Follow me on Twitter @ToddCordell
The New York Rangers and Marc Staal have reportedly agreed upon a six-year contract extension worth $5.7 (or $5.75) million per season.
In today's hotstove we'll discuss whether that's a smart investment for the Rangers.
Todd Cordell
I don't think the Rangers overpaid for Marc Staal in that he'd probably get that much on the open market, but I think it's a bad signing in that they paid him a lot more than he's worth.
Staal is in his 8th NHL season and he's recorded more than 20 points just twice. He brings a very limited amount of offense, has had injury problems and I think his defensive abilities are overrated.
Since the beginning of the 2010-11 season Staal is 133rd among 143 eligible defensemen (3,000+ minutes) averaging .50 points/60 minutes of 5 vs 5 play. That's behind offensive dynamos such as Chris Phillips, Robyn Regehr, and Anton Volchenkov, among others.
He also owns a 49.5 Corsi For% in that span, which is 1.5% lower than the Rangers' Corsi without him on the ice. In other words, they get a higher percentage of the shot attempts when Staal isn't on the ice. The same can be said for scoring chances, as according to War-On-Ice the Rangers generate a larger chunk of the scoring chances without Staal.
I think he's an average defenseman, but his lack of offense, injury history and the fact he'll be 29 before his contract kicks in certainly would have scared me off.
Luckily for the Rangers they have a good team in place with some nice value contracts, so they should be able to work around it.
Tim Chiasson
No.
I don't think it's a good deal because I don't think Marc Staal brings enough to the table to get that kind of money. This deal looks good if it's next to Brooks Orpik's, but that's about it.
I think Glen Sather essentially paid market price for his own defender, which is a tick in the loss column for the GM. Anton Stralman is a better defender than Marc Staal and Sather let him away to Tampa last year at over a million dollars less per season.
At nearly six million per season Staal should have been dealt at the deadline and the Rangers move on.
Adam French
The deal is stretching but understandable.
Wait what lockout?
No really, what was the lockout for again? It certainly wasn't to curb salaries and their exponential growth into absurdity. Marc Staal is a fine second pairing defenseman. Fine second pairing defensemen shouldn't make practically 6 million freaking dollars. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but that just boggles my mind. Then I look at Brooks Oprik and Matt Niskanen and Nikita Nikitin and *shudders* Dion Phaneuf with what they got at or going into Free Agency and I understand. This is the new NHL, reputation or name brand can make desperate teams do crazy things.
Now as a positive for the Rangers. It helps keep their defense intact. While Dan Boyle isn't as good as Stralman is at the moment, he has still been a welcomed addition. This Rangers team can be dangerous in the East and McDonaugh-Girardi-Staal-Boyle is one of the biggest reasons for it. I'll also add that guys like Moore and Klein can't really handle the minutes they would need to replace Staal especially with a 39 year old Boyle. Their prospect pool also isn't ready to give them anybody that can play those minutes any time soon as Skjei is only 20 and not ready for the big time yet and McIlrath is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Who is available next FA? Mike Green? Going to get paid more. Erhoff? Probably stays with the Penguins. Boychuk? Can't see the Isles letting him go. Franson, Petry, Methot? It'll be terrible deal season.
So I'm torn. I understand why they did it and it's better to overpay the guy you're familiar with than a guy you hope will mesh later (I think the Rangers learned their lesson on those). Yet this is an over-payment plain and simple, especially since he got prime term on the deal as well.
James Tanner
It is a terrible deal. Mark Staal? He's four years removed from hitting 30 points, has a terrible history of injuries. If there wasn't a salary cap, this would be a fine deal, but long term deals on players 28+ rarely work out when said player is four seasons removed from his best season.
Someone would pay him more in UFA, but regardless, it's a bad deal because it represents poor value. It's not even signed yet and I guarantee you they'll regret it.
Recent posts
Power Rankings: Predators sit on top
Midseason MVP?
Best fit for Antoine Vermette?
Best fit for Jaromir Jagr?
Join the Discussion:
»