PDA

View Full Version : [Brooks] Opening Bid on Marc Staal Extension Will Be $5.5M Annually



Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 09:22 AM
Look, it’s not a matter of urgency the next 10 days or so, what with arbitration cases scheduled on July 23 for Chris Kreider, July 25 for Mats Zuccarello and July 28 for Derick Brassard, but the Rangers had best get busy on Marc Staal pretty quickly thereafter.

Because the number for Staal on an extension that would begin next season is going to start with a pair of fives at a minimum, as in $5.5 million per for six years, for that’s at least as much as the Blueshirts’ alternate captain would get on the open market next summer unless he sustains another concussion in 2014-15.

Either they believe he is worth it or they don’t. Because unless calamity strikes, the number isn’t going down. So the Rangers can pay it … or they can get to work right now investigating what Staal might fetch in a trade.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/devils-quit-their-day-jobs/

Future
07-21-2014, 09:34 AM
Just give him the same contract as G and be done with it. Both are equally as valuable, imo.

DiJock94
07-21-2014, 09:35 AM
trade him get assets while making room for Skjei

Future
07-21-2014, 09:37 AM
trade him get assets while making room for Skjei
That means forfeitting your defensive depth this year.

If you make a move like that, it means you're essentially OK with rebuilding, so you might as well trade MSL also.

AmericanJesus
07-21-2014, 10:12 AM
He's been saying for some time that he wants to get a deal done sooner rather than later. I get that, he's had a pretty bad injury history. Because of that, if he wants to stay, he's going to have to take a team friendly deal. That might mean $5.5M, but we don't start at that number, that's where we end up. And I'm waiting till mid season, because one more concussion any time soon and I don't want to lock him up long term.

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 10:17 AM
My bet is if they want him long-term, they sign him to Girardi's contract and just close the book. He could probably net $6M a year on the open market, so unless money is the ultimate goal here, I can't see this kind of negotiation being problematic. In fact, it looks like one of the easier ones, at least on paper, in recent years.

The question is, do the Rangers really want this version of Marc Staal at $5.5M for the next six years? I don't know if they have much of a choice in the matter, to be quite honest.

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:20 AM
I don't think he's can really get what G got. G produces more, G plays 82 games.

AmericanJesus
07-21-2014, 10:23 AM
My bet is if they want him long-term, they sign him to Girardi's contract and just close the book. He could probably net $6M a year on the open market, so unless money is the ultimate goal here, I can't see this kind of negotiation being problematic. In fact, it looks like one of the easier ones, at least on paper, in recent years.

The question is, do the Rangers really want this version of Marc Staal at $5.5M for the next six years? I don't know if they have much of a choice in the matter, to be quite honest.

I'll take this past year's version on that kind of extension. The danger is the average of the last 3 years. Only 139 of 212 regular season games (66%) and 46 of 57 (81%) post season games. Such a shame, too. The Staal of 09/10 and 10/11 was on path to basically give us 2 McDonaghs. 30-40 point shut down defenders, one on each side, in their prime. Fucking Eric.

Future
07-21-2014, 10:25 AM
I don't think he's can really get what G got. G produces more, G plays 82 games.
Assuming you're talking about offense...neither one of them really produces anything. G played a handful more games last year and had I think 10 more points. But he is 3 years older than Staal, and it's not impossible for Staal to still improve, especially with another full offseason. Playing with a more offensive-minded Boyle should help him get a few more pooints as well.

As per playing entire seasons...I don't think its really fair to cut Staal's pay too much based on injuries. One was a big late hit that concussed hima nd the other was a puck to the face. It's not like either was preventable...same thing could just as easily happen to G.

AmericanJesus
07-21-2014, 10:31 AM
Assuming you're talking about offense...neither one of them really produces anything. G played a handful more games last year and had I think 10 more points. But he is 3 years older than Staal, and it's not impossible for Staal to still improve, especially with another full offseason. Playing with a more offensive-minded Boyle should help him get a few more pooints as well.

As per playing entire seasons...I don't think its really fair to cut Staal's pay too much based on injuries. One was a big late hit that concussed hima nd the other was a puck to the face. It's not like either was preventable...same thing could just as easily happen to G.

You have to take the injuries into consideration, at least the concussions. Concussions are a cumulative thing. The more you get, both the more susceptible you are to them and the worse the damage is. At some point, the player will either shy away from contact or be at a much higher risk to miss more time and become less of a player. It sucks for Staal, but it's a reality. The eye thing, yes, it was a fluke. The team knows whether his vision is impacted and if so, how much. They get the reports from the doctors. If it's impacted, again, that decreases his value, because it decreases his effectiveness.

A concussion can't happen as easily to Girardi because he's never suffered one before. Yes, he could take a puck in the eye, although he wears a visor now, so it's less likely.

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:33 AM
Assuming you're talking about offense...neither one of them really produces anything. G played a handful more games last year and had I think 10 more points. But he is 3 years older than Staal, and it's not impossible for Staal to still improve, especially with another full offseason. Playing with a more offensive-minded Boyle should help him get a few more pooints as well.

