Do we buyout Marc Staal

[True Blue]

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.

Substitute the name "Stall" for "Girardi" and you would have the sentiments of most on this board, prior to the move to Tampa.

 

[Off Sides]

Did the Hurricanes, Sabres, Canucks, Oilers, Islanders, Coyotes, Panthers have any ownership, financial, or arena changes/issues throughout their rebuilds?

 

[True Blue]

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

In a vacuum with blinders on, the statement could be true. However, that completely ignores the dead cap hit that will count for the next 6 years. That completely ignores the fact that you now probably have to spend more money to bring a player in, as O'Gara showed nothing that would make me think that he is a competent NHL defenseman. And it remains to be seen if Gilmour is either. And it completely ignores the fact that Staal can mentor the young defenseman and ....gasp.....provide leadership.

There is absolutely NO reason to incur a dead cap space hit here. Who is the hot shot that you are clamoring to bring in?

 

[nyr2k2]

"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.

It's a relative term. Obviously he's not going to be that first-pair, shutdown defenseman that he once was. I think he was at least a decent third-pair defenseman this season. I think in a system that doesn't ask him to rely so much on skating and making the lead pass could help him further. Now obviously most systems in the NHL are moving towards skating and quick passing, so we can't get away from that entirely, but AV's system, that was basically the sole emphasis. I see enough left in Staal to think he can be an asset on the bottom-pair or even play passably on the second unit if we implement a system that doesn't emphasize his weaknesses.

 

[Edge]

The team is already carrying Girardi's buyout, and has money tied to both Smith and Beleskey.

Staal, for better or worse, can at least stick as a third pair defenseman for next season, maybe the season behind.

After that, he has one year left.

 

[tomobson]

No, no reason to buyout this season. Injuries will happen throughout the season and we'll be able to see what these new LHD prospects are capable of. The season after next is when a buyout could happen depending on the development of our prospects.

 

[Rempe73]

Substitute the name "Stall" for "Girardi" and you would have the sentiments of most on this board, prior to the move to Tampa.

Wrong. Even before the Rangers bought out Girardi, I was saying that Staal is worse and should be the one to go. Girardi was playing top line minutes, while Staal was getting easier matchups. Besides, Girardi isn't as good now as people think. He's playing sheltered minutes on a top team.

 

[Rempe73]

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.

9 out of 10 don't lead to championships? Source?

Many teams that rebuild want to speed it up. They get impatient (ex. Buffalo). I'm not saying a rebuild is guaranteeing a cup, but it's much better than being mediocre year after year.

 

[Rempe73]

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.

Missing the playoffs two or more seasons in a row? Are you serious? That's the point of a rebuild. You suck for a while, miss the playoffs, get high draft picks, and so on. It doesn't always work out, and some rebuilds take longer than others, but your argument is very flawed.

 

[silverfish]

Missing the playoffs two or more seasons in a row? Are you serious? That's the point of a rebuild. You suck for a while, miss the playoffs, get high draft picks, and so on. It doesn't always work out, and some rebuilds take longer than others, but your argument is very flawed.

That was the baseline. All these teams have been miserably bad for years, you know this. Stop playin.

There's no guarantee in a rebuild. We have enough proof of that, I don't need to smash it in your face.

 

[Machinehead]

9 out of 10 don't lead to championships? Source?

Many teams that rebuild want to speed it up. They get impatient (ex. Buffalo). I'm not saying a rebuild is guaranteeing a cup, but it's much better than being mediocre year after year.

The source is all around you. Islanders, Sabres, Oilers, Avs, Jackets, Hurricanes, Capitals, Panthers, Coyotes. The Leafs needed multiple shots at it and still haven't won a thing.

Every time a rebuild that failed is brought up, the goalposts get moved as to why that wasn't a "real" rebuild. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that count.

We already took a step back by nuking the roster at the deadline. Conceding being bad for the next three years is unnecessarily piling on.

 

[Rempe73]

That was the baseline. All these teams have been miserably bad for years, you know this. Stop playin.

There's no guarantee in a rebuild. We have enough proof of that, I don't need to smash it in your face.

Canucks - Didn't go all out rebuild until recently. They signed a bunch of vets to bad contracts.

Sabres - Tried to accelerate their rebuild. Got impatient.

Oilers - Awful GM that makes terrible moves.

Hurricanes - I follow this team. They have a great team, but have been very unlucky with their goaltending situation. Put even an average goalie on the team, and they are in the playoffs.

Panthers - They are good.

Islanders - Awful GM that also gave out a bunch of bad contracts.

Coyotes - They are trending up. They have a good team.

I don't know what you expect. You expect every team to not rebuild or something? You expect them to try to go all in every year like the Rangers have? I don't see your proof. The Rangers have no cups in recent memory. You know which teams do? Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Chicago. And they were bad for years before they won their cups. Stop pretending like rebuilding is a bad strategy. It's not easy. It doesn't happen overnight. But it's better than doing the same thing every year and hoping for a different outcome.

 

[silverfish]

The source is all around you. Islanders, Oilers, Avs, Jackets, Hurricanes, Capitals, Panthers, Coyotes. The Leafs needed multiple shots at it and still haven't won a thing.

Every time a rebuild that failed is brought up, the goalposts get moved as to why that wasn't a "real" rebuild. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that count.

We already took a step back by nuking the roster at the deadline. Conceding being bad for the next three years is unnecessarily piling on.

They're not failing, they just haven't succeeded yet.

Canucks - Didn't go all out rebuild until recently. They signed a bunch of vets to bad contracts.

