Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81

Thread: The Case for Keeping Rick Nash

  1. #21
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Rick Nash didn't cause the lockout, when he paced 40+. He didn't deliver the cheap shot to his own head when he was pacing 40+.

    His first three years here he was worth every penny.
    If you're going to make excuses for him, and he's worth every penny the first 3 years, explain the two seasons.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  2. #22
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,408
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    If you're going to make excuses for him, and he's worth every penny the first 3 years, explain the two seasons.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    He's human.

  3. #23
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,363
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    If you're going to make excuses for him, and he's worth every penny the first 3 years, explain the two seasons.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    What two seasons? The last two? I didn't say he's worth it the last two. And what excuses? You can't play 82 games during a lockout season. You can't play 82 games when you get concussed on a cheap elbow.

    The only thing I'm even debating is the ridiculous rhetoric around him that he'd be worth a jock strap in a trade, or that he's soft, or blah blah blah blah. He signed a long extension with another team when he was a 40 goal scorer, and he played as a 40 goal guy here for 3 seasons. Would you sign him to that contract today, no, but that's how it goes when guys turn 32, and it's the contracts that every team in the league has. So the whining about Rick Nash's contract is annoying, and saying "he's not worth it at any price" is beyond silly.

  4. #24
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SaveByRichter35 View Post
    He's human.
    Yes, he is....and he's not worth tying up millions of more dollars over another 3 or 4 years of salary cap. He's not going to get any better as he gets older.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,408
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Yes, he is....and he's not worth tying up millions of more dollars over another 3 or 4 years of salary cap. He's not going to get any better as he gets older.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    No one is saying he will be so what exactly are you arguing?

  6. #26
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    What two seasons? The last two? I didn't say he's worth it the last two. And what excuses? You can't play 82 games during a lockout season. You can't play 82 games when you get concussed on a cheap elbow.

    The only thing I'm even debating is the ridiculous rhetoric around him that he'd be worth a jock strap in a trade, or that he's soft, or blah blah blah blah. He signed a long extension with another team when he was a 40 goal scorer, and he played as a 40 goal guy here for 3 seasons. Would you sign him to that contract today, no, but that's how it goes when guys turn 32, and it's the contracts that every team in the league has. So the whining about Rick Nash's contract is annoying, and saying "he's not worth it at any price" is beyond silly.
    Pacing 40 goals is not scoring 40 goals. Doesn't matter if there was a lockout or he was injured. You can only count what he puts in the net.
    You brought up how good he was the 1st 3 years, what pointed out is that he hasn't been worth 7.8 M year the last 2 seasons. Too many times the phrase "Nash hasnt scored" in x amount of games has been used during his time in NYC by the press & broadcaster. He's not consistent.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Yes, he is....and he's not worth tying up millions of more dollars over another 3 or 4 years of salary cap. He's not going to get any better as he gets older.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    No one is looking for him to get better. That's the original argument of the thread. "The case for keeping Rick Nash". Forget the $7.8m. Forget 40 goal seasons. If we can resign Nash, a veteran 20 goal scorer that plays in all situations for $3-4 million per for 3 years, that's a steal. Look at what Marleau and Thornton just signed for.

  8. #28
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SaveByRichter35 View Post
    No one is saying he will be so what exactly are you arguing?
    Very simple... that giving Nash an extension at say 3 or 4 years at say 4M a year when he's not scoring is not worth it.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Pacing 40 goals is not scoring 40 goals. Doesn't matter if there was a lockout or he was injured. You can only count what he puts in the net.
    You brought up how good he was the 1st 3 years, what pointed out is that he hasn't been worth 7.8 M year the last 2 seasons. Too many times the phrase "Nash hasnt scored" in x amount of games has been used during his time in NYC by the press & broadcaster. He's not consistent.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    So when GM's and agents are negotiating you think the GM says "Well you only scored 21 goals during the lockout, so that's gonna lower your price." and the agent responds "Yeah, you're right, my guy sucked that year."?

  10. #30
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Very simple... that giving Nash an extension at say 3 or 4 years at say 4M a year when he's not scoring is not worth it.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    He is scoring! How many 20 goal scorers were there last year, and (excluding guys on ELC's) what was their average salary?
    Last edited by Long live the King; 08-31-2017 at 02:14 PM.

  11. #31
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,363
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Very simple... that giving Nash an extension at say 3 or 4 years at say 4M a year when he's not scoring is not worth it.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    How many 20-goal scorers who excel in every situation make less than $4m that aren't on an ELC?

    It's basically Rick Nash and Paul Byron, who signed after being a nothing player his entire career.

  12. #32
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    No one is looking for him to get better. That's the original argument of the thread. "The case for keeping Rick Nash". Forget the $7.8m. Forget 40 goal seasons. If we can resign Nash, a veteran 20 goal scorer that plays in all situations for $3-4 million per for 3 years, that's a steal. Look at what Marleau and Thornton just signed for.
    And if they don't produce, Toronto & San Jose are stuck with them. If they don't produce, and their teams buy them out since they are over 35 or they retire during the length their contracts, all of that money stays on their books until the contracts expires.
    Your argument is that is that it's better to keep Nash for 4M a year as a 20+ goal scorer for 3 or 4 year. I think it's better to find a younger player in free agency or a trade, or see if there is a player like Chytil who develops & has an upside, then to keep Nash around.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  13. #33
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,408
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Pacing 40 goals is not scoring 40 goals. Doesn't matter if there was a lockout or he was injured. You can only count what he puts in the net.
    You brought up how good he was the 1st 3 years, what pointed out is that he hasn't been worth 7.8 M year the last 2 seasons. Too many times the phrase "Nash hasnt scored" in x amount of games has been used during his time in NYC by the press & broadcaster. He's not consistent.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    And this is where I bow out of any further conversation with you.

  14. #34
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    So when GM's and agents are negotiating you think the GM says "Well you only scored 21 goals during the lockout, so that's gonna lower your price." and the agent responds "Yeah, you're right, my guy sucked that year."?
    No...you don't get paid for what you didn't score. You can't say he would have scored 40+ if they played all 82 games that season, because you don't know.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  15. #35
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,363
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    No...you don't get paid for what you didn't score. You can't say he would have scored 40+ if they played all 82 games that season, because you don't know.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Yea, Patrik Elias, Nathan Horton and Tuuka Rask all came at a major discount after the lockout-shortened season.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,948
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    And if they don't produce, Toronto & San Jose are stuck with them. If they don't produce, and their teams buy them out since they are over 35 or they retire during the length their contracts, all of that money stays on their books until the contracts expires.
    Your argument is that is that it's better to keep Nash for 4M a year as a 20+ goal scorer for 3 or 4 year. I think it's better to find a younger player in free agency or a trade, or see if there is a player like Chytil who develops & has an upside, then to keep Nash around.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Where are these young unsigned 20 goal scorers? They don't exist. Trading for one is expensive. Chytil is 17 years old, signing Nash to a 3 year extension has no effect on a kid who will still be on his ELC throughout the extension.

  17. #37
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,363
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Where are these young unsigned 20 goal scorers? They don't exist. Trading for one is expensive. Chytil is 17 years old, signing Nash to a 3 year extension has no effect on a kid who will still be on his ELC throughout the extension.
    This is really the crux of all the "trade Nash for nothing" talk.

    Wanting to dump him is easy but nobody has realistic plans for how to replace him.

  18. #38
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,408
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    This is really the crux of all the "trade Nash for nothing" talk.

    Wanting to dump him is easy but nobody has realistic plans for how to replace him.
    Which is why half of me thinks replacing 7.8M defensively sound 20-30 goal scorer Rick Nash with 3-4M defensively sound 20 goal scorer Rick Nash sounds like a good idea.

  19. #39
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    Where are these young unsigned 20 goal scorers? They don't exist. Trading for one is expensive. Chytil is 17 years old, signing Nash to a 3 year extension has no effect on a kid who will still be on his ELC throughout the extension.
    If the Rangers don't sign Nash after the season ends, that frees up 7.8 million in cap space for 2018-19. We don't know where the cap will be next season. Since the Rangers are always close to the ceiling, not giving Nash an extension would give them a lot of room to work with. There's got to be at least one player who will be available in free agency, who can:

    A)score at least 20+ goals
    B) who is a few years younger then Nash
    C) want to play in New York
    who that money can go to.

    Trades are tough. Making good ones are tougher. But I'd rather wait & see if a trade can be made, then to tie up another 4M a year in Nash.
    We have some tradable assets in extra defensemen (Holden, D'Angelo), some young prospects on the blue line (Day, Graves, Pionik, Bereglazov), can package someone with Hayes or Grabner or picks. It won't get at top player, but should get someone who can score 20+ goals. If Nash is signed, the team has less cap space to make a trade.

    If Nash is re-signed for whatever amount & term it effects the entire salary cap & roster. Over the course of term of a Nash contract, players have ELC's will expire (Vesey, Bushneivich, Skjei & D'Angelo), all need to be re-signed with a raise.

    If they aren't traded, Miller, Hayes & Grabner's contracts expire that the end of this season. Zuccarello's end in 2019. All of them will need raises too if they re-sign. If the Rangers sign Nash, do they​ not sign one or two of them later on because they don't have the space?

    Just re-signing Nash take a roster spot. If Chytil or anyone else in the system is ready to make the jump over the next couple of years, and Nash is on the roster, then another forward will need to be moved.

    This is all speculation. Over the course of the next few years none of us know what moves will be made

    The team has a big enough hole to fill at Center losing both Stephan & Lindberg. Unless Gorton pulls something out of his ass the next few weeks, they're going with what they have in house and won't fix it until next season.

    As a fan, I'd rather see them not sign Nash.



    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  20. #40
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,363
    Rep Power
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    If the Rangers don't sign Nash after the season ends, that frees up 7.8 million in cap space for 2018-19. We don't know where the cap will be next season. Since the Rangers are always close to the ceiling, not giving Nash an extension would give them a lot of room to work with. There's got to be at least one player who will be available in free agency, who can:

    A)score at least 20+ goals
    B) who is a few years younger then Nash
    C) want to play in New York
    who that money can go to.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    The fact that you can't name this player is exactly why your argument has no legs. I assume you mean for less than $4m, since you don't think Nash is worth that. Here's the list of 20-goal players who will be UFAs after this year, scored at least 20 goals last year, and made less than $4m:

    Cam Atkinson, Kyle Turris, Radim Vrbata, Chris Kunitz, Michael Grabner, John Marchessault

    Go ahead and tell me which of those guys is going to come in at under $4m and be as good as Rick Nash and meets your criteria. Atkinson is going to get over $6m, Turris is a center who will also get big money, Vrbata and Kunitz are 35+, Marchessault is either going to prove that he's not the player he was last year or get a big extension with VGK. You're talking about ONE guy who meets your criteria (Marchessault), and he's a big time stretch.

    If you want to trade Hayes, you're essentially saving $5m, and that gets you the guy you imagine, but then you have to replace Hayes anyway. It's easy to re-sign those guys with Nash at $4m. That's just a wash with Grabner, Puemple, and Holden off the books.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •