Yeah, is an NHL team really going to worry about what a player they are dealing might think about what team they are traded to? The goal of a GM is to win a cup...and if DL thinks trading JJ for RN is going to help achieve that who cares what JJ thinks?
The receiving team needs to consider it though, right?
Here's why I think LA gets the deal done for Nash.
They missed out on Gabby (for whatever reason)
They missed out on Kovy (again, for whatever reason)
Now they have an opportunity to use what they have extra of in Bernier (although I'm not as much a believer as some) and they do have some defensive depth (again, I think that Hickey has been a bust) but if the trade is truly Bernier, JJ and a 1st then I think that they will get the deal done.
I think that if Bernier was really what everyone thinks he will be, he'd be on pace for more than 15 games played.
I think the Kings would be looking to unload the Salary that Quick carries and retain this "future No. 1"
Truth be told, Bernier's numbers have been (at best) pedestrian at the NHL level.
Ranger fans, understand that Ranger players WANT Rick Nash. They know he could be a difference maker in multiple Cup victories...
Salary is certainly an issue but fit and talent is now. 80 percent chance Brandon Dubinsky is traded by deadline.
One more Ranger point: Kreider is a prospect and players, especially vets will always prefer a Nash over a guy that could take 3-4 years
Hate quoting Bucci when it comes to hockey, I think he's a clown. Same guy who wrote an article that you couldn't rebuild in NY WHILE the Rangers were rebuilding But figured the info was out there so I would supply...
LOL someone wrote this: "If Dubi gets paid 4.2 million to score 4 goals, I'll gladly take Nash's 20+ goals at 7 million." Guy has a point, but at the same time, Dubi does many other things than score goals that he is probably much better at than Nash.
Lets say Nash was a ufa, July 1st he weighs his offers and says that he will make his decision the morning of July 2nd (like Richards did). So you wake up and you see breaking news: Rangers sign Rick Nash to 7.8 million a year for 7 years.
How would you feel about that? Would that be a good signing? For that much money?
If you're wavering on that question then how in the world could you want to make a trade for him for the reported asking price. Trading for him is essentially giving him that contract plus surrendering some of our best assets. You'd really really really have to be all in for the cup to even consider it a good idea. Cause the ramifications after this season would be daunting.
My post above is from page 3 of this thread, dated February 14th.
Beginning of Brooks' article today:
A slightly different question:
If Rick Nash had been an unrestricted free agent last summer, would anyone have thought it a great idea for the Rangers to sign the power winger to a seven-year, $54.6 million contract carrying a cap hit of $7.8 million per?
Would general manager Glen Sather have really gone all in on Nash, making him not only the highest-paid player on the team, but the fifth-highest paid player (per cap hit) in the NHL while committing to him through 2017-18?
And if the answer to that question is even “not likely,” let alone, “probably not,” much less, “are you nuts?” even while acknowledging free agents get premium prices because teams don’t have to relinquish valuable assets in order to add them, then why would Sather make that commitment now when the cost will include prime beef?