Do we buyout Marc Staal

[The Crypto Guy]

Nope.

You need vets to help bring along all the young players we will have for the next couple of years. Marc is perfect for that. He's still a serviceable defenseman as well.

 

[silverfish]

Is there the full amount of cap room or is cap space taken up by the buyout of Girardi and the would-be buyout of Staal? It is a binary question. If the answer is that the Rangers have less cap room because of players that they bought out, then consider yourself enlightened.

You forgot to add that the statement is in your opinion. As at last check, silverfish did not become the final arbiter of what is to be deemed as "stupid and wrong". Only the unenlightened see things that way.

The Rangers, if they buyout Marc Staal, will have more cap for three years and then less cap for three years.

Hence, three years of cap savings, and three years of dead cap.

Illustrated, including Girardi since that's what you are talking about.

The cap implications row is what the bottom line of the Rangers cap would look like for every season if they buyout Staal this off-season.

We have actualized 17-18 Girardi savings, and then for three more years, we'll have cap savings and then the three years after we'll have dead cap.

Again, do I want to buyout Staal? I'm not sure. Honestly, I don't really care. It depends on what the Rangers are trying to do and what kind of team they think they are.

But I take issue with the fact that people only highlight 'dead cap' when that is a blatant POV in order to discourage against a buyout, when in fact there is cap savings to be talked about. Just like if someone only spoke about cap savings, they would be wrong.

Illustrate both. Tell both sides. Stop only pushing your agenda.

 

[NYR713]

If they can't move him this year, I would guess more on a 2019 buyout. Then it's only 4 years of cap hits with 2 years of savings exchanged for 2 years of 1.2M dead cap. I think they find a way to move him, while retaining some salary, before the 2019 TDL.

But a lot of that depends on how this draft goes (specifically lottery), how UFA pans out this off season, then seeing how all the LD prospects look this upcoming season and, as many have mentioned, if Staal can be a serious team contributor again under a more simplified system. If he's playing well, NYR haven't invested cap into a UFA and the prospects aren't showing NHL readiness, it might be best to just let him ride it out

I don't agree with those that keep saying "not while we're rebuilding." I seriously doubt this is going to be a long, drawn-out build here. There is already barely a forward in the 30 year range on the main roster, the group of prospects that came through trades + Lias and Filip + three 1sts and two 2nds this draft with at least one top 10 overall pick in there. While I doubt they'll be trading away 1st or 2nd rd picks for rentals, I think this team is competing for a wild card spot next season with plenty left in the cupboard to continue to develop.

There is a lot of cost control there for multiple seasons. If the team can move forward while continuing to get younger, I think they can manage some dead cap space in future years rather than holding back growth.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

The Rangers, if they buyout Marc Staal, will have more cap for three years and then less cap for three years.

Hence, three years of cap savings, and three years of dead cap.

Illustrated, including Girardi since that's what you are talking about.

The cap implications row is what the bottom line of the Rangers cap would look like for every season if they buyout Staal this off-season.

We have actualized 17-18 Girardi savings, and then for three more years, we'll have cap savings and then the three years after we'll have dead cap.

Again, do I want to buyout Staal? I'm not sure. Honestly, I don't really care. It depends on what the Rangers are trying to do and what kind of team they think they are.

But I take issue with the fact that people only highlight 'dead cap' when that is a blatant POV in order to discourage against a buyout, when in fact there is cap savings to be talked about. Just like if someone only spoke about cap savings, they would be wrong.

Illustrate both. Tell both sides. Stop only pushing your agenda.

No, you stop. It's not "savings". There's cap room and roster spots, and that's IT.

By using the word "savings" you're pushing the agenda that the only two options are to a) sit Marc Staal, in which case you have (cap - $5.7MM) to fill 20 spots or b) buy him out, in which case you have (cap - buyout) to fill 20 spots.

But the third, and in this case very realistic, possibility is that he c) serves as one of your six defensemen, in which case you have (cap - $5.7MM) to fill only 19 spots.

