Proposal: Nyr-cgy

[DJJones]

The last four years he's averaged about 65 games out of 82. His points average per season has been roughly 50. Goals: 25.

Why would a cap team be interested in paying eight million dollars for a guy who is most likely going to put up 25/25 and be injured for a chunk of the year? Not to mention the fact that he is officially at the age where you can expect him to continually decline.

Eh, if he was a RW and we didn't sign Brouwer I wouldn't be opposed. Only two years left.

 

[One Winged Angel]

The last four years he's averaged about 65 games out of 82. His points average per season has been roughly 50. Goals: 25.

Why would a cap team be interested in paying eight million dollars for a guy who is most likely going to put up 25/25 and be injured for a chunk of the year? Not to mention the fact that he is officially at the age where you can expect him to continually decline.

Scored at about or higher than a 35 goal pace in all but 1 year, 2016. You skewer the numbers by saying season.

In 2013, played 44 of 48 games, scored 21 goals, 39.13 goals over 82 games.
In 2014, played 65 of 82 games, scored 26 goals, 32.8 goals (33) over 82 games.
In 2015, played 79 of 82 games, scored 42 goals despite a terrible 2nd half of the season.
In 2016, played 60 of 82 games, scored 15 goals, 20.5 goals over 82 games.

No one is going to tell me that last year is the trend when the numbers clearly say otherwise. Speculating that the end is near at 32-33 is also just that, speculation, more so hore**** in this case.

Most likely, his out-lying numbers are going to look like somewhere between 30-35 goals going forward if you're going with the notion that 2015 was an anomaly and that he won't repeat it. However, if that's the case, then you have to do the same with 2016.

I don't really like Nash. However, I understand what he brings to the team. I'd be more than happy to keep him, especially with the unrealistic lowball offers you see on here from uneducated posters who keep calling him a cap dump. The minute he leaves the Rangers, people will start talking about how great of a player he is and this and that.

If I can't get something close to fair value in return for him, even with retention (which I definitely don't think is the case, salary retention simply cannot be understated in a trade in today's NHL), then I'd rather hold onto him. It's not like his contract goes well after his prime years, paying him until he's in his late 30's, he's gone after the 2018 season.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Eh, if he was a RW and we didn't sign Brouwer I wouldn't be opposed. Only two years left.

He has been playing RW. He's lined up for us at LW and RW and there hasn't been a difference in play.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Scored at about or higher than a 35 goal pace in all but 1 year, 2016. You skewer the numbers by saying season.

In 2013, played 44 of 48 games, scored 21 goals, 39.13 goals over 82 games.
In 2014, played 65 of 82 games, scored 26 goals, 32.8 goals (33) over 82 games.
In 2015, played 79 of 82 games, scored 42 goals despite a terrible 2nd half of the season.
In 2016, played 60 of 82 games, scored 15 goals, 20.5 goals over 82 games.

No one is going to tell me that last year is the trend when the numbers clearly say otherwise. Speculating that the end is near at 32-33 is also just that, speculation, more so hore**** in this case.

Most likely, his out-lying numbers are going to look like somewhere between 30-35 goals going forward if you're going with the notion that 2015 was an anomaly and that he won't repeat it. However, if that's the case, then you have to do the same with 2016.

I don't really like Nash. However, I understand what he brings to the team. I'd be more than happy to keep him, especially with the unrealistic lowball offers you see on here from uneducated posters who keep calling him a cap dump. The minute he leaves the Rangers, people will start talking about how great of a player he is and this and that.

If I can't get something close to fair value in return for him, even with retention (which I definitely don't think is the case, salary retention simply cannot be understated in a trade in today's NHL), then I'd rather hold onto him. It's not like his contract goes well after his prime years, paying him until he's in his late 30's, he's gone after the 2018 season.

I'm not skewing ****. I explicitly state that he played an average of ~65 games per season, and those point totals are within that number of games. I don't give a [MOD] what his pace was when he's only played close to a full season once in the past four years.

Pace doesn't matter if a player can't stay healthy to make use of it.

 

[One Winged Angel]

I'm not skewing ****. I explicitly state that he played an average of ~65 games per season, and those point totals are within that number of games. I don't give a [MOD] what his pace was when he's only played close to a full season once in the past four years.

Pace doesn't matter if a player can't stay healthy to make use of it.

Yes, you are and yes, pace absolutely matters. This past year was the only year that he was playing and wasn't productive, which is the point I made. You're trying to make it out to state otherwise. You even went to the point of it of saying he's most likely a 25/25 guy. Which is not the truth.

So with that said, I don't give a [MOD] if you don't think you're not skewing numbers to favor your argument, because you are and if you don't like that, too bad. Stop hating on him and get over it.

 

[DJJones]

He has been playing RW. He's lined up for us at LW and RW and there hasn't been a difference in play.

Huh, well then.

Ya I think Calgary could have made it work if we didn't have Wideman or Brouwer

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Do people really not realize that Rick Nash is still a good player? The Rangers aren't dumping him for a 3rd and a trash player.

We are fine cap wise anyway. He'll likely bounce back this season and either stay and perform well or raise his value and return more in a trade later.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Do people really not realize that Rick Nash is still a good player? The Rangers aren't dumping him for a 3rd and a trash player.

We are fine cap wise anyway. He'll likely bounce back this season and either stay and perform well or raise his value and return more in a trade later.

I'm fine with keeping him. I have no problem with it. The depth he gives us by holding onto him is far better off than trading him in a crap deal just for capspace because a bunch of EA Sports GM's on a forum think he's worth nothing.

I hope he scores 35+ goals this year so I can laugh about this kind of crap.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Yes, you are and yes, pace absolutely matters. This past year was the only year that he was playing and wasn't productive, which is the point I made. You're trying to make it out to state otherwise. You even went to the point of it of saying he's most likely a 25/25 guy. Which is not the truth.

So with that said, I don't give a [MOD] if you don't think you're not skewing numbers to favor your argument, because you are and if you don't like that, too bad. Stop hating on him and get over it.

Stop hating on what? The fact that he's incapable of playing a full season lately? If someone has been injured 3 of 4 years, and averaged 50 points in 3 of 4 years as a result, what in this universe would make you assume that he's going to play a full season and put up significantly better numbers in that season? Because there was one freak season in the middle of those season where he played most of the games and had an abnormally high shooting percentage?

I'm not saying Rick Nash sucks. I'm just saying he's not doing anything that makes his contract look palatable.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

He has been playing RW. He's lined up for us at LW and RW and there hasn't been a difference in play.

It helps that Zuccarello and Stepan are right handed shots on that PP unit.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Stop hating on what? The fact that he's incapable of playing a full season lately? If someone has been injured 3 of 4 years, and averaged 50 points in 3 of 4 years as a result, what in this universe would make you assume that he's going to play a full season and put up significantly better numbers in that season? Because there was one freak season in the middle of those season where he played most of the games and had an abnormally high shooting percentage?

I'm not saying Rick Nash sucks. I'm just saying he's not doing anything that makes his contract look palatable.

He hasn't been injured in 3 of 4 years, I just posted his games played numbers. 2013 was the lockout year.

Scoring at a 30+ goal pace isn't "palatable" for his deal? I'd like to know what is, because inferior players like Paul Stastny are getting 7 million now and they don't sniff the kind of production Nash does goals wise, nor is he the two-way player that Nash is. Yes, I know he's a playmaker, but points-wise, he hasn't scored close to the 70 point seasons he's had in Colorado in years now.

You don't like the guy, fine, but stop spewing non-sense.

 

[One Winged Angel]

It helps that Zuccarello and Stepan are right handed shots on that PP unit.

How does that have anything to do with the fact that he's been lining up at RW at ES and can lineup on either side???

 

[smoneil]

Stop hating on what? The fact that he's incapable of playing a full season lately? If someone has been injured 3 of 4 years, and averaged 50 points in 3 of 4 years as a result, what in this universe would make you assume that he's going to play a full season and put up significantly better numbers in that season? Because there was one freak season in the middle of those season where he played most of the games and had an abnormally high shooting percentage?

I'm not saying Rick Nash sucks. I'm just saying he's not doing anything that makes his contract look palatable.

He played 44 of 48 games in the lockout season. And went nearly a ppg with 21 goals. Do you consider 44/48 "being injured" for a significant portion of a season? Stat line reading requires context. You not being aware that a lockout happened during one of Nash's three "injured" seasons doesn't really lend you much credibility here.

Nash had two recent injury issues. It wasn't really a lingering thing in either case. He came roaring back from it the first time, and was starting to play like his old self by the end of last season.

Not saying he makes sense for Calgary, but Nash has value. With retained salary, he has quite good value. If the Rangers wait until after he rebounds and then trade him at the deadline with salary retention, he will have phenomenal value. I'd rather wait until then.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

Yes, you are and yes, pace absolutely matters.

How many wins does pace get you? When players start getting paid like the rest of the world it might be more bearable to have a piece of glass on your team. As it stands he's simply not worth his contract.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

How many wins does pace get you? When players start getting paid like the rest of the world it might be more bearable to have a piece of glass on your team. As it stands he's simply not worth his contract.

In Rick Nash's Rangers tenure:

2012-13: 2nd Round
2013-14: Stanley Cup Finals
2014-15: Game 7 ECF (president's trophy regular season)
2015-16: 1st round exit.

That's 1 year where they had a disappointing result (last year). Using wins as an argument against Nash in this scenario makes no sense.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

I'm fine with keeping him. I have no problem with it. The depth he gives us by holding onto him is far better off than trading him in a crap deal just for capspace because a bunch of EA Sports GM's on a forum think he's worth nothing.

I hope he scores 35+ goals this year so I can laugh about this kind of crap.

Yeah, he's still a very good hockey player and I'd prefer to keep him in all honesty. People talking about him like he's some albatross, give me a break he has 2 years left on his deal and almost any trade involving him would include salary retention. Fact of the matter is that Gorton probably has Nash dangling out there and he's got nothing but lowball offers, which makes sense from the other GMs, Nash had a career down year last season they should be trying to get him at a bargain rate. But Gorton is smarter than that and isn't going to trade Nash just to get rid of him. That would make no sense, we're not in a cap crunch and we're better off letting him play and raising his value back up considering now it's probably the lowest it could get.

 

[smoneil]

Yeah, he's still a very good hockey player and I'd prefer to keep him in all honesty. People talking about him like he's some albatross, give me a break he has 2 years left on his deal and almost any trade involving him would include salary retention. Fact of the matter is that Gorton probably has Nash dangling out there and he's got nothing but lowball offers, which makes sense from the other GMs, Nash had a career down year last season they should be trying to get him at a bargain rate. But Gorton is smarter than that and isn't going to trade Nash just to get rid of him. That would make no sense, we're not in a cap crunch and we're better off letting him play and raising his value back up considering now it's probably the lowest it could get.

I was on board with moving him early in the offseason if it would have allowed us to keep Yandle. I'm on board with moving him at the trade deadline if he can bring back some good assets.

The reality is that, even IF he plays out the next two seasons with the Rangers, the likelihood of a contract AFTER that is pretty low. That being the case, I'd be hard pressed to protect him over other guys that have a bit of a longer future on this team (during the expansion draft). He and Klein should, ideally, be used to replenish the pipeline at the trade deadline.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

He played 44 of 48 games in the lockout season. And went nearly a ppg with 21 goals. Do you consider 44/48 "being injured" for a significant portion of a season? Stat line reading requires context. You not being aware that a lockout happened during one of Nash's three "injured" seasons doesn't really lend you much credibility here.

Nash had two recent injury issues. It wasn't really a lingering thing in either case. He came roaring back from it the first time, and was starting to play like his old self by the end of last season.

Not saying he makes sense for Calgary, but Nash has value. With retained salary, he has quite good value. If the Rangers wait until after he rebounds and then trade him at the deadline with salary retention, he will have phenomenal value. I'd rather wait until then.

Well that was dumb of me. I totally spaced on the lockout, since it feels like more than four years ago.

 

[One Winged Angel]

How many wins does pace get you? When players start getting paid like the rest of the world it might be more bearable to have a piece of glass on your team. As it stands he's simply not worth his contract.

Pace means he's played in games and has produced, so it gets you wins.

Even when he's not scoring, he's creating opportunities for others because top defensemen are always looking to neutralize him, opening up things for his teammates. He's not really a playmaker, by any means, but it almost works like a decoy, to an extent.

He's also a very good penalty killer and defensive player.

A piece of glass? He's missed time in 2 of the last 4 seasons. One because of a cheapshot elbow from Brad Stuart (October 2013, 3rd game of the season in San Jose - when Hertl went off for 4 goals) and in 2016 which was a back injury and he was great down the stretch and had 5 points in 5 games against Pittsburgh.

Please, stop twisting things around to fit an argument that isn't there. Nash isn't a piece of glass, or a cap dump. You don't want him, fine. I'm not selling you on him. I've stated in multiple threads that I have no problem keeping him. He'll bounce back this year, score 30+ and I'll be more than ok with that.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

How does that have anything to do with the fact that he's been lining up at RW at ES and can lineup on either side???

Because left shooting top six forwards are not what Calgary is looking for, "lining up on the right" is besides the point you were replying to initially. We do not have a Stepan or Zuccarello. We have Bennett, Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Tkachuk, Frolik. All left shots themselves making Nash pretty redundant especially because it does not fill our key hole on the PP.

Most teams have a balance on their top six in terms of righty/lefty. We are trying to solve that imbalance on ours if we are paying a 30+ year old 8+ million.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Because left shooting top six forwards are not what Calgary is looking for, "lining up on the right" is besides the point you were replying to initially. We do not have a Stepan or Zuccarello. We have Bennett, Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Tkachuk, Frolik. All left shots themselves making Nash pretty redundant especially because it does not fill our key hole on the PP.

Most teams have a balance on their top six in terms of righty/lefty. We are trying to solve that imbalance on ours if we are paying a 30+ year old 8+ million.

Guys like Backlund and Frolik and Tkachuk who has never even played an NHL game would make someone like Nash redundant?

I get it, you don't want him and I'm not trying to sell him. However, that right there is absolute garbage and is one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen on here.

 

[Walkingthroughforest]

Guys like Backlund and Frolik and Tkachuk who has never even played an NHL game would make someone like Nash redundant?

I get it, you don't want him and I'm not trying to sell him. However, that right there is absolute garbage and is one of the biggest reaches I've ever seen on here.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Mikael Backlund and Michael Frolik who've played a combined 956 games? Good job.

 

[BigRangy]

The value is totally there and favors Calgary immensely, but the fit is not. Having Nash's 8 mil cap hit probably prevents the Flames from signing a goalie or Bennett, which definitely makes the trade not worth doing.

Now if the Flames hadn't friggin signed Brouwer, this would be doable.

 

[Shootertooter]

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Mikael Backlund and Michael Frolik who've played a combined 956 games? Good job.

Guys like Backlund and Frolik and Tkachuk, who has never even played an NHL game, would make someone like Nash redundant?


a comma: the difference between making a totally valid point or making a point totally invalid.

you had to know what he meant, right?

 

[DJJones]

I'd much rather have Backlund and frolik for 8 million than Nash