (see Vanek, see Eric Staal and how their production numbers dropped)

the other issue in such a deal Buffalo is gaining around $3M in cap use for this year and next year.

right now Buffalo as around $8M min cap space...figure most of that cap space would be used up by resigning Risto and Girgs (~$7.5M)

Thus they cant take on an extra $3M

other issue Giradi is a RHD---Buffalo doesn't need that. They have 2 possibilities in Franson and Nelson. They would be more inclined to add a vet LHD.

Staal would be fine if he had 2 yrs left---but 5 yrs left actually hurts Buffalo.

Both Staal and Girardi have NMCs which hurt buffalo in expansion draft.

Also Moulson has just 3 yrs left vs 4 and 5 for Girardi and Staal.

those last 2 yrs will hurt Buffalo where they need the cap room for their younger players.

Kane is 7 yrs younger than Nash---big big difference.

I was thinking of him at 3RD, not in conflict w/Bogo/Risto
who is your current 3RD? used to be Pysyk, I think, but he's gone...

anyway, main selling point for you guys is Girardi turns NMC into NTC right after the expansion draft next year. A few more days the other way, NY would not have this headache about expansion protection, which is my paramount concern.

This means no worries about enough ducats to redo Eichel & co. And like I said, after a year of Nash, you can flip him for futures, probably for a profit, and that = an extra space for you to not have to protect at the draft. {You would otherwise protect Kane and Moulson. Girardi you would have to respect the NMC, beyond that you're good. So that is one required protect. Rangers would have to do a Redden on Moulson, and unless Kane matures very quickly, he won't be a picnic. But the one saving grace is avoiding the NMC even though it shortly morphs into NTC.}

Staal, however remains NMC is my understanding at this point. If it does morph, it does so later.

If Nash fails to perform he has no trade value. If buffalo was acquiring Nash it would be something like this:

around the deadline Buffalo acquires Nash at the max retained amount covering his remaining salary this year. then next year his salary owed by Buffalo would be around what McCormick and Gionta made this year (both are UFAs after the season).

He is viewed as a pure rental player for a playoff run with no intention on resigning him.

Buffalo geeting Nash outright, they can survive protection rules at forward in the expansion draft.

Moulson will not be nor requires protection. Kane may very well be exposed in the draft. It depends on who else is on the team.

 

[McSuper]

toss him in the pile next too Clarkson , Girardi , Lupul and D. Brown

Will that pile you showed does have some use . The players you listed are useless at their current cap hit and play

 

[bernmeister]

I appreciate all the answers

crushed for another day or 2
will respond first chance then
thnx

 

[Oak]

toss him in the pile next too Clarkson , Girardi , Lupul and D. Brown

Sad Rangers have two pieces of manure.

 

[dashripdot]

It's not an issue, you seem to have a pretty good grip on the situation for the Rangers, or at least similar to mine.

Skjei seems to be exempt, the D I think maybe Klein is moved prior to that draft and Girardi is bought out. Holden and McIlrath exposed.

The forwards is a little more foggy, they will likely not want to lose even guys like Fast, Lindberg so I am hoping they find trades for Nash and possible Zucc in order to get some more exempt players or picks out of them between now and then. Grabner is likely one of the forwards exposed, the others to be determined.

Rangers wouldn't trade Zuccarello or Nash simply to protect a player like Fast or Lindberg in the expansion draft. They're useful players, but the Rangers won't protect career bottom-six role players at the expense of top-six forwards. They can only lose one player in the draft and, although it could be Fast, it's more likely to be Klein or McIlrath.

 

[Batrous]

Rangers will essentially have him until his deal is done. I can't see him waving his no movement clause and I don't see any other nhl team willing to move anything other then another bad contract to acquire him.

 

[Off Sides]

Rangers wouldn't trade Zuccarello or Nash simply to protect a player like Fast or Lindberg in the expansion draft. They're useful players, but the Rangers won't protect career bottom-six role players at the expense of top-six forwards. They can only lose one player in the draft and, although it could be Fast, it's more likely to be Klein or McIlrath.

Nash and Klein will be entering the final season of their contracts right after that draft.

Rangers don't have any real reason to keep them if it means losing Fast or whomever, then losing Nash, Klein too right after that season is played.

So if they are going to move them, it makes more sense to do so before that draft takes place so they can protect Fast/Lindberg etc.

If they do not, at best they are getting rental returns for both Klein and Nash, or self renting them, and losing Fast or whomever on top of only getting back rental value or nothing at all.

Zucc is a little different but much like Brassard he is on a contract some teams will find attractive, if they are going to be moving Nash, Klein, Brassard I don't see the point in them holding onto Zucc as he will be turning 30 at that point.

 

[TGWL]

No it doesn't.....

Nash has significant risk. As I have said before his style of place falls off a cliff in his 30s. Some Rangers fans think he will rebound to the same 30 g player he was but he has much if not more chance to be a 10-15 g player (see Vanek, see Eric Staal and how their production numbers dropped)

the other issue in such a deal Buffalo is gaining around $3M in cap use for this year and next year.

right now Buffalo as around $8M min cap space...figure most of that cap space would be used up by resigning Risto and Girgs (~$7.5M)

Thus they cant take on an extra $3M

other issue Giradi is a RHD---Buffalo doesn't need that. They have 2 possibilities in Franson and Nelson. They would be more inclined to add a vet LHD.

Staal would be fine if he had 2 yrs left---but 5 yrs left actually hurts Buffalo.

Both Staal and Girardi have NMCs which hurt buffalo in expansion draft.

Also Moulson has just 3 yrs left vs 4 and 5 for Girardi and Staal.

those last 2 yrs will hurt Buffalo where they need the cap room for their younger players.

Kane is 7 yrs younger than Nash---big big difference.



If Nash fails to perform he has no trade value. If buffalo was acquiring Nash it would be something like this:

around the deadline Buffalo acquires Nash at the max retained amount covering his remaining salary this year. then next year his salary owed by Buffalo would be around what McCormick and Gionta made this year (both are UFAs after the season).

He is viewed as a pure rental player for a playoff run with no intention on resigning him.

Buffalo geeting Nash outright, they can survive protection rules at forward in the expansion draft.

Moulson will not be nor requires protection. Kane may very well be exposed in the draft. It depends on who else is on the team.

But nothing of his play suggest that. Sure, you might be right, but Nash was still generating great chances with zero puck luck. He was playing 2 way Hockey. He was making good plays. He was creating great chances for himself. He was not putting the puck in the net.

 

[vipernsx]

I think Staal has to show some of his better play last year is something he can sustain, he started out pretty poorly (like most of the team) but improved later in the year. He can still be an effective player, though he'll always struggle a bit if forwards are allowed to blitz through the neutral zone with speed at him (most D aren't great at handling that though). The fact that he was coming off ankle surgery last offseason might have contributed to his slow start, but with all the injuries piled up and the downturn in his game since then, he has a lot to prove still.

But, he's still no Dan Girardi. He can still be a good player and he could still help some teams. Hell, I wouldn't even necessarily mind if he stayed a Ranger if they weren't also carrying Girardi on the other side. We're all kind of invested in moving Staal because we seem as more movable and it's a way to get out from under one large blueline contract, not because he's an out and out crappy player

Agreed, though if you can sign a better player than DG for 2m a year, then you buyout DG and be done with this. McIlrath is only making 800k, Glendenning 600k. I wonder what Wisniewski would take on a 1 year deal to prove he can still play after an injury.

EDIT: Been looking over some stats and I just don't believe DG and Staal are as bad as they're being made out to be.

 

[bernmeister]

What about Bolland (Fla) or Howard (Det) for Staal? They have roughly similar cap hits, but their deals are 3 years. NYR's get less useful players, but get out of the deal earlier. Those teams get a more useful player to them, but take on the last two years.

better fit is Girardi
we think his NMC somehow adds a modified NTC after this season, just immediately before the exp draft, unfortunately.

G, at 8-12 mins/nite, not in AV system, and an actual righty RD could be a useful fit, and in case of howard, return helps RWs huge by removing excess salary at netminder. Rangers will temporarily see if goalie coaching whiz Allaire Benoit can up his game and we can trade him, or since no NMC, only NTC, we have options. But Wings have to eat G's NMC for upcoming exp draft...

deal?

ps - Staal has no reason to not to want to go to Hockeytown, but expect this year he has all cards and will be harder to move. Not aware that his deal has any such provision for NTC, or if so, not seeing it anytime soon.

================

I am still relatively crushed, but will follow up with posters to whom I owe courtesy replies as soon as possible/next few days.

 

[Givememoneyback]

What about Bolland (Fla) or Howard (Det) for Staal? They have roughly similar cap hits, but their deals are 3 years. NYR's get less useful players, but get out of the deal earlier. Those teams get a more useful player to them, but take on the last two years.

If the Panthers hadn't signed Yandle and, to a lesser extent, Demers, Staal for Bolland might have been a good deal. I doubt the Rangers would have been all over it, though, and, at this point, I don't think the Panthers are all that worried about burying Bolland's contract for more years on Staal.

 

[ThatSaid]

Though I don't absolutely hate Staal, he is grossly overpaid for what he brings, and has way too much term on his contract, and as we've seen, cap-strapped teams are having to pay premiums to remove their dead-weight. Its why attaching Buch doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

Hell, we paid Teravainen to move Bickel, and he only had one year left on his deal. Think about that.