PDA

View Full Version : Rangers, Staal's Agent Have Had "Productive" Conversations About Long-Term Extension



Pete
09-10-2014, 10:35 AM
"We have had some productive discussions with the Rangers with the goal being to secure a long-term extension for Marc,” Paul Krepelka of The Orr Hockey Group wrote in an email to the Daily News.


Staal, who has a $3.975 million cap hit for this season, would become an unrestricted free agent next summer if he remained unsigned. A long-term extension likely at least would match the six-years, $33 million deal Girardi received last spring.


Staal, an alternate captain, is the most physical Rangers defenseman. He is capable of showing a mean streak in front of the net, as evidenced in last year’s playoffs, and he is also a popular, strong locker room leader and respected spokesman for the team.

He has battled through head injuries, including multiple concussions, and a right eye injury in the spring of 2013 that partially compromised his peripheral vision. But that has not stopped Staal, the Rangers’ 12th overall pick in 2005, from remaining a consistent and imposing presence on the blue line.

Staal’s brothers, Eric and Jordan, both play for the Carolina Hurricanes, so it was long believed Marc may want to join them eventually in Raleigh. But the Rangers are a contender that just reached the Stanley Cup Finals, and Marc is a major piece of the franchise’s success. He also has made a home in the Big Apple with wife, Lindsay, and the couple had a daughter, Anna Veralyn, this past February.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/rangers/marc-staal-agent-productive-discussions-rangers-goal-secure-long-term-extension-blog-entry-1.1934564

Phil in Absentia
09-10-2014, 10:50 AM
Really nothing new to report here. If you were going into this expecting a number lower than Girardi's, you still don't understand the way unrestricted free agency works.

Thing is, much as I like Staal, I can't help but feel they made the wrong choice in re-signing Girardi long-term as well last season — especially when you chalk up the fact that a number of Rangers' players are in line for long-term extensions beyond this season. If you lock up Staal, you're eating into an already precarious cap situation that may be exacerbated by the Hayes contract as well, whose bonuses would all roll over into next seasons' cap should he make the team out of training camp this year, and stick with the club all season.

Might get pretty tight pretty quick, with MSL, Zuccarello, and Talbot all UFA's, and Stepan and Hagelin both RFA's heading into their final restricted window (meaning any multi-year deal will buy UFA years from those players).

Slobberknocker
09-10-2014, 12:39 PM
i don't know what to think anymore about this. i'd keep them both but of course your tying up 20 mln on your blueline. I think Girardi's contract however is moveable. it's not like we egregiously overpaid for him. i understand he'd have to waive nmc's and such but its been done before. if management signals their unhappy with you most guys want to go where they are in a better work environment.

does anyone have a feeling on the timeframe for something like this?

Phil in Absentia
09-10-2014, 12:46 PM
i don't know what to think anymore about this. i'd keep them both but of course your tying up 20 mln on your blueline. I think Girardi's contract however is moveable. it's not like we egregiously overpaid for him. i understand he'd have to waive nmc's and such but its been done before. if management signals their unhappy with you most guys want to go where they are in a better work environment.

does anyone have a feeling on the timeframe for something like this?

I wouldn't be so confident about this. He has a full No-Movement Clause in the first three years of the deal that kicked in the second he signed the contract (to prevent the Rangers from trading him at the deadline anyway). It's rare players waive them unless things go really sour.

AmericanJesus
09-10-2014, 12:57 PM
Klein is still on a very movable contract and can likely be replaced on the cheap by a rookie cracking the lineup by next year. That will mean a $2M savings. Staal makes $4M now. Bump him to $5.5M and you still have another $500K in savings on the cost of your defense. That's if you want to keep Staal long term.

Girardi is kind of inconsequential to this discussion. He plays a different side and can't be replaced readily by anyone we have or will likely have in the next few years. You don't want Klein or McIlrath as your top pair D and a UFA that plays solid D and can put up 25-30 points is going to cost you just as much as Girardi did, if not more. I don't care how good McDonagh is or how a small sample size shows that he's played better with Stralman or Klein for a handful of shifts.

Would I re-sign Staal to a deal like Girardi? Not today. I'd wait to see how camp goes as far as other options we might have, along with letting Staal play through the first 20-30 games of the season and then make a decision.

Pete
09-10-2014, 03:42 PM
Klein is still on a very movable contract and can likely be replaced on the cheap by a rookie cracking the lineup by next year. That will mean a $2M savings. Staal makes $4M now. Bump him to $5.5M and you still have another $500K in savings on the cost of your defense. That's if you want to keep Staal long term.

Girardi is kind of inconsequential to this discussion. He plays a different side and can't be replaced readily by anyone we have or will likely have in the next few years. You don't want Klein or McIlrath as your top pair D and a UFA that plays solid D and can put up 25-30 points is going to cost you just as much as Girardi did, if not more. I don't care how good McDonagh is or how a small sample size shows that he's played better with Stralman or Klein for a handful of shifts.

Would I re-sign Staal to a deal like Girardi? Not today. I'd wait to see how camp goes as far as other options we might have, along with letting Staal play through the first 20-30 games of the season and then make a decision.You may not care, but that's the crux of the conversation.

It's like saying you don't care about which CBA a contract was signed under when discussing cap hit.

Phil in Absentia
09-10-2014, 03:56 PM
When I talk about the Rangers making the "wrong" decision re: Girardi, I'm not talking head-to-head. I realize they play different sides of the ice. What I'm really talking about is the money amount being given to a "lesser", albeit more healthy player. In a vacuum, I'd have given Girardi's deal to Staal and traded Girardi, then simply re-signed Strålman and probably still had money to sign Boyle.

Or basically:

Ryan McDonagh / Anton Strålman
Marc Staal / Dan Boyle
John Moore / Kevin Klein

And that's assuming the Girardi deal wouldn't have brought back a defender (like Sbisa, or Vatanen, assuming he was dealt to Anaheim, as was rumored).

AmericanJesus
09-10-2014, 04:19 PM
You may not care, but that's the crux of the conversation.

It's like saying you don't care about which CBA a contract was signed under when discussing cap hit.

Well, if you think you can take a guy who is only trusted to play 13:00/game, pair them with McDonagh and expect that they'll be able to handle 22:00/game without any drop off from them or from McDonagh, I have to disagree. I think that the small sample size stats that showed McDonagh did better in some situations playing with other defenders than Girardi ignore that he was likely stepping down into their role, not them stepping up into Girardi's. So McDonagh taking extra shifts to replace Moore to play with Klein in a third pair role is not the same as Klein replacing Girardi for 20+ minutes, night in, night out, over a long season.

AmericanJesus
09-10-2014, 04:24 PM
When I talk about the Rangers making the "wrong" decision re: Girardi, I'm not talking head-to-head. I realize they play different sides of the ice. What I'm really talking about is the money amount being given to a "lesser", albeit more healthy player. In a vacuum, I'd have given Girardi's deal to Staal and traded Girardi, then simply re-signed Strålman and probably still had money to sign Boyle.

Or basically:

Ryan McDonagh / Anton Strålman
Marc Staal / Dan Boyle
John Moore / Kevin Klein

And that's assuming the Girardi deal wouldn't have brought back a defender (like Sbisa, or Vatanen, assuming he was dealt to Anaheim, as was rumored).

So you're replacing Girardi with someone who's been able to play a 2nd pair role not checking top lines game after game in a long season. Can he step up and fill that spot? Maybe. So you're going from a yes to a maybe on 1st pair right D. And then there's the offense. Like how he gets it done or not, Girardi put up 24 points last season, while Stralman had just 13. With the extra minutes would Stralman nearly double his scoring? Again, it's a maybe from a yes.

It's a heck of a gamble to play with a team that's right there for a Cup win to save $1M in cap hit.

Pete
09-10-2014, 04:26 PM
Well, if you think you can take a guy who is only trusted to play 13:00/game, pair them with McDonagh and expect that they'll be able to handle 22:00/game without any drop off from them or from McDonagh, I have to disagree. I think that the small sample size stats that showed McDonagh did better in some situations playing with other defenders than Girardi ignore that he was likely stepping down into their role, not them stepping up into Girardi's. So McDonagh taking extra shifts to replace Moore to play with Klein in a third pair role is not the same as Klein replacing Girardi for 20+ minutes, night in, night out, over a long season.Sure, if you think Klein is the only candidate possible for that role. But that isn't the case.

Again, as I've said all along, you simply DO NOT have to pay a guy $5.5 to play with McD, and you simply CANNOT pay a guy $5.5 if he completely regresses when he isn't with McD or Staal.

That's what we've observed with Girardi.

AmericanJesus
09-10-2014, 04:32 PM
Sure, if you think Klein is the only candidate possible for that role. But that isn't the case.

Again, as I've said all along, you simply DO NOT have to pay a guy $5.5 to play with McD, and you simply CANNOT pay a guy $5.5 if he completely regresses when he isn't with McD or Staal.

That's what we've observed with Girardi.

Who's he played with that isn't McDonagh or Staal? John Moore? Del Zotto? Your complaint is that if he plays with a 3rd pair defender who's had trouble sticking in lineups, then the pair struggles. Not sure that's as huge a knock on Girardi as you'd like it to be.

And if you don't pay Girardi $5.5M, who do you put there? And how much are they paid? Stralman got $4.5M, so $1M less after playing as a 2nd pair defender playing with Staal. Could he step up and be a #2 defender on the right side? Don't know. What we do know is that McDonagh and Girardi as a pair can shut down top lines and are considered one of the best defensive pairs in the league. Maybe McDonagh can do the same without him, maybe he can't.

Pete
09-10-2014, 04:44 PM
Who's he played with that isn't McDonagh or Staal? John Moore? Del Zotto? Your complaint is that if he plays with a 3rd pair defender who's had trouble sticking in lineups, then the pair struggles. Not sure that's as huge a knock on Girardi as you'd like it to be.

And if you don't pay Girardi $5.5M, who do you put there? And how much are they paid? Stralman got $4.5M, so $1M less after playing as a 2nd pair defender playing with Staal. Could he step up and be a #2 defender on the right side? Don't know. What we do know is that McDonagh and Girardi as a pair can shut down top lines and are considered one of the best defensive pairs in the league. Maybe McDonagh can do the same without him, maybe he can't.

I wouldn't "like it" to a be a knock on Girardi. It just is what it is. Fact is, at the point Girardi was playing with Del Zotto, he wasn't a 3rd pairing defender who had trouble sticking in lineups. Fact is, he was a top $ player on THIS team. I think we both know that's a weak and disingenuous argument.

Look, G is who he is. And what he is simply isn't worth what he got. And now, that deal is impacting our ability to keep a superior player.

NYR2711
09-10-2014, 08:18 PM
I wouldn't "like it" to a be a knock on Girardi. It just is what it is. Fact is, at the point Girardi was playing with Del Zotto, he wasn't a 3rd pairing defender who had trouble sticking in lineups. Fact is, he was a top $ player on THIS team. I think we both know that's a weak and disingenuous argument.

Look, G is who he is. And what he is simply isn't worth what he got. And now, that deal is impacting our ability to keep a superior player.

This is exactly how I feel. The deal wouldn't have been too bad had it not had the NMC in it. To me, Id rather have Staal at that price than Girardi. Staal is still one of the best shut down guys, even with his bad eye. He is the only one on the Rangers defense that doesn't have problems shutting down Ovechkin when he is pared against him. And having Staal on our second pairing gives us nice depth on defense. Not many teams can boast about have players like McD and Staal in their top two pairs.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 07:09 AM
I wouldn't "like it" to a be a knock on Girardi. It just is what it is. Fact is, at the point Girardi was playing with Del Zotto, he wasn't a 3rd pairing defender who had trouble sticking in lineups. Fact is, he was a top $ player on THIS team. I think we both know that's a weak and disingenuous argument.

Look, G is who he is. And what he is simply isn't worth what he got. And now, that deal is impacting our ability to keep a superior player.

There is a constant theme where you seem to think every non-super star player is over paid. I think that indicates a failure to adapt your baseline to the rising salaries of the NHL. Players simply get more on average than you seem to think is fair market value.

I still haven't heard what player at what cost you would try to replace Girardi with.

Pete
09-11-2014, 08:48 AM
There is a constant theme where you seem to think every non-super star player is over paid. I think that indicates a failure to adapt your baseline to the rising salaries of the NHL. Players simply get more on average than you seem to think is fair market value.

I still haven't heard what player at what cost you would try to replace Girardi with.

Everyone gets overpaid in free agency. This is common, accepted knowledge. Someone was giving G $5.5. It didn't HAVE to be us.

And frankly, I've given lists of players multiple times who can fill the role. I'm not going to keep doing it, because your auto-answer is "Well, we don't KNOW they can fill it", which is a cheap tactic, IMO.

You'd have also paid Callahan $6, so this line of thinking isn't new. I will wait until Stepan and Hags come up for new deals and you are supporting $7 and $5, respectively.

Slobberknocker
09-11-2014, 10:13 AM
i can live with Girardi. He might be what he is but this guy never comes out of the lineup. Does he still have room to show some upside moving forward? maybe, maybe not.

Out side of his game 5 brainfarts in the finals, most teams in the league would sign up in a heartbeat for a mac/g pairing.

i know stall is a more polished player but i worry about his health. that's why i'd be more open to listening for offers, as i think he could bring in some front line help.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 10:38 AM
Everyone gets overpaid in free agency. This is common, accepted knowledge. Someone was giving G $5.5. It didn't HAVE to be us.

And frankly, I've given lists of players multiple times who can fill the role. I'm not going to keep doing it, because your auto-answer is "Well, we don't KNOW they can fill it", which is a cheap tactic, IMO.

You'd have also paid Callahan $6, so this line of thinking isn't new. I will wait until Stepan and Hags come up for new deals and you are supporting $7 and $5, respectively.

UFAs always get overpaid, so we shouldn't sign UFAs? I don't think you see it that way. So now it's a matter of which UFAs it's OK to overpay (or pay fair market value, really).

As far as who would have filled the role, you're right, anyone other than Girardi is an unknown. Might work better, might work worse, might do the same. So the cost savings over Girardi have to be significant AND the player has to be likely to be able to fill the role. Someone like Stralman for example, had a good chance of filling that role given his recent play, although he was likely to product less offense. Is that slight gamble worth saving $1M per season and dealing with less offense? Certainly debatable.

As far as what I would pay others, you're confusing two different issues. There is what I would pay to have a player on my team and what I feel fair market value would be for that player. Callahan's fair market value was $6M. He signed for a hair under that in Tampa. He could have gotten over that, most likely if he hit the open market, although he probably would have gone to a worse team. I had no problem not paying Callahan that kind of money/term. I had questions about the trade more because of the additional cost (2 more first rounders) but you can't really argue with the result, which was a fantastic run and also what I would imagine is an inherent belief by everyone on the team that they can get back and finish the job if they just give a little bit more, to a man.

