Player Discussion Is there anything redeeming about the Eric Staal trade?

[silverfish]

He hasn't been a truly effective center ever since the hernia surgery and Edler blowing up his knee. His speed took a major hit, but the board play and skills were still there. He should've been a winger here.

Well, I didn't have an issue with AV playing Staal at center - outside of it making Hayes useless. If that's where he's more comfortable, that's where he's more comfortable. My issue is the fact that AV had a rotating carousel of **** on Staal's wings until he settled, incorrectly, on Hayes and Fast.

Although, to AV's credit, at least he had the integrity to admit his mistakes managing Staal... even though after admitting them, he continued on his carousel brigade of Staal wingers.

Stalberg - Staal - Lindberg.

We all saw it. Why didn't AV?

 

[EpicDing]

I don't know, I guess if management sees the trade as the final straw in "going for it" and does a serious retool, it can be viewed as good? Silver lining I guess.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Well, I didn't have an issue with AV playing Staal at center - outside of it making Hayes useless. If that's where he's more comfortable, that's where he's more comfortable. My issue is the fact that AV had a rotating carousel of **** on Staal's wings until he settled, incorrectly, on Hayes and Fast.

Although, to AV's credit, at least he had the integrity to admit his mistakes managing Staal... even though after admitting them, he continued on his carousel brigade of Staal wingers.

Stalberg - Staal - Lindberg.

We all saw it. Why didn't AV?

No clue, they only had 2 or 3 games together IIRC, and they produced 2 ES goals in their 37 minutes together. How that line only got 37 minutes of ice time together, but Dan Paille got 12 games to suck ass through a straw is beyond me.

 

[silverfish]

No clue, they only had 2 or 3 games together IIRC, and they produced 2 ES goals in their 37 minutes together. How that line only got 37 minutes of ice time together, but Dan Paille got 12 games to suck ass through a straw is beyond me.

lmao Dan Paille!

This ****ing team sometimes. Ugh.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Stalberg - Staal - Lindberg.

We all saw it. Why didn't AV?

'We all' didn't know how Lindberg's injury was affecting him. We didn't even know he was injured as we were screaming about how AV was using him...

 

[silverfish]

'We all' didn't know how Lindberg's injury was affecting him. We didn't even know he was injured as we were screaming about how AV was using him...

We all also have no idea when Lindberg was injured.

He looked good with Staal and Stalberg, regardless.

 

[SA16]

It was another trade were I was forced to ask: who were they bidding against?

The whole "bidding against" thing is such nonsense and that why it keeps on repeating time and time again. There's no real thing. They are bidding against the other team deciding not to trade him. It's been proven so many times that a GM isn't going to just take some complete rip-off offer for a player just to get rid of him if he doesn't get what he wants. Happened with the entire Padres roster last year and plenty of others. We weren't going to get MSL for cheap just because he wanted to play here. Either we would meet the price Yzerman wanted for him or he would just keep him. Same thing for Eric Staal. And it is important for GM's to actually act this way. If they did show they would roll over and accept some way under value offer when a player demands a trade that would really hurt their leverage in future negotiations.

Despite being the only suitor they were not bidding against themselves in any of these situations.

 

[Raspewtin]

The whole "bidding against" thing is such nonsense and that why it keeps on repeating time and time again. There's no real thing. They are bidding against the other team deciding not to trade him. It's been proven so many times that a GM isn't going to just take some complete rip-off offer for a player just to get rid of him if he doesn't get what he wants. Happened with the entire Padres roster last year and plenty of others. We weren't going to get MSL for cheap just because he wanted to play here. Either we would meet the price Yzerman wanted for him or he would just keep him. Same thing for Eric Staal. And it is important for GM's to actually act this way. If they did show they would roll over and accept some way under value offer when a player demands a trade that would really hurt their leverage in future negotiations.

Despite being the only suitor they were not bidding against themselves in any of these situations.

****ing finally someone said it.

 

[Jersey Girl]

The whole "bidding against" thing is such nonsense and that why it keeps on repeating time and time again. There's no real thing. They are bidding against the other team deciding not to trade him.

Meh. That's a given in any trade in the history of trades.

The additional factor in most trades is when you are ALSO bidding against other teams. That's what did not exist in these cases...we were not bidding against other teams.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The whole "bidding against" thing is such nonsense and that why it keeps on repeating time and time again. There's no real thing. They are bidding against the other team deciding not to trade him. It's been proven so many times that a GM isn't going to just take some complete rip-off offer for a player just to get rid of him if he doesn't get what he wants. Happened with the entire Padres roster last year and plenty of others. We weren't going to get MSL for cheap just because he wanted to play here. Either we would meet the price Yzerman wanted for him or he would just keep him. Same thing for Eric Staal. And it is important for GM's to actually act this way. If they did show they would roll over and accept some way under value offer when a player demands a trade that would really hurt their leverage in future negotiations.

Despite being the only suitor they were not bidding against themselves in any of these situations.

You are positioning this as if the Rangers had no other options but to make the trade. At what point does the price for the corpse of Eric Staal become too much?

 

[Edge]

You are positioning this as if the Rangers had no other options but to make the trade. At what point does the price for the corpse of Eric Staal become too much?

Bingo.

This deal screams of a team that felt that it had to make a trade, with a large degree of desperation.

Eric Staal had 10 goals at the time of the trade...10.

He was an impending UFA.

His production and play were declining for several years. It wasn't like he was having an off-year that was still pretty good.

Take his name out of equation, and looking only at accomplishments, two second round picks and an emerging offensive talent was a very steep price.

Eric Staal proceeded to score three goals for the Rangers. One for each asset we surrendered.

Unfortunately, this was the second time the Rangers made such a move, with Clowe being the other example three years prior.

Amazingly, Clowe managed to have zero goals at the time we surrendered three picks for him.

Combined, Clowe and Staal had 10 goals in 91 games at the times we acquired them for a total of three second rounders, a third rounder, a fifth rounder and Sareela.

In return they scored a whopping 6 goals in 39 games for us.

Frankly, that's abysmal.

 

[True Blue]

We weren't going to get MSL for cheap just because he wanted to play here. Either we would meet the price Yzerman wanted for him or he would just keep him. Same thing for Eric Staal.

So why not just punt on the deal entirely? Why overpay?

 

[True Blue]

Combined, Clowe and Staal had 10 goals in 91 games at the times we acquired them for a total of three second rounders, a third rounder, a fifth rounder and Sareela.

Hurts just reading this. And then to think of what was squandered in the other deals and combine.......

 

[SA16]

You are positioning this as if the Rangers had no other options but to make the trade. At what point does the price for the corpse of Eric Staal become too much?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Presumably Sather has some upper limit on what he would offer and this did not exceed it. If he thought it was too much of course he could say no from his side and pursue other options. What I am saying is that the competition created by other teams trying to trade for someone is mostly a farce with the only real exception being if you're competing against your rival (i.e. Mets may pay more to trade for someone if the other team going for him is the Nats). This is because the opposing GM knows what he wants for the player - at an absolute minimum. Either teams meet it and they can potentially work out a deal or they don't but the GM isn't going to give the player away for absolutely nothing if he doesn't get what he wants (I suppose Drouin is the most recent example). Likewise teams aren't going to massively up their offer due to competition because the trade market involves more than just one player and if the price on that player seems to be getting too high they can look into acquiring somebody else.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

1. I'm not sure anyone thought they were a "sure bet contender", but there was no reason the team couldn't have made a deep run. (I know millenials are either all about going all in to win only if it's all but guaranteed and would rather finish last than make an effort otherwise.) Did anyone think Tampa was going to be one win away from a return trip to the SCF?

2. They were SECOND in the Eastern Conference. They were flawed, but so was EVERYONE else, including Washington. Personally, I think they could have (not saying would have) beaten anyone else in the East except Pittsburgh.

3. They were playing well, and seemed to have gotten over that December/early January weirdness. Also, the season was, IMO, more weird than necessarily bad.

4. Your Lundqvist point (and no matter what nevesis and other Hank defenders say, Hank had a down season save for the first two months) about getting hot in the playoffs.

Not sure what being a Millenial has to do with anything. I'm not the type of person that wants either a cup or a complete rebuild. I just didn't want to give up 3 valuable assets for one year of a guy that was not that amazing in a year we weren't that good. I respect Pittsburgh, but we didn't just lose to them because they're that amazing, we lost to them because we were brutal. That was the most lopsided series lost we've had since 2006.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

For starters, the Rangers appeared to be coming around in February after a bad slump. I expected the veterans to play better in the playoffs. I never figured Nash' season was essentially over . And I felt like with three lines capable of scoring, the Rangers could beat anyone.

Oh and we have Lundqvist. Who arguably for the first time in many years **** in the bed in the playoffs.

I notice you didn't mention our defense. Our offense may have been good enough but our defense was a horror show. Also Lundqvist even when he didn't **** the bed made the SC Final once in his career and never won. That argument is tired, this is a team game.

 

[The Gloaming]

Not sure what being a Millenial has to do with anything. I'm not the type of person that wants either a cup or a complete rebuild. I just didn't want to give up 3 valuable assets for one year of a guy that was not that amazing in a year we weren't that good. I respect Pittsburgh, but we didn't just lose to them because they're that amazing, we lost to them because we were brutal. That was the most lopsided series lost we've had since 2006.

It's the new thing to blame Millenials for anything.

Who cares how the team looks or plays in the regular season? Some people seem to think that it's a good idea to "go for it" every year, even when the team is not just one rental away from even contending.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

the rick nash trade and yandle trade were both good.

the staal trade was horribad.

the MSL trade was also pretty poor but in the end it helped us get to the SCF so there's that....

in terms of assets in and out, the Nash trade was a home run, as was the Gaborik trade. basically traded one set of assets for another set of assets and in the end got better because of it.

the yandle trade was also terrific....yandles usage wasnt good...nor was the decision to not trade yandle at the deadline...thats poor asset management...but the original yandle deal was a deal id do again. yandles elite. we screwed 2 seasons of having him here by not utilizing him properly.

the staal trade was bad. i get why they did it...i dont agree with it, and i wouldnt have done it. but again, i get it.

A trade that got us to the SCF is by definition a good trade.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I don't know, Jon, I thought the MSL trade was bad from the start. The team got older and softer. And they gave up a ton for a guy they were pretty much bidding against themselves for.

It was a boom or bust move. And since they didn't win the Cup, it's a bust.

That's just silly, SBOB.

If they had been bounced in the first, I'd agree with you. They weren't. They made the SCF.

 

[Inferno]

A trade that got us to the SCF is by definition a good trade.

no.

not at all.

If team X trades a superstar in the making for a chance at the cup for 1 year...thats not a good trade.

thats not what we did...but i disagree vehemetly that just because we made it to the SCF that it was a good trade by definition.

there is absolutely no way to know if we would have made the SCF by just keeping Cally and the 2 firsts that went with him...

 

[gorangers0525]

The MSL trade was fine. SCF and we're not paying that bum Callahan 6 million for 5 more years

 

[The Undertaker]

If they're sitting in a 7-9 spot next year at the trade deadline, will they really sit back and not make a big splash? I'd be shocked if Sather isn't in Gorton's ear whispering "Iginla/Marleau/Jagr/Chara/Doan is available, maybe he can revive his career here, he's still young, lotta miles left on that body...."

 

[FLYLine27*]

no.

not at all.

If team X trades a superstar in the making for a chance at the cup for 1 year...thats not a good trade.

thats not what we did...but i disagree vehemetly that just because we made it to the SCF that it was a good trade by definition.

there is absolutely no way to know if we would have made the SCF by just keeping Cally and the 2 firsts that went with him...

True. But we DO know that we did make the SCF, and it could have been because of that trade (at least helped us get there)

Trade was good.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

True. But we DO know that we did make the SCF, and it could have been because of that trade (at least helped us get there)

Trade was good.

Im OK with the Nash trade and the MSL trade. Those were done in the throngs of adding offensive firepower to a competitive team. Im even OK with the Yandle trade (not trading him this season was a blunder). The Staal trade went off the rails and was classic Rangers.

 

[Tawnos]

Im OK with the Nash trade and the MSL trade. Those were done in the throngs of adding offensive firepower to a competitive team. Im even OK with the Yandle trade (not trading him this season was a blunder). The Staal trade went off the rails and was classic Rangers.

I don't think the cost of the Yandle trade was a problem, but I actually still maintain that deal made the team worse. The pairings were immediately thrown into disarray.

I have little problem with what the Rangers paid for Eric Staal. I think the bigger issue was targeting him in particular. Teddy Purcell would have been a better fit. Dale Weise would have been a better fit. There were better targets out there.