What does it take to get Nash?

NEELY wrote:A 7.8 mil back loaded contract is a ton to take on. If ANYTHING goes wrong with Nash in Ottawa or anywhere for that matter the team that is stuck with him is in a lot of trouble.

He's owe somewhere around 40 million right now...

Which is the reason, to me, why no one will meet Howsen's ridiculous demands. Guy wants to make up for years of poor management with one trade -- it's just not happening. Those huge, long contracts, especially when signed by players at 27+ years old, hold negative value, regardless of who signed them.

I still want him in Ottawa

According to The Hockey News, the list of teams Nash would go to are:

New York Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, San Jose Sharks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Boston Bruins, Detroit Red Wings and Chicago Blackhawks

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/21/sens-push-for-nash

As of 11pm Calgary time last night, so early this AM,...

Sens still very much interested.

“We have talked to them about the availability of Nash. We have said we have interest,” assistant GM Tim Murray said Thursday. “With the prospects we have, if we decided to jump in full bore, I think we have as good a package as anybody.”

Riprock wrote:http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/21/sens-push-for-nash

As of 11pm Calgary time last night, so early this AM,...

Sens still very much interested.

“We have talked to them about the availability of Nash. We have said we have interest,” assistant GM Tim Murray said Thursday. “With the prospects we have, if we decided to jump in full bore, I think we have as good a package as anybody.”

Thanks, Tim Murray, for repeating what I've been saying all along.

Riprock wrote:http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/21/sens-push-for-nash

As of 11pm Calgary time last night, so early this AM,...

Sens still very much interested.

“We have talked to them about the availability of Nash. We have said we have interest,” assistant GM Tim Murray said Thursday. “With the prospects we have, if we decided to jump in full bore, I think we have as good a package as anybody.”

Look closely at who is credited with the story.

As mentioned, if he really doesn't want to come here, then Diddle spending all those assets and pleading with him to waive.

hemlock wrote:

Riprock wrote:http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/21/sens-push-for-nash

As of 11pm Calgary time last night, so early this AM,...

Sens still very much interested.

“We have talked to them about the availability of Nash. We have said we have interest,” assistant GM Tim Murray said Thursday. “With the prospects we have, if we decided to jump in full bore, I think we have as good a package as anybody.”

Look closely at who is credited with the story.

Without clicking on the link I'm gonna go ahead and say CheapShots Brennan?

SpezDispenser wrote:As mentioned, if he really doesn't want to come here, then Diddle spending all those assets and pleading with him to waive.

How are the assets spent if the trade doesn't happen?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Riprock wrote:http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/21/sens-push-for-nash

As of 11pm Calgary time last night, so early this AM,...

Sens still very much interested.

“We have talked to them about the availability of Nash. We have said we have interest,” assistant GM Tim Murray said Thursday. “With the prospects we have, if we decided to jump in full bore, I think we have as good a package as anybody.”

Look closely at who is credited with the story.

Without clicking on the link I'm gonna go ahead and say CheapShots Brennan?

And without looking, you'd be correct.

How does Don Brennan writing an article make Tim Murray's quote any less credible? You guys are ridiculous.

Sens wouldn't be interested if Nash wasn't. If they were told flat out Nash wasn't interested, then why would they still say they are interested as of last night? They would hve known they were out days/weeks ago.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:As mentioned, if he really doesn't want to come here, then Diddle spending all those assets and pleading with him to waive.

How are the assets spent if the trade doesn't happen?

Murray will find something. He's all his fingers in all the proper bungholes as they say.

Riprock wrote:I still want him in Ottawa

I don't disagree. I just don't think it should take all our prospects in Bingo and all our draft picks for this year to get it done.

Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation for a trade, if you ask me, considering the size of Nash's contract and the cap / cash relief we'd be offering. That should be the high end, or close to it, in terms of pieces we give up. Wiercioch, yeah, I guess, if a guy like Methot is coming back. The first, only if one of their 2nds is coming back, so, as N4L says, we can get a goalie at the draft.

I think back to every trade that involved a big name player on a big, long contract, and the price paid always seems to be a little less than you'd expect:

M. Richards --> Simmonds (young roster player, tweener) , early 1st rounder, Schenn (top prospect)
Carter --> Vorachek (young roster player, 2nd liner or tweener), early 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Horton (and Campbel) --> Wideman (arguably top 4 D), mid 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Heatley --> Michalek (young roster player, top 6er), Cheechoo (cap dump), 2nd rounder
B. Richards (and Holmqvist) --> Mike Smith (good young goalie), Jussi Jokinen (at the time, a decent young tweener), Jeff Halpern (a vet, 3rd/4th line grinder), and a 4th rounder
Pronger --> Lupul (young roster player, top 6er, but with baggage), 2 late 1sts, Sbisa (high-end prospect)

Granted, Heatley's situation was rather unique, and Nash's value is definitely closer to M. Richards and Pronger than anyone else above, but history shows us that it always takes a little less to seal the deal for big name players than you'd think.

Is Bishop's worth at least what Lindback's (2 2nds, a 3rd) is right now? I'd say so. If he's not worth a mid to late first rounder, it's pretty close -- I'd say that his cheap 1-yr deal and impending RFA status only add to his value. Zibanejad holds similar value to guys like Schenn -- top 6 pick, highly and league-wide touted prospect. Foligno probably holds less value than either Simmonds or Vorachek, but I don't think it's that far off: Folingo is an RFA for another two years, will be affordable, is a good tweener, and bring a physical element (I just noticed, for instance, that he had 124 PIM this year -- guy is cranking up this part of his game for sure).

If NYR offers Dubinsky, Kreider, and Del Zotto, are we really that far off, if at all? I don't think so. Dubinsky is on a big contract and underperforming, so I don't think he's all that much more valuable than Foligno; Kreider and Zibanejad are at best a wash; and Del Zotto and Bishop hold about similar value, I'd say, but CLB clearly needs a goalie.

I think people are overestimating what it will take to get Nash, in the end. Getting out from that cap hit and that contract is part of the return, and has to be factored in. You look at all those above deals, and it's a hard conclusion to avoid. Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation -- you probably have to make a few small additions there, but no other major pieces should be added without other pieces of slightly less value coming back to us (i.e., our first for their 2nd, our Wiercioch for their Methot, etc.).

It's not going to cost Ottawa the farm, and they aren't going to pay if it does, so no worries there.

I'm fine with the "alleged proposed offer".

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:I still want him in Ottawa

I don't disagree. I just don't think it should take all our prospects in Bingo and all our draft picks for this year to get it done.

Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation for a trade, if you ask me, considering the size of Nash's contract and the cap / cash relief we'd be offering. That should be the high end, or close to it, in terms of pieces we give up. Wiercioch, yeah, I guess, if a guy like Methot is coming back. The first, only if one of their 2nds is coming back, so, as N4L says, we can get a goalie at the draft.

I think back to every trade that involved a big name player on a big, long contract, and the price paid always seems to be a little less than you'd expect:

M. Richards --> Simmonds (young roster player, tweener) , early 1st rounder, Schenn (top prospect)
Carter --> Vorachek (young roster player, 2nd liner or tweener), early 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Horton (and Campbel) --> Wideman (arguably top 4 D), mid 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Heatley --> Michalek (young roster player, top 6er), Cheechoo (cap dump), 2nd rounder
B. Richards (and Holmqvist) --> Mike Smith (good young goalie), Jussi Jokinen (at the time, a decent young tweener), Jeff Halpern (a vet, 3rd/4th line grinder), and a 4th rounder
Pronger --> Lupul (young roster player, top 6er, but with baggage), 2 late 1sts, Sbisa (high-end prospect)

Granted, Heatley's situation was rather unique, and Nash's value is definitely closer to M. Richards and Pronger than anyone else above, but history shows us that it always takes a little less to seal the deal for big name players than you'd think.

Is Bishop's worth at least what Lindback's (2 2nds, a 3rd) is right now? I'd say so. If he's not worth a mid to late first rounder, it's pretty close -- I'd say that his cheap 1-yr deal and impending RFA status only add to his value. Zibanejad holds similar value to guys like Schenn -- top 6 pick, highly and league-wide touted prospect. Foligno probably holds less value than either Simmonds or Vorachek, but I don't think it's that far off: Folingo is an RFA for another two years, will be affordable, is a good tweener, and bring a physical element (I just noticed, for instance, that he had 124 PIM this year -- guy is cranking up this part of his game for sure).

If NYR offers Dubinsky, Kreider, and Del Zotto, are we really that far off, if at all? I don't think so. Dubinsky is on a big contract and underperforming, so I don't think he's all that much more valuable than Foligno; Kreider and Zibanejad are at best a wash; and Del Zotto and Bishop hold about similar value, I'd say, but CLB clearly needs a goalie.

I think people are overestimating what it will take to get Nash, in the end. Getting out from that cap hit and that contract is part of the return, and has to be factored in. You look at all those above deals, and it's a hard conclusion to avoid. Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation -- you probably have to make a few small additions there, but no other major pieces should be added without other pieces of slightly less value coming back to us (i.e., our first for their 2nd, our Wiercioch for their Methot, etc.).

I agree with this entirely, except for the Del Zotto and Bishop having similar value. I think Del Zotto is worth more as he's more proven. Just my 2 cents.

Value wise I think

Dubinsky >> Foligno - Foligno is cheaper but Dubinsky has proven more.
Kreider > Zibanejad - Kreider, while not drafted as high is probably untouchable in New York.
Del Zotto >> Bishop - Del Zotto has really improved, while Bishop is still basically unproven at the NHL level.

hemlock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:I still want him in Ottawa

I don't disagree. I just don't think it should take all our prospects in Bingo and all our draft picks for this year to get it done.

Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation for a trade, if you ask me, considering the size of Nash's contract and the cap / cash relief we'd be offering. That should be the high end, or close to it, in terms of pieces we give up. Wiercioch, yeah, I guess, if a guy like Methot is coming back. The first, only if one of their 2nds is coming back, so, as N4L says, we can get a goalie at the draft.

I think back to every trade that involved a big name player on a big, long contract, and the price paid always seems to be a little less than you'd expect:

M. Richards --> Simmonds (young roster player, tweener) , early 1st rounder, Schenn (top prospect)
Carter --> Vorachek (young roster player, 2nd liner or tweener), early 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Horton (and Campbel) --> Wideman (arguably top 4 D), mid 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Heatley --> Michalek (young roster player, top 6er), Cheechoo (cap dump), 2nd rounder
B. Richards (and Holmqvist) --> Mike Smith (good young goalie), Jussi Jokinen (at the time, a decent young tweener), Jeff Halpern (a vet, 3rd/4th line grinder), and a 4th rounder
Pronger --> Lupul (young roster player, top 6er, but with baggage), 2 late 1sts, Sbisa (high-end prospect)

Granted, Heatley's situation was rather unique, and Nash's value is definitely closer to M. Richards and Pronger than anyone else above, but history shows us that it always takes a little less to seal the deal for big name players than you'd think.

Is Bishop's worth at least what Lindback's (2 2nds, a 3rd) is right now? I'd say so. If he's not worth a mid to late first rounder, it's pretty close -- I'd say that his cheap 1-yr deal and impending RFA status only add to his value. Zibanejad holds similar value to guys like Schenn -- top 6 pick, highly and league-wide touted prospect. Foligno probably holds less value than either Simmonds or Vorachek, but I don't think it's that far off: Folingo is an RFA for another two years, will be affordable, is a good tweener, and bring a physical element (I just noticed, for instance, that he had 124 PIM this year -- guy is cranking up this part of his game for sure).

If NYR offers Dubinsky, Kreider, and Del Zotto, are we really that far off, if at all? I don't think so. Dubinsky is on a big contract and underperforming, so I don't think he's all that much more valuable than Foligno; Kreider and Zibanejad are at best a wash; and Del Zotto and Bishop hold about similar value, I'd say, but CLB clearly needs a goalie.

I think people are overestimating what it will take to get Nash, in the end. Getting out from that cap hit and that contract is part of the return, and has to be factored in. You look at all those above deals, and it's a hard conclusion to avoid. Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation -- you probably have to make a few small additions there, but no other major pieces should be added without other pieces of slightly less value coming back to us (i.e., our first for their 2nd, our Wiercioch for their Methot, etc.).

I agree with this entirely, except for the Del Zotto and Bishop having similar value. I think Del Zotto is worth more as he's more proven. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with the DelZotto v. Bishop valuation directly above but I give the edge to Foligno v. Dubinsky. Foligno is a damn good player hiding in plain sight. To say a guy like Simmonds or Dubinsky are a lot better than him is nonsense.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

hemlock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:I still want him in Ottawa

I don't disagree. I just don't think it should take all our prospects in Bingo and all our draft picks for this year to get it done.

Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation for a trade, if you ask me, considering the size of Nash's contract and the cap / cash relief we'd be offering. That should be the high end, or close to it, in terms of pieces we give up. Wiercioch, yeah, I guess, if a guy like Methot is coming back. The first, only if one of their 2nds is coming back, so, as N4L says, we can get a goalie at the draft.

I think back to every trade that involved a big name player on a big, long contract, and the price paid always seems to be a little less than you'd expect:

M. Richards --> Simmonds (young roster player, tweener) , early 1st rounder, Schenn (top prospect)
Carter --> Vorachek (young roster player, 2nd liner or tweener), early 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Horton (and Campbel) --> Wideman (arguably top 4 D), mid 1st rounder, 3rd rounder
Heatley --> Michalek (young roster player, top 6er), Cheechoo (cap dump), 2nd rounder
B. Richards (and Holmqvist) --> Mike Smith (good young goalie), Jussi Jokinen (at the time, a decent young tweener), Jeff Halpern (a vet, 3rd/4th line grinder), and a 4th rounder
Pronger --> Lupul (young roster player, top 6er, but with baggage), 2 late 1sts, Sbisa (high-end prospect)

Granted, Heatley's situation was rather unique, and Nash's value is definitely closer to M. Richards and Pronger than anyone else above, but history shows us that it always takes a little less to seal the deal for big name players than you'd think.

Is Bishop's worth at least what Lindback's (2 2nds, a 3rd) is right now? I'd say so. If he's not worth a mid to late first rounder, it's pretty close -- I'd say that his cheap 1-yr deal and impending RFA status only add to his value. Zibanejad holds similar value to guys like Schenn -- top 6 pick, highly and league-wide touted prospect. Foligno probably holds less value than either Simmonds or Vorachek, but I don't think it's that far off: Folingo is an RFA for another two years, will be affordable, is a good tweener, and bring a physical element (I just noticed, for instance, that he had 124 PIM this year -- guy is cranking up this part of his game for sure).

If NYR offers Dubinsky, Kreider, and Del Zotto, are we really that far off, if at all? I don't think so. Dubinsky is on a big contract and underperforming, so I don't think he's all that much more valuable than Foligno; Kreider and Zibanejad are at best a wash; and Del Zotto and Bishop hold about similar value, I'd say, but CLB clearly needs a goalie.

I think people are overestimating what it will take to get Nash, in the end. Getting out from that cap hit and that contract is part of the return, and has to be factored in. You look at all those above deals, and it's a hard conclusion to avoid. Zibanejad + Bishop + Foligno is a strong foundation -- you probably have to make a few small additions there, but no other major pieces should be added without other pieces of slightly less value coming back to us (i.e., our first for their 2nd, our Wiercioch for their Methot, etc.).

I agree with this entirely, except for the Del Zotto and Bishop having similar value. I think Del Zotto is worth more as he's more proven. Just my 2 cents.

I agree with the DelZotto v. Bishop valuation directly above but I give the edge to Foligno v. Dubinsky. Foligno is a damn good player hiding in plain sight. To say a guy like Simmonds or Dubinsky are a lot better than him is nonsense.

Dubinsky I agree is not better, but Simmonds is an animal. He's still got a lot of room for growth in my opinion.