Summer '15 Thread (All Proposals/Blog Rumors in here)

[major major]

Tanev would be a huge upgrade for us. But Vancouver is rebuilding their D around Tanev. He isn't going anywhere.

 

[Hi-wayman]

Tanev would be a huge upgrade for us. But Vancouver is rebuilding their D around Tanev. He isn't going anywhere.

Canuck fan here. Tanev and Horvat are probably the two most untouchable players on the Canuck roster.

The Canucks likely do have some tradable players though that would suit the CBJ's very well. With a number of now NHL ready prospects, the Canucks are going through more of a core transition than a total rebuild.

Arsmaster, one of the more knoledgable Canuck posters just suggested that Kevin Bieksa would be an excellent pick up for the Jackets. Other Canuck core roster players that could be available are Radim Vrbata, Alex Burrows, Chris Higgins and one of either Dan Hamhuis or Alex Edler. Eddie Lack or Ryan Miller will also be traded.

Columbus has a big caarrot in this year's draft pick as Vancouver really covets Barzal.

 

[major major]

Canuck fan here. Tanev and Horvat are probably the two most untouchable players on the Canuck roster.

The Canucks likely do have some tradable players though that would suit the CBJ's very well. With a number of now NHL ready prospects, the Canucks are going through more of a core transition than a total rebuild.

Arsmaster, one of the more knoledgable Canuck posters just suggested that Kevin Bieksa would be an excellent pick up for the Jackets. Other Canuck core roster players that could be available are Radim Vrbata, Alex Burrows, Chris Higgins and one of either Dan Hamhuis or Alex Edler. Eddie Lack or Ryan Miller will also be traded.

Columbus has a big caarrot in this year's draft pick as Vancouver really covets Barzal.

Would you actually want something for Bieksa? I can see us using him as a short-term Wiz replacement, if nothing else works this summer, but Bieksa doesn't offer a whole lot these days. I can't see us giving up anything of value for him.

And I don't see any asset or combination of assets on the Canucks that is going to get you the 8th overall, unless Tanev is available.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Canuck fan here. Tanev and Horvat are probably the two most untouchable players on the Canuck roster.

The Canucks likely do have some tradable players though that would suit the CBJ's very well. With a number of now NHL ready prospects, the Canucks are going through more of a core transition than a total rebuild.

Arsmaster, one of the more knoledgable Canuck posters just suggested that Kevin Bieksa would be an excellent pick up for the Jackets. Other Canuck core roster players that could be available are Radim Vrbata, Alex Burrows, Chris Higgins and one of either Dan Hamhuis or Alex Edler. Eddie Lack or Ryan Miller will also be traded.

Columbus has a big caarrot in this year's draft pick as Vancouver really covets Barzal.

Only player who might land you a pick currently owned by the CBJ that Nucks could use to select Barzal would be Tanev.

 

[Hi-wayman]

Would you actually want something for Bieksa? I can see us using him as a short-term Wiz replacement, if nothing else works this summer, but Bieksa doesn't offer a whole lot these days. I can't see us giving up anything of value for him.

And I don't see any asset or combination of assets on the Canucks that is going to get you the 8th overall, unless Tanev is available.

It seems you don't know much about the Canuck's roster or you have been listening to the pick a Canuck to hate club. Interesting that you feel the Jackets have no use for Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack unless Tanev was included. I guess you feel Benning is just a sucker who doesn't know anything about hockey.

By the way, it would take much more than the 8th OA just to get Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack even without Tanev, but every Canuck player named would be a player filling a major weakness in the Jacket's lineup.

 

[Xoggz22]

It seems you don't know much about the Canuck's roster or you have been listening to the pick a Canuck to hate club. Interesting that you feel the Jackets have no use for Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack unless Tanev was included. I guess you feel Benning is just a sucker who doesn't know anything about hockey.

By the way, it would take much more than the 8th OA just to get Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack even without Tanev, but every Canuck player named would be a player filling a major weakness in the Jacket's lineup.

Again, none of the players or combination of players you mention will get you the 8th. There is a thing called contract controlled, long term, young.... No one is bashing your players. Bieksa's value would potentially be to balance our right side but he isn't a top 4 any more. For a low pick he would offer value. Vrbata could help the RW for sure but not for the 8th. Hamhuis isn't going to play ahead of JJ or Murray and Tyutin isn't going to the bench given his salary. Lack would bea nice backup. And putting them together doesn't work financially.

Ok pieces but not difference makers. You want Barzal, Tanev it's the name that makes a deal happen. Sorry.

 

[major major]

It seems you don't know much about the Canuck's roster or you have been listening to the pick a Canuck to hate club. Interesting that you feel the Jackets have no use for Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack unless Tanev was included. I guess you feel Benning is just a sucker who doesn't know anything about hockey.

By the way, it would take much more than the 8th OA just to get Vrbata, Bieksa, Hamhuis and Lack even without Tanev, but every Canuck player named would be a player filling a major weakness in the Jacket's lineup.

I'd love to have all those players on the Jackets roster. It would fill some holes for sure.

But teams with the 8th overall pick generally aren't in position as a franchise to trade it for rentals. It's true for us, we have to think long term. And given the salaries involved, the Canucks might have better luck moving those guys at the trade deadline. Perhaps if the Jackets have a really good year they'll trade next year's first for one or more of those players at the trade deadline.

 

[EspenK]

So Mackenzie says the Rangers might be moving Nash. They need cap space and draft picks. How about we ship them a couple of seconds, Rychel(after all it would be just like we borrowed him for a couple of years), and next years number 1 and they retain 50%. I'm in. Who cares if he doesn't play well in the playoffs, he can help get us there.

Tell me that:

Foligno-Joey-Nash
Jenner-Dubi-Cam
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-???-Clarkson
Morin

doesn't look good.

Buyout Bourque & Boll.
Trade Arty
Bury Tropp
Goodbye Mark Letestu

 

[DJA]

So Mackenzie says the Rangers might be moving Nash. They need cap space and draft picks. How about we ship them a couple of seconds, Rychel(after all it would be just like we borrowed him for a couple of years), and next years number 1 and they retain 50%. I'm in. Who cares if he doesn't play well in the playoffs, he can help get us there.

Tell me that:

Foligno-Joey-Nash
Jenner-Dubi-Cam
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-???-Clarkson
Morin

doesn't look good.

Buyout Bourque & Boll.
Trade Arty
Bury Tropp
Goodbye Mark Letestu

I hate this idea on every level, but even if I was to play along, there's not a chance in hell we could take on that gross cap hit.

 

[Mayor Bee]

So Mackenzie says the Rangers might be moving Nash. They need cap space and draft picks. How about we ship them a couple of seconds, Rychel(after all it would be just like we borrowed him for a couple of years), and next years number 1 and they retain 50%. I'm in. Who cares if he doesn't play well in the playoffs, he can help get us there.

Tell me that:

Foligno-Joey-Nash
Jenner-Dubi-Cam
Hartnell-Wennberg-Dano
Calvert-???-Clarkson
Morin

doesn't look good.

Buyout Bourque & Boll.
Trade Arty
Bury Tropp
Goodbye Mark Letestu

Hell no. To me, any trade discussions with the Rangers over Nash would be less negotiating and more about dictating terms. Taking on a massive contract and massive cap hit for a guy who's more beat up than he was three years ago and as prone to pulling a disappearing act as before would involve sending back one valuable piece and a lot of junk.

If they don't like it, either trade him elsewhere or keep him.

 

[EDM]

I want nothing to do with Rick Nash except to root against him as a Ranger. Getting rid of Rick Nash was what turned this franchise around.

 

[major major]

I probably wouldn't trade that many assets for a forward - if we package that much it has to be for a top pair D. As y'all know, my position is that we have more than enough good wingers and more than enough flexibility with the sidedness of our wingers.

But just to correct the common misconception, Nash played really well in these playoffs. He's a very good two-way player - the ice was tilted in his favor for most of the playoffs, he was +8 with the underlying stats back that up. And 14 pts in 19 games isn't bad by any means. At 50% retained he would be an absolute steal. And I would say that based on his playoff performance, if I was to be so gracious as to leave his 42 goals aside. There's no question he would be a huge upgrade for the Jackets, just not at a big position of need.

 

[EspenK]

So Mackenzie says the Rangers might be moving Nash. They need cap space and draft picks. How about we ship them a couple of seconds, Rychel(after all it would be just like we borrowed him for a couple of years), and next years number 1 and they retain 50%. I'm in. Who cares if he doesn't play well in the playoffs, he can help get us there.

I hate this idea on every level, but even if I was to play along, there's not a chance in hell we could take on that gross cap hit.

Hell no. To me, any trade discussions with the Rangers over Nash would be less negotiating and more about dictating terms. Taking on a massive contract and massive cap hit for a guy who's more beat up than he was three years ago and as prone to pulling a disappearing act as before would involve sending back one valuable piece and a lot of junk.

Do people actually read before they post?

In typical Jackets fan reaction no one wants a guy who can score 30 goals a year for 4 million dollars a year.

 

[EspenK]

I probably wouldn't trade that many assets for a forward - if we package that much it has to be for a top pair D. As y'all know, my position is that we have more than enough good wingers and more than enough flexibility with the sidedness of our wingers.

But just to correct the common misconception, Nash played really well in these playoffs. He's a very good two-way player - the ice was tilted in his favor for most of the playoffs, he was +8 with the underlying stats back that up. And 14 pts in 19 games isn't bad by any means. At 50% retained he would be an absolute steal. And I would say that based on his playoff performance, if I was to be so gracious as to leave his 42 goals aside. There's no question he would be a huge upgrade for the Jackets, just not at a big position of need.

Hey you read before responding.

And yes Nash's stats in the playoffs weren't bad it was just that he disappeared at the most inopportune times. Game 7? I think it goes back to something someone wrote about the other day and discussed here I think about Nash not being the kind of player who can't take the team on his back and carry them to a win. With Joey as his center and the rest of the supporting cast here I think he would be a great fit.

And as to the we have enough forward flexibility, I don't disagree but I believe adding Nash would make us better.

And this is all probably just an exaggerated case of media/fan speculation. I don't see the Rangers trading Nash for prospects and picks if they trade him at all.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I would take Nash if a couple things happened:
-He (Nash) understands he is a 2nd tier player - it's not his team. he can still perform at an All-Star level but he's not a franchise player.
-We drop a bad salary for him (Clark, nah not even the Rangers are that dumb) but we would have to move salary to make it work.

Now I know in baseball you can keep part of the salary, how does that work in hockey? If the NYR pay half his salary we would still take the full cap hit correct? I'm not sure how that would even work for us without us moving a salary as well. Especially since we'll need to really pay RyJo in a couple years.

My impression is Nash would probably welcome a move back (far as I know he's still a member of Scioto), but my concern is his ego and would he be ok be the #3 (or whatever) guy.

 

[DJA]

Do people actually read before they post?

In typical Jackets fan reaction no one wants a guy who can score 30 goals a year for 4 million dollars a year.

I read it. Still think it's an awful idea. And explain how the $7.9 mill cap hit would fit.

 

[Viqsi]

I want nothing to do with Rick Nash except to root against him as a Ranger. Getting rid of Rick Nash was what turned this franchise around.

Meh, I'm not that pushy about it. As I said in the trade mains thread, I wouldn't mind having Nash come back, but I categorically refuse to pay for it.

 

[Viqsi]

I read it. Still think it's an awful idea. And explain how the $7.9 mill cap hit would fit.

The bolded is how:

How about we ship them a couple of seconds, Rychel(after all it would be just like we borrowed him for a couple of years), and next years number 1 and they retain 50%.

 

[EspenK]

I read it. Still think it's an awful idea. And explain how the $7.9 mill cap hit would fit.

That would be where the 50% retained by the Rangers would come in. The hit to us would be $3.9 and 3.9 to them which would free up cap space they desparately need.

We could also give back Anisimov instead of the 2nds to free up about 2-2.5 mill (his salary less the 4th line guy's). It would be like adding Nash for $2 million.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I would take Nash if a couple things happened:
-He (Nash) understands he is a 2nd tier player - it's not his team. he can still perform at an All-Star level but he's not a franchise player.
-We drop a bad salary for him (Clark, nah not even the Rangers are that dumb) but we would have to move salary to make it work.

Now I know in baseball you can keep part of the salary, how does that work in hockey? If the NYR pay half his salary we would still take the full cap hit correct? I'm not sure how that would even work for us without us moving a salary as well. Especially since we'll need to really pay RyJo in a couple years.

My impression is Nash would probably welcome a move back (far as I know he's still a member of Scioto), but my concern is his ego and would he be ok be the #3 (or whatever) guy.

Can someone answer this question.

I've always said I'd be OK with Nash returning. But I think that was always assuming he'd done something in the interim, which I guess he has, but he'd be returning under the same spectre he had when he left. In the end, I think it's too soon. The Jackets just now named its first captain since Nash. Too soon.

 

[Viqsi]

Can someone answer this question.

50% Any retention covers both salary and cap hit. You can't do one or the other.

 

[Xoggz22]

Make Clarkson part of the deal.... If Atkinson was also you cover the entire cap hit for the length of the deal and shed salary.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

50% Any retention covers both salary and cap hit. You can't do one or the other.

 

[JacketsDavid]

50% Any retention covers both salary and cap hit. You can't do one or the other.

Thank you! I learned something already today!

 

[ClevelandJacketFan]

Do we even need Nash? Our problem isn't scoring, although another RW would be helpful.

No reasons to waste assets on a luxury when we have a glaring hole on our defense.