View Single Post
02-20-2012, 01:33 PM
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,934
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Seventyx7 View Post
I like Gaustad and Grabner, so I'm not opposed to that.

But it isn't decimating the depth as much as it looks at first glance. Quick plays every game anyways, and I'm kind of assuming Sanford would be coming back to us if we are giving up that much. VV can step in the lineup for JJ; maybe he can't play 23 min a game yet but he can play 18 and not be a downgrade, especially if you believe JJ's +-(which i know we do). It sucks to lose Lokti, but at least we hold on to Toffoli.

I think Nash would bring life to the team, and could make all the difference to get Richards, Kopi etc going. As everyone knows, if we could score 2.5 goals per game we would be in such great shape. I think Nash is one of the few players who actually could make a huge difference.

One more thing to consider; everyone, myself included is scared that Quick says **** this, Chicago will score goals for me, I'm going there. So while Nash's cap hit would make things tighter, you have to think Quick will appreciate the effort to get scoring help, and hopefully an actual significant increase in goals. Getting Nash could convince him to stay.
All very valid points that I can't necessarily disagree with. I just feel like the Kings would be giving up waaaaay more than the Penguins did for Hossa or the Devils for Kovalchuk, and I don't see Nash as significantly better than those two.

Chazz Reinhold is offline