HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Rangers are interested in Nash (McKenzie: Rangers/Kings Strongest Suitors) PART II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-19-2012, 01:17 PM
  #876
Death By BB Gun
#therightway
 
Death By BB Gun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthJerseyRanger View Post
Ugh... don't mess with this unit. Kreider will provide enough additional offense next year at what? 1/17 the price of Nash? Not I only that, but I certainly don't want to have to head to Game 1 of the quarterfinals, and Dubi isn't out there.
We've had Dubi in the first game of Quarterfinals two of the last three years and it's meant exactly dick.

Death By BB Gun is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:17 PM
  #877
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Hate to say it but Mike Fisher is better offensively than Dubinsky.
Maybe the reason that you hate to say it is because it's absolutely untrue? Mike Fisher is a ~40 point player with one 50+ point season. Sound familiar? The only difference is that Fisher got his FIRST 40 point season at the age of 25. Dubinsky had four 40+ point seasons by that age.

smoneil is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:19 PM
  #878
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death By BB Gun View Post
We've had Dubi in the first game of Quarterfinals two of the last three years and it's meant exactly dick.
Mainly because Dubinsky and Lundqvist were the only two guys to show up. Interesting solution--Only two guys show up to play in the playoffs? GET RID OF ONE NOW!!

smoneil is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:19 PM
  #879
Affinity
Registered User
 
Affinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toms River, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death By BB Gun View Post
We've had Dubi in the first game of Quarterfinals two of the last three years and it's meant exactly dick.
15 points in 22 games =/= exactly dick. He's not an elite player, obviously not going to drag us through the playoffs but the guy steps up in the playoffs, can't really deny that.

Affinity is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:22 PM
  #880
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbackatu View Post
Hate to say it but Mike Fisher is better offensively than Dubinsky.
That's a stretch.

Fisher's career high is 53 points, achieved in his 9th NHL season.

Dubinsky's career high is 54 points, achieved in his 4th NHL season.

Dubinsky has a higher offensive ceiling than Fisher, who for most of his career has put up between 35-45 points per season.

Draft Guru is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #881
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death By BB Gun View Post
We've had Dubi in the first game of Quarterfinals two of the last three years and it's meant exactly dick.
Really? Because he and, (gasp!) Wolski led the team with 3 points each. (pretty pathetic anyway)

Let's get rid of him!

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:23 PM
  #882
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death By BB Gun View Post
We've had Dubi in the first game of Quarterfinals two of the last three years and it's meant exactly dick.
Was Dubinsky suppose to carry the offense to a Cup?

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:41 PM
  #883
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
I honestly don't think Nash's contract is as bad as you're all making it out to be. It's an overpayment by what, $1-1.5m? Takes him to age 34, so maybe two years beyond his prime? It's not the fact of his contract alone that makes me not want him. It's the idea of his contract on our current roster.

He's a better fit, contract-wise, in Toronto. We have 3 players making more than $6.5m already. The Leafs have 1. It will be two if they can retain Kessel. The most any team should really have is 3, because 3 doesn't make the cap inflexible. Grabovski is due a raise, but other than that they should be fine, especially with some salary going the other way.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:49 PM
  #884
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
not necessarily specific to nash but when looking at signing a guy which lets us hold onto our assets vs trading assets, i think you really need to look at our depth...

first off after wolski is gone, fact is dubinsky becomes our worst contract. i don't say that to knock dubi but rather point out the awesome fact that unlike past years when we had guys on the team that you were eating up cap space and you couldn't wait to get rid of them to make room for a kid. we are at the point that you are no longer removing overpaid bums for kids, you are removing kids for other kids

lets say we sign parise and then you have richards, gaborik, callahan, dubinsky, stepan, anisimov, parise, boyle, prust, rupp, kreider and hagelin up front....that leaves no open spots for miller, thomas, st croix, fasth, etc

on the blueline you have staal, mcdonagh, girardi, del zotto, sauer and erixon...which leaves no open spot for mcilrath

and that doesn't even factor in future draft picks, other signings, other prospects surprising us and developing better than expected etc. thats a lot of depth and in a good way

now obviously you can debate which assets are included and maybe nash isn't the right guy and maybe now isn't the right time to make the deal, but i really believe that our team is actually setup perfectly to allow us to make a 3 for 1 type deal if the right player is available and our depth allows us to consider it.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:51 PM
  #885
dtrap
Registered User
 
dtrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,720
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dtrap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I honestly don't think Nash's contract is as bad as you're all making it out to be. It's an overpayment by what, $1-1.5m? Takes him to age 34, so maybe two years beyond his prime? It's not the fact of his contract alone that makes me not want him. It's the idea of his contract on our current roster.
Exactly...we have too many guys that are going to need new contracts in the next 3 years...

dtrap is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:51 PM
  #886
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
We complain about our offence non stop. And with good reason, we have one legit finisher on the team, Gaborik.

We have an opportunity to add another finisher (a better chance to add that finisher than signing Parise on July 1st)

Will it cost assets, yes, but signing Parise is less than a 50/50 proposition.

I think we have the team poised to get a player like Nash, I think we have the prospect depth to get a deal done without including Kreider or Miller.

Dubinsky, Erixon, Thomas and a 2nd is a deal I would do. If they needed a 1st, I'd want their 2nd back

If the demand was Dizzy or Kreider, then I would have to pass.

I think it's important to equip this team for a run this year and getting a sniper like Nash does that.

Remember the last time the Rangers were in this positiin and it didn't work out? Neither do I.

We haven't been in position of NEEDING a scorer while being top 5 team in the league.

I know that there "could be" problems with our cap situation in 2 summers, but I think that if the right deal is made, it's a 2 shot attempt we should take.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:51 PM
  #887
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,691
vCash: 500
I will laugh my butt off if Burke traded for Nash and Carter. Probably would give up Schenn, Kadri, Remier, and picks/prospects ++. Lol

UAGoalieGuy is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  #888
rangersbaby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 56
vCash: 500
its amazing to me that the same people who dont want nash think that richards is worth the contract he has and is playing up to it. nash is a huge upgrade over dubi. he is a shoe in for team canada in socci and if canada could enter 3 teams richards and dubi would not make any of them. sorry but everyone else is gonna upgrade by the deadline and if we stand pat and get knocked out early every one will want sathers head for not making a deal. not saying they need to give the farm away but for dubi, miller, erixon and 1st throw in wolski for the cap dump. sather would be crazy not to do it.

rangersbaby is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 01:53 PM
  #889
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Right, that's what he meant. I still disagree with it. With WW off the books we can sign Parise for only cash. If and when we need to clear cap space we would still have assets (like Dubinsky) to move and would get something in return. Obviously if Dubinsky has already been dealt for Nash we don't have him to move for assets later. I don't see how holding on to your pieces for longer can be anything but good.
The point is people are complaining about what Nash's cap hit does to the Rangers and that they dont want to trade any assets to get him. They're saying they should keep their assets and just go out and sign Parise which just costs money. This may be the better move but it puts the Rangers in a much worse situation with the cap. Thats not something you can disagree with. If the Rangers trade Duby + for Nash they are taking on $3.6 million dollars as opposed to $7 million with keeping Duby and signing Parise. So either way they are going to have to trade someone in order to keep their RFA's in 2 offseasons.

JoeRangers is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:00 PM
  #890
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
not necessarily specific to nash but when looking at signing a guy which lets us hold onto our assets vs trading assets, i think you really need to look at our depth...

first off after wolski is gone, fact is dubinsky becomes our worst contract. i don't say that to knock dubi but rather point out the awesome fact that unlike past years when we had guys on the team that you were eating up cap space and you couldn't wait to get rid of them to make room for a kid. we are at the point that you are no longer removing overpaid bums for kids, you are removing kids for other kids

lets say we sign parise and then you have richards, gaborik, callahan, dubinsky, stepan, anisimov, parise, boyle, prust, rupp, kreider and hagelin up front....that leaves no open spots for miller, thomas, st croix, fasth, etc

on the blueline you have staal, mcdonagh, girardi, del zotto, sauer and erixon...which leaves no open spot for mcilrath

and that doesn't even factor in future draft picks, other signings, other prospects surprising us and developing better than expected etc. thats a lot of depth and in a good way

now obviously you can debate which assets are included and maybe nash isn't the right guy and maybe now isn't the right time to make the deal, but i really believe that our team is actually setup perfectly to allow us to make a 3 for 1 type deal if the right player is available and our depth allows us to consider it.
I agree in principle, but I would definitely say that now isn't the right time, mainly for two reasons:

1- You take a lot on faith. It sounds great to think that we need to make spots for Miller, Kreider, Erixon, McIlrath, etc. I hope they pan out the way we all want them to. That said, a cursory look over the last few seasons tells us that they often don't turn out how we want them to (Valentenko, Immonen, Brendl, Grachev, Sanguinetti, etc etc--how often did we all pencil them into "next year's lineup"). The time to make space for a young player is when that young player proves he deserves that space.

Hagelin is a perfect example. I was a little upset when the team re-signed Fedotenko, mainly because I thought that spot should have been saved for a young guy. Hagelin wasn't really ready at the start of the year. When he was ready, space was made for him. When the guys in the pipeline are ready, space can be made. To make space now and hope that they pan out is just too much of a risk IMO.

Plus, having NHL-ready guys develop in the AHL can be useful in the event of injury. We've seen plenty of that this season. Who among us could have guessed that Bickel, Woywitka, Stralman and Eminger would have seen significant time with the NHL club this season?


2- The other reason is that I don't really want them to do anything major that could mess up what this team has going this season. I took a look at the season schedule and I noticed something interesting. Only twice this season (including that rough October) have the Rangers lost 4 games in any 7 game stretch. Obviously things will be a tougher in the playoffs, but if you looked at the regular season the Rangers only have two stretches where they would have lost a "series." This team has something. I want to watch them see it through to the end (nothing wrong with some minor tweaks--I'd like to see them add a FO specialist for example--but nothing that would make major changes).

smoneil is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:06 PM
  #891
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
We complain about our offence non stop. And with good reason, we have one legit finisher on the team, Gaborik.

We have an opportunity to add another finisher (a better chance to add that finisher than signing Parise on July 1st)

Will it cost assets, yes, but signing Parise is less than a 50/50 proposition.

I think we have the team poised to get a player like Nash, I think we have the prospect depth to get a deal done without including Kreider or Miller.

Dubinsky, Erixon, Thomas and a 2nd is a deal I would do. If they needed a 1st, I'd want their 2nd back

If the demand was Dizzy or Kreider, then I would have to pass.

I think it's important to equip this team for a run this year and getting a sniper like Nash does that.

Remember the last time the Rangers were in this positiin and it didn't work out? Neither do I.

We haven't been in position of NEEDING a scorer while being top 5 team in the league.

I know that there "could be" problems with our cap situation in 2 summers, but I think that if the right deal is made, it's a 2 shot attempt we should take.
Once again, Nash and Parise are not the only possible options for getting more offense on this team.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:08 PM
  #892
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersbaby View Post
its amazing to me that the same people who dont want nash think that richards is worth the contract he has and is playing up to it. nash is a huge upgrade over dubi. he is a shoe in for team canada in socci and if canada could enter 3 teams richards and dubi would not make any of them. sorry but everyone else is gonna upgrade by the deadline and if we stand pat and get knocked out early every one will want sathers head for not making a deal. not saying they need to give the farm away but for dubi, miller, erixon and 1st throw in wolski for the cap dump. sather would be crazy not to do it.
1- I've seen very few people saying they are happy with Richards' current production. What I HAVE seen (and done) are people saying we need to have patience. Richards needed a full season to adjust the last time he was traded, and he followed it up with the best season of his career. He's also got a track record as a playoffs beast. Richards is worth his contract--he has a history of putting up PPG production. Nash has a history of NOT living up to his contract. People love to bring up team Canada. When a player can only produce when surrounded by the best players in the world, that's not a good thing. Look at the Rangers' roster. This ain't team Canada.

2- Not arguing that Dubinsky is better than Nash, but Dubinsky on his contract is better than Nash on his contract. I'll ask you the same thing I asked the other guy--would you be okay paying a guy 3.5 million to score 15-20 points? And that's JUST looking at the offense (not taking into account the defense, PKing and grit).

smoneil is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:09 PM
  #893
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,691
vCash: 500
If the price is right you pull the trigger. No trading MDZ or Kreider. If that's the price then no thanks.

