Nash for Picks in the 2018 Draft?

[The Dude]

And josh I do think Columbus is a good team for all the reasons you listed. So now that you listed their strengths without the record can you do the same for the rangers?

 

That goes for everybody. Forget record. Make the case for the Rangers as contenders

 

Here’s mine. Hank. It ends there

 

The Rangers have the best and most proven playoff goalie in the east.

 

They are a pretty fast and young team, that plays a smart brand of hockey that can help ignite success in the playoffs.

 

They have a pretty decent record against the teams you consider top contenders.

 

They are getting by with no center depth and questionable D pairings.

 

They have turned around the ok.

 

The PP is hot and cold which is better than cold like it constantly was in years past.

 

Nash is playing more to his style than in the past. He's going to the net with the Puck.

 

Players like Hayes and Buch are growing into their roles. Miller has not been all that good imo. Their depth wingers are doing an admirable job with Kreider being out.

 

As stated earlier, with some tinkering and shifting of pieces like Miller, this team can improve that center depth.

 

This stretch of games is going to tell us a lot about the Rangers. I think the fire may have been set under their asses.

[Fatfrancesa]

The Rangers have the best and most proven playoff goalie in the east.

 

They are a pretty fast and young team, that plays a smart brand of hockey that can help ignite success in the playoffs.

 

They have a pretty decent record against the teams you consider top contenders.

 

They are getting by with no center depth and questionable D pairings.

 

They have turned around the ok.

 

The PP is hot and cold which is better than cold like it constantly was in years past.

 

Nash is playing more to his style than in the past. He's going to the net with the Puck.

 

Players like Hayes and Buch are growing into their roles. Miller has not been all that good imo. Their depth wingers are doing an admirable job with Kreider being out.

 

As stated earlier, with some tinkering and shifting of pieces like Miller, this team can improve that center depth.

 

This stretch of games is going to tell us a lot about the Rangers. I think the fire may have been set under their asses.

 

True on the goalie

Young and fast not so sure. Kreider being out slows them down and the whole league is generally young

 

Smart I whole heartedly disagree. The rangers have been a disaster in their own zone and defensive assignments and turnovers

 

Decent record true but The past 20 games or so they are giving up an average of 37 shots and have not looked real good. Goalies have bailed them out

No center depth and questionable d. That’s a mouthful when wanting to contend. It be one thing if they had top heavy centers or d but they don’t. Playoffs typically come down to individual matchups and I’m not sure what opponent wouldn’t be a matchup problem with Zibanejad Hayes dd and holland down the middle. Hayes and Zibanejad are good but realistically both playing a line up then they should. DD woof. Holland or Nieves ouch.

 

Pp is a crap shoot agreed, pk has been very good.

 

Nash has not had a good year. Playoff production has been a problem for him in the past. As far as game breakers and dominant type players the rangers don’t have one, most everybody else has at least one with the top teams have multiples. Which makes the center issue even larger

 

Admirable and growing I agree but that sounds more like wait for next year, no?

 

Not sure about adding center depth by trading miller. Have an idea in mind because that to me is wishful thinking. You can’t trade him for a rental and teams aren’t in a hurry trading a good core center for a guy like miller who I like. Add in the cap and that trade is almost impossible to figure. Do you have an example of what kind of trade you’re talking about?

 

We’ll see about the fire. Right now they have all they can handle with the terrible Sabres at home. Which is a repeat of the game two weeks ago.

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I don’t agree with all of them. Most of it I can understand where you’re coming from. Some not so much but we’ll see what shakes out.

[The Dude]

True on the goalie

Young and fast not so sure. Kreider being out slows them down and the whole league is generally young

 

Smart I whole heartedly disagree. The rangers have been a disaster in their own zone and defensive assignments and turnovers

 

Decent record true but The past 20 games or so they are giving up an average of 37 shots and have not looked real good. Goalies have bailed them out

No center depth and questionable d. That’s a mouthful when wanting to contend. It be one thing if they had top heavy centers or d but they don’t. Playoffs typically come down to individual matchups and I’m not sure what opponent wouldn’t be a matchup problem with Zibanejad Hayes dd and holland down the middle. Hayes and Zibanejad are good but realistically both playing a line up then they should. DD woof. Holland or Nieves ouch.

 

Pp is a crap shoot agreed, pk has been very good.

 

Nash has not had a good year. Playoff production has been a problem for him in the past. As far as game breakers and dominant type players the rangers don’t have one, most everybody else has at least one with the top teams have multiples. Which makes the center issue even larger

 

Admirable and growing I agree but that sounds more like wait for next year, no?

 

Not sure about adding center depth by trading miller. Have an idea in mind because that to me is wishful thinking. You can’t trade him for a rental and teams aren’t in a hurry trading a good core center for a guy like miller who I like. Add in the cap and that trade is almost impossible to figure. Do you have an example of what kind of trade you’re talking about?

 

We’ll see about the fire. Right now they have all they can handle with the terrible Sabres at home. Which is a repeat of the game two weeks ago.

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I don’t agree with all of them. Most of it I can understand where you’re coming from. Some not so much but we’ll see what shakes out.

 

Nash has been rolling all season. It's been a long time coming for him this season and it's looking like he's breaking out of his funk. The guy has been skating hard and playing hard all season. The guy is insanely unappreciated for his well rounded game and the how much he does out there.

 

When this team is clicking they are flying and fast. They ARE young, so I don't know how you can disagree with that part. I'd bet they are in a decent percentile of a good age or the roster as far as playoff contenders go. Add in their playoff experience with said young players.

 

They have a decent record against your sure thing contenders. I didn't say anything about the amount of shots against in the last 20. I don't understand what that has to do with the fact that they have played well and won against who you consider contenders. How do you just throw that out the window?

 

I don't think they have to wait for players like Vesey, Buchanan and Hayes to put it together. Why wait?

 

I don't have anything in particular in mind for who to deal Miller for Im even thinking Zucc could also land such a player. I don't know. Maybe a Kessler or Getzlaf with some salary eaten? RNH, Saad, Galchenyuk, maybe even Drouin, Bozak, Spezza, Hanzal, Foligno, Jenner.

 

There are multiple 2nd line centers available. Some could come cheaper than Miller, others could cost more. Some others I mentioned were called "chasing Bigfoot" so I won't dulge into older players like Zetterberg..

 

This stretch is one they absolutely have to win 90% of the games. These are very winnable games. Yet, these are the ones they typically blow. If they win out, this teams character should be something to be happy with.

[Fatfrancesa]

I tried

[LarryBiv]

Nasher is quite the enigma in Rangers fans eyes. I believe the biggest issue most have is what his salary is. Not his fault. We knew what we were taking on, and did it despite what i thought. I became a supporter of Nash due to harsh criticism of him. From the moment he came to NY, i questioned that he would be what the Rangers needed. A true goal scoring, clutch leader (yes, including PO's). Performing for a young rather new organization in Columbus is one thing, being a "star" in NY with all those bright lights is quite another, I saw it in his rather shy, soft, humble, boyish answers in his interviews. Just didn't exude a self confident "cocky if you will" I can lead this team anywhere attitude. Being in the background seemed his fave place, and that just doesn't/wouldn't cut it as that's not what the Rangers needed. No doubt he brought a good player, and improved his overall game, still not what we needed. Chief complaint.....paid too much for a 25 goal scorer, we need 40. All his efforts haven't been appreciated, and has been given multiple chances in every Rangers fans eyes, if he would just kick some ass in the next post season. Guess what, he may not get another chance and his stay here will then officially become a failure.......an acquisition i wish we had never made.

[Ozzy]

You know I always liked Nash here, and I think he is still very valuable...just not to this team.

 

In a nutshell, I believe this team is a perimeter "Pass first" team, and Nash is a net front presence type player, that scores the majority of his goals withing 8 feet of the net. This team doesn't shoot enough or get the puck on net enough to compliment his game. Nash is the type player that scores on rebounds and has great hands for deflections and tip-in's. He's big and plays a tough game in front as well.

 

...again nothing that suits this Rangers team, or this Ranger's "style" of play.

 

I really hope they trade him to a team that contends for the cup. He'll be better off, and possibly make a better showing for his future contract(s).

[Fatfrancesa]

Money aside because you’re right doesn’t matter now. I like Nash. He’s an extremely good player who plays every part of the game any coach would appreciate. The arguments about his tenure is not the point anymore to me anyway. The discussion isn’t if the rangers would be better without him right now. Of course not. The discussion is if he’s not resigned does it make sense to keep him for a couple more months or move him for future assets.

 

Brooks today thinks he would fetch a number 1, prospect and a roster player at least. That’s the discussion and that is very enticing. Can this team win? Easy answer is yes as long as you get in. But are you holding 19 with the dealer showing bust or holding 15 with the dealer showing a face card. You can win but what is the likelihood? I think it’s the latter I and the smart player if given the option would take their money back if given the option. Getting the assets is like getting your money back so to speak.

[Giacomin]

Money aside because you?re right doesn?t matter now. He?s an extremely good player who plays every part of the game any coach would appreciate. The arguments about his tenure is not the point anymore to me anyway. The discussion isn?t if the rangers would be better without him right now. Of course not. The discussion is if he?s not resigned does it make sense to keep him for a couple more months or move him for future assets.

 

^This serves as a great backdrop for this discussion. It is a good perspective on the current reality. It articulates not just what fans should consider, but the important question mgmt must face. A similar question also applies to Grabner. The return would be substantial (meaning at least a 1st) for either.

 

Hello Larry! Enigmatic is one way to describe a Ranger fans relationship with Nash. For me currently, the word that also comes to mind is ironic. Nash is one of my favorite players, has been visible most of the year and is now needed to carry us on his back w/o Kreider and Hayes. And it appears he may be hitting a hot streak. On the flipside, as a fan of his I still acknowledge too many playoff struggles. More important, the current roster has to many big holes IMO and may not make the playoffs, especially with the unfavorable remaining schedule. 1st round picks and top-tier prospects increase the likelihood of contending in the future.

 

I find it ironic that I love Nash and Grabs, really enjoy watching them play each night and by no means have I given up on this team. Yet, I realize deep down that if the Rangers don't go on a run here, it may be best to load up on young assets this one time. Particularly if we are able to get a 1st and a team's best prospect for either.

[Giacomin]

Nash has been rolling all season. It's been a long time coming for him this season and it's looking like he's breaking out of his funk. The guy has been skating hard and playing hard all season. The guy is insanely unappreciated for his well rounded game and the how much he does out there.

 

When this team is clicking they are flying and fast. They ARE young, so I don't know how you can disagree with that part. I'd bet they are in a decent percentile of a good age or the roster as far as playoff contenders go. Add in their playoff experience with said young players.

 

Hey Dude, I second the points on Nash and our seasoned youth being a strength of the team.

 

I don't have anything in particular in mind for who to deal Miller for Im even thinking Zucc could also land such a player. I don't know. Maybe a Kessler or Getzlaf with some salary eaten? RNH, Saad, Galchenyuk, maybe even Drouin, Bozak, Spezza, Hanzal, Foligno, Jenner.

 

To touch on this Miller idea, before it gets lost in the thread. Guys, let's assume mgmt is ready for a hockey trade (not deadline deal, but one designed to make both teams better) and wants to trade Miller for a true 2C with upside. A guy who would be here for a while, with a versatile 200' game, that fits well.

 

Let's hit the names Dude mentioned. Worst to first:

Galy - def not a C, too many character questions, awful D

Bozak - too old, never special. never trade Miller for him

Spezza - even older, was special, just was healthy scratch

Hanzal - done, bad back

Drouin - not a C, bad D, interesting idea as a wing for wing deal, doubt Habs do it. Instead they offer MaxPac. Bad for Rangers as he'll be a UFA soon.

Foligno - I just don't see the upside that would make me want to give up Miller's upside.

 

Jenner - hmm, need to look deeper. I've soured on him recently. Jenner has had injury problems and has underperformed expectations. There is upside. If healthy he'd bring something to the table. Obviously unlikely this year, but we've dealt with the Blue Jackets in the past.

 

Saad - pretty interesting idea. Doubt Toews gives his blessing though. They already regretted trading him once. Enough to overpay to get him back. They have to keep Saad for this season.

 

The only one that makes sense is RNH. Possible win-win deal. Edmonton is desperate for a wing who can score. The added potential of a seasoned strong guy who can play with McDavid instead of Maroon, is huge. Hate to give up Miller, but RNH would fill the 2C hole perfectly.

 

Allows the two kids to not have the pressure of the 2C job in their first year or two. If it turns out that we have a surplus of healthy top Centers in the future, either one moves to wing or you have the only currency that can net a #1 RHD.

 

Anyone see any Centers that you'd trade Miller for, that is a win-win?

[Giacomin]

Add something to the deal and ...

 

Couture? Sharks wouldn't do it though, right?

Someone from Florida?

[Future]

I don't see any 1-for-1 Miller for a center trade that makes the Rangers better. The only way you get better by moving Miller is bringing back a #1C, and those guys would a) require Miller +, b) be a major cap hit, c) make this team older.

