Toggle sidebar

Rick Nash Part II

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Dactyl said:
Get the **** out of here with facts
Click to expand...

You won't find many people arguing that Rick Nash can't score even strength goals in the regular season.

I'd argue thats a pretty small sample size considering its a rate stat taking into account a lockout shortened season and a season where Nash missed about 20 games.

But anyway, some people aren't content with Nash scoring Tuesday night goals in Buffalo in January at this point.
 
This organization has loftier goals than merely making the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not capable of helping in May/June, you're not of any help at all. That's why I'm so adamant about re-signing guys like Stralman and trading guys like Nash.
 
Crease said:
This organization has loftier goals than merely making the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not capable of helping in May/June, you're not of any help at all. That's why I'm so adamant about re-signing guys like Stralman and trading guys like Nash.
Click to expand...

If every player on your team was Danny Briere come playoff time, they'd win the Stanley Cup every year. There are always going to be guys who don't get it done in the playoffs, there will always be guys who do. Then there is everyone else who will sometimes, but not consistently.

Which one is Rick Nash? We'll find out before his tenure in NY ends because I don't foresee them not making the playoffs at all the next 4 years. All of this is a little premature, albeit understandable since there is no guarantee they get back to the Finals. People are looking at this like it was "their big chance" and Nash blew it by not scoring.
 
Dactyl said:
So a 2.5 million per season in cap buyout (I think) for 6 years would be a better idea than eating that 2.5 and trading Nash at 5.3 a year for 4 years?

And to the "7.8 a year isn't worth back checking" comment before, he's led the ****ing team in goals the entire time he's been here.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm talking about Nash being a candidate for a compliance buyout, not a regular buyout. Of course, given the age and the contract Richards is a better candidate for a compliance buyout, and we only have one left, but Nash is still a candidate.

Question for you - if Rich Nash was becoming a free agent this summer, would you, at this point, advocate signing him as a free agent with a four year contract with a cap hit of $7.8 million/year?
 
Crease said:
This organization has loftier goals than merely making the playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not capable of helping in May/June, you're not of any help at all. That's why I'm so adamant about re-signing guys like Stralman and trading guys like Nash.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially when we made the SCF with 39 & 10 points, regular & playoffs, from him. I don't buy the injury excuses, his production was exactly the same as last post-season: below-average. In my opinion, the style of game he plays just isn't suited for scoring in the playoffs. If he can change that, well, I'll believe it when I see it. Only forward who had less goals than Nash was Dorsett (0). That's pathetic.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Nope, I'm talking about Nash being a candidate for a compliance buyout, not a regular buyout. Of course, given the age and the contract Richards is a better candidate for a compliance buyout, and we only have one left, but Nash is still a candidate.

Question for you - if Rich Nash was becoming a free agent this summer, would you, at this point, advocate signing him as a free agent with a four year contract with a cap hit of $7.8 million/year?
Click to expand...

No because the Rangers are not Columbus trying to retain their star winger whose milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Clarification: Rick Nash is not a 7.8mil player and never has been, so he would never make that in free agency.
 
Ail said:
No because the Rangers are not Columbus trying to retain their star winger whose milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Clarification: Rick Nash is not a 7.8mil player and never has been, so he would never make that in free agency.
Click to expand...

So if we had TWO buyouts available to use this summer, you would advocate buying out Nash as well as Richards?
 
Jersey Girl said:
So if we had TWO buyouts available to use this summer, you would advocate buying out Nash as well as Richards?
Click to expand...

No because then the Rangers would not have Rick Nash. Having Rick Nash is worth carrying the extra 1-2mil he is overpaid. However in a perfect world you wouldn't overpay him if you didn't have to.

Unfortunately, the Rangers have to.

(Edit: and so did Columbus.)
 
Jersey Girl said:
So if we had TWO buyouts available to use this summer, you would advocate buying out Nash as well as Richards?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone buy out Nash even if they had unlimited buy outs?

The only way that can possibly make sense is if Nash was totally useless all season and had no trade value at all.

Right now Nash scores goals in the regular season and has trade value. So no, you absolutely do not buy him out.
 
Ail said:
No because then the Rangers would not have Rick Nash. Having Rick Nash is worth carrying the extra 1-2mil he is overpaid. However in a perfect world you wouldn't overpay him if you didn't have to.

Unfortunately, the Rangers have to.

(Edit: and so did Columbus.)
Click to expand...

So then you're saying you WOULD give Nash a free agent contract at this point, for four years at $7.8 million/year, so we would have Rich Nash.
 
slipknottin said:
Why would anyone buy out Nash even if they had unlimited buy outs?

The only way that can possibly make sense is if Nash was totally useless all season and had no trade value at all.
Click to expand...

Or if you could make better use of that $7.8 million per year of cap space going forward - especially considering the cap hell we are currently in.
 
slipknottin said:
Why would anyone buy out Nash even if they had unlimited buy outs?

The only way that can possibly make sense is if Nash was totally useless all season and had no trade value at all.

Right now Nash scores goals in the regular season and has trade value. So no, you absolutely do not buy him out.
Click to expand...

you buyout Nash if you think you can acquire a 30 goal scorer who's roughly the same age for four years at a cost less than what you're paying Nash. While I'm not a huge detractor of Nash, as Jersey Girl points out, I would not be giving him a 4 year, $7.8MM contract today if he was a free agent.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Or if you could make better use of that $7.8 million per year of cap space going forward - especially considering the cap hell we are currently in.
Click to expand...

Absolutely wrong. It's not only a cap consideration.

If a player has trade value you NEVER buy them out. That is taking assets and dumping them in the trash. It's an atrocious decision
 
Fletch said:
you buyout Nash if you think you can acquire a 30 goal scorer who's roughly the same age for four years at a cost less than what you're paying Nash.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. If you have a player with trade value you trade them if they are no longer needed/wanted.

Buying them out is when you are left with no other option
 
slipknottin said:
Absolutely wrong. It's not only a cap consideration.

If a player has trade value you NEVER buy them out. That is taking assets and dumping them in the trash. It's an atrocious decision
Click to expand...

What makes you think Nash has trade value? What makes you think a team will sacrifice assets to bring on Nash and his $7.8 million cap hit for four more years?
 
Jersey Girl said:
So then you're saying you WOULD give Nash a free agent contract at this point, for four years at $7.8 million/year, so we would have Rich Nash.
Click to expand...

Lol No. If it was true free agency and a bidding war started, I wouldn't offer more than 6-6.5. If someone offered more than that, cy@. However that would likely not happen. Especially since Nash wanted to come to NY.

Do you really not see the difference between your hypothetical and the Rangers predicament?
 
Jersey Girl said:
What makes you think Nash has trade value? What makes you think a team will sacrifice assets to bring on Nash and his $7.8 million cap hit for four more years?
Click to expand...

Because he is a great player who makes teams better? The Rangers can also retain salary.
 
slipknottin said:
Absolutely wrong. It's not only a cap consideration.

If a player has trade value you NEVER buy them out. That is taking assets and dumping them in the trash. It's an atrocious decision
Click to expand...

Seriously. Why on earth would you buy out a guy like Nash at this point? You can trade him in a year, no?

This team is already short on assets. Throwing Nash away for nothing would make that so much worse.
 
Ail said:
Lol No. If it was true free agency and a bidding war started, I wouldn't offer more than 6-6.5. If someone offered more than that, cy@. However that would likely not happen. Especially since Nash wanted to come to NY.

Do you really not see the difference between your hypothetical and the Rangers predicament?
Click to expand...

Did you not see where I clearly stated Richards is the better compliance buyout candidate for the Rangers predicament?
 
haveandare said:
Seriously. Why on earth would you buy out a guy like Nash at this point? You can trade him in a year, no?

This team is already short on assets. Throwing Nash away for nothing would make that so much worse.
Click to expand...

It would make no sense at all. Nash still definitely has value.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Debatable post-concussion Nash is a great player who makes teams $7.8 million/year better.
Click to expand...

Good thing there are other teams in the league who don't find themselves in the exact circumstances the Rangers do.

There will always be a team that has cap space and wants a 30 goal scorer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom