PDA

View Full Version : [Brooks] Rick Nash Will Not Be Traded



Phil in Absentia
07-14-2014, 09:14 AM
If I had a nickel for every conversation with an NHL front office executive or agent this summer that included the phrase, “The Rangers need to trade Nash,” I would have a nickel from essentially every conversation I have had this summer, and my cap hit would approach Rick Nash’s $7.8 million.

But I’m here to tell you that a trade is not happening. Nash has a no-move clause in his contract in force through the end of this season that management has no intention of asking him to waive and No. 61 has no intention of volunteering to forfeit.

The Rangers are not asking Nash to leave town after two seasons on Broadway in which he led the team in goal-scoring both times, and No. 61 is not asking for an exit from New York after recording a sum of four goals in 37 playoff games.

The concept is not on the table for either party.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/12/rick-nash-is-not-leaving-the-garden/

--

Time to put it to bed, folks. Work around him, not without him.

Pete
07-14-2014, 09:28 AM
I didn't think anyone really thought it was happening.

Just a conversation to pass the time in the off season, and Larry picked it up and ran with it. Again.

Morphinity
07-14-2014, 09:31 AM
I didn't think anyone really thought it was happening.

Just a conversation to pass the time in the off season, and Larry picked it up and ran with it. Again.

He saw it was being mentioned around here and put it to bed.

Pete
07-14-2014, 09:31 AM
He saw it was being mentioned around here and put it to bed.

Most likely.

leetchy2
07-14-2014, 09:40 AM
Interesting that the no-movement clause expires at the end of the 2014-15 season.

AmericanJesus
07-14-2014, 10:16 AM
Interesting that the no-movement clause expires at the end of the 2014-15 season.

Unfortunately it becomes a NTC according to capgeek. And they always mentioned if the NTC is modified or not and his doesn't mention it. For those that don't know, the difference between a NMC and a NTC is that with a NTC, you can waive the player and he can be claimed or you can demote him to the Minors where all but about $1M of his cap hit still is charged to the team. You still can't trade the player with out that player's consent.

Phil in Absentia
07-14-2014, 10:40 AM
Unfortunately it becomes a NTC according to capgeek. And they always mentioned if the NTC is modified or not and his doesn't mention it. For those that don't know, the difference between a NMC and a NTC is that with a NTC, you can waive the player and he can be claimed or you can demote him to the Minors where all but about $1M of his cap hit still is charged to the team. You still can't trade the player with out that player's consent.

Right. If his NTC is modified, it's likely a group of teams he either will or will not accept a trade to.

Kevin
07-14-2014, 10:52 AM
Well, that's good I guess. In reality, who would we be getting that would actually make our team for next season better by trading Nash? I don't think that trade was out there...

Future
07-14-2014, 11:52 AM
Well, that's good I guess. In reality, who would we be getting that would actually make our team for next season better by trading Nash? I don't think that trade was out there...
You're not going to get a player of his calibre, and this roster is deep enough that the type of trade that brought him to NY probably wouldn't work. You trade him for the future, since what you're going to get won't replace his production.

If they were to try to trade Nash...I think you'd be going after a roster player 2/3 liner who can bang a bit, like a Pacioretty/Simmons type, a prospect, and picks.

Just for kicks, say it is Pacioretty...

Kreider - Stepan - DuClair/Haggerty/Kristo etc.
Zucc - Brassard - Pacioretty
Hagelin - Miller - MSL
Glass - Moore - Lindbergh

While you don't have the big name top line, you've now got three pretty even lines, and probably another prospect and first rounder in the bank. The extra cap space allows you to sign whoever if one of the three young guys can't make the jump. I like Nash, but I would do that.

Morphinity
07-14-2014, 11:56 AM
Thread title: Rick Nash Will Not Be Traded

Ninth Post: If we traded Nash, then...

:palm:

CreaseCrusader91
07-14-2014, 11:56 AM
Unfortunately it becomes a NTC according to capgeek. And they always mentioned if the NTC is modified or not and his doesn't mention it. For those that don't know, the difference between a NMC and a NTC is that with a NTC, you can waive the player and he can be claimed or you can demote him to the Minors where all but about $1M of his cap hit still is charged to the team. You still can't trade the player with out that player's consent.

I was under the assumption that once you waive your NTC to be traded, it waives the clause in general. Any thoughts on this?

Pete
07-14-2014, 12:03 PM
I was under the assumption that once you waive your NTC to be traded, it waives the clause in general. Any thoughts on this?

Case by case basis.

Cash or Czech?
07-14-2014, 12:14 PM
You're not going to get a player of his calibre, and this roster is deep enough that the type of trade that brought him to NY probably wouldn't work. You trade him for the future, since what you're going to get won't replace his production.

If they were to try to trade Nash...I think you'd be going after a roster player 2/3 liner who can bang a bit, like a Pacioretty/Simmons type, a prospect, and picks.

Just for kicks, say it is Pacioretty...

Kreider - Stepan - DuClair/Haggerty/Kristo etc.
Zucc - Brassard - Pacioretty
Hagelin - Miller - MSL
Glass - Moore - Lindbergh

While you don't have the big name top line, you've now got three pretty even lines, and probably another prospect and first rounder in the bank. The extra cap space allows you to sign whoever if one of the three young guys can't make the jump. I like Nash, but I would do that.

And by the time those prospects and picks develop, Lundqvist is 35 and towards the end of his career. It doesn't make sense at all. We're not a rebuilding team, and it's a moot point because, ya know, the thread title says he isn't being traded. Not worth the debate.

CreaseCrusader91
07-14-2014, 12:19 PM
Case by case basis.

OK. Thanks for the information.

AmericanJesus
07-14-2014, 12:25 PM
Case by case basis.

This. Trade Clauses are the only part of a contract that can be re-negotiated during a trade.

Future
07-14-2014, 12:34 PM
Thread title: Rick Nash Will Not Be Traded

Ninth Post: If we traded Nash, then...

:palm:
It's just playing "what if," relax. Besides, its not like Brooks is the be-all end-all.

Phil in Absentia
07-14-2014, 12:39 PM
It's just playing "what if," relax. Besides, its not like Brooks is the be-all end-all.

No, but he's certainly more credible and reliable than the alternative, which is a lot of "I'd trade Nash for X, Y and Z". I mean, that's great and all, and I'd trade him too, but Brooks is connected to this team in a far deeper way, and if he says Nash isn't being traded, then he's not being traded, and if he says the team isn't asking him to waive his NMC/NTC, then they aren't asking him to waive his NMC/NTC.

He doesn't have to be the "be-all end-all". He's credible enough, historically speaking, to be trusted in a report like this.

The point of this thread is that while this is certainly a boring summer, there's absolutely no point in discussing the feasibility of trading a player who is clearly not being traded. I'd rather we focus on any other avenue of thought or discussion that has more realistic roots.

Future
07-14-2014, 12:48 PM
No, but he's certainly more credible and reliable than the alternative, which is a lot of "I'd trade Nash for X, Y and Z". I mean, that's great and all, and I'd trade him too, but Brooks is connected to this team in a far deeper way, and if he says Nash isn't being traded, then he's not being traded, and if he says the team isn't asking him to waive his NMC/NTC, then they aren't asking him to waive his NMC/NTC.

He doesn't have to be the "be-all end-all". He's credible enough, historically speaking, to be trusted in a report like this.

The point of this thread is that while this is certainly a boring summer, there's absolutely no point in discussing the feasibility of trading a player who is clearly not being traded. I'd rather we focus on any other avenue of thought or discussion that has more realistic roots.
Would trading Henrik be better? lol

Phil in Absentia
07-14-2014, 12:53 PM
Would trading Henrik be better? lol

Considering he just signed an eight-year extension? Nah, he's going nowhere either.

Future
07-14-2014, 12:55 PM
Considering he just signed an eight-year extension? Nah, he's going nowhere either.
ik, it was a joke.

oi vey

leetchy2
07-14-2014, 02:10 PM
Unfortunately it becomes a NTC according to capgeek. And they always mentioned if the NTC is modified or not and his doesn't mention it. For those that don't know, the difference between a NMC and a NTC is that with a NTC, you can waive the player and he can be claimed or you can demote him to the Minors where all but about $1M of his cap hit still is charged to the team. You still can't trade the player with out that player's consent.

Thanks for the clarification.

BlueJay
07-14-2014, 06:32 PM
I hate this truth, I want lies!

momentum
07-14-2014, 06:44 PM
It's what some of us have said all along, we're going for it now and regardless of how bad Nash was this off season we're better off keeping Nash and hoping he turns it around than trading him for lesser players and prospects.

rvbcaboose
07-14-2014, 08:21 PM
Had a feeling this was the case since he wasn't traded by now, but still...fuck.