Proposal: Rick Nash to Detroit
- Thread starter LiveLongandProspal
- Start date
r0bert8841
Registered User
I completely agree. Nash is one year removed from a 40 goal season. We haven't had a 40 goal scorer since Hossa in 08-09.
DamonDRW
Registered User
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Yeah sorry weren't giving up a 21 year old Anthony Mantha for a 32 year old Rick Nash even at 20% retained. Holland already said that he wants to build a younger core not older. Mantha still has tons of potential he just need to be given a chance. In the 10 games that Mantha played our PP went for the 25th worst to the 13th best he definitely made a big impact there. Don't want Nash would've loved to have had him when Columbus traded him to the Rangers but those days are gone now and eventually this team is going to have to start it's own rebuild here.
TheOtherOne
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2010
- 8,284
- 5,302
From what I remember, the guy can only score AGAINST the Wings. So I guess this would mean he won't be scoring anymore.
Datsyukian Deke
The Captain is Home!!
The Wings aren't a Rick Nash away from the cup. Do not want, unless it's for similarly aged, similarly expensive players. And in that case, why would the Rangers bother?
Hammettf2b
oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Doriva
Registered User
So a guy has the best scoring season of his career only a single season ago yet he's on the decline ?
I'm guessing you watched a total of 0 Ranger games last year, Nash struggled with a lingering injury and had the lowest TOI of his career. That combined with our team generally sucking all year round led to his statistical slump.
If you look at the bigger picture: 7th in goals/60 since he joined the Rangers, great 2-way play, can contribute on the pk, still has good foot speed and has solid advanced stats.
The asking price remains.
Nash at no retention: 1st + acceptable cap dump
Nash at 25%: 1st + Prospect
Nash at 50%: 1st + Prospect + Roster player
Last edited:
Doriva
Registered User
Solid offer, would even retain 50% as I really like Tatar and if we were to move Nash (I dont think we should) I think it would signify a larger scale tear down and roster reshape.
Shaman464
No u
TheOctopusKid
Registered User
- Sep 24, 2010
- 1,490
- 1,774
To be honest, I would be fine with Nash at the right price. He's is still a very capable player with two more years at $7.8 - but we're not exactly afraid of the cap hit at this point and the term is short enough where he can act as a nice top-six winger with size who is still very much capable of putting up 35+ goals a season.
Adding a physical power forward with a very nice shot can both give us a finisher on the PP, create space with his size to allow a smaller quicker player to find open ice or attack gaps. He is not going to be a savior and immediate fix but I think it's generally undisputed that he is a Top-6 Forward.
Ideally we could use the swap to dump longer term contracts (like Ericsson netting in a $3.8M savings in cap space for the Rangers) but I suspect for them take back that kind of salary the price of the deal would have to go up.
This is where it gets tricky - I'm fine with Nash at 2 years @ $7.8M at the right price. Assuming it's something along the lines of Ericsson/Prospect/Pick - I can live with that.
Now since Ericsson is obviously a bogey here - the quality of the Prospect and the Pick will vary. Svech, Mantha, and a 1st are a no go for me - but throwing in Bertuzzi and a 2nd - or AA and a 3rd, I could live with.
I know the outcry of giving up AA for Nash would be hard to stomach but if it means we can lose Ericsson and essentially replace AA with a reasonable signing (a la Martin as I don't think AA projects to be a Top 6 forward) and play more defensive, I would be on board for that.
Worse case scenario - Nash fails and puts up his lowest point total of his career (which I believe is unlikely) and nets like 40pts with 20g - and we can trade him the following year as a one-year rental for a draft pick and recoup some of the cost of the trade.
Adding a physical power forward with a very nice shot can both give us a finisher on the PP, create space with his size to allow a smaller quicker player to find open ice or attack gaps. He is not going to be a savior and immediate fix but I think it's generally undisputed that he is a Top-6 Forward.
Ideally we could use the swap to dump longer term contracts (like Ericsson netting in a $3.8M savings in cap space for the Rangers) but I suspect for them take back that kind of salary the price of the deal would have to go up.
This is where it gets tricky - I'm fine with Nash at 2 years @ $7.8M at the right price. Assuming it's something along the lines of Ericsson/Prospect/Pick - I can live with that.
Now since Ericsson is obviously a bogey here - the quality of the Prospect and the Pick will vary. Svech, Mantha, and a 1st are a no go for me - but throwing in Bertuzzi and a 2nd - or AA and a 3rd, I could live with.
I know the outcry of giving up AA for Nash would be hard to stomach but if it means we can lose Ericsson and essentially replace AA with a reasonable signing (a la Martin as I don't think AA projects to be a Top 6 forward) and play more defensive, I would be on board for that.
Worse case scenario - Nash fails and puts up his lowest point total of his career (which I believe is unlikely) and nets like 40pts with 20g - and we can trade him the following year as a one-year rental for a draft pick and recoup some of the cost of the trade.
Why? You're selling off the Wings future for an irrelevant present piece, and a pick that likely won't be nearly bad/good enough to be worthwhile. Nash is of no value to the Wings.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
No way would i include AA for a winger that's on the downside. I might give up AA in a package deal for Jacob Trouba but that's about it.
Datsyukian Deke
The Captain is Home!!
EmptyNetAssassin
Registered User
Datsyukian Deke
The Captain is Home!!
Datsyukian Deke
The Captain is Home!!
Anything with AA in the deal is off the table, in my book. Unless there is a 25 year old Brian Leetch hiding somewhere in NYC.
So a guy has the best scoring season of his career only a single season ago yet he's on the decline ?
I'm guessing you watched a total of 0 Ranger games last year, Nash struggled with a lingering injury and had the lowest TOI of his career. That combined with our team generally sucking all year round led to his statistical slump.
If you look at the bigger picture: 7th in goals/60 since he joined the Rangers, great 2-way play, can contribute on the pk, still has good foot speed and has solid advanced stats.
The asking price remains.
Nash at no retention: 1st + Cap dump
Nash at 25%: 1st + Prospect
Nash at 50%: 1st + Prospect + Roster player
LA 2017 or 18 fist (Rangers pick) + Brown
Doriva
Registered User
LA 2017 or 18 fist (Rangers pick) + Brown
Yeah, kinda screwed myself there perhaps an acceptable cap dump of similar term.
In all honesty I think I'm undervaluing Nash by a bunch, its just after 10+ threads of "he's a cap dump" "he's on the decline" etc have started to chip away at me.
The crap written about Nash is taken as gospel now.
Honestly, it starts with Devil and Islander fans taking shots and then fans of other teams just spout regurgitated nonsense about a player they see two or three times a year.
Obviously he has't put the puck in the net in the playoffs, but it isn't like he vanished. He just could't finish...some was pressure and some just bad luck.
But lets just end these threads for now.
I think everyone is growing tired of them.
Honestly, it starts with Devil and Islander fans taking shots and then fans of other teams just spout regurgitated nonsense about a player they see two or three times a year.
Obviously he has't put the puck in the net in the playoffs, but it isn't like he vanished. He just could't finish...some was pressure and some just bad luck.
But lets just end these threads for now.
I think everyone is growing tired of them.
I get that. He is far from a cap dump though. He is one season removed from a 40 goal season and plays well in both ends of the ice.
Would love him in LA but Gaborik or Brown would have to go back plus something else to balance salaries. All deals for Nash to LA in my head are very one sided for LA.
