Do we buyout Marc Staal

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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.

Why are you insisting that this is a binary decision that must be made now? There will be opportunities to buy him out again in the future.

No one (that I'm aware of) has said they wouldn't be open to the idea next summer or the year after, depending on how the team progresses. I certainly could be.

 

[Machinehead]

Why are you insisting that this is a binary decision that must be made now? There will be opportunities to buy him out again in the future.

No one (that I'm aware of) has said they wouldn't be open to the idea next summer or the year after, depending on how the team progresses. I certainly could be.

What if we're better than we expect this year? Everyone plans for the worst. There also needs to be a plan for the best.

 

[Jersey Girl]

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.

Good news you may not be aware of - you can make your buyout decision on a year to year basis. If we are good in two years, buy him out in two years. It's simple.

Buying him out now means six years of dead cap space. That is terrible asset management.

 

[Fitzy]

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 ****. He's not a leader and not an asset. He's a parasite.

This is going a bit far, despite its symbolic nature.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

What if we're better than we expect this year? Everyone plans for the worst. There also needs to be a plan for the best.

Then, the rebuild is going very well and you may well cut him next summer. I'd love that.

Doesn't change the fact that it would be a bad move in the current upcoming buyout window, given the information we have now.

 

[Lion Hound]

If this didn't exist...

Girardi Buyout
17/18 $2,611,111
18/19 $3,611,111
19/20 $3,611,111
20/21 $1,111,111
21/22 $1,111,111
22/23 $1,111,111

The below doesn't look so bad. But the aforementioned actually does exist, so NO. Do not buyout Marc Staal.

Staal Buyout
18/19 $2,055,556
19/20 $3,055,556
20/21 $3,855,556
21/22 $1,355,556
22/23 $1,355,556
23/24 $1,355,556

 

[Machinehead]

Then, the rebuild is going very well and you may well cut him next summer. I'd love that.

Doesn't change the fact that it would be a bad move in the current upcoming buyout window, given the information we have now.

Fair.

 

[Lone Ranger]

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.

I sincerely hope that you're right. It just seems that a lot of coaches are deferential towards players of Staal's stature, and thus, reluctant to cut their playing time.

 

[haohmaru]

Keep him on the 3rd pair for the next 3 years. A buyout, coupled with Girardi's buyout, couple with possibly having to bury Smith for the next three years = no sale.

Should've bought him out in the first place.

 

[silverfish]

If this didn't exist...

Girardi Buyout
17/18 $2,611,111
18/19 $3,611,111
19/20 $3,611,111
20/21 $1,111,111
21/22 $1,111,111
22/23 $1,111,111

The below doesn't look so bad. But the aforementioned actually does exist, so NO. Do not buyout Marc Staal.

Staal Buyout
18/19 $2,055,556
19/20 $3,055,556
20/21 $3,855,556
21/22 $1,355,556
22/23 $1,355,556
23/24 $1,355,556

What about compared to this...

Girardi Buyout
18/19 $3,611,111
19/20 $3,611,111
20/21 $1,111,111
21/22 $1,111,111
22/23 $1,111,111

Staal
18/19 $5,700,000
19/20 $5,700,000
20/21 $5,700,000

To finally give an opinion on this debate... I think it basically boils down to this. If the Rangers are trying to compete, they should buy out Staal. If the Rangers are not trying to compete, then they can wait.

You're not going to trade him without giving up more than you want to get him off the team, so that's not an option. Even with that, you'd have to retain part of his contract, so why not just buy him out and save the asset you'd need to put on top of him to go and get a different, but less bad, contract back?

Any smart GM can replace what Staal brings to this team with a player that makes < $1m AAV a year. A smarter GM can replace Staal with a better player that makes < $1m AAV a year. You buy him out, sign a $1m AAV replacement, and still you're "saving" on the cap until those three dead cap years hit, with their minuscule impact on the overall picture.

 

[Riche16]

Wasn’t Smith just as bad if not worse in Hartford until he got into a fight in practice and hurt himself?

He’s the replacement for Staal?

I mean we all hope Smith can regain some form of what he was in last years POs but “replacement” May be a reach

 

[silverfish]

Wasn’t Smith just as bad if not worse in Hartford until he got into a fight in practice and hurt himself?

He’s the replacement for Staal?

I mean we all hope Smith can regain some form of what he was in last years POs but “replacement” May be a reach

I edited the Smith part out of my post because I knew that's all people would focus on. Thank you for confirming my edit

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

What about compared to this...

Girardi Buyout
18/19 $3,611,111
19/20 $3,611,111
20/21 $1,111,111
21/22 $1,111,111
22/23 $1,111,111

Staal
18/19 $5,700,000
19/20 $5,700,000
20/21 $5,700,000

To finally give an opinion on this debate... I think it basically boils down to this. If the Rangers are trying to compete, they should buy out Staal. If the Rangers are not trying to compete, then they can wait.

You're not going to trade him without giving up more than you want to get him off the team, so that's not an option. Even with that, you'd have to retain part of his contract, so why not just buy him out and save the asset you'd need to put on top of him to go and get a different, but less bad, contract back?

Any smart GM can replace what Staal brings to this team with a player that makes < $1m AAV a year. A smarter GM can replace Staal with a better player that makes < $1m AAV a year. You buy him out, sign a $1m AAV replacement, and still you're "saving" on the cap until those three dead cap years hit, with their minuscule impact on the overall picture.

