Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Rangers - Blues swap for Rick Nash

Nothing As It Seems said:
I'd do Lehtera, Barbashev, Schmaltz Conditional 1st (if Nash doesn't score 30 it becomes a 2nd) for Nash @5.5M + Lindberg.

Lehtera makes 4.7M so Blues take on 1.4M total.
Click to expand...

Nash makes 7.8, so retaining 2 puts it @ 5.8.

The Blues current LW's are Schwartz, Steen, & Fabbri. There's talk that Steen moves to center next year. It was tried a little bit last season and Steen didn't look good. Fabbri could move to center but it might be too early to try. He could probably be as effective at RW as LW.

The real centers would be Stastny, Sobotka, Lindberg, and possibly Berglund. Stastny doesn't play with Tarasenko. It's not like Lehtera has some magic chemistry with Schwartz & Tarasenko but the available options at center still isn't the greatest match. It would be putting Sobotka or Lindberg on the #1 line and neither probably belong.

Fabbri really drove the Stastny line. I'd hate to split them up. I'd love to see Lehtera traded but it seems like trying to force Nash & Lindberg into the lineup instead of a natural fit.


Schwartz Lindberg Tarasenko
Fabbri Stastny Nash
Steen Sobotka Perron

That leaves Berglund on the 4th line which probably won't happen.
 
I thought I had zero interest in Nash, but I would consider that deal if we could figure out the cap this year, and especially next year. Gaining Nash is just not worth it to make additional moves to cut salary after the trade. If Rangers would take Lehtera instead of Berglund, that would go a long way to getting it done for me as the salary would work out better.

Blues: Nash (@$6M per), Lindberg
Rangers: Lehtera, Barbashev, Segeev, 2nd

Barbashev is the only loss that hurts and Lindberg is a more established center that is still young and has the same line upside with more scoring potential. The value would be too good to pass if we could fit it under the cap.

Schwartz Steen Tarasenko
Nash Stastny Fabbri
Berglund Lindberg Perron
Sobotka Brodziak Jaskin
Upshall, Reaves

That's only a little over a million in extra cap ($6 + $0.7 vs $4.7 + roughly $1M set aside for 14th forward). That's a pretty sick forward group too. If we trade Shatty for futures and a vet $2M 3rd pairing RHD, we swing the cap easy. But if Schwartz goes to arbitration and gets a 1 year deal, which looks more possible everyday, we don't even have to do that.
 
Majorityof1 said:
I thought I had zero interest in Nash, but I would consider that deal if we could figure out the cap this year, and especially next year. Gaining Nash is just not worth it to make additional moves to cut salary after the trade. If Rangers would take Lehtera instead of Berglund, that would go a long way to getting it done for me as the salary would work out better.

Blues: Nash (@$6M per), Lindberg
Rangers: Lehtera, Barbashev, Segeev, 2nd

Barbashev is the only loss that hurts and Lindberg is a more established center that is still young and has the same line upside with more scoring potential. The value would be too good to pass if we could fit it under the cap.

Schwartz Steen Tarasenko
Nash Stastny Fabbri
Berglund Lindberg Perron
Sobotka Brodziak Jaskin
Upshall, Reaves

That's only a little over a million in extra cap ($6 + $0.7 vs $4.7 + roughly $1M set aside for 14th forward). That's a pretty sick forward group too. If we trade Shatty for futures and a vet $2M 3rd pairing RHD, we swing the cap easy. But if Schwartz goes to arbitration and gets a 1 year deal, which looks more possible everyday, we don't even have to do that.
Click to expand...

^ Exactly. I'd take Nash in STL...but more salary than Bergy has to go to NYR. Lehtera is a decent player...not a pure-trash cap-dump.
 
TGWL said:
He didn't say it was 1 for 1.
Click to expand...

The major problem is salary. Assuming Sobotka comes over, which Army believes he will, our cap space is fully allocated to Schwartz and Sobotka. There really isn't much wiggle room to add.

New York is also going to be tight against the cap. The amount of retention needed, New York wouldn't go for. On the other side, I don't see them having much interest in our version of a cap dump in Lehtera.

Value can be reasonably determined between the 2 teams for Shattenkirk, but Nash makes no sense for a few different reasons.
 
People need to stop making idiotic offers.

1. Nash is not overpaid, at least not significantly, maybe not at all. The problem is that a rumor spread on this forum among people who don't watch him that he's awful. One person wrote that he's "abysmal" defensively when in reality he's one of the top defensive forwards in the league.

2. If you make the Rangers pick up his salary so that his cap hit is equivalent to a second liner (around $6) or a third liner (Nash at half his salary), then you should pay through the nose for him since at this point he's underpaid, and at half the salary, he's severely underpaid.

3. Do not send your cap dumps in return for a retained Nash. There are offers out there where the Rangers pick up half of Nash's salary, and then the only return is a cap dump of a horrible third liner on a $4-5 salary, so basically the Rangers would have a higher cap hit (between what they retained and the cap dump they received), while downgrading from a star first liner to a below average third liner.

I understand that you may want to dump your overpaid garbage while receiving Nash with an underpaid cap hit after the Rangers retain. But unless you're willing to gut your farm system for that, there's no reason why the Rangers would ever do it. They're not going to pick up a third liner whose effective hit is $8.5 million between his salary and what they retain for Nash.

Gaborik unretained on a $7.5 salary in the middle of a horrible year, was terrible defensively, was having lifelong history of long-term injuries brought back a 25-year-old second liner, a 25-year-old fourth liner and a 21-year-old top-6 defenseman. At a minimum, unretained Nash brings in the same as Gaborik, but really Nash should bring more due to his advantage in 1) size; 2) health; 3) defense.
 
KirkOut said:
When was the last time you watched either of those guys play? Barbashev is looking like he projects as a low end 2nd line / high end 3rd liner center. He may be a useful player, but he's not in Buchnevich's league. As for Sergeev, you're right, he's an AHL defenseman.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone argue to give up more and then have a fan from the other team say not that is more than enough.
 
Beacon said:
People need to stop making idiotic offers.

1. Nash is not overpaid, at least not significantly, maybe not at all. The problem is that a rumor spread on this forum among people who don't watch him that he's awful. One person wrote that he's "abysmal" defensively when in reality he's one of the top defensive forwards in the league.

2. If you make the Rangers pick up his salary so that his cap hit is equivalent to a second liner (around $6) or a third liner (Nash at half his salary), then you should pay through the nose for him since at this point he's underpaid, and at half the salary, he's severely underpaid.

3. Do not send your cap dumps in return for a retained Nash. There are offers out there where the Rangers pick up half of Nash's salary, and then the only return is a cap dump of a horrible third liner on a $4-5 salary, so basically the Rangers would have a higher cap hit (between what they retained and the cap dump they received), while downgrading from a star first liner to a below average third liner.

I understand that you may want to dump your overpaid garbage while receiving Nash with an underpaid cap hit after the Rangers retain. But unless you're willing to gut your farm system for that, there's no reason why the Rangers would ever do it. They're not going to pick up a third liner whose effective hit is $8.5 million between his salary and what they retain for Nash.

Gaborik unretained on a $7.5 salary in the middle of a horrible year, was terrible defensively, was having lifelong history of long-term injuries brought back a 25-year-old second liner, a 25-year-old fourth liner and a 21-year-old top-6 defenseman. At a minimum, unretained Nash brings in the same as Gaborik, but really Nash should bring more due to his advantage in 1) size; 2) health; 3) defense.
Click to expand...

Gaborik was traded at a younger age.

Nash is coming off just as bad of a year that Gaborik was in.

Nash at 7.8 is overpaid. He's probably worth around 6 if he rebounds, and if he produces like last season, then he is an anchor on the cap.
 
Beacon said:
People need to stop making idiotic offers.

1. Nash is not overpaid, at least not significantly, maybe not at all. The problem is that a rumor spread on this forum among people who don't watch him that he's awful. One person wrote that he's "abysmal" defensively when in reality he's one of the top defensive forwards in the league.

2. If you make the Rangers pick up his salary so that his cap hit is equivalent to a second liner (around $6) or a third liner (Nash at half his salary), then you should pay through the nose for him since at this point he's underpaid, and at half the salary, he's severely underpaid.

3. Do not send your cap dumps in return for a retained Nash. There are offers out there where the Rangers pick up half of Nash's salary, and then the only return is a cap dump of a horrible third liner on a $4-5 salary, so basically the Rangers would have a higher cap hit (between what they retained and the cap dump they received), while downgrading from a star first liner to a below average third liner.

I understand that you may want to dump your overpaid garbage while receiving Nash with an underpaid cap hit after the Rangers retain. But unless you're willing to gut your farm system for that, there's no reason why the Rangers would ever do it. They're not going to pick up a third liner whose effective hit is $8.5 million between his salary and what they retain for Nash.

