First, a quick word on Friday's win. Clearly not the best game the Rangers have played or the prettiest. In fact, they were hemmed in their own zone a lot and had issues generating offense. Plus, they were a sieve in terms of giving up the puck. All that said, they found a way to grind out a win. A dash of offense and a huge helping of Henrik Lundqvist proved just enough to get the victory.
Two things Carp wrote stuck out to me:
The Rangers are, and will be, a good transition team, a team that uses its speed to counter and to produce offense off the rush. But when you play better teams, and teams that pressure you, you’d better be able to spend some time in the offensive zone, with the puck.
Derek Stepan, Rick Nash, Derick Brassard, Carl Hagelin, and many others, were so strong on the PK again. They have killed 12 of 13 over the last five games, and 45 of 51 (88.2 percent) over the last 18 games.
On the first, what we saw against the Islanders and Bruins as well as to a certain extent the Blue Jackets is what happens when a team cracks down defensively and doesn't allow New York to use their speed. The physical play coupled with a strong forecheck limits the breakout chances, pinning the squad deep. If there is an area that the team needs to improve on, it's adding more of a physical presence, who can take the pressure and find a way to advance the puck creating offense.
On the second, the penalty kill was an area of concern coming into the season. Losing Brian Boyle and to a lesser extent, Anton Stralman, created a gulf when short-handed. Nash has really stepped up his game in this regard and we all owe a big thanks to Mike Babcock, who used Nash in that capacity in the Olympics. In addition, the pairings have been together a while, so the gaps that existed defensively when playing short-handed which resulted in so many early PP goals against have been closed up, limiting chances.
Now back on to Marc Staal. It's almost like he has become the poster boy for the defensive defenseman, who is not a big scorer. Use of the word poster boy is not a term of endearment, given all that was written on him, save for most of the comments on my blog.
First, here were some of the comments from my blog yesterday, and thanks to all who weighed in:
Getting the deal for Staal at $5.7m is fair for both sides, he's still only 28 and has 4 solid years left, at least. He's been a huge part in shutting down Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, and Giroux in recent playoff series. Only 2 minor issues I have with Staal, he tends to struggle against smaller speedy forward, and he struggles mightily getting his shots on net. All the positives he brings though outweigh those 2 issues by a mil. Every single partner Staal has ends up playing the best hockey of their career.
Some of the comments from the Hotstove column today:
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 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.
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.
As you see, those who aren't Rangers' fans have panned the deal. The one respondee to the question who had some positive things to say also caveated it with that it was an overpayment but better to do for a devil you know versus one you don't. But the positives make a strong point: "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."
I understand the view that it's an overpayment. In terms of years and dollars, it may very well be the case. You want to say second pairing defensive d-men shouldn't get that kind of deal, it's hard to say you are wrong. But when you also factor in that Staal is finally healthy, how he provides the team with a third top-two d-man and how he has played a huge role in shutting down key players on teams the past two seasons, then the contract doesn't look as bad. He never will be a big scorer, and if you want to argue that too much of the Rangers' blue line is made up of players like that, it's a fair concern. However, he also has shown the ability to trigger the offense and step up when needed.
In addition, Steve Zipay in Sunday's paper wrote the following: "Here's some of the free-agent blueliners expected to be available this summer: Paul Martin, Andrej Sekera, Cody Franson, Johnny Boychuk and Mike Green. Not exactly the Fab Five. Would you really replace Staal with any of them?" Now while I don't think the paucity of likely available talent on the blueline is a reason to sign someone for longer than you should, trying to replace Staal and all he does would clearly prove to be a daunting task.
For those who only follow advanced stats, Jared Clinton of the Hockey News refuted some of the arguments in this
blog post. In addition, for all the talk of his poor numbers, much of that occurred as he worked himself back into shape and rediscovered his game after the injuries. Maybe the deal will prove to be a blight on Sather's record, but the talk of how it will prevent Zucc or Hagelin or St. Louis from re-signing is a bit premature, especially with the cap rising and ability - though it's not a way i would structure a deal - of giving MSL a base and bonus, given his age and ability to roll that cap hit forward given expected continued rise in the cap.
The Rangers will face an angry Pitt squad Sunday. The Penguins come in off of surrendering four goals to Kyle Okposo in losing to the Islanders on Friday. In addition, they are 4-5-1 in their last 10 games and sit three points behind the Isles, although with two games in hand. Plus, their lead over the Rangers is down to four points with the Blueshirts holding one game in hand, so an regulation loss would tighten the division even more.
New York benefitted from the Islanders, Capitals and Bruins losing Saturday. The Rangers are seven points behind the Isles with three games in hand, two behind Wash. with three games in hand and tied with Boston but with four games in hand. Following Sunday's game, the Rangers play Ottawa at home Tuesday before having a week off due to the All-Star Game; after which they get a rematch with the Isles at the Nassau Coliseum.
There has been a lot of suggestions that the team should shift up the lines. Getting shutout twice in a row and scoring two on Friday while generating few good chances will create that chatter. How quickly we have forgotten that as a week ago the team moved up to third in the league in scoring per game. That said, another poor effort Sunday and Tuesday could result in changes. I could see Chris Kreider or MSL move up with Zucc shifted down or possibly trying J.T. Miller when he gets back in, shifting others down. Pete's suggestions of moving Hagelin up is interesting, though I am unsure he generates enough offense or is physical enough to thrive on the top trio.
Miller has shown he is not suited to play center but is solid on the wing. As I suggested a while ago, bringing in a center should be priority one, which allow would allow Kevin Hayes to play wing. Of course, Miller has drawn interest in the trade market, so he could be used to obtain that center, though I am hoping that will not be the case. Given the opponent Sunday, I would not be shocked to see Tanner Glass in the lineup again, and if he hits like he did the past two games, look for AV to ride him a bit.
I am flying to London early in the AM but hope to blog from over the pond.
New York Rangers Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»