As per playing entire seasons...I don't think its really fair to cut Staal's pay too much based on injuries. One was a big late hit that concussed hima nd the other was a puck to the face. It's not like either was preventable...same thing could just as easily happen to G.

But it didn't, so it's sort of irrelevant. Injury prone is injury prone. Accidents or not. Staal isn't durable. I'd rather he suffer from some sort of chronic thing that was correctable with surgery. He's just unlucky, and now is concussion prone. You can't just ignore it because the first one was freak (BTW, not late, perfect hit, his head was down), the one he suffered this past season was not.

As far as production, you know you're getting 25-30 points a year from G. Staal had 10 less points in 9 less games. But he still paced 16 points — And this may just be what he is now, with the eye.

Now there are those who didn't think that Stralman was worth $4.5 for 12 points, so I don't see how we can give Staal, today, a multi-year $5.5 million deal considering that they were in the exact same role and produced pretty much the same stats last year. Obviously there are some different circumstances surrounding both players, but the main argument against Stralman getting paid was always "12 points".

pws85nyr
07-21-2014, 10:34 AM
Is $20,200,000 on 4 D men not a little excessive with the cap being so tight? Not necessarily my opinion, just asking. I appreciate the cap will rise and Boyle would only have 1yr remaining at $4.5M. I guess we don't know what might happen over the next 12 months (i.e. a big trade to free up cap space).

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 10:35 AM
I don't think he's can really get what G got. G produces more, G plays 82 games.

The difference between them is marginal, IMO. Girardi just stays healthier. P/G wise, they're about the same player. Girardi is a career 0.31 P/G player based on the fact he hits 82 every year, and Staal has been up and down (injuries have totally derailed him) but is a career 0.24 P/G player.

Over 82 games, the difference between the two is exactly five points.


I'll take this past year's version on that kind of extension. The danger is the average of the last 3 years. Only 139 of 212 regular season games (66%) and 46 of 57 (81%) post season games. Such a shame, too. The Staal of 09/10 and 10/11 was on path to basically give us 2 McDonaghs. 30-40 point shut down defenders, one on each side, in their prime. Fucking Eric.

But what choice do they really have here? Risk losing him for nothing as a UFA, or a paltry return in a trade at the deadline to a team who might give them a first-rounder, maybe?

Now what do you do about the serious hole in your line-up on your second pair? You think John Moore is ready to step into that role? I don't.

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:36 AM
The difference between them is marginal, IMO. Girardi just stays healthier. P/G wise, they're about the same player. Girardi is a career 0.31 P/G player based on the fact he hits 82 every year, and Staal has been up and down (injuries have totally derailed him) but is a career 0.24 P/G player.

Over 82 games, the difference between the two is exactly five points.Don't look at career numbers. Staal isn't what he was. Look at the last three years. This is the player he is now.

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 10:37 AM
But it didn't, so it's sort of irrelevant. Injury prone is injury prone. Accidents or not. Staal isn't durable. I'd rather he suffer from some sort of chronic thing that was correctable with surgery. He's just unlucky, and now is concussion prone. You can't just ignore it because the first one was freak (BTW, not late, perfect hit, his head was down), the one he suffered this past season was not.

As far as production, you know you're getting 25-30 points a year from G. Staal had 10 less points in 9 less games. But he still paced 16 points — And this may just be what he is now, with the eye.

Now there are those who didn't think that Stralman was worth $4.5 for 12 points, so I don't see how we can give Staal, today, a multi-year $5.5 million deal considering that they were in the exact same role and produced pretty much the same stats last year. Obviously there are some different circumstances surrounding both players, but the main argument against Stralman getting paid was always "12 points".

Which is a very fair argument when we are talking about the value of the player. The problem is, like Strålman (except worse, with Strålman now gone), the value to the team makes losing that player exceptionally painful.

I'm not sure this Rangers' squad can afford to not have him around. There's a serious role that needs to be filled there that no one internally can do. That means, unless there's a D coming back in a deal for him, they're gonna be shopping around on July 1st for that player regardless, where they will undoubtedly overpay or bring in a guy on the wrong side of his prime, etc. It's a double-edged sword no matter how you swallow it.

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:40 AM
Which is a very fair argument when we are talking about the value of the player. The problem is, like Strålman (except worse, with Strålman now gone), the value to the team makes losing that player exceptionally painful.

I'm not sure this Rangers' squad can afford to not have him around. There's a serious role that needs to be filled there that no one internally can do. That means, unless there's a D coming back in a deal for him, they're gonna be shopping around on July 1st for that player regardless, where they will undoubtedly overpay or bring in a guy on the wrong side of his prime, etc. It's a double-edged sword no matter how you swallow it.

Well someone is going to have to step in. Skjei or Allen. From my POV, this team has this year to compete before you're looking at selling off some pieces, anyway. IMO, Staal will be gone, MSL will be gone, and one of Hagelin or Stepan will be gone. Depending on what happens with Brassard and MZA, one of them might become unrestricted, as well.

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 10:43 AM
I'd think there would be a ton of pressure on Skjei to turn pro then, if that's the case, as from what I've read, Clark and company already feel he's ready as it is.

Curiously, does he play the left side?

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:44 AM
Yes.

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 10:48 AM
That's interesting. If Clark is serious about him being ready to turn pro this year, you'd have to think the Rangers are gonna push him to do so, and not return to NCAA, so he can get at least a year under his belt in the A this coming year. A successful year there would be a great insurance marker going into the following season with Staal a UFA.

You could then turn and say, "OK, no problem — we lose him, let's get something of value in a trade and get Skjei up next season".

Pete
07-21-2014, 10:51 AM
That's interesting. If Clark is serious about him being ready to turn pro this year, you'd have to think the Rangers are gonna push him to do so, and not return to NCAA, so he can get at least a year under his belt in the A this coming year. A successful year there would be a great insurance marker going into the following season with Staal a UFA.

You could then turn and say, "OK, no problem — we lose him, let's get something of value in a trade and get Skjei up next season".

Well Skjei has already said he's going back to school, but I wouldn't be surprised if he turned pro and played a few AHL games at the end of the season, as I believe some other players have done.

Phil in Absentia
07-21-2014, 11:02 AM
Well Skjei has already said he's going back to school, but I wouldn't be surprised if he turned pro and played a few AHL games at the end of the season, as I believe some other players have done.

Ah, right. Forgot about that. The "one more year won't hurt me" stuff.

Still, I suppose that's at least an internal option. Same with Allen (though he plays the right, if I recall correctly).

RangersFan
07-21-2014, 12:25 PM
Not too bad actually.

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-21-2014, 12:30 PM
trade him get assets while making room for Skjei

An established Top 4 defenseman who is capable of playing top pair when needed to make room for an unproven prospect with no pro experience?

I'm all for giving our prospects chances to succeed but that's being a little ridiculous. Prospects have to earn their spots, not have it handed to them.

CreaseCrusader91
07-21-2014, 12:31 PM
I'm not anointing Skjei or anything but his season this year could really tell us if he could be a viable replacement for Staal. He could be a good option to consider going forward and if he continues to show he is Pro ready it might make sense to deal Staal and get a decent NHL defender back in the interim. He's got good size and speed, and could be a nice solution. Not saying he will outright replace Staal but he could be a very viable NHL option.

Puck Head
07-21-2014, 12:32 PM
Well Skjei has already said he's going back to school, but I wouldn't be surprised if he turned pro and played a few AHL games at the end of the season, as I believe some other players have done.

I would venture to say this is exactly what he does.

AmericanJesus
07-21-2014, 12:36 PM
The difference between them is marginal, IMO. Girardi just stays healthier. P/G wise, they're about the same player. Girardi is a career 0.31 P/G player based on the fact he hits 82 every year, and Staal has been up and down (injuries have totally derailed him) but is a career 0.24 P/G player.

Over 82 games, the difference between the two is exactly five points.



But what choice do they really have here? Risk losing him for nothing as a UFA, or a paltry return in a trade at the deadline to a team who might give them a first-rounder, maybe?

Now what do you do about the serious hole in your line-up on your second pair? You think John Moore is ready to step into that role? I don't.

What do we do if Staal is concussed 20 games into this season? Same problem. However, what your scenario is missing is keeping him and letting him walk, then using that $5.5M on a UFA defender.

There are plenty of stop/gaps in here:

http://capgeek.com/free-agents/?year_id=2015&team_id=-1&position_id=D&fa_type_id=2

Pete
07-21-2014, 12:37 PM
An established Top 4 defenseman who is capable of playing top pair when needed to make room for an unproven prospect with no pro experience?

I'm all for giving our prospects chances to succeed but that's being a little ridiculous. Prospects have to earn their spots, not have it handed to them.

And how can he earn a spot when there are 4 players above him on the depth chart? You have to move 1.

fletch
07-21-2014, 12:45 PM
I'd rank our top 4 defensemen as one of the best in the league, so I think we should do the deal now before the price tag rises (free agency). Injuries are a risk with any player - so if you're afraid of Staal's health you make a trade. But I don't see any of the kids ready to step into a top 4 role for a team looking to make another run at the cup.

AmericanJesus
07-21-2014, 12:50 PM
I'd rank our top 4 defensemen as one of the best in the league, so I think we should do the deal now before the price tag rises (free agency). Injuries are a risk with any player - so if you're afraid of Staal's health you make a trade. But I don't see any of the kids ready to step into a top 4 role for a team looking to make another run at the cup.

This is the issue. And so, rather than locking him up now, we should wait and see where we are in January, both in terms of the team with the turnover we faced along with how Staal himself is doing. There's no real rush here.

momentum
07-21-2014, 01:11 PM
personally I would not want Staal on a higher cap hit than 5 mil. Any more than that and I'd look to trade him. He's not the player he once was.

BlairBettsBlocksEverything
07-21-2014, 01:12 PM
And how can he earn a spot when there are 4 players above him on the depth chart? You have to move 1.

Grind some time on the bottom pair.

Not that this matters yet considering he isn't even turning pro this year, but what's to say he can't bump Moore from the lineup?

I don't think Staal is going to be the one keeping him off the roster.