Irresponsible Rumormongering

Some quick thoughts on the Patrick Marleau rumors

Photo: Jason O. Watson-US PRESSWIRE
Photo: Jason O. Watson-US PRESSWIRE

Speculation has begun to swirl around San Jose Sharks star Patrick Marleau, after reports came out earlier in the week that he would waive his no trade clause for the LA Kings, the Anaheim Ducks, or our beloved Rangers. Elliotte Friedman noted on TV that there is little evidence to suggest that the Sharks have asked Marleau to waive his NTC, and Bob McKenzie echoed the sentiment on Twitter, saying that it is “more likely that Marleau asked SJ to explore trade possibilities to select teams”. All of this suggests that Marleau is potentially interested in a trade to New York, which might raise some fans’ eyebrows given a few factors.

The first is what it would cost to acquire to speedy winger, who’s registered 30 goals or more in seven different seasons with San Jose. The Rangers don’t exactly have a wealth of draft picks to give up due to past trades, and given that Anthony Duclair was sent to Arizona in the Keith Yandle deal it’s not likely that the Rangers would deal their next best prospect Pavel Bucchnevich. That would mean any player or players going the other way would be roster players, and while I by no means have any inkling of who it would be I would imagine that the price for a player like Marleau would not be cheap.

It’s also worth noting along these lines that the Rangers have probably their best forward depth in years, so fitting him into the roster would be tricky. Marleau plays left wing, where the Rangers already have Rick Nash and Chris Kreider on the top two lines, and where Oscar Lindberg has made a name for himself on the third line. Unless Kreider was sent to San Jose in the deal (which I would hope he wouldn’t be, but that’s just a personal opinion) it seems that there isn’t really a place for Patrick Marleau on this team.

Trading for Marleau would also mean fitting him in under the salary cap, which the Rangers are right up against. After Rick Nash at $7.8 million, the Rangers next top earners are Derek Stepan, Marc Staal, and Dan Girardi at $6.5m, $5.7m, and $5.5m respectively. Clearing just one of those latter contracts alone wouldn’t be enough to make a trade cap neutral, as Marleau’s cap hit is $6.6 million. It’s also worth noting that the Rangers have a bevy of free agency signings coming up, including Chris Kreider, Kevin Hayes, and Keith Yandle among others.

Some fans also might question the wisdom of trading away assets for another aging superstar, given how recently Martin St. Louis was on the team. While the trade paid off initially, the rapid decline of the former Tampa Bay winger and the price paid to acquire him in retrospect might make some hesitate at a Marleau trade. Although they’re different scenarios and different players, the memory of Marty St Louis combined with other factors like salary cap issues and an already crowded lineup would make any potential trade scenario involving Patrick Marleau interesting to say the least.

"Some quick thoughts on the Patrick Marleau rumors", 5 out of 5 based on 7 ratings.
Tags
Show More

43 Comments

  1. That’d would be a good trade for the Rangers since Marleau is so fast. He fits the Rangers identity pretty well and his goal scoring totals are a positive as well. I can’t see them blowing up their roster to add an aging forward for one or two seasons. They’d likely have to give up Buch or start dipping into more future first round picks. 2017 is the next one the Rangers have.

  2. I cannot believe anyone is seriously suggesting this. And, Kreider? A 23 year old of comparable talent for a 36 year old in serious decline? Can anyone say Boyle? St. Louis? Gomez? Drury? Redden? Richards? Holik? Will this team ever learn? Will this team ever get beyond its addiction to overpaid, over-the-hill, over-hyped, overaged, has-beens? If this happens, I will never watch another Ranger game.

    1. is there an echo in the house??????????

      How true is your statement, it’s spot on, even if my man Ed likes the old gezzers……….

      The only question I have is, ” with a young Joe Thorton, young Boyle, and a loaded team playing with Pat Marleau, how come they never won the cup, and what makes us think that an older version of said Marleau will deliver us to the promised land?? Keep the fossil………

    2. I don’t think anyone is “seriously” considering this. All I’ve heard are some rumors, pumped up by the rabble, but already discounted by McKenzie and Friedman, that Marleau gave the Sharks a list of 3 teams he’d accept a trade to.

  3. Not going to re-post again, so I’ll sum instead: no trade is plausible due to NTC/NMC.

    That aside, Nash straight up would be the best fit: Sharks have cap space and get bigger/younger; Rangers would get better value for money and out of the contract a year earlier, leaving extra cap space for Lindberg & Fast.