Exactly this.

 

[Riche16]

I edited the Smith part out of my post because I knew that's all people would focus on. Thank you for confirming my edit

I just didn’t think Staal was THAT bad this year. I also don’t see the magical one year turnaround others do for this team.

Of course anything is possible but a new coach won’t be solving all the issues immediately... new systems take time to implement.

As far as I can tell we are in a plane w no engines over the Atlantic and some people wanna know what we are having for dinner when we land.

A Staal buyout may happen eventually but this coming year isn’t the time.

 

[Off Sides]

Rangers are trying to compete next season by having less available cap space than the other teams do? Sure the other teams likely have some inefficiency within their cap structure too, but for next season if they bought out Staal, his and the Girardi cap hits combined would be over 5.6M. That is quite a bit of inefficiency to overcome while being able to compete with the better teams in the league.

 

[silverfish]

Rangers are trying to compete next season by having less available cap space than the other teams do? Sure the other teams likely have some inefficiency within their cap structure too, but for next season if they bought out Staal, his and the Girardi cap hits combined would be over 5.6M.

You understand that Staal carries a larger cap hit than his buyout cap hit, right? Buying out Staal gives them more cap space for the next three years... So, yes, if they are trying to compete, they should get a bad player off of their team and add some cap wiggle room.

 

[Off Sides]

You understand that Staal carries a larger cap hit than his buyout cap hit, right? Buying out Staal gives them more cap space for the next three years...

I thought the idea was to compete for next season? If it is to compete in two or three years why not buy him out before that season instead?

 

[True Blue]

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.

Step back as far as what? They are taking two steps back to take 3 or 4 steps forward. There is no way the team is much better next year. In fact, chances are they will probably be worse as they will have an entire year without their better players. What were they supposed to do?

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

No one said thrived. He has been a competent third paring defenseman on a playoff team.

 

[Irishguy42]

You understand that Staal carries a larger cap hit than his buyout cap hit, right? Buying out Staal gives them more cap space for the next three years... So, yes, if they are trying to compete, they should get a bad player off of their team and add some cap wiggle room.

I think the thing that people are hung up on is that, combined with the Girardi buyout hit, Year 2 and Year 3 (assuming we buyout Staal this summer) would be higher than Staal's AAV.

But that's it. Year 1 is slightly lower (not a huge difference), and 4 through 6 would be lower.

 

[True Blue]

You understand that Staal carries a larger cap hit than his buyout cap hit, right? Buying out Staal gives them more cap space for the next three years... So, yes, if they are trying to compete, they should get a bad player off of their team and add some cap wiggle room.

And what happens in year 4? Not a fact that you can continue to ignore here. Realistically, they are not going to be competitive for a few years. Why hamstring yourself in the years that you expect the turnaround to occur?

You are also ignoring the cost of putting another player on right now to take his place.

I will ask you the same question I asked Machinehead. Who are you in a hurry to hand a spot in the starting 6 next year? O'Gara? Gilmour?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I think the thing that people are hung up on is that, combined with the Girardi buyout hit, Year 2 and Year 3 (assuming we buyout Staal this summer) would be higher than Staal's AAV.

But that's it. Year 1, and 4 through 6 would be lower.

Except that's not actually true – because in years 4 through 6, Staal's AAV would be $0.0MM.

The ONLY reason to buy Staal out would be if a) you were trying to compete this year and b) you could get a better player to replace him for $3.6MM or less.

Since we know a) is not the case, keep him. Then, revisit the question next year.

 

[silverfish]

I thought the idea was to compete for next season? If it is to compete in two or three years why not buy him out before that season instead?

Again, if they are trying to compete next year, buy him out. If they are not trying to compete next year, wait.

 

[Off Sides]

I think the thing that people are hung up on is that, combined with the Girardi buyout hit, Year 2 and Year 3 (assuming we buyout Staal this summer) would be higher than Staal's AAV.

But that's it. Year 1 is slightly lower (not a huge difference), and 4 through 6 would be lower.

That is part of it, but out of the remaining playoff teams, those who are I assume are what the Rangers are trying to compete with, Boston is carrying ~2.6M, Tampa ~1.8M, Jets ~1.4M The other teams who advanced I don't see any buyout cap space being used.

So not only do those team have just plain much better rosters, the Rangers are going to compete with that while also carrying more buyout cap space than any of them?

 

[Mac n Gs]

Again, if they are trying to compete next year, buy him out. If they are not trying to compete next year, wait.

Idk why you always get shit for just saying simple mathematcal concepts. It’s a simple equation

 

[silverfish]

That is part of it, but out of the remaining playoff teams, those who are I assume are what the Rangers are trying to compete with, Boston is carrying ~2.6M, Tampa ~1.8M, Jets ~1.4M The other teams who advanced I don't see any buyout cap space being used.

So not only do those team have just plain much better rosters, the Rangers are going to compete with that while also carrying more buyout cap space than any of them?

If I'm trying to compete, I'd rather carry a $2.055m AAV of a Staal buyout than a $5.7m AAV of Staal the player.

Is it possible that these teams who are competing, as you've listed, don't carry a ton of buyout cap because they don't sign players that necessitate buyouts?

Idk why you always get **** for just saying simple mathematcal concepts. It’s a simple equation

People like to come after the king