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

[Avery16]

Then why would any other team?
And there is still his NTC.

Not all teams are so against the cap

Some teams don't have the depth we have in top nine scoring.

The NTC is a hurdle for sure, but I can think of a few reasons why Nash could be pursuaded to waive. Also, it's a partial. He has to identify 12 teams he'd go to if traded.

 

[Irishguy42]

I do not want to overpay Duchene in two years.

 

[Matz03]

Time will tell but I think you guys are overvaluing Nash here. I agree that he is worth a 1st but as a rental I don't think other GMs see it that way, and unfortunately thats what matters. Plus the 1st is likely going to be a late round 1st anyway (because its going to be a playoff team that is dealing for him) which even in a good draft still has a relatively low success rate.

Also, I am of the mind that we will be solidly in the playoffs by the time the trade deadline rolls around, and we will not want to get rid of him for futures at that point.

If we are out of it, fine. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. But I highly doubt that we will be out of it.

Sometimes its okay to let a player play out their contract.

I don't think Nash, unless he's a disaster or injured is overvalued at to get a first. Just look at other deadline moves historically. He is worth a first, not saying plus prospect but at least a first and Rangers can retain to make the $ work. This draft is too deep to care about low success rate, we draft well in the mid to late first and you give you Clark that chances. If they Rangers get a #20 and say #28 1st, those are huge adds to our prospect pool. Look at St.Louis, they moved Shattenkirk while being in it, We should've done the same with Yandle and I think Groton has learned from that. Nash is still a very good player, not a game breaker to make him unmovable just because we're in it. This team needs to learn to take on futures not **** them away. And btw, I'm a Nash fan but it's the right move for a rebuilding on the fly team.

 

[Avery16]

Who are you moving? Skjei? I guarantee nothing you're willing to part with lands Duchene...

we can't even get to the ask for any top-2 C without the cap room.

 

[Matz03]

We can't trade Nash right now unless we get a better point producer back. People get carried away in preseason. Our forwards are solid not great. We do not have enough scoring upfront that we can just give Nash up for a draft pick at this point. Maybe later in the season or at the trade deadline.

The conversation was about moving Nash at the trade deadline, not now. We should absolutely move Nash then to get another 1st this year, and that's even assuming Chytil and Anderson go back to Europe. Must keep adding to that terrible forward prospect pool. Nash will likely walk next summer.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

we can't even get to the ask for any top-2 C without the cap room.

That's not the conversation we're having. You say we can use Nash's cap space to acquire players who will have a greater impact. So since you can't get them in the exchange for Nash, what are you willing to part with? That sort of dictates what kind of player you can realistically add, regardless of how much cap you have.

 

[Avery16]

That's not the conversation we're having. You say we can use Nash's cap space to acquire players who will have a greater impact. So since you can't get them in the exchange for Nash, what are you willing to part with? That sort of dictates what kind of player you can realistically add, regardless of how much cap you have.

I don't get how demonstrating what deals can be made is necessary in an argument over whether or not we should allow ourselves the flexibility to make such a deal.

 

[bernmeister]

Nash aint a C. This is my point. He doesn't effectively address a need of ours. You can say I hate Nash a million times, but it doesn't make it any truer. I've never said a bad thing about him. He just doesn't make us that much better of a team.

This^

 

[Weltschmerz]

Not all teams are so against the cap

Some teams don't have the depth we have in top nine scoring.

The NTC is a hurdle for sure, but I can think of a few reasons why Nash could be pursuaded to waive. Also, it's a partial. He has to identify 12 teams he'd go to if traded.

I always hear how he loves New York and playing for the rangers, if he wants to stay he can make it pretty hard for them to move him. For example he could pick 7 teams from the division plus some cap teams or bottom dwellers who won't be interested in a rental.

 

[Ola]

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.

What would the return be for Nash at the deadline? Shatty was what top 4 in D scoring? RD was in great demand.

Nash looks to be in really good shape, think his value can differ a lot depending on if he has one of those 35 goals seasons or one of those 20 goals seasons. Some years there just ain't much of a market for these guys, I remember that year when a pretty highly regarded Vanek went to MTL for De La Rose. There where some other bigger names who went for nothing. Nash can block a few teams. If the right taker is there, you could get a first pick and a good kid. But I think it's just as likely that the right team will not be there, and in that case you can get like a 2nd and a dead end b tier prospect.

Nash is a good player for us who makes us better. Still -- I wonder if his biggest value to us right now isn't to take pressure of the kids. It's just one of those things that you don't appreciate when you have it, but depth scoring can always pretty fast turn into that situation where a player or two is injured and another player or two becomes completely cold and all of a sudden you only have 3-4 players left who have to score and aren't up to it anymore because now they face all the attention and it pays off for teams to focus on that group of 3-4 players on a team. Say like a group of Kreider/Zib/Zucc/Miller for us.

 

[Weltschmerz]

I remember that year when a pretty highly regarded Vanek went to MTL for De La Rose.

Wasn't that some other swede like Colberg or something like that? I think the price was lower than it could have been because Snow didn't want to retain.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I don't get how demonstrating what deals can be made is necessary in an argument over whether or not we should allow ourselves the flexibility to make such a deal.

Because if there isn't any realistic deal it's pretty futile to discuss it. Assessing what can realistically be achieved can definitely be pertinent in determining what course to follow. If scenarios A, B, C and D are good reasons to make a move, but it turns out they're all total fantasies and only scenarios Q thru Z are the only realistic ones it certainly matters.

 

[Avery16]

Because if there isn't any realistic deal it's pretty futile to discuss it. Assessing what can realistically be achieved can definitely be pertinent in determining what course to follow. If scenarios A, B, C and D are good reasons to make a move, but it turns out they're all total fantasies and only scenarios Q thru Z are the only realistic ones it certainly matters.

Dude, I guarantee you nobody here knows what deals COULD be made

 

[nyr2k2]

Dude, I guarantee you nobody here knows what deals COULD be made

Yeah? So speculate. That's all any of this is. You think moving Nash enables us to make some moves? Speculate on those moves, tell us what you think they could be. Or just drop it and move on.

If you argue in favor of something because of the theoretical moves that could follow, but refuse to discuss how those theoretical moves would actually happen, the whole exercise becomes pointless.

 

[RGY]

Still trading Nash 10 hours later.

Some people...

 

[bernmeister]

....

1) Do you think this team can really afford to trade a top 6 forward and not get that point production back on just a hope that another 7 mill player will become available during the season?
We need to make a smart move with a reasonably high certainty of success, that is more important than timing.

That is a blue chip prospect we like, or a high enough draft pick selection we can take the guy we want, or, if the switch is a complementary exchange (LW for RW for example) of comparables, that's fine. There is always the exception that proves the rule, but it is not likely that an existing veteran is swapped readily for a better quality veteran, if all things are equal. I concede that they are not always equal, and each situation there has to be
parched. So you COULD get a guy like Galyenchuk at a small discount from the Canadiens, but you can't assume at any given time such discount is guaranteed consistently available, ie that that isn't a fluid situation that readily changes. So you can get lucky, but vets are likely to not be the value of a talented younger counterpart. Especially if senior vets are likely to cost more = harder cap mgmt
So again no win now is okay if we keep making successful build moves, which making it easier to win each succeeding year. We actually have to do this, because the win now transactions actually deplete our resources. In past years, we did not have a great scouting team but now we draft well, generally. Give Gorton and Clark a better chance by dealing now so they can add better quality selections.

Wouldn't that be kind of waiving the white flag on this season before it begins?

Nope.
It would be a vote of confidence if we go young, and getting learning pains out of the way now accelerates competitiveness for next year.

If you said trade him as a rental that might make sense but today?

2) Nash's contract expires at the end of the season. We might trade him as a rental but do we really gain much by trading him today?

It is fair to say buyers and seller have differing opinions of what player X is worth; and irrespective of my following point, prices can change for other reasons. That said, it is math driving logic that other things being equal, that a buyer will pay more to a seller if there is more production based on longer term.
Also, there is the injury factor.
If he is injured, we are stuck with him.

You always say phase vets out but don't teams that win championships also have vets? Did Pitt have Vets? Chi? LA? Why would we want to get rid of anyone that is productive

It is not a question of seniority (chonological age) it is a question of maturity including experience which helps but not is required and talent.
It is not a question of production but value.

and on a fair deal just because they are over the age of 27? Would you have got rid of Messier? We first traded for him when he was around 31.

Nash may have been fair, overall, on balance but he is not worth that contract NOW. No prob sending him to someone who will gamble on his upside for whatever reason.
Messier? If I remember the core piece going back was Bernie Nichols, so yes, that was do-able.

 

[Revel]

Was thinking about how concerned we all were about our potential shortfall on Center depth after trading Stepan and losing Lindberg. The concern was definitely valid, but the way things are looking right now, I think we're quickly moving in the direction of having satisfactory depth.

Honest to God (and I know people will tell me to pump the breaks), Chytil looks like he could start as 3rd line Center ASAP. Like BRF has said in posts over the last 24 hours...I think this guy has a bit of Mario in him. The size, wheels, easy fluid movement, passing, and moves are exciting. This kid is something special. In a few years I anticipate he'll be Centering the top line. Worst case, 2nd line.

Then of course, we have Lias. As well-rounded and responsible as they come for an 18 year old. Kid can start as 4th line Center immediately and outperform Lindberg in short order, in my opinion. He already has more creativity and edge than Oscar.

Then there is DD, who completely surprised me last game. AV was totally high on DD during today's presser, so I think it's almost a given he will get the 3rd or 4th line Center role to start the season. As AV has said...the guy is definitely speedy, protects the puck well, and is an excellent passer.

Of course, JT can play anywhere and everywhere, so we have him as a possibility. He's awesome.

Then, don't forget other possible 4th line options. Nieves is a bit lacking in smarts, but in a 4th line role he has the size and speed to make opponents wary and keep them on their heals a bit.

A final guy who has impressed me as a great call-up option is Paul Carey, who can also play Center.

We're not looking bad in the C spot, folks. If the 2 kids go back to Europe...then that depth suddenly disappears. But if they stick around and continue to progress quickly, I feel we're in a very nice spot in the middle.

Should I be pumping the brakes?

 

[Miamipuck]

I thought DD was very good last night. I know he's not going to be a difference maker once the season starts but I think he's going to be a really good fit for the team. He will be a very good #4 and maybe a good #3 depending on the night.

 

[Avery16]

Yeah? So speculate. That's all any of this is. You think moving Nash enables us to make some moves? Speculate on those moves, tell us what you think they could be. Or just drop it and move on.

If you argue in favor of something because of the theoretical moves that could follow, but refuse to discuss how those theoretical moves would actually happen, the whole exercise becomes pointless.

I'll leave the trades to Bern and Gorton. You need cap room to take on $. That isn't speculation

 

[bernmeister]

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?

Bingo

 

[Miamipuck]

I'll leave the trades to Bern and Gorton. You need cap room to take on $. That isn't speculation

Dear god save us.

 

[kovazub94]

I'll leave the trades to Bern and Gorton. You need cap room to take on $. That isn't speculation

This is the whole point of this discussion: you are speculating that the Rangers will be better off moving Nash and his contract because it will provide cap space to make the team better (than with Nash). As someone already noted it cannot be through FA signing since offseason is over. So then through a trade. So please continue to speculate an example of such trade. Is it Duchene? Galchenyk? Someone else? What do the Rangers give in return?

 

[nyr2k2]

This is the whole point of this discussion: you are speculating that the Rangers will be better off moving Nash and his contract because it will provide cap space to make the team better (than with Nash). As someone already noted it cannot be through FA signing since offseason is over. So then through a trade. So please continue to speculate an example of such trade. Is it Duchene? Galchenyk? Someone else? What do the Rangers give in return?

He's going to "leave that to others," or as I like to say, "cop out."

 

[RGY]

This is the whole point of this discussion: you are speculating that the Rangers will be better off moving Nash and his contract because it will provide cap space to make the team better (than with Nash). As someone already noted it cannot be through FA signing since offseason is over. So then through a trade. So please continue to speculate an example of such trade. Is it Duchene? Galchenyk? Someone else? What do the Rangers give in return?

They. Don't. Need. Cap. Space. This. Year.

How hard is this to comprehend? Duchene? You complain about what Nash is paid...oh man just wait until you have Duchene here making what he does with a performance that doesn't match it. Galchenyuk? Highly doubt Montreal would trade him to us, at least not without trying to rip us off.

There is zero reason to trade Nash. Zero. No cap space is not a reason because it is not a need. The Rangers will have plenty come the deadline when they are looking to add that veteran forward for the Top 6.

 

[Avery16]

That's like saying you shouldn't wear a seatbelt unless you can state where and when you're going to crash your car. Ridiculous.