Do we buyout Marc Staal

[FireGerardGallant]

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

This team can make plenty of midlevel signings without being anywhere near the cap to help get rid of the ahl players on this roster like Holland and Gilmour. If we're going to buyout staal just to get rid of him doesn't make too much sense. With or without staal this is not a playoff team

 

[Machinehead]

This team can make plenty of midlevel signings without being anywhere near the cap to help get rid of the ahl players on this roster like Holland and Gilmour. If we're going to buyout staal just to get rid of him doesn't make too much sense. With or without staal this is not a playoff team

How do we get rid of the AHL players like Staal?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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

Are the dollars somehow different?

Because I get an asset in exchange? And the retention only lasts three years, as opposed to six?

C'mon, MH, I know you can't stand the process and just want to be contending right away, but if you take a step back and analyze dispassionately, the decision is pretty obvious.

 

[Ghost of jas]

How do we get rid of the AHL players like Staal?

Buying him out seems kind and humane.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

How do we get rid of the AHL players like Staal?

Well at his current salary he is not an ahl player. We just gotta bite the bullet on this one because there's no benefit to buyout him out outside of getting rid of staal

 

[Machinehead]

Because I get an asset in exchange? And the retention only lasts three years, as opposed to six?

C'mon, MH, I know you can't stand the process and just want to be contending right away, but if you take a step back and analyze dispassionately, the decision is pretty obvious.

I would absolutely explore trading him first, but you have to explore buying him out if that doesn't work. He hampers the team on the books and on the ice. He adds nothing. He's a parasite on this team.

Buying him out seems kind and humane.

His play is cruel and inhumane.

Well at his current salary he is not an ahl player. We just gotta bite the bullet on this one because there's no benefit to buyout him out outside of getting rid of staal

The benefit of buying out Staal is getting rid of Staal.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

The benefit of buying out Staal is getting rid of Staal.

Again this team is a nonplayoff team with or without staal. Might as well wait till atleast next year to explore potential buyouts. Also if im not mistaken (might be wrong on this part) his nmc becomes a limited ntc soon so that will make it easier to move em.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I would absolutely explore trading him first, but you have to explore buying him out if that doesn't work. He hampers the team on the books and on the ice. He adds nothing. He's a parasite on this team.

And if you buy him out, he will continue to do so for six more years.

His play is cruel and inhumane.


The benefit of buying out Staal is getting rid of Staal.

Yes, I understand. But the cost-benefit analysis says that the cost is too high. Best not to pay it and forego the benefit. (At least as the roster currently stands.)

 

[Machinehead]

And if you buy him out, he will continue to do so for six more years.


Yes, I understand. But the cost-benefit analysis says that the cost is too high. Best not to pay it and forego the benefit. (At least as the roster currently stands.)

I'm more than willing to do that if it helps on the ice.

I'm not willing to just blow the next three years like everyone else is because "rebuild!" Three years is a long time.

 

[Kovalev27]

I see no reason to buy out staal.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm more than willing to do that if it helps on the ice.

I'm not willing to just blow the next three years like everyone else is because "rebuild!" Three years is a long time.

1) Three years is a strawman you pulled out of your ass.
2) Blow three years to get to where? Because if your only goal is to be as good as they were going into next year, I'd say you've already got even odds of that happening.
3) If you are always focused on the immediate on-ice effect, you will never win the Cup. Winning the Cup requires foresight, planning, and sacrifice. The fact that you don't want to accept this doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Machinehead]

1) Three years is a strawman you pulled out of your ass.
2) Blow three years to get to where? Because if your only goal is to be as good as they were going into next year, I'd say you've already got even odds of that happening.
3) If you are always focused on the immediate on-ice effect, you will never win the Cup. Winning the Cup requires foresight, planning, and sacrifice. The fact that you don't want to accept this doesn't make it any less true.

1)No, it's Staal's contract.

2)Everyone is ok with Staal destroying this team on the ice because "rebuild." I want to be transitioning away from the rebuild by the time his contract is up. I guess waiting a year isn't going to be a huge difference, although he could be the difference between 9th in the East and the playoffs, at which point, I'll take the playoffs over the 1/100 chance at first overall.

3)Three years is not immediate. It's a long time. Go look at our 2010 and 2012 rosters. That wasn't even three years.

 

[True Blue]

The benefit of buying out Staal is getting rid of Staal.

And right about the time you think that the Rangers will be competitive again, they will be eating dead cap space of both Girardi & Staal.

Some decisions one makes with the heart. Some need to be made with the head.

Everyone is ok with Staal destroying this team on the ice because "rebuild." I want to be transitioning away from the rebuild by the time his contract is up

I am ok with the franchise not cutting their own nose off to spite their face.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

1)No, it's Staal's contract.

While that's true, in context it seemed pretty clear you were talking about how long those of us who preach patience expect the team to struggle.

2)Everyone is ok with Staal destroying this team on the ice because "rebuild." I want to be transitioning away from the rebuild by the time his contract is up. I guess waiting a year isn't going to be a huge difference,

Absolutely happy to revisit the conversation in a year. Depending on how the next season plays out, and how our kids develop, I could well have a different opinion at that point.

although he could be the difference between 9th in the East and the playoffs, at which point, I'll take the playoffs over the 1/100 chance at first overall.

While I think there is value in the kids getting exposed to PO hockey, I think you're minimizing the value of the lottery.

Next year's calculus should be the same as last year's. Come February, are we at or below the PO cutoff and struggling? Sell for another year, hope for another 20-30% shot at top 3. Unexpectedly thriving? Don't invest in any rentals, but do play it out, and let the kids get the benefit of PO exposure.

3)Three years is not immediate. It's a long time. Go look at our 2010 and 2012 rosters. That wasn't even three years.

It is.

I, however, think that what will happen over that period is:

Year 1: year in transition, kids getting their feet wet, building the cupboard/core. Likely miss the POs, though not necessarily. That offseason, investigate the FA market and buyouts (depending on how the core is looking, by this point, it may already be time to look at the big name guys and, potentially, cutting Staal) with a view towards trending upward the next year.

Year 2: 1st wave of kids now settling in, second wave getting their feet wet. Team gelling. Likely make the POs, though not necessarily. Put up a good fight for a round or two. That offseason, add around the edges.

Year 3: window open, team is at or near contender status.

It's not 100% guaranteed, of course, but I believe it's the goal, and is realistic – and I'm fully on board for it.

 

[Riche16]

I'm more than willing to do that if it helps on the ice.

I'm not willing to just blow the next three years like everyone else is because "rebuild!" Three years is a long time.

Who are we going to buyout after Staal?

I wanna know who's next on your list. Now that Girardi is gone I mean.

 

[Machinehead]

Who are we going to buyout after Staal?

I wanna know who's next on your list. Now that Girardi is gone I mean.

Once Staal is gone, the unholy trinity is dead and I will be content.

One more.

 

[ponytrekker]

Y'all were clamoring to get rid of G man but I watched a game recently and saw a d man pinch like a mo fo and get to a puck and then saw the 5 on his back and said "It's gotta be the coach."

 

[kovazub94]

Staal as player and his salary via a cap impact will not be an issue for the Rangers in 2018-2019. He doesn't take anyone's place on a roster, the team shouldn't have a cap constrain issues to deal with, and via accounts of this year's AHL call-ups he is a exemplary vet for them to learn how to be a pro.

 

[Rempe73]

No. No need at this point and it's even possible he thrives in s new system.

"Thrives in a new system."

I highly doubt a slow, washed up, awful 31-year old defenseman with one eye will "thrive" in any system. The only way I see him thriving is if he goes to the ECHL.

Staal, even in a new system, is nothing more than a meh bottom pairing defenseman. That's making almost 6 million a year.

That being said, I don't mind if the Rangers keep him, as I want them to rebuild properly. And if they do, then Staal's contract will not affect them, unless the young players develop faster than expected.

 

[Rempe73]

This team can make plenty of midlevel signings without being anywhere near the cap to help get rid of the ahl players on this roster like Holland and Gilmour. If we're going to buyout staal just to get rid of him doesn't make too much sense. With or without staal this is not a playoff team

Gilmour is a lot better than Staal, in my opinion. I don't think he's an AHL-level player anymore.

 

[Rempe73]

I'm more than willing to do that if it helps on the ice.

I'm not willing to just blow the next three years like everyone else is because "rebuild!" Three years is a long time.

Why do you think it's "blowing 3 years?" It's not. It's rebuilding for 3 years. That doesn't happen overnight. The reason why the Rangers haven't won a cup recently is because of fans like you. The "I want the Rangers to be good every year" crowd. And yes, the Rangers have been good for the past decade or so, but they were B+ good at their peak. Other teams who did the rebuild properly are A/A+ good for years and years. The Rangers kept putting off rebuilding in the hopes of being competitive. You can't win the cup like that. Sure, you'll make the playoffs and win a round or two, but it's not enough.

Sorry for the long post. I just can't stand when people think rebuilding is "a waste of time" or "blowing years." That kind of thinking is why people say "you can't rebuild in New York." Rebuilding is not a waste. It's a strategy. You have to suffer for a while in order to get the ultimate prize. That's just how it works in hockey. Unless you're fine with being mediocre year after year after year.

 

[Lone Ranger]

I'm not nearly as concerned about Staal's cap hit as I am about his ice time. If, because of his veteran's status, our new coach plays him as much as AV did, he'll be taking valuable playing time away from younger players who are far more likely to be an integral part of our future. We need our younger defenseman to play major minutes, both for evaluation purposes, as well as for their development. There really is no rational reason to let a player at Staal's stage of his career play regular minutes on a rebuilding club.

 

[Machinehead]

Why do you think it's "blowing 3 years?" It's not. It's rebuilding for 3 years. That doesn't happen overnight. The reason why the Rangers haven't won a cup recently is because of fans like you. The "I want the Rangers to be good every year" crowd. And yes, the Rangers have been good for the past decade or so, but they were B+ good at their peak. Other teams who did the rebuild properly are A/A+ good for years and years. The Rangers kept putting off rebuilding in the hopes of being competitive. You can't win the cup like that. Sure, you'll make the playoffs and win a round or two, but it's not enough.

Sorry for the long post. I just can't stand when people think rebuilding is "a waste of time" or "blowing years." That kind of thinking is why people say "you can't rebuild in New York." Rebuilding is not a waste. It's a strategy. You have to suffer for a while in order to get the ultimate prize. That's just how it works in hockey. Unless you're fine with being mediocre year after year after year.

That's not how it works. 9 out of 10 rebuilds don't lead to a championship. We're just assuming ours will because we're the Rangers and we're apparently competent which is news to me.

Having Marc Staal on this team for another three years is a waste. There's no reason for it.

 

[kovazub94]

I'm not nearly as concerned about Staal's cap hit as I am about his ice time. If, because of his veteran's status, our new coach plays him as much as AV did, he'll be taking valuable playing time away from younger players who are far more likely to be an integral part of our future. We need our younger defenseman to play major minutes, both for evaluation purposes, as well as for their development. There really is no rational reason to let a player at Staal's stage of his career play regular minutes on a rebuilding club.

You’re making an assumption that the new coach will act just like AV while all indications from Gorton (and Dolan) that what they are looking for is a complete opposite.

 

[silverfish]

Why do you think it's "blowing 3 years?" It's not. It's rebuilding for 3 years. That doesn't happen overnight. The reason why the Rangers haven't won a cup recently is because of fans like you. The "I want the Rangers to be good every year" crowd. And yes, the Rangers have been good for the past decade or so, but they were B+ good at their peak. Other teams who did the rebuild properly are A/A+ good for years and years. The Rangers kept putting off rebuilding in the hopes of being competitive. You can't win the cup like that. Sure, you'll make the playoffs and win a round or two, but it's not enough.

Sorry for the long post. I just can't stand when people think rebuilding is "a waste of time" or "blowing years." That kind of thinking is why people say "you can't rebuild in New York." Rebuilding is not a waste. It's a strategy. You have to suffer for a while in order to get the ultimate prize. That's just how it works in hockey. Unless you're fine with being mediocre year after year after year.

Yeah, that's how it works in hockey. Just ask...

The Hurricanes, Sabres, Canucks, Oilers, Islanders, Coyotes, and Panthers. All these teams who have missed the playoffs two or more seasons in a row now (sans the Oilers), and are truly the pinnacle of achievement in the sport.