Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: The Case for Keeping Rick Nash

  1. #41
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,575
    Rep Power
    111
    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.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division AliveIn94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    919
    Rep Power
    11
    He probably plays better D than Staal or Girardi, and he can put up 20+goals.

    He was a gamebreaking scorer when we traded for him, and may be trending down, but let's not forget we have an excellent group around him. Kreider, Zib, Zucc,Grabner(?), Hayes, are a part of the near future for this team, and if Nash stays healthy and paces 50+ points that looks good for the playoffs.

    Maybe Holden + will get you a pure scorer, Nash is now at the point in his career where he should bring the best out of these guys.

    Edit: Forgot Miller.

    Sent from my Z981 using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Last edited by AliveIn94; 08-31-2017 at 04:57 PM. Reason: ok

  3. #43
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,079
    Rep Power
    24
    https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/460215

    There. I bought out Staal, resigned Nash @ $4m AAV, signed Miller and Skjei long term, bridged Hayes, and resigned Vesey to his second contract. You have ~$6mil to sign 2 4th liners and a 13th forward.

  4. #44
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    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.
    The first mistake that you made is that you assumed...

    I wrote that in not signing Nash, 7.8M comes off the books next season. Any and all of that money can go in signing any of the one of the players you mentioned, as well as JVR, Jamie Benn, Kyle Turris, or even JT.
    Yes, JT is a real pipe dream, & will cost even more if doesn't sign in Brooklyn, but with other contracts coming off the Rangers books, they could offer him over 10M.
    All of these guys we've mentioned are; younger then Nash...all can score 20 or more goals a season, all might want to play in MSG.
    The reasons I didn't name a player is because I didn't want to fixate on just one that fills the criteria I mentioned & we don't know who will re-sign with their current team before July 1st, 2018.
    The fact of the matter is we can sit here all day naming players, and situations. None of it matters, since we're not the GM, we won't make any moves, and won't get a voice on it. IMO, there are better opinions for the Rangers then re-signing Nash. The only way I think re-signing Nash is good, is if there are no other real options left.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  5. #45
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Oh... forgot you mentioned Kunitz... wouldn't want him.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  6. #46
    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
    https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/460215

    There. I bought out Staal, resigned Nash @ $4m AAV, signed Miller and Skjei long term, bridged Hayes, and resigned Vesey to his second contract. You have ~$6mil to sign 2 4th liners and a 13th forward.
    Interesting.... Don't take this the wrong way, but does it account for what the ceiling on the cap each year will be & overall how much "dead money' for the buyout each year on Staal & Girardi those seasons?
    If it doesn't, then the two buy outs eat into the 6M, and doesn't leave much for the 4th line. Also, the cap might go up , but might be the same or even come down.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  7. #47
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,078
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    The first mistake that you made is that you assumed...

    I wrote that in not signing Nash, 7.8M comes off the books next season. Any and all of that money can go in signing any of the one of the players you mentioned, as well as JVR, Jamie Benn, Kyle Turris, or even JT.
    Yes, JT is a real pipe dream, & will cost even more if doesn't sign in Brooklyn, but with other contracts coming off the Rangers books, they could offer him over 10M.
    All of these guys we've mentioned are; younger then Nash...all can score 20 or more goals a season, all might want to play in MSG.
    The reasons I didn't name a player is because I didn't want to fixate on just one that fills the criteria I mentioned & we don't know who will re-sign with their current team before July 1st, 2018.
    The fact of the matter is we can sit here all day naming players, and situations. None of it matters, since we're not the GM, we won't make any moves, and won't get a voice on it. IMO, there are better opinions for the Rangers then re-signing Nash. The only way I think re-signing Nash is good, is if there are no other real options left.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Lol Benn just signed an 8 year extension, what, last year? The year prior?

  8. #48
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,079
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Interesting.... Don't take this the wrong way, but does it account for what the ceiling on the cap each year will be & overall how much "dead money' for the buyout each year on Staal & Girardi those seasons?
    If it doesn't, then the two buy outs eat into the 6M, and doesn't leave much for the 4th line. Also, the cap might go up , but might be the same or even come down.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    It includes the Buyout money, and I raised the cap by 3 mil for next year. The cap has gone up every year since it was reintroduced in 05.

  9. #49
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SaveByRichter35 View Post
    Lol Benn just signed an 8 year extension, what, last year? The year prior?
    Ok....I made a mistake...I meant James Neil....still a better option then Nash.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  10. #50
    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
    It includes the Buyout money, and I raised the cap by 3 mil for next year. The cap has gone up every year since it was reintroduced in 05.
    I like the math....but I think by not signing Nash, and a 3M bump in the cap, these are better options. Center is still a problem.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  11. #51
    a.k.a.Phildagoalie Junior Division
    Respecttheblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    9,445
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    From 2012/13 to 1016/17, the Rangers averaged 2.86 G/GP (Nash)

    From 2009/10 to 2012/13, the Rangers averaged 2.69 G/GP (Gaborik)

    So they were more offensivily productive during the Nash years as compared to the Gaborik years.

    I guess that's a stat, but gee whizz, the system Gabby played under was one of offensively challenged coaching. it's almost like he scored in spite of the coaching. Which opens up another argument. What if Gabby had played in a more positive offensive system like AV's? Would the difference have been greater ... but the two players are so different. Gabby was a freakish offensive talent. Nash is much more an all-rounder with a strong and valuable defensive string to his bow ... which is a plus on an defensively deficient team. Again .. two different players that I don't find comparisons valuable anymore, if I ever did.
    Last edited by Respecttheblue; 08-31-2017 at 10:52 PM.
    If n ya gots jowls, they might as well be furry ones.

  12. #52
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,575
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    The first mistake that you made is that you assumed...

    I wrote that in not signing Nash, 7.8M comes off the books next season. Any and all of that money can go in signing any of the one of the players you mentioned, as well as JVR, Jamie Benn, Kyle Turris, or even JT.
    Yes, JT is a real pipe dream, & will cost even more if doesn't sign in Brooklyn, but with other contracts coming off the Rangers books, they could offer him over 10M.
    All of these guys we've mentioned are; younger then Nash...all can score 20 or more goals a season, all might want to play in MSG.
    The reasons I didn't name a player is because I didn't want to fixate on just one that fills the criteria I mentioned & we don't know who will re-sign with their current team before July 1st, 2018.
    The fact of the matter is we can sit here all day naming players, and situations. None of it matters, since we're not the GM, we won't make any moves, and won't get a voice on it. IMO, there are better opinions for the Rangers then re-signing Nash. The only way I think re-signing Nash is good, is if there are no other real options left.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Turris and JVR would both be 29 by the start of next season and will be much more expensive than Nash. Neither one of them is going to come in at less than $6m unless they get a massive term that pays them until they're 37 or 38, which is a worse problem than we have with Nash. If part of your issue is that you need the cap space to re-sign your own, then a lateral move for a more expensive player is about the strangest move you can make.

    Per the bolded...that's a cop out. All that means is you don't actually want to do any leg work or you've done it and realized that this player doesn't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slats6NYR View Post
    Ok....I made a mistake...I meant James Neil....still a better option then Nash.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk
    Neal will be 30 next year and had the same number of goals Nash did.

  13. #53
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division LONG TIME FAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NEVER NEVER LAND
    Posts
    919
    Rep Power
    6
    After all this analysis, Mr. Na$h still remains an over rated, over paid soft as slush so called power forward. Never, has he consistently lived up to expectations since coming to NYC, imho.

  14. #54
    Senior Member BSBH Prospect
    So Nashty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,232
    Rep Power
    39
    I have no problem letting Nash go as long as there's is some viable alternative for scoring that can be had. It's safe to say he has not lived up to expectations as the leading offensive player on this team.

  15. #55
    a.k.a.Phildagoalie Junior Division
    Respecttheblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    9,445
    Rep Power
    79
    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.
    I would kind of agree in principle, on the numbers, but at this point in the equation, at this point in Henrik's window of opportunity, at this point in striving for a cup and coming within a sneeze in Los Angeles, I am more interested in what kind of playoff performer a player is. Does he have the hunger to go the extra mile, can he put the puck in the net when it counts. Some players rise to that occasion, others shrink others are status quo.

    12-13 and 13-14 Nash seemed to struggle, all he had was a spinorama that failed time and time again to fool anyone. the next two season, 14-15 and 15-16 he was one of our top two playoff point producers. Last year he dipped below the Rick Nash playoff mean which is .53 points per game.

    I've erased much of last year's debacle from my mind. It kinda disgusted me last playoffs how we coughed up leads, and I felt it was almost as much a team defense problem as it was a blue line problem.

    I honestly don't remember whether Rick was part of the problem or part of the erstwhile solution last season. But what i viscerally feel is we need more playoff performer types who answer the bell. Can Rick Nash be part of that foundation? I'd like to see him succeed here. I'd like to think he's gotten a lot more comfortable under the pressure. I'd like to think he's ready to have the playoffs of his life. But we all know that the season is tough and shit happens. No guarantees. IMO there was not enough will and passion to win at whatever the price. I don't Necessarily put Nash in that group, but if he stays he will need support from players who have a fierce determination to win.

    There's a number of players who are going to get another chance to redeem themselves in the playoffs this year maybe (Hayes, JTM, Kreider), but there are still plenty of question marks. One of them was traded. We haven't added any of the sort of top-six step-up playoff performers, so I ask myself are the Nash dollars best spent on Nash or elsewhere, and I don't have an answer.

    But i might look at this page and wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree for the playoffs.

    http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?aggr...,goals,assists

    I dunno. When Pittsburgh can put a Jake Guentzel out of the hat with a 3rd round pick and the guy puts up 13 goals and 21 points in 25 playoff games in his rookie season, it makes you just throw up your hands.

    Is the answer putting more money in older players, or developing younger players, or going after young playoff-stud RFAs while they are still young and divesting the aging underperforming-to-expectations talent? Are we barking up the wrong tree? Time to look elsewhere? Questions, all I have is questions.
    Last edited by Respecttheblue; 09-02-2017 at 08:37 PM.
    If n ya gots jowls, they might as well be furry ones.

  16. #56
    Senior Member Midget Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,979
    Rep Power
    42
    Nash at 4mill, producing as is, is a no brainier. These available younger players who put up similar numbers at or below 4 mill do not exist.

    IMO If you're interested in JT, then that's the player you talk about as the reason to not bring Nash back at the suggested 4 mill.

  17. #57
    List Maker BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    21,618
    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    Nash at 4mill, producing as is, is a no brainier. These available younger players who put up similar numbers at or below 4 mill do not exist.

    IMO If you're interested in JT, then that's the player you talk about as the reason to not bring Nash back at the suggested 4 mill.
    The cap space freed up from Nash is already allocated for next season. At minimum: Skjei +4, Miller + 2, Hayes +2.
    Vesey due a raise.
    Holden (1.65) Grabner 1.65, Puemples 750k, Pavelec 1.3, DD 1

    Need to replace 5 guys for less, re-up Vesey, and replace Nash with all that money. Plus you lose another mill as the Girardi buyout jumps up.
    Last edited by josh; 09-03-2017 at 08:44 PM. Reason: Buyout

  18. #58
    Formerly Richter Redux Midget Division
    Ranger Lothbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,505
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by LONG TIME FAN View Post
    After all this analysis, Mr. Na$h still remains an over rated, over paid soft as slush so called power forward. Never, has he consistently lived up to expectations since coming to NYC, imho.
    Yeah, without reading through the rest of this thread, I'll just reiterate my dislike of this guy. Shit, I don't care if we can find a replacement. I'm thinking about the future. And Rick Nash is gone after this season, at the latest. If some other completely braindead squad is willing to foot the $8 mil bill this year for nebulous, unpredictable, soft play, they can be my guest. As long as they're willing to pony up a top prospect and high draft pick that is.

  19. #59
    Senior Member Midget Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,979
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    The cap space freed up from Nash is already allocated for next season. At minimum: Skjei +4, Miller + 2, Hayes +2.
    Vesey due a raise.
    Holden (1.65) Grabner 1.65, Puemples 750k, Pavelec 1.3, DD 1

    Need to replace 5 guys for less, re-up Vesey, and replace Nash with all that money. Plus you lose another mill as the Girardi buyout jumps up.
    Adding in the 3 or so million they have in cap room now. Plus you need to deal one of Hayes or Miller. There's room.

  20. #60
    List Maker BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    21,618
    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    Adding in the 3 or so million they have in cap room now. Plus you need to deal one of Hayes or Miller. There's room.
    Save that 3m for McDonagh

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •