What does it take to get Nash?

Riprock wrote:Zibanejad is nothing right now. Nobody NOT on the Sens team is anything.

That's false. By that logic Colin Greening is more valuable than Zibanejad.

Big Ev wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I would offer a combo of current players (such as Foligno/Michalek and Bishop) and both our 2012 and 2013 first round picks if needed. That way, you don't lose anything in the cupboard on forward.

Columbus gets a goalie, 2 1st round picks, and a good current, young position player.

Next year's first?

I expect (although I don't want to see it), that we'll see the Sens drop off a bit next year. Making the playoffs won't be easy. Let's not kid ourselves here. There are teams that WILL be better (Tampa and Buffalo spring to mind), and we face the uncertainty of Alfie possibly not returning. Will the loss of Kuba be felt, especially if he isn't replaced? Can we expect Gonchar to do anything but decline? I'm not holding my breath. I'm not forecasting doom and gloom here, but I don't think we are a lock for a playoff spot by any means.

It just seems to me that this isn't the right time, nor the right way to build this team for long term success going after Nash.

But you're forgetting that they would be adding Nash, which would improve the team in the short term even if Alfredsson retired. I don't see how they would finish worse than they are right now with Nash on the team. Plus, they would surely shore up holes through trades and various signings.

The 2013 pick doesn't really do much for us IMO. We already have a slew of prospects.

Fair enough, but my biggest area of concern is our defence. Nash doesn't help that, and selling the farm on him (two firsts, a good young goalie and a roster forward is selling the farm imo) certainly hurts our chances of improving the back end. I think it's safe to say that if we are going to improve our defence for next season it'll be via a trade, since the FA market is Dung and Ottawa isn't a "player" typically anyway. Your point about shoring up holes seems a littler easier said that done imo. We aren't talking about a depth d-man here. We will almost certainly have to replace a top pairing d-man. Hell, Phillips and Gonchar are a combined 280 years old.

I really think Nash would be a big time scorer in Ottawa, but we'd have to win all our games 9-7.

I wouldn't move Michalek, or Silfverberg, or Zibanejad.

Nick Foligno + Robin Lehner + Matt Puempel + OTT 1st 2012
or
Nick Foligno + Ben Bishop + Stefan Noesen + OTT 1st 2012

If Columbus wants more than that they can find a new team to deal with.

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I would offer a combo of current players (such as Foligno/Michalek and Bishop) and both our 2012 and 2013 first round picks if needed. That way, you don't lose anything in the cupboard on forward.

Columbus gets a goalie, 2 1st round picks, and a good current, young position player.

Next year's first?

I expect (although I don't want to see it), that we'll see the Sens drop off a bit next year. Making the playoffs won't be easy. Let's not kid ourselves here. There are teams that WILL be better (Tampa and Buffalo spring to mind), and we face the uncertainty of Alfie possibly not returning. Will the loss of Kuba be felt, especially if he isn't replaced? Can we expect Gonchar to do anything but decline? I'm not holding my breath. I'm not forecasting doom and gloom here, but I don't think we are a lock for a playoff spot by any means.

It just seems to me that this isn't the right time, nor the right way to build this team for long term success going after Nash.

But you're forgetting that they would be adding Nash, which would improve the team in the short term even if Alfredsson retired. I don't see how they would finish worse than they are right now with Nash on the team. Plus, they would surely shore up holes through trades and various signings.

The 2013 pick doesn't really do much for us IMO. We already have a slew of prospects.

Fair enough, but my biggest area of concern is our defence. Nash doesn't help that, and selling the farm on him (two firsts, a good young goalie and a roster forward is selling the farm imo) certainly hurts our chances of improving the back end. I think it's safe to say that if we are going to improve our defence for next season it'll be via a trade, since the FA market is Dung and Ottawa isn't a "player" typically anyway. Your point about shoring up holes seems a littler easier said that done imo. We aren't talking about a depth d-man here. We will almost certainly have to replace a top pairing d-man. Hell, Phillips and Gonchar are a combined 280 years old.

I really think Nash would be a big time scorer in Ottawa, but we'd have to win all our games 9-7.

Ottawa was one of the worst defensive teams even with Kuba, and we allowed nearly the most goals in the league. I don't think defence will be a reason why they drop off, because it can't get much worse than it was this season.

stempniaksen wrote:I wouldn't move Michalek, or Silfverberg, or Zibanejad.

Nick Foligno + Robin Lehner + Matt Puempel + OTT 1st 2012
or
Nick Foligno + Ben Bishop + Stefan Noesen + OTT 1st 2012

If Columbus wants more than that they can find a new team to deal with.

I'm tempted to say whoa to Noesen, but he really has seen his stock climb. He could be a sell high case if there ever was one.

