Gauging Returns on an Inevitable Trade - Will Rick Be a Nash-ville or Star?

[Giacomin]

Welcome to an alternate reality called ranger land. He’s not it’s just not worth wasting the time to argue it anymore. I have read multiple places, last was Matt Larkin, hockey news, that Nash might be had for a 2nd and mid level prospect.

So in the end I agree with you that the Staal trade is probably the comparable. We are not getting any teams top prospect, let alone the number 2 ranked guy in the entire league. Oh wait plus a first for a rental 2nd/3rd line winger.

Would anyone want to trade our first and chytil for Nash? I don’t why people seem to think that every other gm is retarded. They are trying to make themselves better too. This is not a video game

If it comes down to trading Nash for a 2nd and mid level prospect, I'll keep Nash. Here is what I have to say......

Fuck that, fuck them, fire AV, Sather and Gorton and we'll keep Nash and make a playoff run ourselves. If we trade Nash for that shit we will never be able to make a good trade again. You prefer that Fatty? You can take your single second rounder (50 - 62) and your AHL fodder and skip paying your kids college education for hockey tickets at MSG.

Welcome to the land of competitve professional sports where winning a Stanley Cup is brutally hard and if you hold on to every PROSPECT you don't deserve to be World Champions. BTW, someone care to tell me the last Cup Nashville won? St Louis? Winninpeg? Dallas? ....

[phillyb™]

lol

[Giacomin]

Frankly I'd rather take a small underpayment from the Pens and help them win another Cup by sending them both Nash and Grabs, then take pennies on the dollar from a few asshole GMs in the other conference who think we are fools/chumps/morons to send them Nash for a 2nd..

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

damn, that escalated quickly.

I agree tho

[torontonyr]

I keep seeing the argument that Nash > Grabner.

I don't think anyone would correctly argue against the fact that Nash is a more complete, proven player.
With that said, what we're talking about is a potential return for each of these players and while you may be first inclined to believe that the haul will be dependent on their overall ability, it may be more nuanced than that.

If a team is desperately in need of what Grabner can provide, which is speed, finishing ability, defensive prowess and most of all - being utterly cost effective - it may (or may not) result in an equal and/or similar price to Nash despite not being a comparatively better player.

These types of transactions can be found many times, but for the point of my illustration I'll look at the NBA. At the trade deadline, a team with terrible or non-competitive 3 point shooting may acquire a lethal 3 point shooter at a premium due to the demand for the player's specific talent and/or contract structure which may allow them to make subsequent moves.

Now I'm not saying this is guaranteed, but I don't think people who believe Grabner may fetch a solid if not similar return to Nash are off the reservation for this exact reason and I do not think saying Nash is the better player restricts Grabners value to potential trade partners.

[Dunny]

Grabner has "finishing ability"?

Huh?

I like Grabner, but he's a one trick pony offensively. He can't shoot, he can't pass, he can't dangle and he can't play the PP. He can skate, that his only weapon, and it's a great weapon, but it's all he's got, its all he's ever had.

I don't say this to disparage thoughts of the return he could provide in a trade, despite his obvious flaws he's still a useful piece on any team and you could make an argument that he could be a better value than Nash when you factor in price, sure I can buy that, but these are two vastly different hockey players.

[Giacomin]

Grabner has "finishing ability"?

Huh?

I like Grabner, but he's a one trick pony offensively. He can't shoot, he can't pass, he can't dangle and he can't play the PP. He can skate, that his only weapon, and it's a great weapon, but it's all he's got, its all he's ever had.

I don't say this to disparage thoughts of the return he could provide in a trade, despite his obvious flaws he's still a useful piece on any team and you could make an argument that he could be a better value than Nash when you factor in price, sure I can buy that, but these are two vastly different hockey players.

Damn you are both wrong. Grabner is very valuable. Nash is more valuable. Sure, for a few desperate for his kinda player and not wanting to move other salary (Tampa, Pens or Boston maybe) Grabner may have an edge. Particularly because he will return less in assets. But in general, Nash is perceived as the better player.

Now Dunny, when are you going to realize that Grabs is a hockey player, not a one trick speed skater in the 500 meter. The guy is a shutdown defensive player and A+ Pker. He has decent size, is not afraid to go to the boards, excellent forechecker, backchecker and really great stick checker. And he turns D into O w/o needing a linemate to make a good play. He's scored a ton of even strength goals his entire time here.

He will adjust to his new team quickly, as long as they play a fast game.

The big thing is that Nash brings the same defense and PK. We are flooding the mkt with solid D players. Would you really prefer Evander Kane at the same cost?

[torontonyr]

Grabner has "finishing ability"?

Huh?

I like Grabner, but he's a one trick pony offensively. He can't shoot, he can't pass, he can't dangle and he can't play the PP. He can skate, that his only weapon, and it's a great weapon, but it's all he's got, its all he's ever had.

