Trade Deadline Discussion

[dbr]

I just can't stomach that cap hit for a player that I think could be our fourth-best forward a lot of nights.

If we were in the position the Bruins or Preds or Blues or even the Rangers or Red Wings are in, I could see it.. but gaining Nash basically means losing quality NHL players (beyond the guy or guys that Howson needs back to justify moving his franchise player) for this team, we don't have any really bad overpayments on this team.. just lots of guys like Malhotra, Ballard etc that aren't playing up to their contracts but are still contributing.

I could get excited about a deal for Nash if we could use it to solve some other problems with the team, but the BJs would be crazy to pull the trigger on something like that. So, unless Nash is going to start playing like a $7.8m player I just don't see it being a great move for the Canucks.

[Uncle dans leg]

Count me in favour of a trade for Nash built around Cory Schneider.
S_C

How about Luongo for Nash? The cap hit is higher but the term is shorter. It would get us out of our own sort of pickle and might just help the Jackets as well. I doubt Luongo wants to go there enough to waive his NTC though and I cant see the Canucks adding another huge contract without dumping Luongo.
If I'm Howson I definitely want CS more. His youth and potential is what brings him into trade discussions for superstars.

[Southern_Canuck]

I guess the question is, what "kind of player" is Rick Nash? Is he an elite power forward like Neely, Perry, and Bertuzzi in his prime, or is he a middling power forward, like Backes, Doan, Malone, Morrow?

Probably he falls somewhere in between the two groups, but his contract is squarely in the elite category. The point of "acquiring" a player like that is to make hay during those years that he's got a cheap entry-level contract, not when he's the 5-th highest paid player in the league and on pace for 60 points.

Put it this way: could you see the Canucks spending that kind of money for the 4th-best forward on the team? If it was a straight-up trade of Kesler for Nash, and bearing in mind the cap, would you do it? Both are some-time 40 goal forwards after all.

To me it's not easy to sum it up that he would be the 4th best forward - it's kind of apples and oranges. Nash is not a puck possesion playmaker like Henrik, or a blend of elite playmaker and scorer like Daniel - or a top two-way forward like Kesler. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be as valuable to the team bringing his skill set. He is just a completely different kind of player than the Canucks have currently. The closest one is Kesler. When Nash drives the net he is often unstoppable because of his size, strength, and skill - the Canucks have Booth that does this, but he is smaller and is a "light" version of Nash.

I wouldn't trade Kesler for Nash, but I would consider Schneider, Schroeder, Ballard, and a 1st.

Would that be enough? I don't know.

S_C

[Southern_Canuck]

I just can't stomach that cap hit for a player that I think could be our fourth-best forward a lot of nights.

Jeesh, the Canucks' third highest cap-hit defenceman is in the pressbox some nights - what are you worried about?

Consider this - the cap will continue to rise, and by the end of Nash's contract, players like Leino and Upshall will be getting $7.8M...! OK, an exaggeration, but if not now when the Canucks have a legitimate window to challenge for the Stanley Cup - when will the Canucks ever get a chance at a player like Nash?

As for "4th best forward", I would instead rank him as the 1st best power forward, and as I was trying to explain in my previous post - it takes a mixture of forwards to get the winning edge, and Nash fills a gaping hole on the Canucks.

I could get excited about a deal for Nash if we could use it to solve some other problems with the team, but the BJs would be crazy to pull the trigger on something like that. So, unless Nash is going to start playing like a $7.8m player I just don't see it being a great move for the Canucks.

Do you think that Nash would look more like a $7.8M player if he were surrounded by more talented players than what Columbus ices? I do. Plus, let's be honest, part of that salary is for being big and skilled. It isn't every big guy that is blessed with Nash's talent.

I doubt a trade actually happens, however Nash may be the move that puts the Canucks over the top to be able to win the Stanley Cup.

S_C

[RoyalDude]

but I would consider Schneider, Schroeder, Ballard, and a 1st.

Would that be enough? I don't know.

S_C

That deal wouldn't work SC. Not enough coming off our books. An expensive forward who isn't The Sedins or Kesler would have to go and we all know who that is - the Dumb Blonde David 'the Rapture' Booth. You clear both Ballard and Booth, replace Ballard with Tanev in comes Nash, deal done. Makes total sense. Is Nash/Tanev better than Booth/Ballard? Fuckin eh! Lord Stanley here we come.

[Uncle dans leg]

the Dumb Blonde David 'the Rapture' Booth.

That really is funny

[tantalum]

If you have Schneider, Ballard, and Raymond going the other way for Nash and Sanford for instance it pretty much fits. But you have to be confident with a Tanev, Rome and Alberts 5-7 on the blueline.

Jesus scored again btw.

[Island Nucklehead]

but I would consider Schneider, Schroeder, Ballard, and a 1st.

Would that be enough? I don't know.

S_C

That deal wouldn't work SC. Not enough coming off our books. An expensive forward who isn't The Sedins or Kesler would have to go and we all know who that is - the Dumb Blonde David 'the Rapture' Booth. You clear both Ballard and Booth, replace Ballard with Tanev in comes Nash, deal done. Makes total sense. Is Nash/Tanev better than Booth/Ballard? Fuckin eh! Lord Stanley here we come.

Hate to point this out... Booths 29.5G pace with Vancouver is better than Nash's 25 goal pace with Columbus. Rick Nash is putting up Alex Burrows numbers with a LEAGUE worst -22 rating.

25 goals for 7.8M . You're nuts if you want that... David Booth is far and away a better option for the Canucks than Rick Nash. And that's without the sheer lunacy of giving up Schneider, Schroeder, Ballard and a first for him.We have our core "franchise" forwards. Sedins and Kesler. Rick Nash is a Kovalchuk. He'll make big bucks and put up some stats, but he's not going to be on a winner.

[spooner]

If Nash had been a UFA last summer, I would not have wanted to sign him to a long-term contract at $7.8m per so ... I definitely have a hard time believing its a good move to trade valuable assets for that player on the same horrible contract.

I understand some may argue that Nash could be the piece that puts this team over the top. For starters, I don't agree with that assumption - Nash brings scoring and this team can already score. If there is a hole on this team that is worth moving significant assets to fill then it is in the depth at D.

Secondly - Gillis and Co have, in my opinion, done a very good job of building this team with objective of having a long window in which to win a cup. I love that approach because everything (health, bounces, ups an downs) has to go your way to win a championship and the best way to deal with that "luck" factor is to build a team that can knock on the door for a bunch of years. Bringing in a forward with a $7.8m cap hit is counter to that approach. It would partly undo the great job Gillis did in signing most of the key players to deals below market value. It would also mean that we'd likely have to lose 2 of Hodgson, Edler, and Burrows.

The only way the deal makes sense to me is if they could somehow ship Nash out in the off-season for a super stud D or a decent top 4 D and some cap space so we can extend Burrows and Edler, and give Hodgson the raise he'll deserve if he continues at the same trajectory. If Nash laid an egg in the playoffs then we'd be stuck with his contract and all of the reasons not to do the trade would still hold true.

[Island Nucklehead]

Gotta have more Cowbell, Baby!

Totally true. Gillis' philosophy is built on depth. He's got three forwards better than Nash already. Why do you want to add a guy that makes almost as much as Daniel and Burrows combined? A guy that puts up Burrows numbers for nearly $8M on the cap. Nash could be a reclamation project, a la David Booth. A 25 goal guy this season that has the potential and talent to be a 45-50 goal guy. The problem is the contract. It's certainly NOT worth the risk. You can swallow a top-6/top-4 contract (Booth/Ballard) when you have others performing above their deals. You CANNOT hide a 7.8M underachiever. That's what Rick Nash is.

It's ridiculous. Rick Nash is a talented player. He's NOT worth 7.8M. He's a $6M player that got paid HUGE to stay on a shitty team. Why does anyone want to pay him HUGE to play for a contender?

[mr perfect]

Rick Nash - I used to think he was a one dimensional player until I saw Columbus play the Canucks three years ago. He is anything but. He skates well, does move the puck into the offensive zone and goes for the net. He is strong as a bull and was able to power around Matthias Ohlund to score a goal when I saw him. Had he been with the Canucks last Stanley Cup, they would have scored more than 8 goals against the Bruins and possibly the Cup would be here in the Lower Mainland. Now, if I'm Columbus GM and Vancouver comes a-calling, I wouldn't settle for than less Schneider, Hodgson, Edler and a first rounder. So no, I don't see Nash coming soon to the Canucks. There's also the problem of fitting his cap hit under the salary cap which could result in the Canucks losing much needed depth for a playoffs run.

Oh and even if the BJs would do a Luongo for Nash trade, there's no flogging way RL would waive his NTC to go to Columbus.

[ESQ]

If Nash had been a UFA last summer, I would not have wanted to sign him to a long-term contract at $7.8m per so ... I definitely have a hard time believing its a good move to trade valuable assets for that player on the same horrible contract.

Well put. I totally agree with this. Nash's contract probably has about a $1.5million/year premium for staying in Columbus, which no other team would have given him.

If there is a hole on this team that is worth moving significant assets to fill then it is in the depth at D.

Again, totally agree. I would want to see the blockbuster trade that seriously changes the structure of the team if its for a #1 dman (who's named after a bbq).

Secondly - Gillis and Co have, in my opinion, done a very good job of building this team with objective of having a long window in which to win a cup.

This is what makes me so curious about who lands him. I would bet that any team that takes him on will end up regretting it in terms of what they have to give up. I would imagine it would be like Kovalchuk in New Jersey, although he's finally come around after 1.5 seasons.

Do you think that Nash would look more like a $7.8M player if he were surrounded by more talented players than what Columbus ices? I do.

You are likely correct, but he won't look like a $7.8 mil player, at best he'll look like a $5.5 mil player. And I agree he brings something the Canucks don't have, but I just don't agree that he brings something the Canucks "need" or is a "Glaring weakness".

[Jovocop]

Rick Nash - I used to think he was a one dimensional player until I saw Columbus play the Canucks three years ago. He is anything but. He skates well, does move the puck into the offensive zone and goes for the net. He is strong as a bull and was able to power around Matthias Ohlund to score a goal when I saw him. Had he been with the Canucks last Stanley Cup, they would have scored more than 8 goals against the Bruins and possibly the Cup would be here in the Lower Mainland. Now, if I'm Columbus GM and Vancouver comes a-calling, I wouldn't settle for than less Schneider, Hodgson, Edler and a first rounder. So no, I don't see Nash coming soon to the Canucks. There's also the problem of fitting his cap hit under the salary cap which could result in the Canucks losing much needed depth for a playoffs run.

Oh and even if the BJs would do a Luongo for Nash trade, there's no flogging way RL would waive his NTC to go to Columbus.

That is the key. He was a very good player three years ago. However, he is getting too comfortable on a losing team for all his NHL career. It is going to take him a long time to adjust to the Canucks system. If this is a off-season acquisition with a lower cap hit, I am all for it. However, at the tail end of the regular season and with a $7.8m cap hit for 6 more years, I would not want him, especially costing the Canucks Schneider/Hodgson, Ballard, Booth & a 1st round pick.

[damonberryman]

I think Nash may be the only player playing wing who might be worth his contract. For my money he is the best natural goal scorer I have seen since Bossy. Put Nash on a team that wins and he will lead the NHL in goals scored I believe. Big, fast and loyal apparently, judging by his time in the black hole known as Columbus. I also like the bit I have seen from Vermette on the BJ's. A trade to a winner would show us all what the dude can do but unfortunately he is not for us. Too much team chemistry at stake plus they are going to want Hodgson as well as prospects and draft choices. I suspect LA will get him if anyone does.They have the prospects and Bernier and they need what Nash does. If the Rangers get him and Crosby does not come back for the playoffs, it will be NY from the East. They might be unstoppable with Nash. Interesting to see who they would give up. If I am Howson I hold out for Callahan to start and then the rangers are risking their chemistry big time. Others would include Stepan, Girardi and draft choices, as Nash will bring a bundle.

[Reefer2]

Consider this - the cap will continue to rise, and by the end of Nash's contract, players like Leino and Upshall will be getting $7.8M...! OK, an exaggeration, but if not now when the Canucks have a legitimate window to challenge for the Stanley Cup - when will the Canucks ever get a chance at a player like Nash?


S_C

I am hearing that the cap will not continue to go up and teams have to look at seeing a decrease. This is based upon the calculation they use to determine cap hit. The owners want a lower % of money to go to the players. I am not sure what it is now but they have used the NBA and NFL as examples where owners were able to better manage cap and $$ going toward the the players.

In the last cap they reduced all players salaries by a certain %, this time around I don't think that will happen and teams who are now over the cap will just have to make trades to get under.