I'd do the second offer pretty quickly I think. Certainly quicker than the first, but that's because I prefer Lehner. Something about his attitude. He's a gamer.

and here's the kicker with Michalek. In two years you are paying him $6 million. Would you not rather pay Nash $7.8 that same year?

Big Ev wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:I would offer a combo of current players (such as Foligno/Michalek and Bishop) and both our 2012 and 2013 first round picks if needed. That way, you don't lose anything in the cupboard on forward.

Columbus gets a goalie, 2 1st round picks, and a good current, young position player.

Next year's first?

I expect (although I don't want to see it), that we'll see the Sens drop off a bit next year. Making the playoffs won't be easy. Let's not kid ourselves here. There are teams that WILL be better (Tampa and Buffalo spring to mind), and we face the uncertainty of Alfie possibly not returning. Will the loss of Kuba be felt, especially if he isn't replaced? Can we expect Gonchar to do anything but decline? I'm not holding my breath. I'm not forecasting doom and gloom here, but I don't think we are a lock for a playoff spot by any means.

It just seems to me that this isn't the right time, nor the right way to build this team for long term success going after Nash.

But you're forgetting that they would be adding Nash, which would improve the team in the short term even if Alfredsson retired. I don't see how they would finish worse than they are right now with Nash on the team. Plus, they would surely shore up holes through trades and various signings.

The 2013 pick doesn't really do much for us IMO. We already have a slew of prospects.

Fair enough, but my biggest area of concern is our defence. Nash doesn't help that, and selling the farm on him (two firsts, a good young goalie and a roster forward is selling the farm imo) certainly hurts our chances of improving the back end. I think it's safe to say that if we are going to improve our defence for next season it'll be via a trade, since the FA market is Dung and Ottawa isn't a "player" typically anyway. Your point about shoring up holes seems a littler easier said that done imo. We aren't talking about a depth d-man here. We will almost certainly have to replace a top pairing d-man. Hell, Phillips and Gonchar are a combined 280 years old.

I really think Nash would be a big time scorer in Ottawa, but we'd have to win all our games 9-7.

Ottawa was one of the worst defensive teams even with Kuba, and we allowed nearly the most goals in the league. I don't think defence will be a reason why they drop off, because it can't get much worse than it was this season.

Oh, I think it can, and will. For reasons I outlined previously. No matter how you slice it, Nash or not, we need to upgrade on that defence, I think that's mutually agreeable. Giving up a boatload for Nash severely limits the teams options to upgrade what is clearly our weakest area of strength.

You don't trade Michalek+ for Nash. We need to ADD to our top-6 not make a lateral move(or slight upgrade).

It's also for Alfie's pending retirement, Nash is probably the closest replacement we could get for Alfie. This team will be much worse when Alfie is gone.

Since Nash is available now why not make a go for it ? Obviously you don't overpay. There's no guarantee any of our prospects ever turn out to be as good as Nash. Players like Nash are rarely available, if you have the assets to make a deal you look into it. If Howson insists on a huge deal then you walk.

Alls I have left to say on Nash is: don't get your hopes up. I wouldn't even thik of Nash at this point.

Big Ev wrote:and here's the kicker with Michalek. In two years you are paying him $6 million. Would you not rather pay Nash $7.8 that same year?

What? No.

He's has his career year and it wasn't worth that much.

Michalek is a classic sell high player right now. I agree that I'd rather him than Nash in a heartbeat, even at their current salary levels.

Let's try this a different way:

Michalek/Bishop/Something else

for

Nash/Steve Mason

They get a starting goaltender in Bishop and an above average winger to replace Nash (Howson has said he needs to replace offence when dealing Nash.) They also get rid of Mason who's done in Columbus, unless they plan to use him to parlay next year into Nathan McKinnon.

Hoags wrote:You don't trade Michalek+ for Nash. We need to ADD to our top-6 not make a lateral move(or slight upgrade).

It's also for Alfie's pending retirement, Nash is probably the closest replacement we could get for Alfie. This team will be much worse when Alfie is gone.

Since Nash is available now why not make a go for it ? Obviously you don't overpay. There's no guarantee any of our prospects ever turn out to be as good as Nash. Players like Nash are rarely available, if you have the assets to make a deal you look into it. If Howson insists on a huge deal then you walk.

Nash is a slight upgrade on Michalek? Really?

Big Ev wrote:Alls I have left to say on Nash is: don't get your hopes up. I wouldn't even thik of Nash at this point.

Agreed, but it's fun to speculate. If Murray is really going to try hard to acquire a youngish asset, I would prefer if it's a defenceman, like Bogosian.

hemlock wrote:
Nash is a slight upgrade on Michalek? Really?

Well maybe not "slight" but we need to add another top-6 forward right now. If we trade Michalek+ and Alfie retires we'll down 3 top-6 forwards and prayinh that one of our prospects can fill in.

Hoags wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nash is a slight upgrade on Michalek? Really?

Well maybe not "slight" but we need to add another top-6 forward right now. If we trade Michalek+ and Alfie retires we'll down 3 top-6 forwards and prayinh that one of our prospects can fill in.

I see your point. That's sort of where this team is though in this "rebuild". We are looking for younger guys like Silfverberg to come in and take a larger role. Perhaps this is the biggest reason why Nash doesn't make sense to Ottawa. Although he'd give us a second legitimate top line player, we'd have less options elsewhere on the roster. Like I said in a previous post, the timing of persuing Nash is curious to me. If our defence was more stable and we knew that Alfie had one more year, then maybe you roll the dice knowing that you are giving your captain one last shot at getting his name on the cup, even if it means setting your "rebuild" back somewhat.

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:and here's the kicker with Michalek. In two years you are paying him $6 million. Would you not rather pay Nash $7.8 that same year?

What? No.

He's has his career year and it wasn't worth that much.

Michalek is a classic sell high player right now. I agree that I'd rather him than Nash in a heartbeat, even at their current salary levels.

Let's try this a different way:

Michalek/Bishop/Something else

for

Nash/Steve Mason

They get a starting goaltender in Bishop and an above average winger to replace Nash (Howson has said he needs to replace offence when dealing Nash.) They also get rid of Mason who's done in Columbus, unless they plan to use him to parlay next year into Nathan McKinnon.

Huh? I think you read my post wrong. I am arguing against Michalek.

There's a lot I agree with here and a lot I disagree with.

I don't think the gap between Nash and Michalek is all that great. If you trade Michalek in a deal for Nash that is probably way more of a lateral move than people want to admit. Nash is a better player but how much better? No 4 million dollars better and and not 30 points better. He might get 5-10 more goals and 10-15 more points. Not exactly the best move if that's the deal.

The Sens want to make their top 6 as deep as any team in the NHL. If you have the puck you don't have to chase it. That said, their D is still lacking large and IMO you build the back end before you make moves for guys like Nash. Maybe there's a move for a top 4 blueliner coming though.
Michalek is absolutely a sell high player right now but he's also part of what they are building. I think he's had his career year (goal wise) but it doesn't mean he can't score 25-30 for the next 5 years. His playoffs were awful though and that was alarming.

Big Ev wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Riprock wrote:1st overall pick + Mika Zibanejad + Bishop

Dealio.

I think we're much better off keeping those three assets. If I'm trading a prospect for Nash I'm capitalizing on the hype and dealing Silfverberg to CBJ. Still don't want to trade for Nash though. We're fine without him. Nor do I think we can make the best offer out there.

Yeah? Kinda surprised to hear you say that considering that's not that huge a price to pay...or I didn't think it was personally.

it's not a lot to pay, I just think Zibanejad is untouchable right now and we don't need another underachiever from the GTA.

Ask Columbus if they would trade for Carter again.

That's pretty selective history right there. Ask ANA if it was worth it to trade for Pronger. Or LA if it was worth it to trade for Richards, and Carter. Or BOS if it was worth it to trade for Horton.

That story can and does go either way. I can't think of too many big, big name trades (they're so rare), but there are certainly examples of those impact players having an immediate, cup-winning effect.

Hoags wrote:You don't trade Michalek+ for Nash. We need to ADD to our top-6 not make a lateral move(or slight upgrade).

It's also for Alfie's pending retirement, Nash is probably the closest replacement we could get for Alfie. This team will be much worse when Alfie is gone.

Since Nash is available now why not make a go for it ? Obviously you don't overpay. There's no guarantee any of our prospects ever turn out to be as good as Nash. Players like Nash are rarely available, if you have the assets to make a deal you look into it. If Howson insists on a huge deal then you walk.

Ironically, the team played better in the playoffs with Alfie out. I think those days when losing Alfie meant going on an extended losing streak are over. Karlsson does not have the veteran presence and the history with the club yet, but he has the most impact on the Sens right now, followed closely by Spezza. Last time Spezza went on the IR the team tanked. Last time Alfie went on the IR they did OK. We haven't seen how this team does without Karlsson.

Anyhow, all that said, I see nothing suggesting that Nash is a leader in the way that Alfie is. He could replace his scoring, but not his leadership. And 4th in the league in a rebuild year tells me that we don't really need help up-front.

So can we just forget this rubbish about Nash for our 1st and our two top prospects, close this thread and move on to debating whom the Sens should pick if both Ceci and Lindholm are available at #15.