Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread Part VIII: Autumn in New York

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many of the cup winners had things go wrong for them, injuries usually yet they had either enough elite talent to still overcome or enough good depth to not drop off all that much.

I was not one of those who ever said the team was not going to win just because of the D. I've always been of the opinion they were not going to win because they would have to beat multiple teams who were better constructed than they were, which is still where I am at with this group.
 
Mac n Gs said:
With how this currenr roster is constructed and the lack of overall depth at W and C, this is just silly. We'd need everything to go well with our rookies and second year guys to make Nash "redundant." Even then, he's still useful because he can help shelter the kids from top competition. With only a year left on his deal, trading Nash for any other reason than us being completely out of the playoff race is just dumb.
Click to expand...

"The lack of overall depth at W" when our second leading goal scorer is on the fourth line and Rick NSh might end up getting third line minutes...
 
Avery16 said:
"The lack of overall depth at W" when our second leading goal scorer is on the fourth line and Rick NSh might end up getting third line minutes...
Click to expand...

It is preseason. How do you know Nash will end up on the 3rd line during the regular season? :popcorn:

Also, convenient to ignore my point about Miller moving back to C and that weakening our depth on the wings.
 
Gardner McKay said:
It is preseason. How do you know Nash will end up on the 3rd line during the regular season? :popcorn:

Also, convenient to ignore my point about Miller moving back to C and that weakening our depth on the wings.
Click to expand...

Again- because he was outscored by 6 forwards last season.

I didn't address your point about Miller because I wasn't replying to your post.

Even if Miller moves to C which is not a lock, our W depth isn't that greatly affected.

It seems like youre arguing that Nash should be kept as scoring depth, but you wouldn't acquire a 7.8 million cap hit for scoring depth. So why keep one for scoring depth for a matter of months when you could get a kid who could be the next Nash for ten years
 
Avery16 said:
Again- because he was outscored by 6 forwards last season.

I didn't address your point about Miller because I wasn't replying to your post.

Even if Miller moves to C which is not a lock, our W depth isn't that greatly affected.

It seems like youre arguing that Nash should be kept as scoring depth, but you wouldn't acquire a 7.8 million cap hit for scoring depth. So why keep one for scoring depth for a matter of months when you could get a kid who could be the next Nash for ten years
Click to expand...

No, you just ignored it all together because you know you are wrong. I am not arguing Nash should be kept as depth. I am saying that getting rid of him and his 7.8 million dollars is asinine when we can't really spend that money and that by getting rid of him, we do lose depth. That doesn't mean Nash is a depth player. We lost some depth by trading Stepan. He also wasn't just a depth player.

Oh, and if you are trying to tell me that you are talking about getting a kid in return who could be the next Nash, just don't. We all know that no one is going to give us that kind of prospect in return for Nash and a 1st round pick won't help us this year (a year in which we should be a really damn good team).

So again, there is zero reason to trade Nash unless we are out of contention at the TDL.
 
Gardner McKay said:
No, you just ignored it all together because you know you are wrong. I am not arguing Nash should be kept as depth. I am saying that getting rid of him and his 7.8 million dollars is asinine when we can't really spend that money and that by getting rid of him, we do lose depth. That doesn't mean Nash is a depth player. We lost some depth by trading Stepan. He also wasn't just a depth player.

Oh, and if you are trying to tell me that you are talking about getting a kid in return who could be the next Nash, just don't. We all know that no one is going to give us that kind of prospect in return for Nash and a 1st round pick won't help us this year (a year in which we should be a really damn good team).

So again, there is zero reason to trade Nash unless we are out of contention at the TDL.
Click to expand...

If you know what I'm thinking and you know why I do or don't post what you expect me to post, then why would I have to reply to anything you post? you already know the answer.
 
Believe it or not, a lot of teams have come to the conclusion that a 7.8 million cap hit has to be an integral part of your team in order to justify its massive effect on the rest of your personnel choices. Nash just isn't that integral to us. He's support. There isn't any other way to state this that I haven't tried already. I think we just have to agree to disagree here.
 
Pavel Buchnevich said:
Playing time and the role they'd be playing. People will try to justify it by saying something like we don't have a fourth line, but the reality is that there's a big difference between playing with Grabner and Fast and playing with Kreider and Zuccarello. Just because there's no Glass doesn't mean its not a fourth line. You don't want a rookie having to carry a line.
Click to expand...

I agree, just wasn't sure where you were coming from with it i.e playing time or too young to handle defensively.

I really wouldn't want to keep a kid over here to play 10 mins a night when they have opportunity to play big roles in Europe
 
It hasn't really been talked about much, but I'd be very surprised if Michael Grabner scores as many goals this year as he did last year.
 
Gardner McKay said:
It would be super foolish. In a division as competitive as ours, even getting a wild card spot isn't a bad thing. Doesn't mean you aren't a contender.
Click to expand...

I think it depends.

In 2014 and 2015, I think we felt the team had a shot.

Last year, I think everyone felt the team didn't have much of a shot.

If it's the latter, I think you should move Nash if it's the right deal. If someone offers the equivalent of ADA and 7th overall, you don't take that?

Come on.
 
Avery16 said:
Believe it or not, a lot of teams have come to the conclusion that a 7.8 million cap hit has to be an integral part of your team in order to justify its massive effect on the rest of your personnel choices. Nash just isn't that integral to us. He's support. There isn't any other way to state this that I haven't tried already. I think we just have to agree to disagree here.
Click to expand...

Well at least I agree with you.

I'd take a 1st round pick for Nash even if the other team wanted me to retain 50% now.

I don't find it all that likely the Rangers get out of the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs Nash or no Nash so I'd take the pick. Plus possibly use the prorated cap build up at the deadline to have some flexibility. If a top contender wanted to trade a bad expiring contract so they could add something at the deadline, sure take that contract as long as there is a pick or good prospect coming along with it.

Everyone is excited by this past drafts first two picks, so why the struggle to possibly add more of that ilk, which by all reports is a stronger draft.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Also, what year were they not that good? Seriously. Outside of the Eric Staal trade, there is not one year where they weren't considered a cup contender. Spare me the false narratives. I'm sick of seeing them. We have had a good team year in and year out. We had a good team last year. We should have beat Ottawa. We could have beat Pittsburgh and Nashville is super ****ing overrated. AV out coached himself in the second round. That is why we lost.
Click to expand...

Well that would certainly be my point: Everyone knew that year we traded for Staal that the team was really finished.

If that's where we are this year -- limping into the playoffs -- trading Nash is a no-brainer.

If you feel like you have a real shot then obviously the argument to keep him is much stronger, but I think if you are honestly assessing your team, you know many years whether or not you have a real chance.

Yes, the goal is to win a Cup, not a round. Nash is probably gone after this year. Wouldn't another Chytil or Andersson in the future help us win a Cup more than 2 extra months of Nash?
 
Avery16 said:
Believe it or not, a lot of teams have come to the conclusion that a 7.8 million cap hit has to be an integral part of your team in order to justify its massive effect on the rest of your personnel choices. Nash just isn't that integral to us. He's support. There isn't any other way to state this that I haven't tried already. I think we just have to agree to disagree here.
Click to expand...

Nash's contract expires this year. Next summer he is off the books regardless if you trade him or not, and you can spend his money however you choose. Right now, nothing you trade Nash for is likely to have a greater impact on the team THIS year than Nash will, and it's too late to spend the 7.8M you're harping on about because no notable FAs are available at this point. Trading Nash would be dumping 25 goals, 50 points, two-way play and veteran presence. If you wanted to make a point about 7.8M players having to be integral parts of the team it would be more valid last TDL when his money could have conceivably been spent elsewhere over the summer, but at this point it can't be and we have better depth and better chances of success with Nash on the team. Not sure what Gardner McKay is posting that you aren't getting but it's pretty simple.

It only makes sense to trade Nash if a point comes at which the Rangers are out of contention. Otherwise, Hank is here and we should be a playoff team so it does not make sense for us unless a team knocks your socks off with an offer and, let's be honest, the suggested 7th OA + a prospect like ADA isn't going to be offered for a few months of Nash.
 
Mithrandir said:
Right now, nothing you trade Nash for is likely to have a greater impact on the team THIS year than Nash will
Click to expand...

I think for more people than just myself this is an open question. It's not just what you acquire in exchange for Nash, its also the contracts you can take on in separate deals because you have the cap room. This postseason is a perfect example. We traded Stepan for a couple prospects who are unlikely to match Stepan's output next season. HOWEVER, that trade also enabled us to make the offer to Shattenkirk, who absolutely transforms our game. I'm not going to say as definitively as you do that Gorton can't make moves with an additional 7.8 million in cap room that would significantly improve this team right now. In fact, I know he can. He's shown it.

Nash scored an average of 37 points the last two seasons. He was able to play in an average of 63 games over that same period. He scored nine points in the 17 games played the past two playoff seasons. It's not horrible, and yes, it helps. But Gorton can do more for this team today with that cap room at his disposal.
 
Avery16 said:
I think for more people than just myself this is an open question. It's not just what you acquire in exchange for Nash, its also the contracts you can take on in separate deals because you have the cap room. This postseason is a perfect example. We traded Stepan for a couple prospects who are unlikely to match Stepan's output next season. HOWEVER, that trade also enabled us to make the offer to Shattenkirk, who absolutely transforms our game. I'm not going to say as definitively as you do that Gorton can't make moves with an additional 7.8 million in cap room that would significantly improve this team right now. In fact, I know he can. He's shown it.

Nash scored an average of 37 points the last two seasons. He was able to play in an average of 63 games over that same period. He scored nine points in the 17 games played the past two playoff seasons. It's not horrible, and yes, it helps. But Gorton can do more for this team today with that cap room at his disposal.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. Shatty came to the Rangers with the offer, the Rangers didn't want to commit to any Free agents long term, as per many sources. Gorton was leery about giving away big contracts with long terms. I love that stance personally.

That said, Nash is an important part of this team, to get rid of him when you're contending, will take a particularly huge, ridiculous offer. You can't go back to your players and coach with a straight face after trading him and say, " I still expect us to contend for the cup." Trading Nash, during the season, for any reason, even an outright stupid good offer, which has maybe a .01% chance of happening, is straight up capitulation.
 
Avery16 said:
I think for more people than just myself this is an open question. It's not just what you acquire in exchange for Nash, its also the contracts you can take on in separate deals because you have the cap room. This postseason is a perfect example. We traded Stepan for a couple prospects who are unlikely to match Stepan's output next season. HOWEVER, that trade also enabled us to make the offer to Shattenkirk, who absolutely transforms our game. I'm not going to say as definitively as you do that Gorton can't make moves with an additional 7.8 million in cap room that would significantly improve this team right now. In fact, I know he can. He's shown it.
Click to expand...

Okay, you trade Nash and have an additional 7.8M to acquire players who make us better. I am, personally, of the mind that the roster looks pretty good going into this season and while Hank is here your mentality is to compete - and if near the deadline we're under achieving we can audible that mentality and reassess. What assets are you moving in order to utilize that 7.8M in cap space? I just don't think it makes sense to move him unless we determine we are looking to next season, and even then, I don't expect to get a lot for him. A late 1st and a middling prospect at best. Sure, that's still better than nothing, but the added cap space is coming this summer regardless, so unless we have a plan for adding players who occupy that 7.8M this year, I'm just not feeling the NEED to move Nash.
 
Did the Blues players and coach give sad faces to their GM when he traded Shattenkirk away at the deadline? The Rangers when Stepan was traded for futures?

I really think the players and coaches just go on doing their thing regardless of what the GM does.
 
Miamipuck said:
That's not really true. Shatty came to the Rangers with the offer, the Rangers didn't want to commit to any Free agents long term, as per many sources. Gorton was leery about giving away big contracts with long terms. I love that stance personally.

That said, Nash is an important part of this team, to get rid of him when you're contending, will take a particularly huge, ridiculous offer. You can't go back to your players and coach with a straight face after trading him and say, " I still expect us to contend for the cup." Trading Nash, during the season, for any reason, even an outright stupid good offer, which has maybe a .01% chance of happening, is straight up capitulation.
Click to expand...

We didn't have the cap room to both sign Shattenkirk and resign our FAs until we moved Stepan.
 
NickyFotiu said:
Bern lets say you trade Nash for a draft pick today with no salary cap money retained or taken back. What will you do with that 7.8 mill in extra cap space this season vs in June when Nash's contract expired?
Click to expand...

Sign Jagr, of course. Get younger, faster... Wait...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom