Proposal: Nyr-det

[2020 Cup Champions]

Just because the Red Wings have cap space doesn't mean they have to cram something into it.

 

[btlaffin]

From an outsider's perspective, I wouldn't trade Tatar straight up for Nash. Tatar is 7 years younger, still has growth potential, is $5 million cheaper, doesn't have the troubling injury history, and is capable of hitting the 60 point mark that Nash doesn't exactly exceed to a jaw dropping extent. It would make no sense for Detroit.

 

[go4hockey]

Staal + Nash for Erikkson, Tatar, Jurco + 4th rounder.

We get a bad contract in return, but get a good playable prospect and a solid top 6 guy. While The red wings get their solid top 4 man who comes a little expensive and an elite 200 foot player, which they do not have. Helm cannot score as much as Nash. Nielson needs a solid winger who can play his style.

Kinda ready for the "never gonna happen", "awful", or "this is stupid" but if you think about it. It makes sense for both teams.

No I sat back and thought about this one and even after thinking about it this make zero sense for the Wings unless there GM makes this trade and then is named the GM of the Rangers. You think you can move those junk contracts and get "value" back..... Yea dream on.

 

[go4hockey]

Nash has two years remaining.

Other posters have offers 1st + Prospect for Nash with no retention, obviously with the caliber of prospect raising with the retention % so na we wouldnt have to retain.

Yep cause you found a poster to offer that means an actual GM would make the same silly trade. Good luck moving either of the players in the OP without keeping some of their $$$.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Nash is a lock for 35+ goals a year, plays elite defense, is a 6'4" PWF who can dangle a goalie's jockstrap off. Staal has regressed but is still a top-4 defensive defenseman (second pair). I don't feel comfortable giving up that much size in a deal, we have like 4-5 big guys in the squad, after that, we resemble the Habs size-wise.

Hayes, Nash, Staal, Mcilrath, Kreider are our big boys. For all intents and purposes after acquiring God damn midgets in Free Agency, we need to keep the size on the team.

 

[One Winged Angel]

To OP, the financials just don't work, even if Detroit would accept (I doubt they would). You'd have to retain 20-30% on Nash just to make this plausible.




Id take any of Kreider, McDonagh, Stepan & Burakovsky in a... New York Minute

Burakovsky? You mean Buchnevich?

 

[sparxx87]

From an outsider's perspective, I wouldn't trade Tatar straight up for Nash. Tatar is 7 years younger, still has growth potential, is $5 million cheaper, doesn't have the troubling injury history, and is capable of hitting the 60 point mark that Nash doesn't exactly exceed to a jaw dropping extent. It would make no sense for Detroit.

Everyone seems to be realistic about Nash except for a few Rangers fans. He holds very little trade value... He'll be described as a great player, by Rangers fans trying to convince you to trade for him. It's really quite comical at this point.

 

[btlaffin]

Nash is a lock for 35+ goals a year, plays elite defense, is a 6'4" PWF who can dangle a goalie's jockstrap off. Staal has regressed but is still a top-4 defensive defenseman (second pair). I don't feel comfortable giving up that much size in a deal, we have like 4-5 big guys in the squad, after that, we resemble the Habs size-wise.

Hayes, Nash, Staal, Mcilrath, Kreider are our big boys. For all intents and purposes after acquiring God damn midgets in Free Agency, we need to keep the size on the team.

You can't say a player on the wrong side of 30 who has scored 35+ goals in 4 of his 13 seasons in the NHL and has had persistent injury issues is a "lock" for 35+ goals. That couldn't be less of a guarantee. And to commit $7.8 million in cap/salary to that is not a gamble one should take when shipping out a young top 6 LW in Tatar as well as other assets.

You could try and sugarcoat the value of your players all you want, but there is a reason the Rangers are trying to trade them and why they have not been traded for.

 

[SirloinUB]

Burakovsky? You mean Buchnevich?

Thanks for the catching that! Burakovsky is obviously Caps property.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

R.Nash+M.Staal at 2.85(50%)
vs
T.Jurco+T.Pulk+J.Ericsson+Cond 2nd 2017



Condition: If Detroit makes it past second round it is a 2nd other wise a 3rd in 2017

I would do this deal with Staal having that amount of retention. Really not that tough a call in terms of this proposal, especially with the 2nd rounder being locked into making it to the conference finals. Really nothing to lose here in my opinion.

