Proposal: Rangers - Blues swap for Rick Nash

[Lundqvist 30 NY]

I...I just...just... <sigh> That list has me speechless.

Whatever man. You clearly don't get it. I have no idea how trading for an RFA goalie entering his prime has anything to do with trading Nash, a very expensive older forward who possibly is in the down swing of his career.

The Gaborik example works, it just doesn't send the message you think it does. Its a cautionary tale. Don't overpay for older, injured former star players who the Rangers gave way too big a contract to and now want to dump. Like Columbus, you will regret it.

https://www.nhl.com/news/columbus-s...ash-to-eight-year-contract-extension/c-433465

 

[SteenMachine]

Frankly if you're dealing Nash it already sends a message you're giving up on him to rebound and make the team competitive, at $7.8M that's WAY too high of a risk for someone else to invest in. Which is strange when people won't even consider $6M for Shattenkirk who's entering his prime because of risks he won't be worth the cap hit on his new contract.

If you can't get the value you want, just keep him until he's a rental and cash out on the draft pick / prospect package you probably need going forward. That team has what 3 or 4 guys you resent for not performing up to their paygrade? There's just not enough teams that want to take on cap and can improve by doing it that someone like Nash is a priority. If someone really does try and add him to their team he's going to have to fit in perfectly or end up putting yet another undesirable contract on the Rangers' roster and I don't see their GM settling for that to force a trade.

 

[BBKers]

Nash to ST Louis is probably not a good fit. There are better alternatives, Anaheim likely the best place. I would think his maximized trade value is what NYR would be willing to retain. And his injury status. When healthy - Nash is a real difference maker in the regular season. Playoff hockey, not so much. Keeps the opposing defense honest and provides elite scoring. Elite. Very good defensively, possibly not Selke worthy but definitely top tier considering the offense he puts up. He does take a shift or two off on the back check though.
The point I am trying to make is that Nash will provide a lot for a contender not thinking Rick Nash is their to go guy but a great secondary piece for playoff hockey. In the regular season he will provide 30+ goals. If healthy. The real question is what GM thinks that Rick Nash will put them over the top this year and next? If he is healthy and producing, he could fetch a real haul at the TDL when GMs lose their minds. We know that. But will he be healthy? He has been injured the past three years (lost the over 50 goal pace he was on two seasons ago due to this too). That is the real risk the Rangers take IMO. Cut loose now for a likely mild underpayment but begin to patch up the roster long term? Or take a chance that he rebounds, use his services to be a likely PO qualifier, retain a bit and get a real good return at the TDL. But if he gets injured again and his value drops a lot - then the Rangers brass will look like fools. Interesting scenario. tough call

 

[One Winged Angel]

15 goals-36 points-$7.8 million cap hit. Nobody is giving up much for that even with salary retained.

The Rangers might want to take the chance that Nash will have a better year and hold onto him for a while and let his value increase. Of course that could also have the opposite effect if Nash shows that last year was the start of his decline.

Or you can totally disregard 2015 and the 42 goals and 69 points he had.

 

[bernmeister]

a reasonable enough effort, but Nash commands more from compet. bids.
Also, if he starts w/NY and can show regained scoring touch, his return goes up substantially, so while NY need wait til his value is THAT high, he should not be viewed a cheap giveaway.

Nash is not Chara - + 35 contract/too slow for 1st line at substantial $

 

[MissouriMook]

Or you can totally disregard 2015 and the 42 goals and 69 points he had.

That's funny because most Rangers fans on HF seem eager to do just that. Just about every deal out there involving the Rags is an invitation to try to dump Nash and his huge cap hit. It is disingenuous to say that the team needs to dump Nash but improve its Top 6 and at the same time expect that you will be able to get an exceptional return for him. Either he is worth the $7.8M he is due to make the next two years or he isn't. If he's worth it, keep him. If he's not, expect the return to be "meh" or plan on eating a ton of his cap hit.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Or you can totally disregard 2015 and the 42 goals and 69 points he had.

Then keep him if you feel so confident about him maintaining that production over the next 2 seasons. Other GM's have to balance that risk since he's had 2 poor production seasons over the past 3 years.

 

[TGWL]

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.

The year he had 26 goals in 65 games? Consistent with his previous 30+ goal pace? Yes, please tell us about that year.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The year he had 26 goals in 65 games? Consistent with his previous 30+ goal pace? Yes, please tell us about that year.

And a 49 point pace...

 

[Whitsmith803]

Rangers and Blues aren't trading unless the Blues get Nash and the Rangers get Shattenkirk- The Blues will look to add another piece for taking the Cap Space like -

Nash, JT Miller, Kevin Hayes (hasn't fit in with Rangers and could replace Backe's Size)
Shattenkirk, Lehtera, Rattie, plus a minor league goalie since the Blues don't have room for 6 minors-

Nash and Stastny's contracts run out at the same time which will allow the Blues to reorganize their core again.

Rangers can flip Staal or other players to shed salary if they want.

 

[Got One Cup]

Want nothing to do with Nash. Blues offer a 1st rd pick if you can make a deal sending him to Chicago without retention.

 

[TGWL]

And a 49 point pace...

Has Rick Nash ever been about assist? Is your idea of Rick Nash somebody cycling the puck down low collecting secondary assist? Rick Nash has never been much of a playmaker - lets not use his assist as an example of being on the decline.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Has Rick Nash ever been about assist? Is your idea of Rick Nash somebody cycling the puck down low collecting secondary assist? Rick Nash has never been much of a playmaker - lets not use his assist as an example of being on the decline.

His point production is definitely a factor, especially for the cap hit that he will take up and the return that you guys want for him.

I'm not using point production as a reason for decline, I'm saying it's a reason why he'll get a limited return.

 

[TGWL]

His point production is definitely a factor, especially for the cap hit that he will take up and the return that you guys want for him.

I'm not using point production as a reason for decline, I'm saying it's a reason why he'll get a limited return.

You compared his 40 goal season by 2 sub-par seasons. In that sub-par season, he was still the same Rick Nash player. Sure, last year was pretty bad, because if he's not scoring, he's not exactly driving the offense. And at that cap hit, you need goal scoring. But he's been pretty consistent before last year.