I don't say this to disparage thoughts of the return he could provide in a trade, despite his obvious flaws he's still a useful piece on any team and you could make an argument that he could be a better value than Nash when you factor in price, sure I can buy that, but these are two vastly different hockey players.

Yes. He does.

[Long live the King]

If Grabner had finishing ability he'd be a 50 goal scorer...

[So Nashty]

omgggg do something already!

[Flynn]

We are arguing about apples and oranges here.... ignoring the fact that both apples and oranges are both quite good for different reasons.

Nash is a big body, a puck protector, a presence on both ends of the ice. I think he could/would absolutely thrive in the playoffs with a quality play-maker.
Grabner is a home run threat, the finish isn't the best, but he still puts the puck in the net- his even strength numbers the past few seasons ooze value. He will also make your opponents ass pucker when he's on the PK.

Neither guy is perfect... Neither guy is going to make this Ranger team a winner in the Spring.... Nash, for all of his "faults" would be a massive addition to a team on the cusp. Grabner, while cut from a different cloth is equally valuable to a team right trying to get over the hump.

Both guys absolutely have huge value. Is it worth a late 1st and a big time prospect for a legit cup run? 1 cup in 77 years tells me that answer should be "fuck yes".

[Future]

I think the biggest difference between Nash and Grabner is that Grabs is more system-dependent. Grabner has similar upside in the right system, but Nash is pretty system agnostic and can play anywhere in a lineup. For all his upside, Grabner is pretty much relegated to a third or 2b line.

Plus, Grabner only really does have one way to beat you - speed. He's got a good stick and is generally smart, but those both just compliment his speed. Without that, he's Jesper Fast. Nash isn't a blazer, but he's fast enough and has size and hands that make him effective even if the legs aren't there.

[Fatfrancesa]

The rangers may get a first and a second tier prospect. I hope they get what some on here think they will. I just don’t see getting a trade like Tolvanen or fabbro plus a first. Maybe one of those guys and a second. That would be pretty good. If a bidding war ensues sure it could be more. Fact is there are a lot of options for those who don’t want to pay up. Grabner is just a start.

Giac. No I don’t prefer that. The ufas have to go for the best they can get. Whatever that is. People thought talbot and hagelin were going to bring back nice returns. They didn’t. Different situation with Nash but only different for the better if there is a bidding war.

[Giacomin]

The rangers may get a first and a second tier prospect. I hope they get what some on here think they will. I just don’t see getting a trade like Tolvanen or fabbro plus a first. Maybe one of those guys and a second. That would be pretty good. If a bidding war ensues sure it could be more. Fact is there are a lot of options for those who don’t want to pay up. Grabner is just a start.

Giac. No I don’t prefer that. The ufas have to go for the best they can get. Whatever that is. People thought talbot and hagelin were going to bring back nice returns. They didn’t. Different situation with Nash but only different for the better if there is a bidding war.

Sure, that seems much more in line. We have to receive at least the value of a 1st + for Nash. It should be a 1st for Grabs, I hope I'm not being optimisic with either.

I said over a week ago we are not getting Tolvanen period. Nor is Fiala happening. I could see Nashville offering a 1st this year and a 2nd next. Or Fabbro and a 2nd this year. I hope we can do a little better, but I'm managing my expectations. Nash plays up to his potential he is worth a 1st and a Fabbro like (2nd to 3rd best) prospect for a team like Nashville. Mgmt must be sharp and maximize these deals.

BTW, not interested in other teams quantity and junk adding up to some lotto hope.

[Fatfrancesa]

31 thoughts Elliotte Friedman
Nash market heating up. He questions if Nashville will pay fabbro or Tolvanen plus the first. Rangers are pushing for them.

We’ll see maybe it will happen.

[jjweimar]

Tolvanen and a 1st is dream scenario

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

[Dunny]

I think Fabbro is the guy that makes sense.

They're stacked on D, we're short on it.

[jjweimar]

I think Fabbro is the guy that makes sense.

They're stacked on D, we're short on it.

You have any info on Fabbro, I'm not a big prospects guy, just love the fact that buch and tolvanen would be killer together

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

[Phil in Absentia]

I provided context on Fabbro, Tolvanen, and Tufte in the article. Link in the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Future]

You have any info on Fabbro, I'm not a big prospects guy, just love the fact that buch and tolvanen would be killer together

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile...ed by Tapatalk

Fabbro would, if I'm not mistaken, come into the league and be a top-6 defender on a lot of teams tomorrow. He's just 19 but is a really mature, smart player, rather than one who depends on athleticism, so he should be good almost immediately (think Provorov). He's just short of a PPG player at Boston this year (24 in 28), so he's got offensive upside as well...and he's a righty.

He kind of reminds me of...Drew Doughty maybe, in that he has all the physical tools but isn't totally dependent on them.