July 1st - Free Agent Extravaganza Part III
- Thread starter New York RKY
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,850
How much was Gabby's stock down when we traded him? He was a year older than Nash is now and was having a bad year (19 points in 35 games). His playoffs for us were better than Nash's, but still nothing spectacular (13 points in 25 games).
We managed to trade him for 3 roster players in Brassard, Moore and Dorsett, all of whom helped us to reach the finals this year.
I seriously doubt that Nash will get traded, but I wouldn't be against it. I don't think he's a good fit on this team.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Kakko
Formerly Chytil
And Brodeur got 5.2m
One crazy contract doesn't make another realistic. Additionally, there were still skaters making much more than that in 06.
Yes, he did. And Gomez and Drury were terrible contracts, so...
What's ridiculous is believing that a player would make 50% more than the next highest paid player at his position, even if he is clearly (but not loads) better.
Last edited by a moderator:
zuckera1
#35
Gabby also scored 40 goals the year before, he wasn't playing well but it's not like he was mediocre for an entire full season like Nash was last year.
We got a 2/3 C tweener, a 4th line grinder, and a 6th defenseman. Gabby also only had 1 more year left on his deal, whereas Nash has 4 with a higher cap hit.
If we traded Nash right now, all we would get would be a 2nd line player and a B/C prospect. It's similar to Gabby's return but not as good because he's got a high cap hit for a longer period of time.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,850
Brodeur was 34 when he signed that contract and the cap that year was 44 mil. Brodeur's contract was 11.8% of the total cap.
The cap next year is 69 mil. Hank will be 32 and his contract will be 12.3% of the total cap.
Are you really quibbling over .5%?
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Gaborik also had only one year left on his deal, Nash is a much longer and more expensive investment.
I just don't see much of a market for Nash where the return would be worthwhile.
Small market teams are not going to want his salary owed in real dollars. Plus the returning assets the Rangers would want would probably be cheaper players, maybe even cost controlled players, neither of which a small market teams really wants to give up.
Contenders are not going to want to loss the assets that is world take to get him, nor would his cap hit fit. They are busy trying to keep their own teams together by signing the players who put them in contention in the first place.
Rebuilding teams are not going to want Nash.
Just does not leave a whole lot of options.
I just don't see much of a market for Nash where the return would be worthwhile.
Small market teams are not going to want his salary owed in real dollars. Plus the returning assets the Rangers would want would probably be cheaper players, maybe even cost controlled players, neither of which a small market teams really wants to give up.
Contenders are not going to want to loss the assets that is world take to get him, nor would his cap hit fit. They are busy trying to keep their own teams together by signing the players who put them in contention in the first place.
Rebuilding teams are not going to want Nash.
Just does not leave a whole lot of options.
zuckera1
#35
^ Couldn't have said it better myself.
Our best bet with Nash is to hope he rebounds and then explore options down the road when there's less term on his deal and the cap is higher.
cd211
Registered User
Nash is a star player still give it a break.. He wasn't healthy for majority of the year and he still almost netted 30 goals in 65 games... All this talk of him traded are you kidding me? We gave up a lot and even the players we gave up don't Even come close to the player Nash is... Any team in the league would do that trade 10 out of 10 times..
Give it a rest he's here to stay!!!!!!!!!! Not saying I wouldn't trade him if the offer was right but that could be said about anyone
Give it a rest he's here to stay!!!!!!!!!! Not saying I wouldn't trade him if the offer was right but that could be said about anyone
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,850
The fact that Nash has 4 years left makes him more valuable rather than less, and his cap hit is only 300k higher than Gabby's was.
Nash has scored 47 goals in 109 regular season games for us (.43 goals per game). Gabby scored 114 in 255 games (.45 goals per game).
Mediocre Nash led the team last year with 26 goals in 65 games. That's roughly 33 goals over 82 games, which might have been even better had he not suffered a concussion.
I'm not defending the guy. I don't like the way he plays and I don't think he's a good fit for us, but he absolutely has value.
It's all moot anyway because he isn't getting traded.
zuckera1
#35
False. I agree that this is moot because he's not going anywhere but still.
Nash, a 30-year-old with 4 more years at a high cap hit, coming off a concussion, is a significantly more risky investment than Gabby with one year left.
Is there a GM out there looking to acquire a very expensive regular season goal scorer who will likely begin to decline in a year or two? He also makes more real money each year so that's bad for small market teams. 7.8 is not worth a 30-30 guy unless playoff scoring comes with it, which for Nash, it doesn't.
I am a little worried that Nash's concussion makes him very risky, but at the same time, he played A LOT more games this season and he just seemed really out of it... I mean he played pretty well defensively in the post season, but he just couldn't create anything offensively. Still, he's paid to score goals.
I really hate Torts for getting rid of Gabby...could've used that offense.
I really hate Torts for getting rid of Gabby...could've used that offense.
So did I and I've had nothing but random health issues since 2 weeks before I turned 30.
It's been 5 months. 
I don't follow. You are all over the place.
Your market value is the highest offer you can get. Right? Let's agree on that. You seemed confused on that part. Someone would have paid Hank as big of a share of their cap as we — for example — paid Drury. Jay Freakin Bouwmeester got paid as big part of Calgary's cap in 2010 as we will pay Hank next season.
I can't seriously believe that I am having this discussion. Anyone — seriously — don't think Hank doesn't get top UFA money if he hit the market two weeks ago? Top UFA money, besides the Cap circumvention 15 year deals, has always been at least 14-16 percent of the cap.
You lol bring up Brouder. He signed a 5.2m contract when the cap was 44m. That is equal to 8.15m next season. Brouder was 34-35 y/o. Hank is what 32-33. Those contracts are definitely compareable.
And what does it matter if Drurys contract was stupid? There are only stupid contracts signed on July 1st. Anyone would have been sane if Lundqvist hit the market two weeks ago.
Hank easily left around 21m on the table. Wow.
I thought, and continue to think, that Nash's struggles in the postseason had more to do with him being a one-trick pony offensively rather than the concussion.
For folks who use the concussion as an excuse, why don't they mention how he scored 11 goals in 11 games in January soon after coming back?
I think the concussion excuse goes along the lines that he won't get his nose dirty in the playoffs when it gets tougher in the middle and trenches and thus he can score the goals with his skills during the regular season, when it may be a looser game, but can't when it's tight because he shies away from those areas, and situations, during which he may get clobbered. I honestly can't say I've seen enough of him to opine. I can say he doesn't score in the playoffs because his shots are often from bad angles, he doesn't go in close enough to get a better shot, and he isn't getting to the loose pucks around the net, almost as if he extends as much as possible so he doesn't get hit. Can't say why he did that because I really don't recall how he was pre-concussion and don't recall how he scored those goals. Long answer. Just killing time before a meeting.
Kakko
Formerly Chytil
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
You are crazy. Bat **** crazy. And don't complain, you asked to be called it. If Miller, Duke and Bourque all make the team there isn't a shot in hell that we win a cup.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Has a player who has played as many playoff games as Nash ever had a shooting % that is ridiculously lower than his career average?
He is getting shots. He had great chances in the playoffs. That has nothing to do with him being a one trick pony. They were the same chances he had during the regular season.
many of those great chances seem to be weak shots or blown opportunities. Perhaps his way doesn't work in a tighter checking environment, such as what was seen in much of these playoffs, where there seem to be fewer defensive breakdowns and greater goalie focus.
Im not one calling for Nash's ouster, and Im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But hes got half a regular season of playoff games under his belt now and his production is hideous. How much longer do I have to call it just being unlucky?
- Status