    1. Your comment has been down-voted twice, but I agree with what you’ve said. The only player the Rangers could trade that would make sense in my opinion would be Nash. The Rangers would be a weaker team after the trade, but it would free up some cap space to re-sign our young, soon-to-be free agents. The Rangers are still a playoff team after the trade and with Nash’s history of disappearing in the playoffs, the team may not be weaker in the post season this year.

      Acquiring Marleau for anyone other than Nash is foolish. Not only would the Rangers need to clear cap space (unless SJ retained most of the cap hit as the Coyotes did with Yandle), but we’d be repeating the failed cycle of trading young, budding stars for an aging star. I’m glad the Rangers stopped building their roster to win the Cup three years ago.

      1. No chance the Rangers trade Nash for Marleau. Nash won’t agree, and as you said that makes the Rangers weaker. A team competing for the Cup now is not going to make a decision that makes them weaker now just to have cap space next season–not unless there are other deals in the works that makes you stronger elsewhere on your roster.

        1. A good GM is always doing the calculus. NTC aside, at least Marleau scores goals that matter in the playoffs.

          1. Alec, right on, he has more playoff goals than any current NHL player, that say’s a great deal about him being clutch.. He is ahead of Crosby and Ovechkin, 2 future HOF players..

        2. Eddie, I tend to agree with you. But if it was even up ( Nash Marleau ) brings back memories of the 94 season ( Gartner for Anderson) a regular season goal scoring machine , who disappeared in the playoffs, for one of the most clutch big game playoff goal scorers of all time. It GOT US A CUP!!

      2. Thanks. I wouldn’t even do that deal, but at least I could understand it at one level.

  4. Ok, and I want to preface this by saying that in no way am I advocating this, especially at the moment. But what about this?…..

    The Rangers are, behind the scenes, evaluating their young, talented RFAs. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that Kreider is who he is, a young, talented, but extremely erratic player who may never figure it all out who will be due an enormous raise next summer. Maybe the Rangers have decided that money should be spent elsewhere.

    So the Sharks come to the Rangers and say, how about we find a way to swap Kreider for Marleau? The Rangers say, you’re nuts. But what if the Sharks come back with, we’ll throw in a second rounder in 2016 and a first rounder in 2017? The Rangers become more intrigued. But they say, hey, we can’t make this cap hit work. So you have to also take Tanner Glass off our hands, and be willing to pick up 50% of Marleau’s cap hit for the balance of the contract.

    I’d stop, pause, think about it for sure. But unless there were other elements to this, I’d still say no. I think Marleau is in decline for sure. However, if the Rangers were presented with such a deal, would they even consider it?

    Btw, on last night’s NBCSN post-game, Bob McKenzie said that the Rangers have little interest at this time. In fact, none of the three teams Marleau is willing to go to seem like logical fits at all. The speculation is that if Marleau wants to be traded, he may have to expand his list. Some think the Islanders may be a possibility.

    1. I agree with you that getting Marleau doesn’t seem right and I also agree that, were the deal made, it would likely be of the Marleau for Kreider variety.

      I do not however see such a lopsided deal. Kreider is arbitration eligible I think and will be a UFA before long. If they expect to have to overpay to retain him, the Rangers have to view Kreider as not such a hot asset. (And remember, there’s an if in that sentence. If the Rangers really want to keep Kreider, there is no deal, period.) The Sharks won’t give up Marleau cheaply. There won’t be draft choices coming our way and there won’t be retained salary. The Sharks might however accept a high priced player in return — plus young talent.

      Hypothetical: Marleau for Kreider, Girardi, Tambellini and a 2nd rounder.
      Helps the cap issue for next year and beyond, upgrades at forward for this year and next, doesn’t give up too much young talent, maybe we can spare Girardi.

  5. All of a sudden Marleau professes he wants to be traded and the Rangers are his preferred destination? It’s wonderful he holds the Rangers in such high regard, but it’s about 5 years too late and 6.6M shekels too rich. I really hope this rumor doesn’t pick up too much steam and become a legitimate option for Gorton. The money doesn’t fit, the timing doesn’t fit and the idea Gorton would entertain the possibility of trying to make this happen just simply doesn’t make an ounce of sense. No offense to Marleau, but a 36 year old player who’s most certainly on the decline and carries another year at that price while we are just starting to get an idea of what next year’s roster could look like, would completely blow up the operation.

    I’m sure San Jose GM Doug Wilson would love to get his hands on Buchnevich or Skjei, but there’s a better chance of Wilson lacing em back up and playing D for the Rangers than there is Gorton parts with prospects or Hayes, Lindberg, Miller or Kreider to take on what would be a potential dismantling of a first place, cup aspired Rangers team. If he wants McIlrath and Etem while eating 5M of Marleau’s annual cap hit, then we can chat, or if he wants to talk Brent Burns as a Ranger, which is highly doubtful, then again we can start a conversation. Otherwise, let’s stand pat and continue to roll out this lineup that has looked so good.

    1. Just look at the load of crap we got from that team last season, I believes he wears #22……We all cant wait for that contract to expire, and we want another load of sh*t , what garbage!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. This all came about because there was likely a deadline in Marleau’s NTC where he had to submit a list of three teams. The Rangers just happened to be one of the three.

      I wouldn’t say this was a “come and get me” message from the Marleau camp to the Rangers. As a matter of fact, it might be the complete opposite. Marleau knows the Sharks would be loathe to trade him within the division and he likely knows the Rangers wouldn’t be willing to blow up their team to acquire him. Maybe this whole thing was just a clever way for Marleau to turn a Limited NTC into a virtual Full NTC?

  6. Look at it this the Rangers don’t need to make this trade. Why? Two years ago SCF and year ECF. SJS, what? They want to dump a old, high priced player on us. For young cost controlled talent. Hell No.

  7. Let’s look at this from San Jose’s POV for a moment. What team out there has shown a history of trading for an older player, where that team may think that the one piece they need to take home the Stanley Cup is that aging superstar? Of course we are being considered (by San Jose). Whether Gorton bites on this deal is another story. We also need to look ahead to next year’s roster decisions.

  8. While I don’t share Walt’s disdain for Boyle, I would not be in favor of this acquisition for most of the reasons described above. If Lundqvist was 4 years older and the Rangers’ Cup window was closing, I might consider it. I wouldn’t trade Kreider under any circumstances, unless San Jose threw in a 25-year-old Jean Beliveau. This sounds to me like a slow news day in November at the NHL Network, and maybe a team fishing around to get a major player (Kreider) when he’s in a slump. As I said yesterday, I am in favor of exactly what’s going on now. This team is hot, Kreider notwithstanding. They should pile up as many points before New Years as humanly possible; Washington and Pittsburgh aren’t going away anytime soon. I think it’s important to finish first in the division

    Just my two pennies. Oh and P.S. a great match between Pgh and Montreal last night. I could be missing something, but why are the Rangers not on Rivalry Nights? I don’t see them until like February. Like I said, maybe I’m missing something.

    Regards- orange

    1. Oraggemike

      I have no personal disdain for Boyle, but I hate the idea of geriatric players coming here to collect big pay days, at the expense of youth, it drives me nuts. I’ve followed this teem since the 50’s, and year in, and year out, we have chased the name players who are way over the hill, over pay them, they don’t perform, and collect nice chunks of change, while we loose draft picks, young players, and the results are the same. I have no idea of how long you have followed this team, and it’s not the issue, but how many old farts with marquee names, have turned us into cup champs????? I can’t think of any !!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. I’m Canadian so I say let’s trade Patrick marlow scored soo many goals for me on xbox so do it. Oscar Lindberg only haz 7 goals in his career so trade him right

  10. No, No, & HELL NO…..

    If you want to get serious about a trade then focus the efforts on Stamkos who is only 25 and already has close to 300 goals and is a gamer. Rarely is a guy with this type of established talent who still has huge upside available – and of course he isn’t YET- but he very well could be come deadline day.

    This time though it is Yzerman who is at the disadvantage and that is a big key. He does not want to lose Stamkos for nothing come July 1. Put together the pieces and the cap creativity to make a trade that works for both sides. My preference is to use Nash and his salary as the focus or if needed use Krieder (Eddie) and some other resources as a package.

    The point is – this does not have to be a MSL lopsided deal – Yzerman is the one on the hot seat this time –

    Sorry for continuing to pound on this topic but I am a Lightning Season Ticket holder with Ranger roots and passion. Did I mention that Stamkos is only 25?

    1. One component of the MSL lopsided deal is Callahan and the 5 x 5.5 mil contract Yzerman gave him which is one of the biggest detriment in TB retaining Stamkos.

      The salary cap is such an intricate puzzle and rarely are all components considered.

      1. ^sorry, 6 years at 5.8 mil.

        Point being…. people are quick to ctiricize giving up 2 1st round picks for MSL, but at the same time we got out from paying an ugly contract which creates a butterfly effect.

        1. Yzerman losing Stamkos because he signed that aging stiff, Callahan, would be one of the funniest things I’ve seen in the NHL in a long time. It’s up there with the Chara-Spezza for Yashin trade and the Luongo for DiPietro trade.

    2. Stamkos is the kind of player that doesn’t come around that often, there’s only like five or six guys in this league in his caliber.

      Yzerman is not trading him, and he’s not losing him to free agency. Simple as that.

      1. I agree, It would seem unlikely that Yzerman would let Stamkos go. But if Stamkos truly wanted to stay then he could have been signed already.

        It is still a pipe dream at this point, but If he is not signed by the time the trade deadline comes, it is going be really interesting.

        Outside of Tampa, I doubt that there are more than three other places he would go. but it is all about the cap and the teams that are legitimate contenders for him including Tampa will need the space whether he is traded or signed in July.

        If Wayne Gretzky can be traded so can Stamkos and that is why we should be putting a bug in Stevie’s ear now….

        1. Anyone can be traded, yes. And you might be right about him not wanting to be there.

          Can you imagine the cost to get him though? If MSL was steep, what would it take to get Stamkos.

    3. Pound Away FL-Swarty!

      The thought of Stamkos in a Rangers jersey never gets old my man

  11. My bad- Rangers-Islanders Wednesday night Dec 2. Like I said, I’m getting old. Must have missed it.

    -orange

  12. If there was a deal, I don’t think it would be as costly as we all think. San Jose isn’t trading from a place of strength here since Marleau wants out, will only go to three teams and only one of them isn’t a division rival, and it’d having to be San Jose initiating any trade discussions, the pressure is on them to make a move. It seems like, if they do move him, they’d have to settle for just an okay return.

    If we can get him for (at most) say, J.T. Miller and like Ryan Bourque or a different AHLer, I think it could be worth it.

    That said, I’d just rather that we don’t pursue this.

  13. Laugh out loud funny at some of these comments. Giving up first round picks, key roster players, and young prospects (someone mentioned Pavel) for Marleau? Give me a break. Theyre 11-2-2 and haven’t even began playing their best hockey…clearly not trying to package an offer together involving multiple roster players and more draft picks for a guy who’s contract will eat up more money

  14. Forget Marleau! D. Moore is sitting again tonight. Is he going to be the next cap casualty or is someone else being showcased for a future move? I love the early season speculation. Especially when you have a winning record!

  15. They don’t need Marleau. But, if by some miracle it will help in clearing bad contracts for the Rangers… Hypothetically, Marleau and picks for Kreider and Girardi. Marleau takes over for Kreider, Diaz comes up as 6D.
    Down the line we have Skjei and Buchnevich to take over those spots.

  16. Marleau – No; Pavelski – Yesski; Burns – Yes
    This would never happen but….
    Pavelski and Burns for Stepsoft and Girardi

    1. Pavelski isn’t half the player Stepan is. Also Pavelski is 31. Why do the Rangers need another aging Ryan Callahan clone to clog the lineup?

  17. Wasn’t Marleau one of the supposed leaders of the SJ Sharks team that was a top seed and was up 3-0 and then lost 4 straight in the first round 2 or 3 years ago. Don’t need a no heart loser on this team.

    No more old retreads, ever.

    We should actively explore a deal for Stamkos, a top 10 player in his prime. Don’t give away the store, a fair deal for all

    1. you sound like someone I know very well !!!!!!!!

      If Tampa won’t sign Stamkos. he become a UFA, sign him for what he is worth, at no charge to us, that is if he really is interested in playing in New York !!!!!

  18. If this was in the works 4 or 5 years ago, I saw go for it, but we are talking about a 17 yr veteran with a great deal of mileage on his aging body. I will tip my hat to him, Patric Marleau has more playoff goals than any other active player, that speaks volumes when you realize he is ahead of Crosby & Ovechkin. They guy is clutch!!

Back to top button
Close
Close