I'll deal with my opinion on salary for Steps and Hags when the time comes.

Pete
09-11-2014, 10:47 AM
UFAs always get overpaid, so we shouldn't sign UFAs? I don't think you see it that way. So now it's a matter of which UFAs it's OK to overpay (or pay fair market value, really).

As far as who would have filled the role, you're right, anyone other than Girardi is an unknown. Might work better, might work worse, might do the same. So the cost savings over Girardi have to be significant AND the player has to be likely to be able to fill the role. Someone like Stralman for example, had a good chance of filling that role given his recent play, although he was likely to product less offense. Is that slight gamble worth saving $1M per season and dealing with less offense? Certainly debatable.

As far as what I would pay others, you're confusing two different issues. There is what I would pay to have a player on my team and what I feel fair market value would be for that player. Callahan's fair market value was $6M. He signed for a hair under that in Tampa. He could have gotten over that, most likely if he hit the open market, although he probably would have gone to a worse team. I had no problem not paying Callahan that kind of money/term. I had questions about the trade more because of the additional cost (2 more first rounders) but you can't really argue with the result, which was a fantastic run and also what I would imagine is an inherent belief by everyone on the team that they can get back and finish the job if they just give a little bit more, to a man.

I'll deal with my opinion on salary for Steps and Hags when the time comes.

Just because someone is willing to overpay doesn't mean we should. And we overpaid for G.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 11:07 AM
Just because someone is willing to overpay doesn't mean we should. And we overpaid for G.

I disagree. I thought he got a fair contract.

RichieNextel305
09-11-2014, 11:15 AM
I personally think Girardi got a fair contract too. He easily would have gotten that deal, at the very least, on the open market IMO.

Phil in Absentia
09-11-2014, 11:22 AM
Girardi wasn't overpaid. He was paid exactly what a player of his type should have gotten as a UFA, and had the comparable deals to point to in justifying it — namely Carle, Wideman, Hamhuis and Bouwmeester.

The issue isn't over what we actually paid him, but over whether or not it was worth it to invest that into Dan Girardi, where we may have sunk a lot of money into a player who has superior teammates also in need of deals, like Marc Staal.

Pete
09-11-2014, 11:28 AM
I disagree. I thought he got a fair contract.

Whatever the case may be, the real issue is that given his play in the playoffs, and the crunch we are in to keep Staal, we probably should not have been the ones to give it to him. Derek Engelland got $2.9 on the open market. What a player "could" get on the market doesn't make that player "worth it".

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 11:32 AM
Girardi wasn't overpaid. He was paid exactly what a player of his type should have gotten as a UFA, and had the comparable deals to point to in justifying it — namely Carle, Wideman, Hamhuis and Bouwmeester.

The issue isn't over what we actually paid him, but over whether or not it was worth it to invest that into Dan Girardi, where we may have sunk a lot of money into a player who has superior teammates also in need of deals, like Marc Staal.

Staal and Girardi to me have different skill sets but equal value. And I see very little issue with re-signing Staal. It will simply mean we can't spent $4m total on our third pair. And really we shouldn't be. As a third pair defender, Klein is over paid. He can be a 2nd pair D, but we don't have a slot for him there.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 11:36 AM
Whatever the case may be, the real issue is that given his play in the playoffs, and the crunch we are in to keep Staal, we probably should not have been the ones to give it to him. Derek Engelland got $2.9 on the open market. What a player "could" get on the market doesn't make that player "worth it".

His end of playoff struggles are a small sample, albeit it at a terrible time. He's been mostly solid in the post season.

Staal may or may not be an issue, salary-wise. I see no big issues keeping him.

Phil in Absentia
09-11-2014, 11:45 AM
Staal and Girardi to me have different skill sets but equal value. And I see very little issue with re-signing Staal. It will simply mean we can't spent $4m total on our third pair. And really we shouldn't be. As a third pair defender, Klein is over paid. He can be a 2nd pair D, but we don't have a slot for him there.

There's most definitely issue with re-signing him. He wants a long-term deal at least equal to Girardi's, so we're talking minimum $5.5M per season.

In a vacuum, that's really not an insurmountable raise from the bargain $3.975M he's making now. It's a difference, cap-wise, of only $1.5M~ a year. The problem is, we don't operate in a vacuum, and there are circumstances surrounding Staal that he directly affects, and that directly affect him and his contract. The biggest of which, in my opinion, are Stepan and Hagelin's final RFA contracts (meaning anything more than one year deals for either eat UFA years, and thus will cost substantially more if the team doesn't want to risk them walking directly into UFA at an early age), whether Kevin Hayes makes the team or not (because if he does, his bonuses all roll into next years' cap, when Staal's contract would officially hit the books), Zuccarello's long-term extension, and what happens with St. Louis, who even on a bargain extension, is still not going to come cheap.

I'm not trying to pass the buck here, but show me your roster next year with Staal at $5.5M and all of these issues resolved. Because by my count, there's around $20M to play with to address all of them. That might seem like a big number, but it's really not when you realize that Stepan, Zuccarello and Staal will effectively eat more than $15M between themselves, leaving around $5M left to dedicate to whether or not MSL returns, Hagelin's inevitable raise, the Hayes bonus payroll, etc.

The dollars just don't add up.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 12:32 PM
There's most definitely issue with re-signing him. He wants a long-term deal at least equal to Girardi's, so we're talking minimum $5.5M per season.

In a vacuum, that's really not an insurmountable raise from the bargain $3.975M he's making now. It's a difference, cap-wise, of only $1.5M~ a year. The problem is, we don't operate in a vacuum, and there are circumstances surrounding Staal that he directly affects, and that directly affect him and his contract. The biggest of which, in my opinion, are Stepan and Hagelin's final RFA contracts (meaning anything more than one year deals for either eat UFA years, and thus will cost substantially more if the team doesn't want to risk them walking directly into UFA at an early age), whether Kevin Hayes makes the team or not (because if he does, his bonuses all roll into next years' cap, when Staal's contract would officially hit the books), Zuccarello's long-term extension, and what happens with St. Louis, who even on a bargain extension, is still not going to come cheap.

I'm not trying to pass the buck here, but show me your roster next year with Staal at $5.5M and all of these issues resolved. Because by my count, there's around $20M to play with to address all of them. That might seem like a big number, but it's really not when you realize that Stepan, Zuccarello and Staal will effectively eat more than $15M between themselves, leaving around $5M left to dedicate to whether or not MSL returns, Hagelin's inevitable raise, the Hayes bonus payroll, etc.

The dollars just don't add up.

According to CapGeek, the Rangers have $23,875,000 available with 11 players signed. This is using a $69M cap. Lets add $2M to go to $71M which is a modest increase. We have $25.875M

Unsigned:
St. Louis $2M+bonuses
Zuccarello $4.5M
Stepan $5.5M
Hagelin $3.5M
Stempniak $1M or replaced for similar
Fast $1M or Replaced for similar

Staal $5.5M
Moore $1.5M or replaced for similar or less.

Talbot $1.5M or replaced for similar or less.

Total of all this is $26M for 20 players. That's just about the number we need to be at. We can shave a little here and a little there. Or if these figures are a little low or someone breaks into the lineup that isn't accounted for here, then we can resolve that issue by replacing someone like Klein ($2.9M) with Allen ($1M) to save some more space. As I've said, Klein as a third pair defender is vastly overpaid at $2.9M, while he's an adequate 2nd pair guy (on a good contract) for a lot of teams in the league. We'd get some value for him.

Any names that are swapped in for the lower end guys above will make the same or less. Miller, Allen, Haggerty, Hayes, Kristo, Lindbergh, etc all can swap in without increasing base salary. Yes, bonuses the following year will need to roll over, but at that point, guys like St. Louis and Boyle might be done, while the only significant player up for renewal that year is Kreider.

Phil in Absentia
09-11-2014, 01:16 PM
According to CapGeek, the Rangers have $23,875,000 available with 11 players signed. This is using a $69M cap. Lets add $2M to go to $71M which is a modest increase. We have $25.875M

Unsigned:
St. Louis $2M+bonuses
Zuccarello $4.5M
Stepan $5.5M
Hagelin $3.5M
Stempniak $1M or replaced for similar
Fast $1M or Replaced for similar

Staal $5.5M
Moore $1.5M or replaced for similar or less.

Talbot $1.5M or replaced for similar or less.

Total of all this is $26M for 20 players. That's just about the number we need to be at. We can shave a little here and a little there. Or if these figures are a little low or someone breaks into the lineup that isn't accounted for here, then we can resolve that issue by replacing someone like Klein ($2.9M) with Allen ($1M) to save some more space. As I've said, Klein as a third pair defender is vastly overpaid at $2.9M, while he's an adequate 2nd pair guy (on a good contract) for a lot of teams in the league. We'd get some value for him.

Any names that are swapped in for the lower end guys above will make the same or less. Miller, Allen, Haggerty, Hayes, Kristo, Lindbergh, etc all can swap in without increasing base salary. Yes, bonuses the following year will need to roll over, but at that point, guys like St. Louis and Boyle might be done, while the only significant player up for renewal that year is Kreider.

My bet is your figures on Stepan are a bit shy, and your figures on Hagelin might be a million less than what he's actually going to sign for.

Otherwise it's close.

The problem is, as even you ran into, the numbers get tight quick.

I guess it'd make the most sense to simply move Klein by that point and let McIlrath/Allen sink or swim.

AmericanJesus
09-11-2014, 01:24 PM
My bet is your figures on Stepan are a bit shy, and your figures on Hagelin might be a million less than what he's actually going to sign for.

Otherwise it's close.

The problem is, as even you ran into, the numbers get tight quick.

I guess it'd make the most sense to simply move Klein by that point and let McIlrath/Allen sink or swim.

Oh yeah, no doubt to keep the team together for this year and next, it's going to be a very tight cap. We're going to have a tight cap this year. Hopefully as we move along, we can free up $1M or so that will prorate up to a chunk big enough to make some small deadline moves. I might even swap Klein early this season if a young defender can match his play at a 1/3 the cost for the increased deadline flexibility and potential bonus coverage it'll provide. Of course, you are sacrificing some regular season depth this way. My point is that it's close, but it's doable if that's the goal. We can't improve much other than through youth, but we can certainly maintain what we have.

After those two years, St. Louis and Boyle are probably off the books. Nash's NMC becomes a NTC next season, not sure of the details on that, but I'd imagine rather than risk a waiver claim by Calgary or Buffalo, he might consent to a deal. Girardi's NMC turns into a modified NTC some time after that.

CreaseCrusader91
09-17-2014, 12:02 AM
Staal, who will turn 28 in January, i[B]s believed to be seeking a six- or seven-year deal in the neighborhood of $6 million per — perhaps somewhat more[/B}. The Rangers are believed to be offering the same deal to which they signed Girardi, six years at $5.5 million per — perhaps somewhat less.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/16/staal-tactics-talks-progressing-but-blueliner-not-close-to-new-deal/

jsm7302
09-17-2014, 08:26 AM
The reality is....Staal 2-3 years ago may make 6-7/per. However he has to understand his fragile status due to his recent injuries and how that affects his value. If he gets a mirrored contract to Girardi, he should be thankful.

To think they are .5- 1 mil apart leads me to believe the contract will get done.

Phil in Absentia
09-17-2014, 10:11 AM
The reality is....Staal 2-3 years ago may make 6-7/per. However he has to understand his fragile status due to his recent injuries and how that affects his value. If he gets a mirrored contract to Girardi, he should be thankful.

To think they are .5- 1 mil apart leads me to believe the contract will get done.

He's a UFA. Value changes once you hit that point in your career. 2-3 years ago he'd have been "worth" that on an extension eating both RFA and UFA eligible years because the deal would likely have been at a length where he could cash in a second time at its expiration.

But you are correct that considering how close they are, I'd imagine this gets done once NMC/NTC's come into play. That will become a form of currency the Rangers offer to lower his cap hit closer to the $5.5M Girardi is making, and the same structure of trade protection will probably go into Staal's extension (Full NMC first three years, modified NTC last three).

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 04:24 PM
PHILADELPHIA — There has been no progress whatsoever in the contract extension talks between the Rangers and Marc Staal, The Post has learned from several informed sources.

And that essentially is because there have been no meaningful talks for weeks between management and the 27-year-old defenseman’s camp.

The Rangers are believed to be offering Staal, who can become an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season, the same six-year, $33 million deal ($5.5M per) to which they signed Dan Girardi last year when he was a pending free agent. They don’t appear inclined to move off that number.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/30/marc-staal-heading-toward-exact-contract-situation-he-feared/

Future
09-30-2014, 04:37 PM
Just pay Staal and spend your $20 mil or whatever on the blueline. MSL is coming off the books after this year and he'll either sign for a team-friendly deal if he really wants to win another cup or will be replaced by Duclair and co. Stempniak and Lombo will likely both be gone, since their roster spots are in jeopardy already...that's $1.7 mil. If you lose Hags, you lose Hags. It's tough, but that's cap-era hockey. Boyle's $4.5 comes off after next year and certainly someone out of Allen, Skjei, McIlrath, etc. will be ready to play top 4. Of course, Klein can also be moved.

This team is fine in terms of the cap, especially with all of the young guys, even if you give Staal a decent raise.

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 04:39 PM
Just pay Staal and spend your $20 mil or whatever on the blueline. MSL is coming off the books after this year and he'll either sign for a team-friendly deal if he really wants to win another cup or will be replaced by Duclair and co. Stempniak and Lombo will likely both be gone, since their roster spots are in jeopardy already...that's $1.7 mil. If you lose Hags, you lose Hags. It's tough, but that's cap-era hockey. Boyle's $4.5 comes off after next year and certainly someone out of Allen, Skjei, McIlrath, etc. will be ready to play top 4. Of course, Klein can also be moved.

This team is fine in terms of the cap, especially with all of the young guys, even if you give Staal a decent raise.

Eh, I dunno about that.

If anything, Klein would move up to play in the top-4, as he played there previously with Nashville, and Allen/Skjei/McIlrath would slide in on the bottom pair to get their feet wet.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 04:45 PM
Just pay Staal and spend your $20 mil or whatever on the blueline. MSL is coming off the books after this year and he'll either sign for a team-friendly deal if he really wants to win another cup or will be replaced by Duclair and co. Stempniak and Lombo will likely both be gone, since their roster spots are in jeopardy already...that's $1.7 mil. If you lose Hags, you lose Hags. It's tough, but that's cap-era hockey. Boyle's $4.5 comes off after next year and certainly someone out of Allen, Skjei, McIlrath, etc. will be ready to play top 4. Of course, Klein can also be moved.

This team is fine in terms of the cap, especially with all of the young guys, even if you give Staal a decent raise.

I think with Staal's next contract, it would be around 25 million spent on a blue line.
Between that and goaltending I'm sure that would be the highest in the league.

Pete
09-30-2014, 04:47 PM
Trade bait.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 04:48 PM
Trade bait.

Staal simply doesn't look like the same player he was.
He's a second liner now, and seems to be a black hole of offense with the puck.

Then again, I'm wondering also about Girardi now....we can't afford to lose both, but they seem redundant.

Pete
09-30-2014, 04:54 PM
Staal simply doesn't look like the same player he was.
He's a second liner now, and seems to be a black hole of offense with the puck.

Then again, I'm wondering also about Girardi now....we can't afford to lose both, but they seem redundant.

I'd take Staal over G. G always falls off after April. Staal was a rock in the playoffs.

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 04:56 PM
I'd take Staal over G. G always falls off after April. Staal was a rock in the playoffs.

And unfortunately, they made the call on Girardi already. Full NMC in the first three years of the extension that kicked in the moment he signed it.

Slobberknocker
09-30-2014, 05:01 PM
Girardi stays healthy. talk about a guy who's stock has fallen on this board.

Agreed his game 5 was a disaster but there's a whole body of work to like about him.

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 05:06 PM
Girardi stays healthy. talk about a guy who's stock has fallen on this board.

Agreed his game 5 was a disaster but there's a whole body of work to like about him.

During the regular season, yes. It's his playoff performances that are drawing that ire — the same ire that applies to other players in high profile positions on the team who don't seem to get it done in the playoffs, like Stepan, who had three really, really, really shit outings in the post-season in his first four seasons.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 05:15 PM
I'd take Staal over G. G always falls off after April. Staal was a rock in the playoffs.

How does a small sample size, even if it happened at a terrible time for the team, become Girardi always falling off after April? He's consistently, along with McDonagh, used to shut down the top lines of other teams and against some of the biggest stars in the game, including Crosby, Ovechkin (a number of times), Giroux and Spezza in recent post seasons. He also put up 23 points in 57 games over the last three post seasons. That works out to 33 points over 82, which is above his regular season average over the same span (26 points over 82). And he logs the 2nd most ice time on the team in the post season, game after game, year after year.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 05:19 PM
During the regular season, yes. It's his playoff performances that are drawing that ire — the same ire that applies to other players in high profile positions on the team who don't seem to get it done in the playoffs, like Stepan, who had three really, really, really shit outings in the post-season in his first four seasons.

See my post above. That's simply not true. He plays just as well in the post season and increases his offensive production to boot. He had a poor stretch at a terrible time.

Pete
09-30-2014, 05:20 PM
How does a small sample size, even if it happened at a terrible time for the team, become Girardi always falling off after April? He's consistently, along with McDonagh, used to shut down the top lines of other teams and against some of the biggest stars in the game, including Crosby, Ovechkin (a number of times), Giroux and Spezza in recent post seasons. He also put up 23 points in 57 games over the last three post seasons. That works out to 33 points over 82, which is above his regular season average over the same span (26 points over 82). And he logs the 2nd most ice time on the team in the post season, game after game, year after year.

Its not a small sample size. Every year he makes a bad play at a key time.

He's not great playoff perfomer.

Phil in Absentia
09-30-2014, 05:21 PM
See my post above. That's simply not true. He plays just as well in the post season and increases his offensive production to boot. He had a poor stretch at a terrible time.

He produces just as well. He doesn't play just as well, which is evidenced by the fact he's routinely involved directly in plays and decisions that often cost the team.

That poor stretch at a terrible time is when the team needs that player the most of all.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 05:25 PM
Its not a small sample size. Every year he makes a bad play at a key time.

He's not great playoff perfomer.

No one said he was great. There are a handful of great defenders in the league. If you expect every player to be great and want to get rid of any player that isn't, you'll end up with a couple players on your team. You say similar stuff about Hank. He lets in a bad goal at a bad time. Almost every player in the league does this. Crosby had 1 goal and 2 assists in 7 games against us last post season. He's the best player in the world. He didn't play well enough at a key time. Is he not a great playoff performer because of that?

All Girardi does is get the job done against the top line on the opposite team, game in, game out. He fills his role very well. Yes, he has a handful of bad plays over the course of a post season. Just like every other player.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 05:28 PM
He produces just as well. He doesn't play just as well, which is evidenced by the fact he's routinely involved directly in plays and decisions that often cost the team.

That poor stretch at a terrible time is when the team needs that player the most of all.

That's not true. How did Crosby's line do against us in the playoffs? How did Giroux's line? How does Ovechkin's line usually fair? And what pair gets put against those guys shift after shift? You want to define guys by their worst stretch? Fine. Crosby's only good for 1 goal and 2 assists in a seven game series, because that's all he scored against us when their season was on the line. Last time Ovechkin played us 2 years ago, he had a goal and an assist in 7 games. That define him?

Pete
09-30-2014, 05:31 PM
That's not true. How did Crosby's line do against us in the playoffs? How did Giroux's line? How does Ovechkin's line usually fair? And what pair gets put against those guys shift after shift? You want to define guys by their worst stretch? Fine. Crosby's only good for 1 goal and 2 assists in a seven game series, because that's all he scored against us when their season was on the line. Last time Ovechkin played us 2 years ago, he had a goal and an assist in 7 games. That define him?

Staal got the Crosby assignment this year.

And you're giving McD no credit.

Who coughed the puck up time and again this past final?

Who was behind the net holding his dick when Henrique sent them home?

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 05:47 PM
Staal got the Crosby assignment this year.

And you're giving McD no credit.

Who coughed the puck up time and again this past final?

Who was behind the net holding his dick when Henrique sent them home?

McDonagh and Girardi get top assignments and do well game after game, year after year. I'm not giving McDonagh no credit. You are giving Girardi no credit. You're trying to define him by his mistakes. You can make any NHL player, from Crosby to Carcillo look terrible when you do that. It's easy, I get it. But you're down on almost every player. Almost every player makes too much. Almost every player plays too poorly. The grass is always greener.

As far as a handful of plays, sure, Girardi's made some big mistakes at times, but so has every single player in the NHL. You just are harping on Girardi's mistakes because you don't like him as a player. That's fine. But that's just your opinion.

Pete
09-30-2014, 05:49 PM
McDonagh and Girardi get top assignments and do well game after game, year after year. I'm not giving McDonagh no credit. You are giving Girardi no credit. You're trying to define him by his mistakes. You can make any NHL player, from Crosby to Carcillo look terrible when you do that. It's easy, I get it. But you're down on almost every player. Almost every player makes too much. Almost every player plays too poorly. The grass is always greener.

As far as a handful of plays, sure, Girardi's made some big mistakes at times, but so has every single player in the NHL. You just are harping on Girardi's mistakes because you don't like him as a player. That's fine. But that's just your opinion.

I'm harping on his mistakes because the always seem to end games or seasons

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 06:06 PM
I'm harping on his mistakes because the always seem to end games or seasons

Sure, if you want to make a game or a season as simple as the last game winning goal scored against you. I don't see things that simplistically though and I don't think you do either. It's very rare that a single play or player is responsible for a game being won or lost. It's almost always a series of events.

Two defenders can make the same bad play. Defender A does it and the goalie makes a save. You might think about it for a moment but then it's gone. Defender B does it and the goalie doesn't make the save. Suddenly losing the game is Defender B's fault. It's a mental trick, nothing more.