We don't know what's going to happen in two years. Cap could go down alot, a little bit, or not at all. Hell isn't the world suppose ti be ending in December anyways? Lol might as well win the cup thus year then!

When it comes down to it, we don't know what playets will be resigned and what there contracts will look like. Hell we don't even know what other trades will be made over the next two years. Prospects may emerge that make current "core" players expendable.

No one has a crystal ball, although some people think they do.

UAGoalieGuy is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:12 PM
  #894
NYR1967
Registered User
 
NYR1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York, N.Y.
Country: United States
Posts: 630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
The point is people are complaining about what Nash's cap hit does to the Rangers and that they dont want to trade any assets to get him. They're saying they should keep their assets and just go out and sign Parise which just costs money. This may be the better move but it puts the Rangers in a much worse situation with the cap. Thats not something you can disagree with. If the Rangers trade Duby + for Nash they are taking on $3.6 million dollars as opposed to $7 million with keeping Duby and signing Parise. So either way they are going to have to trade someone in order to keep their RFA's in 2 offseasons.
I'm not sure I agree - I'm no cap expert, so maybe I'm totally off base with this, but seems to me that trading for Nash means:

Rangers Gain:

Rick Nash @3.6M/YR cap hit

Rangers Lose:

(minimally)

Dubinsky
Krieder/Miller
1st

(and possibly)
MDZ/MCD

If we successfully sign Parise as a UFA and then need to trade Dubinsky for cap reasons.

Rangers Gain:

Parise @3.3M/YR cap hit (7.5M/YR minus Dubinsky's 4.2M for argument's sake)
Pick/Prospect gained for trading Dubinsky (arguably a 1st, and I would say at least a 2nd and a 5th - or a comparable prospect)

Rangers also gain by not losing to CBJ:

Kreider/Miller
2012 1st

(and possibly)

MDZ/MCD

Rangers Lose:

Brandon Dubinsky

I could be missing something here - but the second option seems better to me.

NYR1967 is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:13 PM
  #895
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
The point is people are complaining about what Nash's cap hit does to the Rangers and that they dont want to trade any assets to get him. They're saying they should keep their assets and just go out and sign Parise which just costs money. This may be the better move but it puts the Rangers in a much worse situation with the cap. Thats not something you can disagree with. If the Rangers trade Duby + for Nash they are taking on $3.6 million dollars as opposed to $7 million with keeping Duby and signing Parise. So either way they are going to have to trade someone in order to keep their RFA's in 2 offseasons.
Seriously!? It's pretty simple--signing a guy for free means that, IF you need to make a trade, you can get assets back. That way, you get the guy (Parise or whoever) you want AND the return you'd get on the pieces you trade away (and if we're talking Dubinsky, you can be sure that you'd get a 1st and a prospect--the value of the prospect dependent on the location of the 1st). Great player + trade value is better than Great player in exchange for trade value.

Plus, I just think that Parise is a MUCH better fit for the kind of game the Rangers play than Nash could ever be.

smoneil is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:13 PM
  #896
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Once again, Nash and Parise are not the only possible options for getting more offense on this team.
More than one way to go about this.

I mean, which is more effective in the long term, adding 15-20 points to your top 6 and giving up multiple important assets or adding 10 points to your third line and giving up a single, less important asset?

Tawnos is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:22 PM
  #897
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersbaby View Post
its amazing to me that the same people who dont want nash think that richards is worth the contract he has and is playing up to it. nash is a huge upgrade over dubi. he is a shoe in for team canada in socci and if canada could enter 3 teams richards and dubi would not make any of them. sorry but everyone else is gonna upgrade by the deadline and if we stand pat and get knocked out early every one will want sathers head for not making a deal. not saying they need to give the farm away but for dubi, miller, erixon and 1st throw in wolski for the cap dump. sather would be crazy not to do it.
Again with the Richards contract comparisons, regarding Nash.

What does that have to do with anything? How about we wait until the full season including playoffs to judge Richards? Also, just because we gave Richards a big contract, doesn't mean we just go out there and take on more long term contracts.

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:27 PM
  #898
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRangers View Post
The point is people are complaining about what Nash's cap hit does to the Rangers and that they dont want to trade any assets to get him. They're saying they should keep their assets and just go out and sign Parise which just costs money. This may be the better move but it puts the Rangers in a much worse situation with the cap. Thats not something you can disagree with. If the Rangers trade Duby + for Nash they are taking on $3.6 million dollars as opposed to $7 million with keeping Duby and signing Parise. So either way they are going to have to trade someone in order to keep their RFA's in 2 offseasons.
I argue that it does not put us in a worse situation with the cap, so I respectfully disagree with it. You say you don't want to go all the way to the cap which would be the case if we kept Dubinsky while adding Nash. My point is that when the time comes Dubinsky is essentially a liquid asset that can be moved to clear the necessary space. Worst case he's just waived and sent to CT (he doesn't have a NMC as far as I know.) He has no effect on the cap (as long as Parise fits too) beyond being a temporary hold on it. As long as we are prepared to move him later there's no reason not to keep him for now if we can.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:33 PM
  #899
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,240
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR1967 View Post
I'm not sure I agree - I'm no cap expert, so maybe I'm totally off base with this, but seems to me that trading for Nash means:

Rangers Gain:

Rick Nash @3.6M/YR cap hit

Rangers Lose:

(minimally)

Dubinsky
Krieder/Miller
1st

(and possibly)
MDZ/MCD

If we successfully sign Parise as a UFA and then need to trade Dubinsky for cap reasons.

Rangers Gain:

Parise @3.3M/YR cap hit (7.5M/YR minus Dubinsky's 4.2M for argument's sake)
Pick/Prospect gained for trading Dubinsky (arguably a 1st, and I would say at least a 2nd and a 5th - or a comparable prospect)

Rangers also gain by not losing to CBJ:

Kreider/Miller
2012 1st

(and possibly)

MDZ/MCD

Rangers Lose:

Brandon Dubinsky

I could be missing something here - but the second option seems better to me.
dont think that can be disputed, just unlikely he signs here.

Don't think he bails on the Devils now that he sees that the team can compete and salaries will be coming off the books thus allowing the Devils to retain him and get better.

Parise is not leaving and Nash is much more of a sure thing.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
02-19-2012, 02:40 PM
  #900
JoeRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Staten Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR1967 View Post
I'm not sure I agree - I'm no cap expert, so maybe I'm totally off base with this, but seems to me that trading for Nash means:

Rangers Gain:

Rick Nash @3.6M/YR cap hit

Rangers Lose:

(minimally)

Dubinsky
Krieder/Miller
1st

(and possibly)
MDZ/MCD

If we successfully sign Parise as a UFA and then need to trade Dubinsky for cap reasons.

Rangers Gain:

Parise @3.3M/YR cap hit (7.5M/YR minus Dubinsky's 4.2M for argument's sake)
Pick/Prospect gained for trading Dubinsky (arguably a 1st, and I would say at least a 2nd and a 5th - or a comparable prospect)

Rangers also gain by not losing to CBJ:

Kreider/Miller
2012 1st

(and possibly)

MDZ/MCD

Rangers Lose:

Brandon Dubinsky

I could be missing something here - but the second option seems better to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
Seriously!? It's pretty simple--signing a guy for free means that, IF you need to make a trade, you can get assets back. That way, you get the guy (Parise or whoever) you want AND the return you'd get on the pieces you trade away (and if we're talking Dubinsky, you can be sure that you'd get a 1st and a prospect--the value of the prospect dependent on the location of the 1st). Great player + trade value is better than Great player in exchange for trade value.

Plus, I just think that Parise is a MUCH better fit for the kind of game the Rangers play than Nash could ever be.
You are both missing the point. The point was either way the Rangers are going to need to trade someone in order to sign their RFA's. Just speaking numbers wise not whats a better fit for the team. Cant dispute the math. The math says that -Duby and + Nash = $3.6 million. Keeping Duby + Parise = $11 million. Thats all I was saying. Cant sign Parise and say its not going to cost you assets because the bottom line is whether its now or two offseasons from know its going to cost assets.

JoeRangers is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.