Not sure we can make the cap work after extending Mrazek and DeKeyser though.

Moving Ericsson and getting Staal at that rate though is great.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Everyone seems to be realistic about Nash except for a few Rangers fans. He holds very little trade value... He'll be described as a great player, by Rangers fans trying to convince you to trade for him. It's really quite comical at this point.

Holds little trade value? None of us actually know his trade value. The only value you can quantify to any extent is HF armchair GM value, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things except for in the stupid pissing contests that occur on here.

The only thing comical is the irony in your post because you speak in an absolute, but have no idea of what you're actually commenting on because you can't put a value to it. You and many others may think you can, but you can't.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Thanks for the catching that! Burakovsky is obviously Caps property.

Yeah I thought so. I had to do a double take at first when I read it.

 

[sparxx87]

Holds little trade value? None of us actually know his trade value. The only value you can quantify to any extent is HF armchair GM value, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things except for in the stupid pissing contests that occur on here.

The only thing comical is the irony in your post because you speak in an absolute, but have no idea of what you're actually commenting on because you can't put a value to it. You and many others may think you can, but you can't.

Nobody wants him? Isn't that clear? Not even Rangers fans?

You're right, his value isn't absolute, but nobody wanting to take him is a pretty good indicator. He's not a bad player, but he's well overpaid for what he brings. Thats pretty indisputable.

 

[One Winged Angel]

Nobody wants him? Isn't that clear? Not even Rangers fans?

You're right, his value isn't absolute, but nobody wanting to take him is a pretty good indicator. He's not a bad player, but he's well overpaid for what he brings. Thats pretty indisputable.

No, the only reason Ranger fans, the smart ones anyway, want to get rid of him is because they know that the team needs to rebuild. However nobody on here wanting him has absolutely NOTHING to do with how real life NHL GM's (you know, the people that actually matter and complete trades) view a player. I've seen players time and time again get dealt for more and less than what people expect to get in return on this website in the 10 years I've been posting on here.

He's overpaid for what he brings? An upwards of 40 goals with upper echelon defense is overpaid? I'm sorry, I'd like him at 6 million or less too, but look at what Kyle Okposo just got as a free agent. 6 million a year and he's never hit 30 goals. How many others that have scored 40 or more goals in a season recently that are not on ELC's or bridge deals are making less than 7 million a year?

I'm not a fan of the dude. I don't like him at all. I'm not gonna sit here and try to sell you on him. However, because you, me or the next Joe Schmoe who thinks he's Ken ****ing Holland or Jeff Gorton thinks a player isn't worth X, doesn't mean that he's not worth it, especially because of one down year. All I'm saying is be real.

You and about 95% of people on here are not.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Just because the Red Wings have cap space doesn't mean they have to cram something into it.

Don't tell holland that. He might sign ott and vanek

 

[Sparksrus3]

Staal + Nash for Erikkson, Tatar, Jurco + 4th rounder.

We get a bad contract in return, but get a good playable prospect and a solid top 6 guy. While The red wings get their solid top 4 man who comes a little expensive and an elite 200 foot player, which they do not have. Helm cannot score as much as Nash. Nielson needs a solid winger who can play his style.

Kinda ready for the "never gonna happen", "awful", or "this is stupid" but if you think about it. It makes sense for both teams.

You really don't see this ?
How does this " really make sense " for Detroit ?
Staal - solid top 4 ? never mind ( erased comment)

 

[Vatican Roulette]

I would do this deal with Staal having that amount of retention. Really not that tough a call in terms of this proposal, especially with the 2nd rounder being locked into making it to the conference finals. Really nothing to lose here in my opinion.

Not sure we can make the cap work after extending Mrazek and DeKeyser though.

Moving Ericsson and getting Staal at that rate though is great.

Getting Staal at that rate is fine, getting Nash at that rate isn't.

Detroit needs to cut salary, not add it.

 

[TGWL]

Since the draft came and went, free agency is basically over, I'd rather hold onto Nash, hope his scoring comes back, then deal him away mid-season, esp if we don't look like contenders. Whether that means we retain, or take some money back with strong pieces. I'm not sure Nash scoring 30-40 goals helps us that much without addressing other areas of our team.