Girardi makes some bad plays. He's made some bad plays at key times, but some of that is a function of being out there for nearly half the game. He also makes a lot of good plays every game. We rarely sit around and harp on all the good plays that get made, though. That's why players, especially defenders, typically are judged harshly by their own fans unless they're one of the top 15 or so in the league. If Girardi makes a play to save a goal on a wide open net, a save that could be the difference between a game or a series, we won't be talking about it years later. We might not even talk about it hours later.

So yeah, if you want to only look at mistakes, Girardi's a terrible hockey player who's way over paid.

Vodka Drunkenski
09-30-2014, 06:39 PM
You said yourself he's not great, so if he's getting paid to be great, he's over paid IMO

Pete
09-30-2014, 06:47 PM
Sure, if you want to make a game or a season as simple as the last game winning goal scored against you. I don't see things that simplistically though and I don't think you do either. It's very rare that a single play or player is responsible for a game being won or lost. It's almost always a series of events.

Two defenders can make the same bad play. Defender A does it and the goalie makes a save. You might think about it for a moment but then it's gone. Defender B does it and the goalie doesn't make the save. Suddenly losing the game is Defender B's fault. It's a mental trick, nothing more.

Girardi makes some bad plays. He's made some bad plays at key times, but some of that is a function of being out there for nearly half the game. He also makes a lot of good plays every game. We rarely sit around and harp on all the good plays that get made, though. That's why players, especially defenders, typically are judged harshly by their own fans unless they're one of the top 15 or so in the league. If Girardi makes a play to save a goal on a wide open net, a save that could be the difference between a game or a series, we won't be talking about it years later. We might not even talk about it hours later.

So yeah, if you want to only look at mistakes, Girardi's a terrible hockey player who's way over paid.

Agree to disagree. Girardi's play, IMO, perennially falls off. Until he proves otherwise.

Puck Head
09-30-2014, 07:20 PM
Staal got the Crosby assignment this year.

And you're giving McD no credit.

Who coughed the puck up time and again this past final?

Who was behind the net holding his dick when Henrique sent them home?

I believe Staal only had the Crosby assignment (or any top line) 2 games last playoffs.
Game 3 and 4 I believe against the Penguins. Game three Staal got torched on that breakaway by Crosby.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 07:47 PM
You said yourself he's not great, so if he's getting paid to be great, he's over paid IMO

Great players get 8M+ a season. He's being paid like what he is, a 2nd best defender on the team.

Vodka Drunkenski
09-30-2014, 08:05 PM
Our definitions of great differ then, elite players gets 8+ IMO

Future
09-30-2014, 08:17 PM
Eh, I dunno about that.

If anything, Klein would move up to play in the top-4, as he played there previously with Nashville, and Allen/Skjei/McIlrath would slide in on the bottom pair to get their feet wet.
I'm talking long term here, not this season. If you can't replace Boyle and Klein with two of those guys or any of the others, then our young defensive depth is awful. Two years from now one of them should have been able to get to where they can play in the top 4 to a level at least comparable to Klein.

I think with Staal's next contract, it would be around 25 million spent on a blue line.
Between that and goaltending I'm sure that would be the highest in the league.
Again, I'm not talking about right now. In two years, after Boyle comes off the books, you've got G, Mac, and Staal for 16, give or take. Add Lunq and you get closer to 25, but I'm fine with that. I don't think it's really a bad thing to pay good defensemen.

AmericanJesus
09-30-2014, 08:46 PM
Our definitions of great differ then, elite players gets 8+ IMO

Look around the league at what $5.5M gets you as far as UFA defenders signed recently.

Vodka Drunkenski
09-30-2014, 09:03 PM
Look around the league at what $5.5M gets you as far as UFA defenders signed recently.

Again, our definition of "great" differs. Girardi is a 4-4.5 (still slightly generous) defenseman that increased his value first because of Staal and now McD.

AmericanJesus
10-01-2014, 07:01 AM
Again, our definition of "great" differs. Girardi is a 4-4.5 (still slightly generous) defenseman that increased his value first because of Staal and now McD.

OK let's try it this way. Find me a couple great defenders who have signed new UFA contacts the last couple of years that make around $5.5m.

Vodka Drunkenski
10-01-2014, 07:40 AM
Pietrangelo & Karlsson, I'm guessing they're right around there. But like I said earlier, he increased his value because of Staal and McD. He's good but he isn't worth that money, it shows when he's forced to be paired with someone else.

AmericanJesus
10-01-2014, 07:49 AM
Pietrangelo & Karlsson, I'm guessing they're right around there. But like I said earlier, he increased his value because of Staal and McD. He's good but he isn't worth that money, it shows when he's forced to be paired with someone else.

Karlsson and Pietrangelo are both $1m more and both contracts were for 4 RFA years and then 3 UFA years. Much different negotiating with RFAs than UFAs. I'd imagine both would be 7.5m if it was all UFA years.

Slobberknocker
10-01-2014, 10:04 AM
what i find most amusing about this post is that it wasn't our defense that cost us the cup last year. Our Blueline back held up damn well against that team.

Pete
10-01-2014, 10:09 AM
what i find most amusing about this post is that it wasn't our defense that cost us the cup last year. Our Blueline back held up damn well against that team.

Actually misplays by Girardi and McD led to us losing Game 1, which was the one we could have/should have stolen. That put us in a hole that we never really got out of.

Vodka Drunkenski
10-01-2014, 10:12 AM
Karlsson and Pietrangelo are both $1m more and both contracts were for 4 RFA years and then 3 UFA years. Much different negotiating with RFAs than UFAs. I'd imagine both would be 7.5m if it was all UFA years.

I get what you're saying but I'm not sure if you're getting my point or not, Girardi cashed in on being paired with Staal and McD IMO

Future
10-01-2014, 10:13 AM
what i find most amusing about this post is that it wasn't our defense that cost us the cup last year. Our Blueline back held up damn well against that team.
Generally speaking, the defense has carried this team, but I think it was actually the weakness against LA.

Slobberknocker
10-01-2014, 11:58 AM
Actually misplays by Girardi and McD led to us losing Game 1, which was the one we could have/should have stolen. That put us in a hole that we never really got out of.

Disagree completely. It was the lack of the top front line talent to score goals that did us in.

Pete
10-01-2014, 12:00 PM
Disagree completely. It was the lack of the top front line talent to score goals that did us in.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's not opinion that misplays by Girardi and McD led to us losing Game 1, which was the one we could have/should have stolen, and put us in a hole that we never really got out of.

AmericanJesus
10-01-2014, 12:13 PM
I get what you're saying but I'm not sure if you're getting my point or not, Girardi cashed in on being paired with Staal and McD IMO

That's one way to look at it. Another would be that he's a great complimentary player to any true #1. If it was that easy to be the 2nd, then we'd just slot some low salary guy there. So yes, Girardi benefited from Staal and McDonagh. No doubt about that. But then, if you have a top pair that shuts down opposing teams best line regularly, isn't that what you want and pay for? We know that the pair works, which is why we locked Girardi up. We'll see if Staal can be as effective playing with an offensive defenseman in Boyle as he was playing with either Girardi or Stralman who are both strong defensively.

RichieNextel305
10-01-2014, 06:22 PM
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

It's not opinion that misplays by Girardi and McD led to us losing Game 1, which was the one we could have/should have stolen, and put us in a hole that we never really got out of.

