View Single Post
02-20-2012, 03:13 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 315
vCash: 500
In doing some research, the best case scenario for a deadline deal in which we acquire a scoring winger has to be a situation similar to the Mike Gartner Trade. Keep in mind, this is the BEST CASE SCENARIO. Gartner, already in his 30's, was still a force.

Rangers traded away young Ulf Dahlen and a 4th round pick for Gartner. Dahlen went on to have a very good career for many years. Gartner played roughly 4 full seasons with the Rangers and was traded away right before the team won in 94.

The trade hurt in that we gave away a very good young power forward in Dahlen. But did not rip up the entire team to add scoring punch. Though Gartner was in his early 30's at the time, he was still a perennial 40 goal guy. Rangers got a lot of production out of him and it only cost them one very good player and a pick that amounted to zilch. Gartner made the Power Play lethal. Added 15-20 goals by his mere presence. Nash will NOT do that. Different kind of a player. Just looking at scoring stats, Gartner topped 100 point mark many times in his career prior to NY. Nash is a 30/30 guy - a bit more of an all-around player, but he's no Ryan Callahan when it comes to being able to impact a game in 5 or 6 different ways.

So, the Gartner situation is a best case scenario, Of course, it occurred prior to the cap era. And Gartner, though very productive, still only played 4 years for the team. Dahlen, traded in 89-90, retired years later in 2002-3.

Other times Rangers have tried to add big time scoring at the deadline have not worked out nearly as well: Bobby Carpenter, Jari Kurri, Pavel Bure, Eric Lindros to name a few.

In fact, in 94, when the team actually made their run, they traded away a ton of scoring and youth. Among the players traded at the 94 deadline were Amonte, Weight, Gartner. Though the team won in 94, it pretty much crippled their future for a decade. A year later they traded Zubov for Nedved to help the lack of scoring/speed up front. And well, yeah...

A trade for Nash is really making a long term commitment in a pretty big way. It would, I think the trade has a decent chance of negatively impacting the chances of this team winning this year.

It's a toss up as to whether Nash greatly improves our chance of winning in future years. The finanical implications of the trade are not great down the road. We are not merely trading away 2-4 guys right now. But may have to lose another 2 homegrown players down the road in order to stay under the salary cap with Nash, Richards, Gabby, Henke under contract.

If we consider this trade with a level head, I'm just not sure it's the right move now. I certainly wouldn't bother getting into a bidding war with the Kings. Let them have Nash.

gravey9 is offline