Rick Nash to NYR

[ZBBM]

Was it so long ago that Slats was a laughingstock, over the hill, etc.?  After a bunch of pretty crappy years he has re-emerged as a highly effective GM -- arguably one of the best in the game right now.

You could also argue that his recent body of work kick's Burke's ass.

 

[Kin]

You could also argue that his recent body of work kick's Burke's ass.

Much in the same way you could argue that Cheerios are a better breakfast cereal than a big bowl of dirt.

 

[Corn Flake]

Was it so long ago that Slats was a laughingstock, over the hill, etc.?  After a bunch of pretty crappy years he has re-emerged as a highly effective GM -- arguably one of the best in the game right now.

You could also argue that his recent body of work kick's Burke's ass.

Except maybe Burke is going through the laughingstock years much like Sather did, as you suggested? So comparing one in the midst of fixing the mess vs. the other who has come out the other side by a few years now may not really be fair?

 

[princedpw]

But they have some RFAs who will be coming off ELCs to sign in this offseason and next McD, Stepan, Hagelin and Del Zotto.

True. But as problems go, that sort of ranks up there with the better ones to have.

Yeah, I'm unaware of a single case where the problem of "oh my gosh, we have too many good young players to sign" has been a problem.  The closest I can think of is the Bruins with Kessel and we know how that turned out.

Well, Chicago ran into a bit of RFA hell after they won the cup and lost some players (Versteeg, Byfuglien, Ladd among the most notable). But they still got a Cup out of it...

Edit: a little slow on the draw...

Right, I thought about that one.  My understanding was that there was a snafu in that the Hawks didn't supply qualifying offers for their RFAs on time.  But, ignoring that, they still got a ton of draft picks for trading those guys and have been a contender year in and year out since then. I don't really consider it a "problem" when you load up for a cup run, win the cup, lose none of your "best" players then sell off a few assets for a reasonable return in prospects and picks.

The Hawks arent the favorite to win the cup every year, but nobody is.  I don't call that a "problem" per se.

 

[jonlleafs]

IMO, Rangers made out like bandits in this trade.  Dubinsky and the 1st is really the only value.

How does that work? The 26 year old centre coming off a 34 point season has value but not the 24 year old centre coming off the 36 point season? The first round pick that's probably going to be in the 25-30 range has value but not the 21 year old who was drafted #23 and coming off a good pro season?

Sure whatever or however you want to spin it.  It was less than what we were led to believe was required going to CBJ.  Rangers made out like bandits plain and simple.  Erixon was 7th on the depth chart and was expendable who may or may not pan out.  Refused to sign with Calgary so may have attitude/character problems.  It's a crapshoot really.  Dubinsky's the only one who's proven anything for any long period of time.

Aside from the fact that Burke wasn't interested and apparently we weren't on the list, we could have bettered that package and at least make Howson look a bit better than how he's looking now.

 

[maplesyrup]

I need a new keyboard; 

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype
Rangers confirm they've acquired Rick Nash. Yankees confirm they've acquired Ichiro Suzuki. Islanders confirm Brendan Witt is on Twitter.

 

[princedpw]

For those wondering about whether the Leafs could have tendered an equivalent or better offer for Nash... Don't bother -- I don't think he and his cap hit - those assets make the leafs a better team in the long run.  I'm glad we didn't trade for him.

 

[Kin]

Sure whatever or however you want to spin it.  It was less than what we were led to believe was required going to CBJ.  Rangers made out like bandits plain and simple.  Erixon was 7th on the depth chart and was expendable who may or may not pan out.  Refused to sign with Calgary so may have attitude/character problems.  It's a crapshoot really.  Dubinsky's the only one who's proven anything for any long period of time.

I'm not arguing that the Rangers didn't do well. I'm just saying that the idea that Anisimov and Erixon don't have value is nonsense.

Aside from the fact that Burke wasn't interested and apparently we weren't on the list, we could have bettered that package and at least make Howson look a bit better than how he's looking now.