While the Girardi play cost us Game 1, Game 2 was the one we really should have taken. Scoring 4 by Quick, quick answers to their goals, horrific display of officiating as far as there being no goalie interference call on the Kings 3rd goal.

Slobberknocker
10-02-2014, 09:42 AM
ill always chalk that finals up to a lack of prod by nash, richards, etc questionable penalties and non calls coupled with the fact we didn't get one break our way (krieder's post) the whole way through.

that being said i was damn proud of their efforts through the playoffs. down 3-1 to the pens and keeping focus through out all the Montreal whining.

cousin
10-10-2014, 10:51 AM
I guess Staal's hand just got a bit stronger in negotiations. Sather has been tough in certain cases but with Girardi and brassard getting the going rate, Sather may be wise to get it done with Staal.

Pete
10-10-2014, 10:53 AM
I don't see how his hand got stronger...?

Do you men the Boyle injury?

cousin
10-10-2014, 10:57 AM
I don't see how his hand got stronger...?

Do you men the Boyle injury?yes D is looking very this in depth.

Pete
10-10-2014, 11:01 AM
yes D is looking very this in depth.

I don't a 4-week injury is going to effect a (potentially) long term contract that's likely to be hashed out months from now.

cousin
10-10-2014, 11:19 AM
I don't a 4-week injury is going to effect a (potentially) long term contract that's likely to be hashed out months from now.I wanted to trade the guy because I think he's going to ask a crazy number but with this depth not looking too good and with Boyle out im glad he's still here. However, I don't know what he wants. I'm glad he's still here right now.

Pete
10-10-2014, 11:27 AM
I wanted to trade the guy because I think he's going to ask a crazy number but with this depth not looking too good and with Boyle out im glad he's still here. However, I don't know what he wants. I'm glad he's still here right now.

Oh, gotcha. You're right, we definitely can't look to trade him now.

But if he isn't signed at the deadline, he's gotta go.

Phil in Absentia
10-10-2014, 11:29 AM
And in any deal, I'd imagine the Rangers would be getting back at least one defenseman, if not two. While they technically have depth, the depth isn't very good if Skjei and McIlrath specifically aren't NHL-ready by next season.

G1000
10-10-2014, 11:40 AM
Conventional wisdom says lock him up at the Girardi/Brass rate.

That said, next year is terrifying for us - contract wise anyway. MSL is due up, which is probably a good thing since he'll be on Selanne deals. Zucc is a UFA and is in a "prove it" yea. Sgtepan is due a nice raise a-la McDonagh, Hagelin's in a prove it year and seems to really want to prove it. Fast and Miller are RFA too.

It's a lot of raises to give against a cap you need to assume will be in the 73M range - and all of this doesn't account for filling out the rest of the roster (2 defenders, 2 forwards)

CreaseCrusader91
10-15-2014, 07:02 PM
:tweet:@Hope_Smoke:
(Bob)McKenzie "My understanding with M.Staal is that he's negotiating a deal with NYR but it's gone quiet of late."

McKenzie "He's looking for a deal north of what Girardi got. I think NYR are thinking they want to pay Staal what they're paying Girardi"

lefty9
10-15-2014, 07:48 PM
anything more than Girardi he isn't worth the cap hit,especially Staal with his injury's problems

Drew a Penalty
10-15-2014, 08:54 PM
I still don't want to resign him. I get the idea of wanting capable defensemen on the roster especially with what is going on now, but I can't justify Staal getting $5M as well as Girardi. You can't just pay a bunch for mostly one dimensional defensemen and then expect to be good in other areas. If Girardi hadn't gotten his contract I'd be fine with it, but I'm too worried about Staal's injuries, play, and the need for money elsewhere. I'd try and flip him for a younger defenseman if possible.

Phil in Absentia
12-30-2014, 04:45 PM
The thus-far career Rangers defenseman said after Tuesday afternoon's practice in Texas that his lack of a new deal "hasn't been a distraction at all," but added that everything is "status quo," meaning negotiations are quiet and unresolved.

"It hasn't been a distraction at all for me, actually," Staal said at the Dr. Pepper Star Center. "I think I've played well. It hasn't affected the way I've approached things on the ice."

Nevertheless, Staal has said since last spring that he hopes to avoid the type of trade deadline drama that accompanied teammates Dan Girardi and Ryan Callahan last season. Girardi ultimately re-signed, but Callahan's talks played out in public before he was dealt to the Tampa Bay Lightning.

Staal, who turns 28 on Jan. 13, wants to remain with the franchise that selected him 12th overall in the 2005 NHL draft rather than hit unrestricted agency on July 1. He reiterated on Tuesday that while he's not anxious now, it'd be nice to get this out of the way before the March 2 trade deadline creeps near.

"I'm sure both sides don't want it to get to that point," Staal said. "So hopefully it happens sooner rather than later."

Staal is believed to be seeking an extension closer to six years, $6 million per season, while the Rangers are believed to be offering the same contract they gave Girardi, at $5.5 million per year for six years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/rangers-marc-staal-new-contract-new-year-article-1.2061083

momentum
12-30-2014, 05:38 PM
I really don't see how Staal's camp could justify him getting more money than Girardi at all. It's not like he's better than Girardi in any way. Very similar steady defensemen. Once upon a time Staal might have been seen as with potential to add more offense to his repertoir but those days are long gone.

Pete
12-30-2014, 06:17 PM
I really don't see how Staal's camp could justify him getting more money than Girardi at all. It's not like he's better than Girardi in any way. Very similar steady defensemen. Once upon a time Staal might have been seen as with potential to add more offense to his repertoir but those days are long gone.
Few reasons...inflation, pedigree, and he's younger hitting UFA than G. Thats worth 500k.

torontonyr
12-30-2014, 07:14 PM
Few reasons...inflation, pedigree, and he's younger hitting UFA than G. Thats worth 500k.

They'll also likely cite the fact that his development was stunted due to a pair of injuries, one of them being freak and near-unpreventable; thus their client may very well have limitless untapped potential - especially as defensemen tend to bloom late.

This isn't how I feel, for the record - but it's likely part of their pitch.

CreaseCrusader91
12-30-2014, 07:46 PM
Few reasons...inflation, pedigree, and he's younger hitting UFA than G. Thats worth 500k.

That and he is left handed and area they don't have a viable replacement for.

!br-avery!
12-30-2014, 08:02 PM
I really love Staal and can't give him enough credit for coming back from the concussions and eye injury BUT I just can't see paying him 6 million a year.I'd hate to trade him cause he really wants to be here it seems but we can't afford what he wants,well we can but it'll handcuff us.

CaptainMacTruck
12-31-2014, 01:31 AM
Few reasons...inflation, pedigree, and he's younger hitting UFA than G. Thats worth 500k.

Yup, but couldn't Sather argue that Staal is more injury-prone than Girardi, has missed more games, produces less points than Girardi every year, doesn't play in ALL situations: he doesn't play on the PP like Girardi does.

Couldn't those differences be worth 500k LESS than Girardi? So factor in inflation and age, and you get back up to 5.5M, the same contract Girardi got less than a year ago?

Of course Staal can get 6 on the open market, but he holds the key.

He can make 6+ playing in Edmonton, or he can make 500k less and play on a perennial contender in NY where he's spent his entire career. And IMO, the Carolina option is out. Unless they find someone to take Semin's 7M, they don't have room to offer Staal 6M long-term. They already have Jordan til eternity at 6M and Eric needs to be re-signed in a year and already makes over 8M per.

Take the 5.5 Marc! Or end up like Callahan.

torontonyr
12-31-2014, 02:28 AM
Yup, but couldn't Sather argue that Staal is more injury-prone than Girardi, has missed more games, produces less points than Girardi every year, doesn't play in ALL situations: he doesn't play on the PP like Girardi does.

Couldn't those differences be worth 500k LESS than Girardi? So factor in inflation and age, and you get back up to 5.5M, the same contract Girardi got less than a year ago?

Of course Staal can get 6 on the open market, but he holds the key.

He can make 6+ playing in Edmonton, or he can make 500k less and play on a perennial contender in NY where he's spent his entire career. And IMO, the Carolina option is out. Unless they find someone to take Semin's 7M, they don't have room to offer Staal 6M long-term. They already have Jordan til eternity at 6M and Eric needs to be re-signed in a year and already makes over 8M per.

Take the 5.5 Marc! Or end up like Callahan.

Im just glad he admitted that it was something lingering over him, it was (to me) obvious to see. He seems stressed and distraught.

inkreiderwetrust
12-31-2014, 06:16 AM
I hope not. It would be a waste to sign him long term.

inkreiderwetrust
12-31-2014, 06:18 AM
That and he is left handed and area they don't have a viable replacement for.

That's exactly what the organization has replacements for. They are stocked with left handed defenseman.

Slobberknocker
12-31-2014, 08:22 AM
I'm so torn on what to do with this guy.

thes5
12-31-2014, 08:28 AM
The fact is that Staal will get paid somewhere. If he takes a hometown discount, the Rangers should resign him.
Look around the league and find team with a significantly better #3 defenseman. There aren't many.

Pete
12-31-2014, 09:24 AM
That's exactly what the organization has replacements for. They are stocked with left handed defenseman.

How many can step in next year and play 22:00 a night, with special teams?

Pete
12-31-2014, 09:27 AM
Yup, but couldn't Sather argue that Staal is more injury-prone than Girardi, has missed more games, produces less points than Girardi every year, doesn't play in ALL situations: he doesn't play on the PP like Girardi does.

Couldn't those differences be worth 500k LESS than Girardi? So factor in inflation and age, and you get back up to 5.5M, the same contract Girardi got less than a year ago?

Of course Staal can get 6 on the open market, but he holds the key.

He can make 6+ playing in Edmonton, or he can make 500k less and play on a perennial contender in NY where he's spent his entire career. And IMO, the Carolina option is out. Unless they find someone to take Semin's 7M, they don't have room to offer Staal 6M long-term. They already have Jordan til eternity at 6M and Eric needs to be re-signed in a year and already makes over 8M per.

Take the 5.5 Marc! Or end up like Callahan.

Of course. But Staal's agent can also say that's the coach's decision, and Staal is capable of playing in all situations and he hasn't been asked or put in a role to produce points.

That said, both sides can say whatever they want, it's all posturing and negotiation.

I was just replying to someone who said they don't understand how Staal can ask for more money than G.

MacTruck
12-31-2014, 09:40 AM
Of course. But Staal's agent can also say that's the coach's decision, and Staal is capable of playing in all situations and he hasn't been asked or put in a role to produce points.

That said, both sides can say whatever they want, it's all posturing and negotiation.

I was just replying to someone who said they don't understand how Staal can ask for more money than G.

I respectfully disagree. Staal is our #6 defensive option on the power play. He makes poor offensive decisions at even strength and cant frequently get his shot through.

He's a top 30 defensive defenseman in the league. Tough to justify $5.5m when we already have two players with that definition signed long term. I honestly don't see how we can keep him unless we give up 2 of 3 on the Hags, Zucc, MSL debate. I'm also a big believer that Skjei will become a top 4 guy, making this an easier decision.

Phil in Absentia
12-31-2014, 09:41 AM
At the end of the day, like every year, with every player like this, it's about supply and demand. Always. Everyone is always shocked at what UFA-eligible players want (Vermette wants $6M, per Friedman — shocked?).

Slats can play hardball over the $500K per season (though it's likely more), and Staal can and likely will end up traded. That's the nature of the business. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Drew a Penalty
12-31-2014, 09:45 AM
How many can step in next year and play 22:00 a night, with special teams?

The only potential option is Skjei unless Bodie really steps up big or Allen finds his game from a season ago. Either way it's not exactly preferable unless they really show they're capable. We can only hope that someone like Skjei can handle the pressure of playing second pair minutes as a rookie.

I still want to sign a stop gap defenseman. I doubt many defenseman would be up for it, but I'd rather do what we did with Rozsival and McDonagh rather than throw Skjei into the league immediately. I can only wish that someone like Paul Martin would sign short term and deal him when Skjei is ready. Unlikely, but that's just something I would do.

Phil in Absentia
12-31-2014, 09:52 AM
The only potential option is Skjei unless Bodie really steps up big or Allen finds his game from a season ago. Either way it's not exactly preferable unless they really show they're capable. We can only hope that someone like Skjei can handle the pressure of playing second pair minutes as a rookie.

I still want to sign a stop gap defenseman. I doubt many defenseman would be up for it, but I'd rather do what we did with Rozsival and McDonagh rather than throw Skjei into the league immediately. I can only wish that someone like Paul Martin would sign short term and deal him when Skjei is ready. Unlikely, but that's just something I would do.

It's what I'd do as well. Barret Jackman, Paul Martin, Zbynek Michálek, François Beauchemin, Robyn Regehr... there are plenty of options, assuming they all make it to UFA. I'd be looking at the least expensive, and shortest term among them.

Pete
12-31-2014, 09:57 AM
The only potential option is Skjei unless Bodie really steps up big or Allen finds his game from a season ago. Either way it's not exactly preferable unless they really show they're capable. We can only hope that someone like Skjei can handle the pressure of playing second pair minutes as a rookie.

I still want to sign a stop gap defenseman. I doubt many defenseman would be up for it, but I'd rather do what we did with Rozsival and McDonagh rather than throw Skjei into the league immediately. I can only wish that someone like Paul Martin would sign short term and deal him when Skjei is ready. Unlikely, but that's just something I would do.
So the answer to my question was "none"?

Phil in Absentia
12-31-2014, 09:58 AM
So the answer to my question was "none"?

Absolutely. Among rookies, at least. That's why I'd grab a stop-gap vet for now. Even if it's just a one-year deal, it's better than throwing Skjei, Allen or any other player into the fire like that.

Pete
12-31-2014, 09:58 AM
I respectfully disagree. Staal is our #6 defensive option on the power play. He makes poor offensive decisions at even strength and cant frequently get his shot through.

That's fine to have that opinion. I'm just saying what his agent would say.

Fact is NONE of our D are very good offensively.

Drew a Penalty
12-31-2014, 10:02 AM
It's what I'd do as well. Barret Jackman, Paul Martin, Zbynek Michálek, François Beauchemin, Robyn Regehr... there are plenty of options, assuming they all make it to UFA. I'd be looking at the least expensive, and shortest term among them.

Shortest term is probably Regher and Michálek, but Michálek might want to end his career in Arizona because that's where he's succeeded. Regher is coming off a two year deal and he's 34. I don't know if Michálek would want to leave Arizona.

Drew a Penalty
12-31-2014, 10:04 AM
That's fine to have that opinion. I'm just saying what his agent would say.

Fact is NONE of our D are very good offensively.

And that's the way it's going to be unless we acquire a defenseman with offensive capabilities. We have none in the system. Probably something that needs addressing in coming drafts and free agent groups. The organization is probably content with having Boyle as the offensive defenseman for now.