What does it take to get Nash?

SpezDispenser wrote:

shabbs wrote:Boys on Hockeycentral @ noon confirming, once again, that Ottawa is NOT on Rick Nash's list. And that the "list" will not change if the trade deadline comes and goes... in other words: he ain't coming to Ottawa. This is why the deal has not gone through. Seems to be the only "hold up" in a deal.

San Jose seems to make the most sense to them for a Nash trading partner.

...and that's that then. Another guy to possible avoid is Bobby Ryan, especially if he's saying he wants to play for the Flyers.

As mentioned, I think this team needs to be pieced together slowly and carefully - and that probably includes indoctrinating Zibanejad, Silfverberg and Stone into the lineup this year. I think the onus is on Murray to move one of Foligno or Smith + perhaps a pick or a prospect for a young D-man, then past that, we buy Fat Penner and let this team grow together.

Puempel isn't chopped liver either, he has the chance to go to the OHL this season and destroy it. Same with Noesen. One step at a time....this team is on the right track with or without Nash.

Yup. Nice and slow. By the time the team is about 3 years away from being a Cup contender, "Karls" Karlsson will be UFA and will sign elsewhere because he's tired of waiting. Also, Spezza will be in a rest home by then and Michalek... crippled from multiple injuries. Chris "Philly" Phillips? Dead of old age.

shabbs wrote:How would the Sens acquiring Nash be any different than the Kings acquiring Carter or Richards? Nash wouldn't be getting a letter...

I don't think we're at the level the Kings are/were at the time of those trades, not yet anyway.

Hoags wrote:

shabbs wrote:How would the Sens acquiring Nash be any different than the Kings acquiring Carter or Richards? Nash wouldn't be getting a letter...

I don't think we're at the level the Kings are/were at the time of those trades, not yet anyway.

Agreed. We're probably slightly ahead of the Kings.

SpezDispenser wrote:

shabbs wrote:Boys on Hockeycentral @ noon confirming, once again, that Ottawa is NOT on Rick Nash's list. And that the "list" will not change if the trade deadline comes and goes... in other words: he ain't coming to Ottawa. This is why the deal has not gone through. Seems to be the only "hold up" in a deal.

San Jose seems to make the most sense to them for a Nash trading partner.

...and that's that then. Another guy to possible avoid is Bobby Ryan, especially if he's saying he wants to play for the Flyers.

As mentioned, I think this team needs to be pieced together slowly and carefully - and that probably includes indoctrinating Zibanejad, Silfverberg and Stone into the lineup this year. I think the onus is on Murray to move one of Foligno or Smith + perhaps a pick or a prospect for a young D-man, then past that, we buy Fat Penner and let this team grow together.

Puempel isn't chopped liver either, he has the chance to go to the OHL this season and destroy it. Same with Noesen. One step at a time....this team is on the right track with or without Nash.

WOuldn't be shocked to see Penner land in Pitts either. I agree with pretty much of all this. Add the right pieces, not the piece that's hot right now.

A lot can play out in 2 years but I would be willing to bet Noesen doesn't see a lot of time in the AHL if any in 13/14. Stone, Zibanejad, and Silfverberg will all be main stays. Karlsson, Cowen, Borowiecki, and Ceci will be the teams top 4. That is an insanely young lineup so they need to sign a vet outside of Phillips, Spezza, and Neil.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

shabbs wrote:Boys on Hockeycentral @ noon confirming, once again, that Ottawa is NOT on Rick Nash's list. And that the "list" will not change if the trade deadline comes and goes... in other words: he ain't coming to Ottawa. This is why the deal has not gone through. Seems to be the only "hold up" in a deal.

San Jose seems to make the most sense to them for a Nash trading partner.

...and that's that then. Another guy to possible avoid is Bobby Ryan, especially if he's saying he wants to play for the Flyers.

As mentioned, I think this team needs to be pieced together slowly and carefully - and that probably includes indoctrinating Zibanejad, Silfverberg and Stone into the lineup this year. I think the onus is on Murray to move one of Foligno or Smith + perhaps a pick or a prospect for a young D-man, then past that, we buy Fat Penner and let this team grow together.

Puempel isn't chopped liver either, he has the chance to go to the OHL this season and destroy it. Same with Noesen. One step at a time....this team is on the right track with or without Nash.

Yup. Nice and slow. By the time the team is about 3 years away from being a Cup contender, "Karls" Karlsson will be UFA and will sign elsewhere because he's tired of waiting. Also, Spezza will be in a rest home by then and Michalek... crippled from multiple injuries. Chris "Philly" Phillips? Dead of old age.

After next season, playoffs or not, you will see the Sens on top of the division and thus competing for the cup. They have absolutely every piece possible going forward, top to bottom. Pitts will be a powerhouse for a while but after that Ottawa is going to be right at the top as well.

Moves will have to be made for some more established support players like a Richards because not everyone can play in the NHL. That said, the time isnt now and next year you just see what you have with the guys who seem to be ready. Stone, Silfverberg, Zibanejad, and Borowiecki. See which guys will step up.

NEELY wrote:Hopefully but I am sure Dash will try and convince everyone (including himself) that Nash just wants to play for a winning team and that money and where he plays has nothing to do with it.

The guy is just as bad as Heatley excpet his level of play is still somewhat high. His #'s are regressing though.

So Rick Nash doesn't want to play for a winning team?

How is money a factor again? He has a contract that is guaranteed to pay him money.

If taxes are a factor, then why is it only an issue for Nash and not anyone else playing for Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg?

So you say people don't want to play in Canada, because they can save millins of dollars, but it only applies to Nash, or any "top FA" or "major name of the block", but somehow doesn't apply to Alfredsson, Spezza, etc. But I am sure you will find an excuse to say that there's a difference.

NEELY wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

shabbs wrote:Boys on Hockeycentral @ noon confirming, once again, that Ottawa is NOT on Rick Nash's list. And that the "list" will not change if the trade deadline comes and goes... in other words: he ain't coming to Ottawa. This is why the deal has not gone through. Seems to be the only "hold up" in a deal.

San Jose seems to make the most sense to them for a Nash trading partner.

...and that's that then. Another guy to possible avoid is Bobby Ryan, especially if he's saying he wants to play for the Flyers.

As mentioned, I think this team needs to be pieced together slowly and carefully - and that probably includes indoctrinating Zibanejad, Silfverberg and Stone into the lineup this year. I think the onus is on Murray to move one of Foligno or Smith + perhaps a pick or a prospect for a young D-man, then past that, we buy Fat Penner and let this team grow together.

Puempel isn't chopped liver either, he has the chance to go to the OHL this season and destroy it. Same with Noesen. One step at a time....this team is on the right track with or without Nash.

Yup. Nice and slow. By the time the team is about 3 years away from being a Cup contender, "Karls" Karlsson will be UFA and will sign elsewhere because he's tired of waiting. Also, Spezza will be in a rest home by then and Michalek... crippled from multiple injuries. Chris "Philly" Phillips? Dead of old age.

After next season, playoffs or not, you will see the Sens on top of the division and thus competing for the cup. They have absolutely every piece possible going forward, top to bottom. Pitts will be a powerhouse for a while but after that Ottawa is going to be right at the top as well.

Moves will have to be made for some more established support players like a Richards because not everyone can play in the NHL. That said, the time isnt now and next year you just see what you have with the guys who seem to be ready. Stone, Silfverberg, Zibanejad, and Borowiecki. See which guys will step up.

I'm sure we'll all have a good laugh about this at Chris "Philly" Phillipseses funeral.

Phillips will still be around I am sure but at 36, 37 people shouldn't expect a top 4 D man, that's all.

Let me see if I got this straight:

This seems to be more of an anti-Nash issue than anything else.

In general, Neely feels that Canada is not on top FA's or elite players lists because nobody would go to a city where they would lose "millions" in taxes.

Next, he says people in control of their destiny would rather go to a warmer, tropical-like city.

Then he says they want to play for a contender. San Jose, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

So, is he saying Ottawa is not a contender? If they are, then it's not a matter of winning as it is something else (taxes).

So if everyone had this mentality, there would be no Canadian teams, since it's pointless playing here, because they lose so much money to taxation.

But there are Canadian teams (7, in fact), and they have players who have re-signed, signed or accepted trades. So only those players do not care about money or winning.

So if Canadian cities do not offer a chance to win, or a chance to save money, why play for a Canadian team?

Next, it will be again anti-Nash in that only bunghole do this. So, anyone not playing for a Canadian city is an bunghole.

Brad Richards is an bunghole. Zdeno Chara, also an bunghole.

But I guess it will be argued that only Nash and Heatley are bunghole.

Riprock wrote:Let me see if I got this straight:

This seems to be more of an anti-Nash issue than anything else.

In general, Neely feels that Canada is not on top FA's or elite players lists because nobody would go to a city where they would lose "millions" in taxes.

Next, he says people in control of their destiny would rather go to a warmer, tropical-like city.

Then he says they want to play for a contender. San Jose, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

So, is he saying Ottawa is not a contender? If they are, then it's not a matter of winning as it is something else (taxes).

So if everyone had this mentality, there would be no Canadian teams, since it's pointless playing here, because they lose so much money to taxation.

But there are Canadian teams (7, in fact), and they have players who have re-signed, signed or accepted trades. So only those players do not care about money or winning.

So if Canadian cities do not offer a chance to win, or a chance to save money, why play for a Canadian team?

Next, it will be again anti-Nash in that only bunghole do this. So, anyone not playing for a Canadian city is an bunghole.

Brad Richards is an bunghole. Zdeno Chara, also an bunghole.

But I guess it will be argued that only Nash and Heatley are bunghole.

The worst offenders are Wayne "Stars and Stripes" Gretzky and Mark "Uncle Sam" Messier. But The Nasher is up there.

Riprock wrote:

NEELY wrote:Hopefully but I am sure Dash will try and convince everyone (including himself) that Nash just wants to play for a winning team and that money and where he plays has nothing to do with it.

The guy is just as bad as Heatley excpet his level of play is still somewhat high. His #'s are regressing though.

So Rick Nash doesn't want to play for a winning team?

How is money a factor again? He has a contract that is guaranteed to pay him money.

If taxes are a factor, then why is it only an issue for Nash and not anyone else playing for Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal and Winnipeg?

So you say people don't want to play in Canada, because they can save millins of dollars, but it only applies to Nash, or any "top FA" or "major name of the block", but somehow doesn't apply to Alfredsson, Spezza, etc. But I am sure you will find an excuse to say that there's a difference.

If you are established in a city that's fine, it's your home. Why don't you think big name UFA's come to Canada? Who was the last really big name to sign in any Canadian city? Gonchar? Only reason he did was because no team in the NHL would give him a 3 year deal. Camellari? Was in Canada already and was offered a stupid amount every other team refused to pay by the Canadians.

Stop trying to justify BS because of what you "believe in". Guys want to play for big money, with nice weather, away from the stupid Canadian media. Nash doesn't want to play in Canada buddy, get with it. Neither did Heatley. Neither would anyone asking for a trade that has a high profile.

Anyways, like most things you are completely out to lunch because you have a very uneducated opinion. Par for the course I guess.

Riprock wrote:Let me see if I got this straight:

This seems to be more of an anti-Nash issue than anything else.

In general, Neely feels that Canada is not on top FA's or elite players lists because nobody would go to a city where they would lose "millions" in taxes.

Next, he says people in control of their destiny would rather go to a warmer, tropical-like city.

Then he says they want to play for a contender. San Jose, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

So, is he saying Ottawa is not a contender? If they are, then it's not a matter of winning as it is something else (taxes).

So if everyone had this mentality, there would be no Canadian teams, since it's pointless playing here, because they lose so much money to taxation.

But there are Canadian teams (7, in fact), and they have players who have re-signed, signed or accepted trades. So only those players do not care about money or winning.

So if Canadian cities do not offer a chance to win, or a chance to save money, why play for a Canadian team?

Next, it will be again anti-Nash in that only bunghole do this. So, anyone not playing for a Canadian city is an bunghole.

Brad Richards is an bunghole. Zdeno Chara, also an bunghole.

But I guess it will be argued that only Nash and Heatley are bunghole.

Not everyone is Ryan Smyth, dude. How you haven't actually just looked at the past 20-25 years of hockey and not come to the conclussion that life is a little better int he US, down south, when you have money.

Get a clue man.

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:Let me see if I got this straight:

This seems to be more of an anti-Nash issue than anything else.

In general, Neely feels that Canada is not on top FA's or elite players lists because nobody would go to a city where they would lose "millions" in taxes.

Next, he says people in control of their destiny would rather go to a warmer, tropical-like city.

Then he says they want to play for a contender. San Jose, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

So, is he saying Ottawa is not a contender? If they are, then it's not a matter of winning as it is something else (taxes).

So if everyone had this mentality, there would be no Canadian teams, since it's pointless playing here, because they lose so much money to taxation.

But there are Canadian teams (7, in fact), and they have players who have re-signed, signed or accepted trades. So only those players do not care about money or winning.

So if Canadian cities do not offer a chance to win, or a chance to save money, why play for a Canadian team?

Next, it will be again anti-Nash in that only bunghole do this. So, anyone not playing for a Canadian city is an bunghole.

Brad Richards is an bunghole. Zdeno Chara, also an bunghole.

But I guess it will be argued that only Nash and Heatley are bunghole.

Not everyone is Ryan Smyth, dude. How you haven't actually just looked at the past 20-25 years of hockey and not come to the conclussion that life is a little better int he US, down south, when you have money.

Get a clue man.

You don't even really need money. You can have a nice steak dinner and all you can eat hot buffet at the Ponderosa for about 4 bucks.

Point being is a dollar gets you a lot more in the US then it does in Canada. Yah, for every day citizens Canada is a better place to be for a lot of reasons. For a rich athlete that doesn't make their home in Canada, lol, no one is coming to any Canadian team, especially not Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, or Winnipeg.

NEELY wrote:
If you are established in a city that's fine, it's your home. Why don't you think big name UFA's come to Canada? Who was the last really big name to sign in any Canadian city? Gonchar? Only reason he did was because no team in the NHL would give him a 3 year deal. Camellari? Was in Canada already and was offered a stupid amount every other team refused to pay by the Canadians.

So because there are few examples of FA's signing in canada, that is your argument. But when a player re-signs, it is different, because they might as well stay since they are already there. But when players leave non-Canadian cities for a different one after many years, its not the same.

Stop trying to justify BS because of what you "believe in". Guys want to play for big money, with nice weather, away from the stupid Canadian media. Nash doesn't want to play in Canada buddy, get with it. Neither did Heatley. Neither would anyone asking for a trade that has a high profile.

It's not what I believe in, I am making a valid argument, something you have never done. In fact, if anyone is arguing from belief, it's you. It is your belief that nobody signs in Canada. It's your belief people prefer warm climates over typical Canadian ones. So is it only justifiable for you to have beliefs and nobody else?

Anyways, like most things you are completely out to lunch because you have a very uneducated opinion. Par for the course I guess.

Again, because I have a different argument than you, I am automatically wrong. What is uneducated about my argument? That I broke your argument down and contradicted you, so you personally attack me?

NEELY wrote:

Riprock wrote:Let me see if I got this straight:

This seems to be more of an anti-Nash issue than anything else.

In general, Neely feels that Canada is not on top FA's or elite players lists because nobody would go to a city where they would lose "millions" in taxes.

Next, he says people in control of their destiny would rather go to a warmer, tropical-like city.

Then he says they want to play for a contender. San Jose, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.

So, is he saying Ottawa is not a contender? If they are, then it's not a matter of winning as it is something else (taxes).

So if everyone had this mentality, there would be no Canadian teams, since it's pointless playing here, because they lose so much money to taxation.

But there are Canadian teams (7, in fact), and they have players who have re-signed, signed or accepted trades. So only those players do not care about money or winning.

So if Canadian cities do not offer a chance to win, or a chance to save money, why play for a Canadian team?

Next, it will be again anti-Nash in that only bunghole do this. So, anyone not playing for a Canadian city is an bunghole.

Brad Richards is an bunghole. Zdeno Chara, also an bunghole.

But I guess it will be argued that only Nash and Heatley are bunghole.

Not everyone is Ryan Smyth, dude. How you haven't actually just looked at the past 20-25 years of hockey and not come to the conclussion that life is a little better int he US, down south, when you have money.

Get a clue man.

So, again, by your arguments, everyone that is playing for a Canadian city, by choice, is dumb. I mean, how could you defend your argument from that? You said yourself you'd be stupid as a rich athlete to live in Canada.

Oh and I forgot, if you make your home in an American city with a climate similar to that of a Canadian city, it's ok to move because the US > Canada.

But if you made Canada a home, you are better to stay there. Even though the same rules apply, that USA>Canada.