It is certainly possible that scenario a or b might be better than c, depending on Staal's level of play, his contract, and what other options are available, but please stop demanding that we acknowledge your opinion that the gap between Staal's salary and his buyout number = "savings". It's money that's been made available to be put to another use, but which comes with the added burden of creating another roster spot that needs to be filled.

 

[GregSirico]

Buy out? No. Trade him w/ some salary retained? Sure.

 

[silverfish]

No, you stop. It's not "savings". There's cap room and roster spots, and that's IT.

By using the word "savings" you're pushing the agenda that the only two options are to a) sit Marc Staal, in which case you have (cap - $5.7MM) to fill 20 spots or b) buy him out, in which case you have (cap - $buyout) to fill 20 spots.

But the third, and in this case very realistic, possibility is that he c) serves as one of your six defensemen, in which case you have (cap - $5.7MM) to fill only 19 spots.

It is certainly possible that scenario a or b might be better than c, depending on Staal's level of play, his contract, and what other options are available, but please stop demanding that we acknowledge your opinion that the gap between Staal's salary and his buyout number = "savings".

You're right, but that's not the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that we assume a Staal buyout has taken place, and people only refer to it as 'dead cap' and ignore the 'savings'.

After the buyout, it is both.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

You're right, but that's not the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that we assume a Staal buyout has taken place, and people only refer to it as 'dead cap' and ignore the 'savings'.

After the buyout, it is both.

Except that your use of the word "savings" implies that it's pure upside, when it's not. As I amended my previous post to say (you're too quick for me!), it's money that's been freed – at the cost of creating a hole in the roster that now needs to be filled with yet another contract.

It's not like half of Staal's contract has now been freed to go chase John Tavares or something, which whether you mean it to be or not, is the implication of "savings"; you need to use that money to go get another defenseman. If, after you've filled the spot (say with an ELC), then I suppose you can call it "savings" (though you still have the penalty down the line), but you can't tell me that without affirming who his replacement will be and what his contract will look like.

 

[silverfish]

Except that your use of the word "savings" implies that it's pure upside, when it's not. As I amended my previous post to say (you're too quick for me!), it's money that's been freed – at the cost of creating a hole in the roster that now needs to be filled with yet another contract.

It's not like half of Staal's contract has now been freed to go chase John Tavares or something, which whether you mean it to be or not, is the implication of "savings"; you need to use that money to go get another defenseman. If, after you've filled the spot (say with an ELC), then I suppose you can call it "savings" (though you still have the penalty down the line), but you can't tell me that without affirming who his replacement will be and what his contract will look like.

I mean, this is a rabbit hole, but you're right. If you look at in the vacuum of "this is what Staal's cap hit was, and this is what his buyout cap hit is" then you can say savings or dead space.

However, if you did use the "savings" to go and chase another d-man, it is still those savings that allowed you to do that. If clearing $3m of Staal allows us to help fit EK65, for example, it was the "savings" that allowed us to do that.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I mean, this is a rabbit hole, but you're right. If you look at in the vacuum of "this is what Staal's cap hit was, and this is what his buyout cap hit is" then you can say savings or dead space.

However, if you did use the "savings" to go and chase another d-man, it is still those savings that allowed you to do that. If clearing $3m of Staal allows us to help fit EK65, for example, it was the "savings" that allowed us to do that.

Um... okay?

 

[True Blue]

Illustrate both. Tell both sides. Stop only pushing your agenda.

Agenda? Hardly. Just facts. Is there a period of time in which you have cap space being taken up with players that are not here? Yes or no? We both know the answer to that.

And then, as BRF points out, you will need to go out and spend to bring in another player to fill the spot.

 

[silverfish]

Agenda? Hardly. Just facts. Is there a period of time in which you have cap space being taken up with players that are not here? Yes or no? We both know the answer to that.

And then, as BRF points out, you will need to go out and spend to bring in another player to fill the spot.

There are three years where Staal's buyout cap hit are less than his actual cap hit.
There are three years where Staal's buyout cap hit are more than his 0 cap hit.

I'd classify one of these things as "savings" and one of these things as "dead cap". If you would not, then we can agree to disagree.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I wouldn't at this point, not when the team is rebuilding. Maybe next offseason if we do go after Karlsson, Panarin, whoever is available in FA when the team is a year further into the rebuild.