Gaborik unretained on a $7.5 salary in the middle of a horrible year, was terrible defensively, was having lifelong history of long-term injuries brought back a 25-year-old second liner, a 25-year-old fourth liner and a 21-year-old top-6 defenseman. At a minimum, unretained Nash brings in the same as Gaborik, but really Nash should bring more due to his advantage in 1) size; 2) health; 3) defense.
Click to expand...

Nash is the 12th highest cap hit for a forward this coming season in the entire NHL. He had 36 points last year. Even extending his production out over 80 games would only be 48 points. That would put him as the 91st most productive forward this past season. While I agree his defense is better than most give him credit for, he is still not elite. He worked hard on his defense throughout his career, but he still isn't in the top 10% of forwards in defensive ability. He'll never be mentioned as a Selke candidate. It definitely isn't enough to make up for his lack of point production. So if his 2013-14 and 2015-16 production is the new norm, he is definitely overpaid. Even at $6M, that puts him in the top 35 highest paid forwards, and his .6 ppg production doesn't even justify that.

I realize that is a bit of a simple analysis, but hopefully it illustrates the point. $7.8 is elite pay, even $6M is top tier pay. Nash has not produced at close to elite levels 2 of the last 3 years. His age is such that he could be declining, and that is not worth trading prime assets for (the entire farm, please).

The "cap dump" was added to the proposal in this thread because its the only way it could work cap wise. The Blues are against the cap after they sign Schwartz. The player in question, Lehtera, was not much less valuable than Berglund, the player removed from the original proposal. Some Rangers fans were ok with the original proposal; however, it just wouldn't work capwise for the Blues. So we offered an alternative. Take it or leave it, its the best the Blues can/should do. If you don't like it, say no thanks. But leave the BS spiel about how Nash is a Selke caliber defenseman and earning every penny of his 12th highest contract.
 
bleedblue1223 said:
Gaborik was traded at a younger age.

Nash is coming off just as bad of a year that Gaborik was in.

Nash at 7.8 is overpaid. He's probably worth around 6 if he rebounds, and if he produces like last season, then he is an anchor on the cap.
Click to expand...

Gaborik was a year younger, which is marginal, but he was MUCH more injured, so the odds of him collapsing were spectacularly higher.

Nash's year is nowhere near as bad. He had to deal with nagging injuries reducing his offensive numbers, but they were still a bit better than Gaborik's, and more importantly, Nash is massively better all-around. When Gaborik didn't score, he was totally useless. When Nash didn't score, he was still one of the top contributors to the game.

There's no reasonable way to conclude that Nash is worth $6 unless you're clueless about his game. $6 is what a second liner gets. Dubinsky, who was traded (along with Anisimov and #1) for Nash just signed about a $6 contract (for a much longer term) and he's not qualified to shine Nash's shoes: smaller, worse defensively, nowhere near as good offensively. Dubi's career high is 54 points. Nash's career-worst season is still better than Dubi's average career season.

Look at the Isles giving Andrew Ladd almost $6 on a 7(!) year term after his 34-point season. Ladd is smaller, worse defensively, had fewer points last year and far fewer points in his career. A whole bunch of other second liners of similar or older age than Nash received $6+. Not one of them was as good as Nash. If he hit the UFA market, he'd get more than $6, probably about what he is making now, except he'd get a full 7 year term because the team would sacrifice the last few years for the first few years when he's still good.

To get Nash for $7.8 on a 2 year term is not a cap dump, but of course, people here are confused into thinking that he's pure crap, a third liner making all this money.
 
Majorityof1 said:
Nash is the 12th highest cap hit for a forward this coming season in the entire NHL. He had 36 points last year. Even extending his production out over 80 games would only be 48 points.
Click to expand...

That was his worst career year that resulted from him playing with nagging injuries. Just a year earlier when he was healthy, Nash scored 42 goals. Over almost 1,000 NHL games, he's average 35 goals per 82 games.

Majorityof1 said:
While I agree his defense is better than most give him credit for, he is still not elite. He worked hard on his defense throughout his career, but he still isn't in the top 10% of forwards in defensive ability.
Click to expand...

There are 360 top-12 NHL forwards, he's easily in the top-36, so he's easily in the top 10%.
 
You are really overrating Nash's 2-way game if you think that when he doesn't produce, he is still a top contributor.
 
Beacon said:
That was his worst career year that resulted from him playing with nagging injuries. Just a year earlier when he was healthy, Nash scored 42 goals. Over almost 1,000 NHL games, he's average 35 goals per 82 games.

There are 360 top-12 NHL forwards, he's easily in the top-36, so he's easily in the top 10%.
Click to expand...