Sabres - Tried to accelerate their rebuild. Got impatient.

Oilers - Awful GM that makes terrible moves.

Hurricanes - I follow this team. They have a great team, but have been very unlucky with their goaltending situation. Put even an average goalie on the team, and they are in the playoffs.

Panthers - They are good.

Islanders - Awful GM that also gave out a bunch of bad contracts.

Coyotes - They are trending up. They have a good team.

I don't know what you expect. You expect every team to not rebuild or something? You expect them to try to go all in every year like the Rangers have? I don't see your proof. The Rangers have no cups in recent memory. You know which teams do? Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Chicago. And they were bad for years before they won their cups. Stop pretending like rebuilding is a bad strategy. It's not easy. It doesn't happen overnight. But it's better than doing the same thing every year and hoping for a different outcome.

Confirming receipt.

 

[Rempe73]

The source is all around you. Islanders, Sabres, Oilers, Avs, Jackets, Hurricanes, Capitals, Panthers, Coyotes. The Leafs needed multiple shots at it and still haven't won a thing.

Every time a rebuild that failed is brought up, the goalposts get moved as to why that wasn't a "real" rebuild. Pittsburgh and Chicago are the only ones that count.

We already took a step back by nuking the roster at the deadline. Conceding being bad for the next three years is unnecessarily piling on.

(See above comment)

 

[Rempe73]

Look, we all have one thing in common. We just want a cup. And we all have different prescriptions for that. That's fine.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Oh for the love of... this again?

NOT rebuilding is 100% guaranteed to fail. Ergo it behooves the team to rebuild, despite the fact that not every team that attempts a rebuild wins.

Period, full stop.

The only question is the speed of the rebuild. If this draft turns into 2004 redux, and we luck into 2-3 elite players, like the Kings did then, hey, great, starting next offseason – perhaps even this coming TDL – we are gunning for the Cup again. Woohoo!

But even if that's the case, we don't know it as of now. Proceed with a measured rebuild until the data suggests you have turned the corner. In the meantime, don't let impatience derail the program.

 

[Machinehead]

Look, we all have one thing in common. We just want a cup. And we all have different prescriptions for that. That's fine.

My prescription is getting awful players off the team.

Pretty maverick idea, I admit.

 

[Machinehead]

Canucks - Didn't go all out rebuild until recently. They signed a bunch of vets to bad contracts.

Sabres - Tried to accelerate their rebuild. Got impatient.

Oilers - Awful GM that makes terrible moves.

Hurricanes - I follow this team. They have a great team, but have been very unlucky with their goaltending situation. Put even an average goalie on the team, and they are in the playoffs.

Panthers - They are good.

Islanders - Awful GM that also gave out a bunch of bad contracts.

Coyotes - They are trending up. They have a good team.

I don't know what you expect. You expect every team to not rebuild or something? You expect them to try to go all in every year like the Rangers have? I don't see your proof. The Rangers have no cups in recent memory. You know which teams do? Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Chicago. And they were bad for years before they won their cups. Stop pretending like rebuilding is a bad strategy. It's not easy. It doesn't happen overnight. But it's better than doing the same thing every year and hoping for a different outcome.

 

[Rempe73]

My prescription is getting awful players off the team.

Pretty maverick idea, I admit.

I completely agree with that.

 

[Rempe73]

That's not moving the goalposts. It's just facts. Panthers and Coyotes are good. Islanders and Oilers have a bad GM. Canucks and Sabres tried to cut corners. And the Hurricanes have a good team, but are unlucky.

 

[Machinehead]

Substitute the name "Stall" for "Girardi" and you would have the sentiments of most on this board, prior to the move to Tampa.

Girardi hasn't thrived in Tampa at all. He's been bad.

He's just out of the way instead of getting #1/2 minutes.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

My prescription is getting awful players off the team.

Pretty maverick idea, I admit.

I love how you keep saying this as if you could do it for free and there are no other consequences, and therefore the rest of us are all idiots for not agreeing with you.

My prescription is to not a) incur long-term negative cap consequences, b) eliminate veteran leadership on a team that will need it, or c) subtract a potential asset (either now or at some point in the future) for no return on a team in a rebuilding year (and already eating Girardi's penalty + Beleskey's 50% salary), when there is no commensurate gain to be had other than slaking your desperate need to no longer see Marc Staal in a Rangers sweater.

 

[Machinehead]

That's not moving the goalposts. It's just facts. Panthers and Coyotes are good. Islanders and Oilers have a bad GM. Canucks and Sabres tried to cut corners. And the Hurricanes have a good team, but are unlucky.

You asked for rebuild that failed to win a championship, I gave you several, and you made excuses as to why they don't count.

Which is exactly what I said you would do.

 

[Machinehead]

I love how you keep saying this as if you could do it for free and there are no other consequences, and therefore the rest of us are all idiots for not agreeing with you.

My prescription is to not a) incur long-term negative cap consequences, b) eliminate veteran leadership on a team that will need it, or c) subtract a potential asset (either now or at some point in the future) for no return on a team in a rebuilding year (and already eating Girardi's penalty + Beleskey's 50% salary), when there is no commensurate gain to be had other than slaking your desperate need to no longer see Marc Staal in a Rangers sweater.

Marc Staal is a long-term negative cap consequence. It's three years!

Marc Staal is soft as a babies ass and won't return shit. He's not a leader and not an asset. He's a parasite.

 

[Machinehead]

I completely agree with that.

Then why are we willingly letting Marc Staal stay another three years?

We could be a very good team in two years. We can't predict the future. We can predict that Staal will continue to severely hurt this team on the ice.