What does it take to get Nash?

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.

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.

Oglethorpe wrote: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.

Riprock wrote:It's subjective. Yes, B-Dubs has a higher PPG, scores more, has produced more, but he comes at a higher cap hit, and is one year older, and under a longer deal. Columbus might prefer an RFA in Foligno they can control.

I agree with Kreider - no way the Rangers trade him. I've maintained that all along.

Oglethorpe wrote: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.

NEELY wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote: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.

To who? Bishop has a chance to be a #1 goaltender and to a team like Columbus who doesn't have anything resembling one anywhere in the organization Bishop has A LOT more value than Del Zotto. I would say with any team Bishop has more value than Del Zotto.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Riprock wrote:It's subjective. Yes, B-Dubs has a higher PPG, scores more, has produced more, but he comes at a higher cap hit, and is one year older, and under a longer deal. Columbus might prefer an RFA in Foligno they can control.

I agree with Kreider - no way the Rangers trade him. I've maintained that all along.

What you're talking about there is overall value and that's where Foligno really separates himself from Dubinsky, IMO.

As for Simmonds, he has room to grow but so does young Foligno. A team like CBJ puts him on the 1st line and he can really come into his own.

Hoags wrote:Still don't think will waive for Ottawa so it doesn't really matter what we offer. Our offer is being used to solicit better ones from teams he will go to.

hemlock wrote:

Hoags wrote:Still don't think will waive for Ottawa so it doesn't really matter what we offer. Our offer is being used to solicit better ones from teams he will go to.

This. And I hope Murray has enough sense to not devote too much time to this (what could be) fruitless effort. Move on to one of the other gamebreaking young forwards out there!

SpezDispenser wrote:I agree with the sentiment that we have nothing that matches Simmonds, that guy is amazing.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I agree with the sentiment that we have nothing that matches Simmonds, that guy is amazing.

You say that in light of a career year from him, but on the day of the trade, there wasn't a lot, if anything, separating Simmonds (then) from Foligno (then/now). Simmonds just got more opportunity to play in PHI, and he capitalized on it.

Simmonds:
2008-09 Los Angeles Kings NHL 82 games 9 G 14 A 23 P 73 PIM -8 +/-
2009-10 Los Angeles Kings NHL 78 games 16 G 24 A 40 P 116 PIM 22 +/-
2010-11 Los Angeles Kings NHL 80 games 14 G 16 A 30 P 75 PIM -2 +/-

Foligno:
2008-09 Ottawa Senators NHL 81 games 17 G 15 A 32 P 59 PIM -10 +/-
2009-10 Ottawa Senators NHL 61 games 9 G 17 A 26 P 53 PIM 6 +/-
2010-11 Ottawa Senators NHL 82 games 14 G 20 A 34 P 43 PIM -19 +/-
2011-12 Ottawa Senators NHL 82 games 15 G 32 A 47 P 124 PIM 2 +/-

Both players entered the league in the same year, too.

NEELY wrote:Yah I think Simmonds aside from stats brings a speed and physical game that Foligno doesn't. Stat wise they might be a bit similar, even Foligno ahead a little but I don't think it's really that hard to figure out which player is the better at this point and probably has a better future.

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Yah I think Simmonds aside from stats brings a speed and physical game that Foligno doesn't. Stat wise they might be a bit similar, even Foligno ahead a little but I don't think it's really that hard to figure out which player is the better at this point and probably has a better future.

No, I agree. I'm just saying when that Richards trade went down last year, no one knew (and certainly very few predicted) that Simmonds would be putting up close to 30 goals the next year. Hindsight is 20/20, and I think that's factoring into people's sense of value, re: Simmonds then and Foligno then/now. It's closer than people are making it out to sound.