What about 2 years ago when he also had .6 ppg? '14'-15 was surrounded by two sub-par years. Which is the aberration relative to his current skill level, the good year or the injury filled years? Nobody is doubting his skill when young or healthy. The question is, has age and injuries caught up to him permanently. Its a big risk at $6M salary, and not worth giving up prime assets. Its a non-starter at $7.8. He'd have to match the 2015 season over the next 2 years to earn that much.

And no, he is not in the top 36 in defense. He has only once been in the top 30 in Selke voting (16th in 2015). Again, that's not dispositive, but its telling. Especially when the selke ignores defensive forwards who don't score goals. So you not only have the 20 or so guys who get votes every year, but also the purely defensive guys who don't get votes because they don't have the offense. But we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I am not interested in a long protracted debate about the defensive qualifications of ranking 30-50 forwards using advanced stats which are imperfect at best.
 
bleedblue1223 said:
You are really overrating Nash's 2-way game if you think that when he doesn't produce, he is still a top contributor.
Click to expand...

Not top producer in the NHL, but he's definitely one of the top guys on the team even when he doesn't score. If you don't know that, consider watching a few Ranger games before having an opinion on Ranger players. Even people who desperately want to trade away Nash agree that even when he doesn't score, he's very useful. If he got zero points for the season, he'd still play on any team's top-6 because of his defense and use of his size to drive the play.

Finally, literally no NHL professional thinks a player should be judged strictly by the last season. That's why a 30-year-old Gaborik who had 19 points after half a season of games still brought back 3 young players, one of them a top-6 forward. That's because consistent 30-40 goal scorers are rare and don't lose all their value after a single bad season.
 
bleedblue1223 said:
You are really overrating Nash's 2-way game if you think that when he doesn't produce, he is still a top contributor.
Click to expand...

In the playoffs, where he gets crapped on all the time, he is always one of our best players defensively. I would definitely argue he's one of the best defensive wingers currently. He's also the kind of guy who works 2x as hard on the backcheck when he's not scoring in order to make up for it.

Majorityof1 said:
What about 2 years ago when he also had .6 ppg? '14'-15 was surrounded by two sub-par years. Which is the aberration relative to his current skill level, the good year or the injury filled years? Nobody is doubting his skill when young or healthy. The question is, has age and injuries caught up to him permanently. Its a big risk at $6M salary, and not worth giving up prime assets. Its a non-starter at $7.8. He'd have to match the 2015 season over the next 2 years to earn that much.

And no, he is not in the top 36 in defense. He has only once been in the top 30 in Selke voting (16th in 2015). Again, that's not dispositive, but its telling. Especially when the selke ignores defensive forwards who don't score goals. So you not only have the 20 or so guys who get votes every year, but also the purely defensive guys who don't get votes because they don't have the offense. But we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I am not interested in a long protracted debate about the defensive qualifications of ranking 30-50 forwards using advanced stats which are imperfect at best.
Click to expand...

He's been about the same defensively every year here - always very good/excellent. The year he happened to score 16th on the Selke was the year he scored 40+ goals. His defense was just as good every other year, he just hasn't gotten the credit for it.
 
Majorityof1 said:
Nobody is doubting his skill when young or healthy. The question is, has age and injuries caught up to him permanently. Its a big risk at $6M salary, and not worth giving up prime assets. Its a non-starter at $7.8.
Click to expand...

In 2009, Gaborik was coming off a major injury that limited him to 17 games for the whole season, and had a bunch of other injuries in his career. He got $7.5 at the time when the cap was 22% lower than the current one. Gaborik was 13.2% of the cap; Nash now is 10.6% of the cap. Gaborik (particularly on a 5-year contract) was a massively bigger risk, yet not only did he get a higher percentage of the cap space, he later got the Rangers 3 young players in a trade.
 
Jeff Gorton had some lowball offers for Nash before, but he didn't take them. With some of the contracts handed out a week ago - yeesh. Honestly, I'm so much happier with Nash. If I had an opportunity to sign him as a free agent July 1st to 2 year contract, I'd very happily have given him a contract in the 7.5 range. 2 years is low risk and he's well worth it at that point. I'm open to a trade for some fresh air in the lineup, but this isn't a player we would sell for 2 quarters on the dollar.
 
The Rangers are best off keeping Nash until the trading deadline to get max value. 1) It allows whoever acquires him to pay for one season, but get two playoff runs; 2) with the Canadian dollar recovering and the NHL getting expansion money, the cap next summer will suddenly jump giving a lot of teams a ton of room, which will naturally skyrocket the salaries of all the UFAs, so Nash at $7.8 will be a straight up bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom