What does it take to get Nash?

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.

People get too attached to prospects: Zibanejad, Noesen, Puempel, Silfverberg, Stone, Prince, Petersson, Hoffman, Da Costa -- that's three-quarters of an NHL forward group right there.

Guess what? They can't and won't all play for us, ever, not unless NHL rosters expand to 30 players per. If you can turn question marks into sure value, you do it, within reason of course. Losing one of our top 4-5 forward prospects is not something we can't easily recover from.

And yes, OTT does need, badly, someone who can replace Alfie's offense on the wing and his spot in the top 6. If Alfie retires tomorrow, we literally have the thinnest top-6 in the NHL, with only Spezza, Michalek, and maybe Turris as legitimate top 6ers. Everyone else is a tweener or a rookie. That problem needs to be addressed ASAP.

Can't manage a hockey team from a perpetual horizon, people. There's always going to be another draft, another opportunity to keep building. You have to live in the present, too.

rooneypoo wrote:People get too attached to prospects: Zibanejad, Noesen, Puempel, Silfverberg, Stone, Prince, Petersson, Hoffman, Da Costa -- that's three-quarters of an NHL forward group right there.

Guess what? They can't and won't all play for us, ever, not unless NHL rosters expand to 30 players per. If you can turn question marks into sure value, you do it, within reason of course. Losing one of our top 4-5 forward prospects is not something we can't easily recover from.

And yes, OTT does need, badly, someone who can replace Alfie's offense on the wing and his spot in the top 6. If Alfie retires tomorrow, we literally have the thinnest top-6 in the NHL, with only Spezza, Michalek, and maybe Turris as legitimate top 6ers. Everyone else is a tweener or a rookie. That problem needs to be addressed ASAP.

Can't manage a hockey team from a perpetual horizon, people. There's always going to be another draft, another opportunity to keep building. You have to live in the present, too.

I agree with all of this. I seriously question if Nash is the player to take over from Alfi, that's my issue. Maybe in a supporting role he will be better off as opposed to carrying an entire franchise.

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:People get too attached to prospects: Zibanejad, Noesen, Puempel, Silfverberg, Stone, Prince, Petersson, Hoffman, Da Costa -- that's three-quarters of an NHL forward group right there.

Guess what? They can't and won't all play for us, ever, not unless NHL rosters expand to 30 players per. If you can turn question marks into sure value, you do it, within reason of course. Losing one of our top 4-5 forward prospects is not something we can't easily recover from.

And yes, OTT does need, badly, someone who can replace Alfie's offense on the wing and his spot in the top 6. If Alfie retires tomorrow, we literally have the thinnest top-6 in the NHL, with only Spezza, Michalek, and maybe Turris as legitimate top 6ers. Everyone else is a tweener or a rookie. That problem needs to be addressed ASAP.

Can't manage a hockey team from a perpetual horizon, people. There's always going to be another draft, another opportunity to keep building. You have to live in the present, too.

I agree with all of this. I seriously question if Nash is the player to take over from Alfi, that's my issue. Maybe in a supporting role he will be better off as opposed to carrying an entire franchise.

I'm not asserting that he can or will -- it would be great if he could and did -- but what I'm most concerned about right now is finding a replacement for Alfie in terms of pure production and roles on the ice (top 6, PP1, PKer, etc.). Our top 6 is thin at the moment, and paper thin if Alfie retires tomorrow. It's a problem that, really, we need to fix this summer, and probably in the next two weeks. There is no more time for delay. You can't just "hope" someone of Nash's caliber will be out there when you need him (say, next summer). You have to deal with the realities in front of you, not the potential promise of tomorrow.

rooneypoo wrote:People get too attached to prospects: Zibanejad, Noesen, Puempel, Silfverberg, Stone, Prince, Petersson, Hoffman, Da Costa -- that's three-quarters of an NHL forward group right there.

Guess what? They can't and won't all play for us, ever, not unless NHL rosters expand to 30 players per. If you can turn question marks into sure value, you do it, within reason of course. Losing one of our top 4-5 forward prospects is not something we can't easily recover from.

And yes, OTT does need, badly, someone who can replace Alfie's offense on the wing and his spot in the top 6. If Alfie retires tomorrow, we literally have the thinnest top-6 in the NHL, with only Spezza, Michalek, and maybe Turris as legitimate top 6ers. Everyone else is a tweener or a rookie. That problem needs to be addressed ASAP.

Can't manage a hockey team from a perpetual horizon, people. There's always going to be another draft, another opportunity to keep building. You have to live in the present, too.

The way I've read these threads is that people are attached to a handful of prospects - and rightfully so. I am anyway. I'm attached to Silfverberg, Lehner and Noesen (Stone to a degree I guess), the rest are moveable. That still leaves a top 5 prospect in the NHL by most's opinions in Zibanejad. Puempel, Da Costa, Foligno, Bishop, Prince if need be, Petersson easily - anyone else.

I think you have to be attached to a few prospects as a GM. It doesn't mean they're untouchable, it means you think hard before you move them - and I reiterate - for me, I don't move any of Silfverberg, Lehner or Noesen for Nash - and I stand by it still.

