Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:03 pm

Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Reasons why the Canucks should get Rick Nash:

1) The Canucks' biggest weakness over these past 2 playoff seasons has been their inability to consistently score....if at all.....when it matters most. Rick Nash will help us with that.

2) Rick Nash makes us bigger and tougher up front.

3) Rick Nash will take significant pressure off of the twins.....whether it's by playing alongside the twins, or playing on another line with Kesler per se.....resulting in opposing shut down pairings and/or shut down centers in not completely focusing their eforts on the twins.

4) Canucks' window is next year.....and MAYBE the year after. Period. I believe that will be the case regardless of whether we have Schneider or Luongo in net. The game changes fast, and parity is greater than its ever been. Look no further than the remaining teams in the playoffs, and who was beaten.

Arguments against us getting Nash........and why I don't agree with the arguments:

1) Cap space:

Farhan's response: Cap space will be going up significantly higher from what I hear. Even if it isn't, my recommendation is to create the room. If it means having to let Burrows and/or Lapierre go in the not-so-distant future, then so be it. Canucks window is NOW NOW NOW. It's 1 year, and maybe 2 at best.

2) Canucks should use the assets of a Luongo or Schneider deal to get prospects and/or draft picks.

FL response: I disagree. Again - our window is NOW. What's the point of getting a prospect that "might" be good 2 years down the road, if the twins "might" be in decline 2 years from now? It could be a zero sum game. Is that what we really want? So what if we remain a "good" team for a number of years by building a solid farm. Fuck - do we really want to be like San Jose has been for the past 5-6 years?

Our window is NOW. We should be like Anaheim during the summer of 2006 when they added Pronger........or like the Chicago Blackhawks in the summer of 2009 when they added Hossa.

Yes - both Chicago and Anaheim ran into cap problems/asset management problems after winning their cups.......but guess what.......they won a cup. Period. San Jose has been "good" for years and look where it's gotten them.

In a salary cap era, is it even possible to really reap the benefits of having a "strong farm" for an extended period of time? Personally - I don't think it is. 1-2 years down the road, these guys get hefty pay raises anyways and someone has to leave. Why else have teams like Anaheim, Chicago, and Pitsburgh not been able to "build a dynasty" out of their farm like teams did in the pre-lockout era?

Couldn't one can almost argue that there's almost essentially no difference between stockpiling on draft picks/prospects as opposed to making a big trade for that "final piece?"

3) Nash is unmotivated and can't pass worth shit. Him and Kesler would be a nightmare together.

FL's response: Nash is unmotivated because he's playing on a shitty team. Look at what happened to Kovalchuk and Gaborik when they left their less-than-stellar teams ? Nash and a healthy Kesler aren't exactly reknowned for their passing abilities, but they can still do it effectively when push comes to shove (Kesler's play this year shouldn't be used as a measuring stick.......he was half-decent at it last year when he was heathy).

And since when can't two "shoot first snipers" play effectively together? Stamkos and St. Louis in Tampa certainly don't have a problem. Nash and Kesler shouldn't either. If they do? Great! Put Nash with the twins, and have a healthy Ryan Kesler continue to center Higgins and Booth.

4) Along with Schneider, you'd have to give up Edler, and a draft pick.

Given the way Edler has performed over the past 2 years in the post-season, would you really miss him? With or without Edler, the Canucks have the ability to play tremendously defensively anyways. The Canucks PP still has the ability to dominate even without Edler.


Other random yet related thoughts:

1) If I'm Gillis, I still wouldn't rule out the idea of moving Schneider instead of Luongo.
-I won't go into too much discussion about Luongo's trade value, cap hit (which isn't too bad), etc. because it's been spoken about to death, but I will say this: With Kipper and Thomas rumored to be available this summer, it will make things more competitive as far as trading Lou goes. Given Lou's age, etc., the same teams might be vying for the services of Luongo, Kipper, and Thomas for that "final missing piece."

HOWEVER - Cory Schneider attracts a completely different team/market. That one fact is perhaps more important than anything.

For example - teams that might be interested in Schneider may not be looking for "the final piece" to become a contender......as they would a Tim Thomas, Mikka Kiprasoff, or a Roberto Luongo. Teams might be looking at Schneider as a player that they can build a new core around for years to come......a team that is still fairly far away from achieving great things, but is looking to establish a foundation. This is where a player like Schneider becomes very attractive for a team like Columbus.

Long story short - if we're dealing Luongo, we may have to deal with competitors. If we're dealing Cory Schneider, we may not have any competition whatsoever. A team like CBJ has absolutely no need for a Tim Thomas or a Kiprasoff, or even a Roberto Luongo. They would however, have a huge need for Schneids.

2) Luongo is still pretty damn good. Yeah - the guy's got his warts, but he's still significantly above average as a goalie.......and should remain this way for a number of years. We all know how Tim Thomas performed last year in his late 30's.

3) Luongo could move out of here in a few years anyways. Great! By that time - Eddie Lack could be primed and ready to kick ass anyways.

CONCLUSION: In this poster's opinion, no one fits the Canucks' needs right now better than Rick Nash. The Canucks need a significant piece on their top 6 to take pressure off of the twins, and they also need to get bigger and meaner on their top 6. Rick Nash more than fits that bill. The BJ's are looking to move Rick Nash and are looking to add a blue chip player that they can build their team around moving forward. Cory Schneider could be that guy. Luongo, Kipper, and Thomas will all be competing amongst similar teams in the summer, whereas a guy like Schneider would have his own market (along with the fact that he'd most likely command a lot more trade value). If the Canucks have to move Schneider, Edler, and a draft pick to land Rick Nash, I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:15 pm

I'll add one more thing:

If we're grooming Zack Kassian into becoming a premiere power forward in this league, then who better to take him under his wing......or crotch......or whatever, than Rick Nash? Hell - if Kassian ever became the player that we want him to be, than Nash-Kesler-Kassian in the not-so-distant future could definitely be a force to be reckoned with.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby 5thhorseman » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:16 pm

I don't browse this forum every day, but I think I saw your last post the other day ;)
5thhorseman
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:19 pm

5thhorseman wrote:I don't browse this forum every day, but I think I saw your last post the other day ;)


Lol. I guess I have a few more posts in me (much to the chagrin of many I'm sure). ;)

I've been listening to 960 a lot lately here in Alberta and they've really amped up the Kipper, Luongo, Thomas debates and so got me interested. Trying not to post my thoughts is like trying to hold in urine right now. Shit's just gotta give.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby 5thhorseman » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:29 pm

I agree with a few of your points:

1. Our window is short as with successive Art Ross trophies the twins are now on the downhill side of their careers, though they will continue to put up good point totals for quite a few years yet.
2. I'm terrified we'll end up being the next San Jose. Small trades for small pieces will keep us at the top of the standings but is just treading water.
3. Agreed we may need to accept Luongo can carry us and trade Schneider to get that last valuable piece. Edmonton anyone?
4. Also, Kesler's season shouldn't be considered a yardstick. Next year will be a comeback year and show that he's destined to be the next captain and a superstar in the making. Trading him would be an error of Cam Neely proportions.

However appealing getting Nash may be, though, I'm in agreement with most of the posters on this board that our real need is getting that final piece of the puzzle on defence.
5thhorseman
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:37 pm

5thhorseman wrote:
However appealing getting Nash may be, though, I'm in agreement with most of the posters on this board that our real need is getting that final piece of the puzzle on defence.


I'm just not seeing it though.

The Canucks are already very good at keeping pucks out of the net. Even though the Kings beat us, they only scored what? 4 goals in the last 3 games?

Even last playoffs for the most part, sans our meltdowns against Chicago and Boston, the Canucks pretty much shut down most of their opponents. Even against the B's, we shut them out twice.......and in 11 out of 22 periods.

The Canucks lack of success on the power play in the post-season has far more to do with us not getting traffic in front of the net as opposed to us having competent passers and shooters from the point........does it not?

p.s.____________Good post by the way. You should post more often.
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby 5thhorseman » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:56 pm

This post-season was a write-off before it even began. I'm not taking any lessons from our defeat by the Kings. It was a tired team that didn't have the magic like the previous year and we all knew it.

The B's are a better example against which to evaluate our performance, though it's not all about keeping pucks out of the net. It's that intangible of having a dominating presence on the ice that we need. Against the B's I always felt that we were one step away from being completely run over. The image of Marchand speedbagging Daniel was a microcosm of that. We could forecheck like hell, score some great goals, make a comeback, butwe couldn't put up a wall and make them back down physically. Bieksa, as much as I love the guy, is only one man and not the biggest either.

As for the pp, I'm really not sure what the problem was. Kesler tiring, Salo's shot disappearing ... there could be several contributing factors. Definitely the second unit was a mess after Cody was traded.
5thhorseman
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Topper » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:47 pm

Image

THINK ABOUT IT
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5015
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:53 pm

5thhorseman wrote: Definitely the second unit was a mess after Cody was traded.


Just thinking out loud here. So lets say we get Nash.

First PP Unit:

Sedin-Sedin-Nash
Bieksa-Hamhuis

Higgins-Kesler-Booth
Salo-Tanev

Ballard can be an extra option for the PPV.

(I'm assuming that Edler, along with Schneider, would get packaged off for Nash).

p.s.___________If our lack of depth on D becomes an issue, then we can use one or more of Hansen, Burrows, Booth, Higgins, or Lapierre to bring in another top 4 quality defenseman (a #3 or #4 guy).
Farhan Lalji
 

Re: Farhan's $0.02 - The Vancouver Canucks need Rick Nash.

Postby Farhan Lalji » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:38 pm

Topper wrote:Image

THINK ABOUT IT


Our great big battleship (i.e. our offense) will be easily susceptible to getting scored on as we give up an asset (Edler) on 'D', along with Schneider, to get Nash.

Trust me - I get that line of thinking (assuming that is what you're getting at).

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the Canucks would miss Edler all THAT much........especially when you consider how Edler has performed in the playoffs these past two years. Assuming Salo signs on for one more year, you got.....

Hamhuis
Bieksa
Ballard
Tanev
Salo
Gragnani
Rome
Alberts

I'm assuming that Gragnani will be significantly better next season, and I also assume that Tanev will continue to develop.

The defense should be decent enough and if it isn't, you can always use one of Hansen, Booth, Higgins, Lapierre, or Burrows to trade for a #3 or #4 quality defenseman.

Sedin-Sedin-whoever
Nash-Kesler-whoever (or Nash plays RW)

Ultimately - our defense should be as solid as it was even without Edler (whether we see guys like Tanev or Gragnani stepping up to make the defense as a whole just as effective as this past year, or whether we trade one of our forwards for a decent #3 or #4 guy)............AND, our top 6 forwards will be much better.

Anyway - that's just what I'd do.

The success of the Canucks defense these past number of years hasn't been because we had that #1 elite defenseman that could carry the load (and if we ever did, it sure as fuck wasn't Alex Edler). The strength of the Canucks defense has always been the fact that we've usually had 5 or even 6 defensemen that were worthy of playing top 4.

So.....without Edler, that's.
-Hamhuis
-Bieksa
-Ballard
-Tanev
-Salo (protected minutes)
-Gragnani (if he gets better......which I think he will)

And if not - assets from a potential trading of one of Hansen, Burrows, Lapierre, Booth, or Higgins.

Bottom line: As long as the Canucks have
-One of Schneider or Luongo in net
-A reasonably healthy and deep defense (no superstars, but 5-6 top 4 quality d-men dispersed on our pairings)
-A reasonable bottom 6 that can shut down opponents.......as we had this past season
-Two dominant scoring lines (something that we didn't have this year and something that a healthy Kesler and Rick Nash will bring us).

Then I think the Canucks are good enough to win the cup.
Farhan Lalji
 


Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Mr.Miyagi and 2 guests