But you have to see the trade through that lens. Yes, if Nash didn't hold the hammer of his NTC they probably could have gotten more. Ifs and buts, contrary to popular report, are not candy and nuts.

 

[jonlleafs]

Sure whatever or however you want to spin it.  It was less than what we were led to believe was required going to CBJ.  Rangers made out like bandits plain and simple.  Erixon was 7th on the depth chart and was expendable who may or may not pan out.  Refused to sign with Calgary so may have attitude/character problems.  It's a crapshoot really.  Dubinsky's the only one who's proven anything for any long period of time.

I'm not arguing that the Rangers didn't do well. I'm just saying that the idea that Anisimov and Erixon don't have value is nonsense.

Aside from the fact that Burke wasn't interested and apparently we weren't on the list, we could have bettered that package and at least make Howson look a bit better than how he's looking now.

But you have to see the trade through that lens. Yes, if Nash didn't hold the hammer of his NTC they probably could have gotten more. Ifs and buts, contrary to popular report, are not candy and nuts.

All I'm saying is, Howson made out terribly for himself and CBJ.  After all of the hype, he didn't deliver.  Yeah, he had limited options, but even with a team like the Rangers, you HAVE to insist on one of their top prospects.  You tell Sather, you have 1 to choose from, from any of Chris Kreider, Derek Stepan, Ryan McDonagh, or Michael Del Zotto then add Dubinsky/Anisimov/Erixon and the 1st.  That would have been an acceptable offer regardless of all the players he was demanding prior to this.  If not, see ya!

If he can't get the deal done before close to the season starts, you tell Nash, hey, do you really want out of here or not?  If so, expand your teams.  Put the pressure on Nash.  Howson caved plain and simple.  He should be fired for the way he handled this and also because of his tenure there.

 

[Kin]

All I'm saying is, Howson made out terribly for himself and CBJ.  After all of the hype, he didn't deliver.  Yeah, he had limited options, but even with a team like the Rangers, you HAVE to insist on one of their top prospects.  You tell Sather, you have 1 to choose from, from any of Chris Kreider, Derek Stepan, Ryan McDonagh, or Michael Del Zotto then add Dubinsky/Anisimov/Erixon and the 1st.  That would have been an acceptable offer regardless of all the players he was demanding prior to this.  If not, see ya!

If he can't get the deal done before close to the season starts, you tell Nash, hey, do you really want out of here or not?  If so, expand your teams.  Put the pressure on Nash.  Howson caved plain and simple.  He should be fired for the way he handled this and also because of his tenure there.

The problem with that is that it assumes that an unhappy and, probably, unproductive Nash coming back into the locker room is an acceptable outcome. The pressure was on Howson to make a deal, not on Nash to accept one. That stalemate you're talking about hurts the Blue Jackets more than it hurts Nash.

Because of that Howson could have insisted on the Statue of Liberty and it wouldn't have mattered. So long as the Rangers didn't feel that Nash was worth the package you're talking about Howson had to deal with the reality of the market he had. He couldn't just snap his fingers and pretend that New York and Nash didn't have him over a barrel.

 

[jonlleafs]

All I'm saying is, Howson made out terribly for himself and CBJ.  After all of the hype, he didn't deliver.  Yeah, he had limited options, but even with a team like the Rangers, you HAVE to insist on one of their top prospects.  You tell Sather, you have 1 to choose from, from any of Chris Kreider, Derek Stepan, Ryan McDonagh, or Michael Del Zotto then add Dubinsky/Anisimov/Erixon and the 1st.  That would have been an acceptable offer regardless of all the players he was demanding prior to this.  If not, see ya!

If he can't get the deal done before close to the season starts, you tell Nash, hey, do you really want out of here or not?  If so, expand your teams.  Put the pressure on Nash.  Howson caved plain and simple.  He should be fired for the way he handled this and also because of his tenure there.