 

[Mikos87]

Some of you guys need to learn the concept of opportunity cost. Especially in a hard cap situation.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Its amazing how low the bar has been set for certain guys on the team (Staal being the face of that statement), but there is no use in buying him out now. If we get a coach in here who cares less about seniority and more about on ice play it won't be long until Staal is a 7th D and he can still provide value in that role.

He sucks and if this team were competitive and needed the cap space thats one thing, but that isn't the case and if there is anyone on this team who has earned the right to stay for the time being its Staal. Some will say Hank, but he didn't nearly lose an eye for this organization.

Now if someone were interested in trading for him, I'd certainly listen.

 

[frozenrubber]

It's something you don't wish on a single player, but Marc Staal's concussion history alone has LTIR being a significantly probable end to his NYR career.

As for a retained salary trade, his contract is not insured against his pre-existing vision loss (and also presumably his concussion history, haven't seen confirmation on that) so makes a trade to budget teams more difficult.

 

[Ori]

Marc Staal has been a Ranger for years, and he was at one point one of the better dmen in the league. You could argue he was our best dman between 2010-2014, and he represents this team well.

He makes 5.7 mil till 2020-21, which is clearly too much for him at this stage of his career, however there are still benefits of having him on the team. He’s serviceable as a depth dman and is a leader (referred to as daycare daddy on this young team). He’s 31 years old which is old for this club.

What do you say? I think, while keeping a buyout in mind, we should keep him, at least for next season (then reconsider it the next). He’s a great leader, we should have lots of cap, and he’s still serviceable. While I think he will get bought out at some point before the end of his contract, he was a very very good #1 for this team way back and it would be sad to see him go.

I doubt it - he played well with + 11 with limited minutes when the team struggle.

 

[SA16]

We get a second buyout window if anyone has an arbitration hearing right? I wouldn't buy him out right now but if the chance to since Tavares comes up and the cap space is needed I would look to in that second window.

 

[tradenashnow]

Staal had a very good year in a crap system with a coach who didn't know how to coach defense. Keeping him one more year for the young players is probably good.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

As above. No need. But I also think he has been ok and a new system might do good for him.

4v5 system?

 

[kovazub94]

@NYR Viper is one of the most vocal advocates for trading / buying out Staal right away but I didn't see you post here. What gives or did I just miss it?

 

[Machinehead]

Staal is on the books through 20-21. I expect to be competitive again by then.

Absolutely, you look to get him off the team somehow.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

Staal is on the books through 20-21. I expect to be competitive again by then.

Absolutely, you look to get him off the team somehow.

This team in all likelihood will not be competitive by next year, or the year after that. That would take us to the last year of Staal's contract which could be moveable, especially with salary retention. I just don't see the point in buying him out atm unless we're planning something ridiculous and unlikely like signing Tavares

 

[Machinehead]

This team in all likelihood will not be competitive by next year, or the year after that. That would take us to the last year of Staal's contract which could be moveable, especially with salary retention. I just don't see the point in buying him out atm unless we're planning something ridiculous and unlikely like signing Tavares

I'm planning something ridiculous and unlikely like getting AHL players the f*** off this team.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm planning something ridiculous and unlikely like getting AHL players the **** off this team.

But at what cost?

If you can deal him, even with retention – hey, great. I'm on board.

If you have to buy him out, however, there's simply no reason to do it now, beyond emotional gratification – you don't need the cap space and the result is a cap penalty for six years into the future. No way in hell. The benefit does not justify the cost.

Happy to revisit the conversation in a year's time after we see how the kids develop, and what trajectory the rebuild is taking.

 

[Machinehead]

But at what cost?

If you can deal him, even with retention – hey, great. I'm on board.

If you have to buy him out, however, there's simply no reason to do it now, beyond emotional gratification – you don't need the cap space and the result is a cap penalty for six years into the future. No way in hell. The benefit does not justify the cost.

Happy to revisit the conversation in a year's time after we see how the kids develop, and what trajectory the rebuild is taking.

Why is it that the retention dead cap is ok, but the buyout dead cap isn't.

Are the dollars somehow different?