You don't miss out on getting a player you know is good. Nash is by all means a franchise player - theres nothing to say that Puempel, Stone, Noesen, Silfverberg, or Zibanejad ever become nearly as good or better than Nash.

So unless the Sens want to wait 5-10 years to hope they pan out and eventually maybe win a cup, ok. But I think Murray and Alfie and maybe some other players would like to win now.

And Michalek isn't being traded. It would be like trading Phillips + a bunch of other stuff for Pronger.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:People get too attached to prospects: Zibanejad, Noesen, Puempel, Silfverberg, Stone, Prince, Petersson, Hoffman, Da Costa -- that's three-quarters of an NHL forward group right there.

Guess what? They can't and won't all play for us, ever, not unless NHL rosters expand to 30 players per. If you can turn question marks into sure value, you do it, within reason of course. Losing one of our top 4-5 forward prospects is not something we can't easily recover from.

And yes, OTT does need, badly, someone who can replace Alfie's offense on the wing and his spot in the top 6. If Alfie retires tomorrow, we literally have the thinnest top-6 in the NHL, with only Spezza, Michalek, and maybe Turris as legitimate top 6ers. Everyone else is a tweener or a rookie. That problem needs to be addressed ASAP.

Can't manage a hockey team from a perpetual horizon, people. There's always going to be another draft, another opportunity to keep building. You have to live in the present, too.

The way I've read these threads is that people are attached to a handful of prospects - and rightfully so. I am anyway. I'm attached to Silfverberg, Lehner and Noesen (Stone to a degree I guess), the rest are moveable. That still leaves a top 5 prospect in the NHL by most's opinions in Zibanejad. Puempel, Da Costa, Foligno, Bishop, Prince if need be, Petersson easily - anyone else.

I think you have to be attached to a few prospects as a GM. It doesn't mean they're untouchable, it means you think hard before you move them - and I reiterate - for me, I don't move any of Silfverberg, Lehner or Noesen for Nash - and I stand by it still.

If Lehner is the piece they truly want for Nash... I don't see how you don't make that move. You add Nash to your lineup without taking taking a top 6 forward or top 4 D man out of it... How do you not make that trade given that the others pieces are reasonable.

If It's Lehner/Foligno/1st/mid tier prospect... you do it.

All of this is off the assumption salary isn't an issue either.

Riprock wrote:You don't miss out on getting a player you know is good. Nash is by all means a franchise player - theres nothing to say that Puempel, Stone, Noesen, Silfverberg, or Zibanejad ever become nearly as good or better than Nash.

So unless the Sens want to wait 5-10 years to hope they pan out and eventually maybe win a cup, ok. But I think Murray and Alfie and maybe some other players would like to win now.

And Michalek isn't being traded. It would be like trading Phillips + a bunch of other stuff for Pronger.

Don't think you can use the logic "we would be lucky if they became this" because in a lot of cases teams would be unlucky if they didn't become something similar to Nash.

If you are talking about a guy like Stone then yah, he would be lucky to be a annual 25 goal guy, same with Noesen. If you put them in a deal for a 35-40 goal guy in his best years like Nash... might be giving up more than he's actually worth.

Zibanejad... would the Sens be lucky if he became a Rick Nash? Maybe. I say they would be very unlucky if he didn't turn into a 30 goal guy. I'll take a complete player like Zibanejad that can score 25-30(not saying he will or won't) vs a 35 goal guy in Nash who is pretty one dimensional.

Dreger spent a good deal of his TSN 990 segment saying that Ottawa would be a player in the Nash sweeps and they had plenty of assets to make the deal. He didn't rule out Nash waiving to play for Ottawa but also said that Melnyk would have to commit to that kind of contract.

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:You don't miss out on getting a player you know is good. Nash is by all means a franchise player - theres nothing to say that Puempel, Stone, Noesen, Silfverberg, or Zibanejad ever become nearly as good or better than Nash.

So unless the Sens want to wait 5-10 years to hope they pan out and eventually maybe win a cup, ok. But I think Murray and Alfie and maybe some other players would like to win now.

And Michalek isn't being traded. It would be like trading Phillips + a bunch of other stuff for Pronger.

Don't think you can use the logic "we would be lucky if they became this" because in a lot of cases teams would be unlucky if they didn't become something similar to Nash.

If you are talking about a guy like Stone then yah, he would be lucky to be a annual 25 goal guy, same with Noesen. If you put them in a deal for a 35-40 goal guy in his best years like Nash... might be giving up more than he's actually worth.

Zibanejad... would the Sens be lucky if he became a Rick Nash? Maybe. I say they would be very unlucky if he didn't turn into a 30 goal guy. I'll take a complete player like Zibanejad that can score 25-30(not saying he will or won't) vs a 35 goal guy in Nash who is pretty one dimensional.

I stand by it - the team trading the player absolutely takes most of he risk. They know what they are giving up, and to help recoup that loss they try to get as much as they can. By asking for prospects that are considered to be high end, they hope they develop into a similar or better player. If they get two players that produce the same numbers, it all works out.

The purpose is the team getting Nash (for example) improves now, while the other team is most likely going to improve, if at all, later.

And I think you are a little off on your assessment of Nash - he is as complete as you can come. He's not the most physical, but he will initiate contact. He's scary good with the puck for someone that big, and he is defensively rounded.

I have been to the past few Columbus games in Ottawa and isolate him pretty much the entire game. He is afterall my favourite player.

The risk is all Columbus' for sure, not saying otherwise. My point was the "they would be lucky if they became this" stuff doesn't hold a lot of weight with high end draft picks because it would be unlucky if they didnt become something very similar to Nash.

I don't think it is unreasonable to think Zibanejad average season should be in the ball park as Nash average seasons.

As for Nash being a complete player, his defense zone coverage is lacking, he's not overly hard on the back check, and he's not overly tough to play against or at least hasn't been for some time now.

NEELY wrote:
If Lehner is the piece they truly want for Nash... I don't see how you don't make that move. You add Nash to your lineup without taking taking a top 6 forward or top 4 D man out of it... How do you not make that trade given that the others pieces are reasonable.

If It's Lehner/Foligno/1st/mid tier prospect... you do it.

All of this is off the assumption salary isn't an issue either.

Because Lehner is everything we've ever wanted here in Ottawa, from his attitude to his skills to his 'cocky' demeanour. I view him as the most important bridge from Anderson to our next starter - especially given the almost too perfect timeline where Lehner would get one more year in the AHL, then 2 years as backup to Anderson, then to the starter role with as much mentoring as the Sens organization can heap on him. I bet he'd be the backbone to our franchise, a Henrik Lundqvist behind a much better team than the Rangers have.

Of all the people, I would expect you to understand my burning desire to keep Lehner, even if it means Nash is off the table.

SpezDispenser wrote:

NEELY wrote:
If Lehner is the piece they truly want for Nash... I don't see how you don't make that move. You add Nash to your lineup without taking taking a top 6 forward or top 4 D man out of it... How do you not make that trade given that the others pieces are reasonable.

If It's Lehner/Foligno/1st/mid tier prospect... you do it.

All of this is off the assumption salary isn't an issue either.

Because Lehner is everything we've ever wanted here in Ottawa, from his attitude to his skills to his 'cocky' demeanour. I view him as the most important bridge from Anderson to our next starter - especially given the almost too perfect timeline where Lehner would get one more year in the AHL, then 2 years as backup to Anderson, then to the starter role with as much mentoring as the Sens organization can heap on him. I bet he'd be the backbone to our franchise, a Henrik Lundqvist behind a much better team than the Rangers have.

Of all the people, I would expect you to understand my burning desire to keep Lehner, even if it means Nash is off the table.

Lehner is my favorite prospect by a mile... doesn't mean I don't make that trade. You can draft another goalie, sign for one, trade for one, w/e. Fact of the matter is Lehner isn't a roster player in Ottawa and getting a player like Nash for him is absolutely a no brainer. I love Lehner and I'm not a huge Nash fan, but I'm going to call a spade a spade here and you make that deal 100% of the time.

NEELY wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

NEELY wrote:
If Lehner is the piece they truly want for Nash... I don't see how you don't make that move. You add Nash to your lineup without taking taking a top 6 forward or top 4 D man out of it... How do you not make that trade given that the others pieces are reasonable.

If It's Lehner/Foligno/1st/mid tier prospect... you do it.

All of this is off the assumption salary isn't an issue either.

Because Lehner is everything we've ever wanted here in Ottawa, from his attitude to his skills to his 'cocky' demeanour. I view him as the most important bridge from Anderson to our next starter - especially given the almost too perfect timeline where Lehner would get one more year in the AHL, then 2 years as backup to Anderson, then to the starter role with as much mentoring as the Sens organization can heap on him. I bet he'd be the backbone to our franchise, a Henrik Lundqvist behind a much better team than the Rangers have.

Of all the people, I would expect you to understand my burning desire to keep Lehner, even if it means Nash is off the table.

Lehner is my favorite prospect by a mile... doesn't mean I don't make that trade. You can draft another goalie, sign for one, trade for one, w/e. Fact of the matter is Lehner isn't a roster player in Ottawa and getting a player like Nash for him is absolutely a no brainer. I love Lehner and I'm not a huge Nash fan, but I'm going to call a spade a spade here and you make that deal 100% of the time.

I guess that's where we differ. I see a young Lundqvist in Lehner and I don't want to let that go - especially in this goalie graveyard.

I see a goaltender with every single chance to be a star. I also see a goaltender than has never been the #1 guy for an entire season. You risk losing out on a Nash deal for a goaltender than has never been able to establish himself as a #1 aside from playing in SSM.

NEELY wrote:I see a goaltender with every single chance to be a star. I also see a goaltender than has never been the #1 guy for an entire season. You risk losing out on a Nash deal for a goaltender than has never been able to establish himself as a #1 aside from playing in SSM.

Please, please, please let us wait until we re-assess him this year with a renewed Bingo squad. Rick Nash's come around once in a while, Lundqvist's don't, that's all I'm saying...