The problem with that is that it assumes that an unhappy and, probably, unproductive Nash coming back into the locker room is an acceptable outcome. The pressure was on Howson to make a deal, not on Nash to accept one. That stalemate you're talking about hurts the Blue Jackets more than it hurts Nash.

Because of that Howson could have insisted on the Statue of Liberty and it wouldn't have mattered. So long as the Rangers didn't feel that Nash was worth the package you're talking about Howson had to deal with the reality of the market he had. He couldn't just snap his fingers and pretend that New York and Nash didn't have him over a barrel.

Sure you can assume anything about whether a team is willing or not.  I can just as easily say that Sather was willing if he had to but played his cards better than Howson did.  He bluffed and Howson bought it.  Howson still has the whole month of August to deal.  Why now?  Why not wait a bit longer to find the right deal.  This reeks of desperation.  Why are you even defending Howson?  Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing again?

 

[Kin]

Sure you can assume anything about whether a team is willing or not.

I'm not assuming anything. The Rangers passed on giving up more for Nash at the deadline. They had no pressure on them to make a deal. Like I said, I'm not assuming anything but if I were there's still a difference between a reasonable assumption and an unreasonable one.

  I can just as easily say that Sather was willing if he had to but played his cards better than Howson did.

Well, sure, you can say that but there's nothing reasonable about it. You'd have to come up with a reason as to why Sather would have passed on that deal in March but wanted to make it in July.

 
Howson still has the whole month of August to deal.  Why now? Why not wait a bit longer to find the right deal.

Howson has been trying to trade Nash for a long time. Probably the last two months at least. If the offers he was getting weren't improving then there's no point in waiting any longer. 

 
Why are you even defending Howson?

Because what you're saying is neither true nor fair. It's not a terrible return and it's not reasonable to assume that he could have done better by holding onto Nash for a third month.

 

[jonlleafs]

Because what you're saying is neither true nor fair. It's not a terrible return and it's not reasonable to assume that he could have done better by holding onto Nash for a third month.

You are entitled to your own opinion and until you are GM of an NHL team, it is simply your own opinion much like the rest of us.  I think the return is not enough for a player of Nash's ability.  Nash didn't have a lot of talent to play with but still managed to put up 40+ goal campaigns.  Is it absolutely terrible?  That's debatable and a lot of hockey analysts even feel the same way.  You've used "consensus" and "general feeling" before, and so I'm entitled as well:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/trades/2012/07/23/rick_nash_trade_reaction_nhl_columbus_blue_jackets_rangers/

Was this deal enough for CBJ?  No.  At least not IMO and quite a few hockey people don't believe so.

 

[Joe S.]

Was it so long ago that Slats was a laughingstock, over the hill, etc.?  After a bunch of pretty crappy years he has re-emerged as a highly effective GM -- arguably one of the best in the game right now.

You could also argue that his recent body of work kick's Burke's ass.

You could also point out that Sather has been with the rangers for what, 20 years now and Burke had been with the leafs 4.

 

[hap_leaf]

Very impressed with Sather with this trade.  Absolutely brilliant manouvering.  I can only imagine how that old guy danced after completing the deal; bet his stogie fell right out of his mouth. 

Dubinsky will get lots of ice time in Columbus...enough to surpass his 10 goals last season.   

 

[Kin]

You've used "consensus" and "general feeling" before, and so I'm entitled as well:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/trades/2012/07/23/rick_nash_trade_reaction_nhl_columbus_blue_jackets_rangers/

Far be it for me to disagree with Hockey Luminaries such as "Matty G" and Steve Simmons but I think there's a slight problem with crowdsourcing a consensus that relies on people being limited to all of the wisdom and thoughtfulness that 140 characters allows.

(Although I do trust Doug McLean saying that it's a disaster for the Blue Jackets. Because if there's one person in the world who knows about being a disaster for the Blue Jackets...)

Was this deal enough for CBJ?  No.  At least not IMO and quite a few hockey people don't believe so.