 

A guy like RNH, Couture, or Bjugstad are nice pieces if you can add them to this lineup. They aren't good enough to move the needle if you're replacing Miller (or Zucc, Nash, Grabner for that matter).

 

I think we'd be better off both now and in the long run with a guy like Sam Reinhart, who I don't think would cost a current top-9 player. If you could get Reinhart for, say, DeAngelo and a mid-round pick, I'd pull the trigger. Kind of makes sense for both teams.

[josh]

If you are going to make a deal to legitimately improve the team, its a go big or go home move. Package 2 players for a top liner. There are not a ton of 1/2Cs that are available (RNH, but probably have to overpay or wait until the draft)

Then, figure what kind to impact we want them to have on the team.

 

I mean, do we do something like Miller + prospect/pick for (puking, hold on...) Sedins?

 

maybe something for ROR... omg im making myself sick.

 

make a smaller move for a guy like Shaw? And hope you get Tavares over the summer?

[josh]

I don't see any 1-for-1 Miller for a center trade that makes the Rangers better. The only way you get better by moving Miller is bringing back a #1C, and those guys would a) require Miller +, b) be a major cap hit, c) make this team older.

 

A guy like RNH, Couture, or Bjugstad are nice pieces if you can add them to this lineup. They aren't good enough to move the needle if you're replacing Miller (or Zucc, Nash, Grabner for that matter).

 

I think we'd be better off both now and in the long run with a guy like Sam Reinhart, who I don't think would cost a current top-9 player. If you could get Reinhart for, say, DeAngelo and a mid-round pick, I'd pull the trigger. Kind of makes sense for both teams.

 

in a way, isnt that exactly what we are trying to stay away from? middle 6 Center, that has potential, but extremely inconsistent, and leaning towards bust.

[Future]

in a way, isnt that exactly what we are trying to stay away from? middle 6 Center, that has potential, but extremely inconsistent, and leaning towards bust.

Well the Rangers need a middle-6 center, and he plays a lot of wing anyways. He's a low cost, high upside player who has already shown he can be productive. That's what I like. For a team "rebuilding on the fly," I think it's a good risk to take. The fact that he's only 22 means that, instead of being a roadblock for Lias and Chytil, he can be a compliment to them, if not compete with them directly.

[josh]

Well the Rangers need a middle-6 center, and he plays a lot of wing anyways. He's a low cost, high upside player who has already shown he can be productive. That's what I like. For a team "rebuilding on the fly," I think it's a good risk to take. The fact that he's only 22 means that, instead of being a roadblock for Lias and Chytil, he can be a compliment to them, if not compete with them directly.

 

No, they need a #1 C. Zibs, Hayes, Andersson

[Fatfrancesa]

They do need a 1c. They’ve needed one for better than a decade. Teams don’t trade those guys. In the rare case it may happen it isn’t J.T. miller who pays the bill. I know that’s not what you’re saying josh but that pot needs to be sweetened a lot. Miller, first, chytil or Anderson would be a starting point. Big problem is you still need a team willing to trade the most elusive type player in the league.

 

Please for the love of god no sedins. Please don’t even bring that up in case someone in the rangers front office gets any ideas. I think I’m going to throw up thinking about it.

[Fatfrancesa]

Does Shattenkirk being out for 2 months move the needle for anybody?

[josh]

Does Shattenkirk being out for 2 months move the needle for anybody?

 

Yeah, time to buy. We just strengthened our own-zone defense.

[LindG1000]

Yeah, time to buy. We just strengthened our own-zone defense.

 

Can't sit here and say that Shatty is a stellar in-zone defender, but I'm pretty confident that putting Tony DeAngelo in there isn't actually an improvement.

[Dunny]

No, they need a #1 C. Zibs, Hayes, Andersson

 

Bennett!

 

Depth is good.

[josh]

Can't sit here and say that Shatty is a stellar in-zone defender, but I'm pretty confident that putting Tony DeAngelo in there isn't actually an improvement.

 

Tony D is the Boss.

[Future]

No, they need a #1 C. Zibs, Hayes, Andersson

Zib is a 1C, especially if you have real strong C depth.

[Fatfrancesa]

Zip would be fine in that role if you had that depth.

[Fatfrancesa]

Yeah, time to buy. We just strengthened our own-zone defense.

 

So losing Shattenkirk actually made the contender case stronger? I’ll be honest I can’t stand him but I can’t imsgine the rangers view this as good news and a reason to buy.

[Fatfrancesa]

I would think it would also put the pp as a possible strength of this team into question.