You're confusing two separate questions. I don't have an opinion on whether or not this was "enough" for Rick Nash. My issue is your assumption that hanging onto Rick Nash would have increased the offers for him and the idea that Howson had any sort of leverage. He didn't. Not over the Rangers and not over Nash.

Weighing the quality of the players received is fair. Wholly inventing the idea of a different market for a player isn't.

 

[KW Sluggo]

I kinda agree with Cox;

Damien Cox ‏@DamoSpin

And, after months of dithering, Blue Jackets make a crap deal for Nash. Go for volume rather than quality. Dumb

Is he new? this is how these deals always go.  3-4 parts for 1 part.

Teams rarely ever get "equal" value when trading a disgruntled star away who limits their options to a handful of teams.

Cox is still correct, it is a crap deal.

As for the rarity argument, Pittsburgh did okay in the trade with Carolina and the Penguins were forced to make that trade. Ergo, it can be done and it does not take six months of dithering to do it.

 

[KW Sluggo]

Sure whatever or however you want to spin it.  It was less than what we were led to believe was required going to CBJ.  Rangers made out like bandits plain and simple.  Erixon was 7th on the depth chart and was expendable who may or may not pan out.  Refused to sign with Calgary so may have attitude/character problems.  It's a crapshoot really.  Dubinsky's the only one who's proven anything for any long period of time.

I'm not arguing that the Rangers didn't do well. I'm just saying that the idea that Anisimov and Erixon don't have value is nonsense.

Aside from the fact that Burke wasn't interested and apparently we weren't on the list, we could have bettered that package and at least make Howson look a bit better than how he's looking now.

But you have to see the trade through that lens. Yes, if Nash didn't hold the hammer of his NTC they probably could have gotten more. Ifs and buts, contrary to popular report, are not candy and nuts.

Again I say it can be done despite the gun to the head of the GM (and of course it was the Columbus GM who started this whole Nash trade business - all he had to do was keep his mouth shut).

Proof of my thesis may be found in the Penguins trade that took less than 24 hours to come together at the Draft this past June. Value for value.

Just that simple. No six month dance with false rumours and delays for better offers etc etc. Just make a hockey trade. Shero did.

 

[Jalili]

Was it so long ago that Slats was a laughingstock, over the hill, etc.?  After a bunch of pretty crappy years he has re-emerged as a highly effective GM -- arguably one of the best in the game right now.

You could also argue that his recent body of work kick's Burke's ass.

I don't know if it's a matter of Sather vs. Burke, but the Rangers have one of the best scouting staffs in the league. Their drafting over the last decade, especially outside the 1st round, is superb.

Lundqvist, Callahan, Staal, Tyutin, Stepan, Del Zotto, Hagelin, Dubinsky, Anisimov, Sauer, Zidlicky, and I might be missing a few guys. Then there's Kreider, McIlrath and Miller in the system as well,and Kreider especially is regarded as a blue chipper.

When you've got a scouting staff that can snipe talent like there's can, it gives the GM a lot more to work with.

 

[Kin]

Proof of my thesis may be found in the Penguins trade that took less than 24 hours to come together at the Draft this past June. Value for value.

Well, there are lots of problems there, the least of which being that you're starting from a position of assuming your central thesis is true(the return that CBS got back for Nash is not "ok") and then you're comparing it to another trade that you deem to be "ok" as proof of...what? That if we assume your particular interpretation of trades are true your point is correct?

Jordan Staal was not a star player by just about any definition. He's never played in an All-Star game. He's never won a major trophy. He's never scored 30 goals or 60 points in a season. He's the fourth best forward on his very successful team and had no control over where he got traded.

Rick Nash is a Star player by any definition. He's played in five all-star games. He's won a major trophy. He's scored 40 goals and 79 points in a season. He's by far the best player on his very unsuccessful team and had a NTC limiting the options his team had.

Trading those players was similar in only the loosest possible way.