I will concede though, that Rick Nash would be the best player in that Trade (AT THE TIME OF IT).
Later on down the road who knows. I just don't think Nash solves the Scoring problem and that Cap hit is ugly.
The Kings need more than just Nash.
That's fine that Rick Nash might be the best player in that trade, but my post was to make two points:
- The characterization of the trade being so lopsided that it's a no-brainer because it's just for "a backup goalie, a top 4 D and a 3rd liner" is oversimplified
- It's a big hole to tear in our team and a lot of assets to part with
I don't know that Rick Nash is the answer. By all accounts, Carter will cost significantly less and would leave us space to further add to our forward depth. Maybe the above trade works out for us, but it's a serious gamble. We're talking losing Teubert, 1st, Simmonds, Schenn, 2nd, Johnson, Bernier and Loktionov in a pretty short amount of time, and that's a pretty drastic purging of assets right there.
I will concede though, that Rick Nash would be the best player in that Trade (AT THE TIME OF IT).
Later on down the road who knows. I just don't think Nash solves the Scoring problem and that Cap hit is ugly.
The Kings need more than just Nash.
Nash is only 27...
I guess my enthusiasm for this trade, other than Rick Nash being a great player, is that I do feel like we are a lot closer to being a great team than the standings say/many here believe. So much has gone wrong this year, so many players are not scoring. And there still is a chance to not only salvage this season, but to take a step toward being the elite team we thought we were getting this year. Our D and goaltending is as good as there is in the league. Half a goal per game more and we are a force. Nash will bring a new energy, confidence, and space-creating ability that will improve the entire team. When a player in his prime of this caliber is available, you can't just assume we'll get the next one. We've seen how that story ends.
Adding in players in trades, whether you get a guy for two months or two decades can come back to bite you in the ass and shouldn't be done willy nilly. It's called asset management.
That's fine that Rick Nash might be the best player in that trade, but my post was to make two points:
- The characterization of the trade being so lopsided that it's a no-brainer because it's just for "a backup goalie, a top 4 D and a 3rd liner" is oversimplified
- It's a big hole to tear in our team and a lot of assets to part with
I don't know that Rick Nash is the answer. By all accounts, Carter will cost significantly less and would leave us space to further add to our forward depth. Maybe the above trade works out for us, but it's a serious gamble. We're talking losing Teubert, 1st, Simmonds, Schenn, 2nd, Johnson, Bernier and Loktionov in a pretty short amount of time, and that's a pretty drastic purging of assets right there.
Yes it is, but the point in having assets is to be able to upgrade your roster. Richards and Nash are upgrades (those that think simmer is god need not reply). The holes that are left are easier to fill up than getting a 2nd line center and a 1st line winger in Nash and Richards.
No, you don't want them to be comparible. Adding in players in trades, whether you get a guy for two months or two decades can come back to bite you in the ass and shouldn't be done willy nilly. It's called asset management.
Thanks for the lesson, and for talking down to me. You comparing Halpern and Nash is laughable. Trading a young guy with upside (like Lokti or Purcell) for Halpern is completely different than trading for a Olympic gold medalist, captain, in his prime and locked up.
Turning an unproven, undersized Lokti (who I AM A FAN OF) into a 27 year old star winger is a good thing. It's called asset management.
Bernier is a backup, and will be a back up staying with the Kings. Yes, he's a great goalie and easily the #1 on many teams. A position of strength for the Kings, but he is still the BACKUP on this team now and in the future.
Odd line of thought. Andy Moog was Fuhr's backup, I guess he could go as a secondary piece in a trade too huh?
You trade a guy based on his value, not on his position on the team. Bernier is a backup here, but that doesn't mean Columbus wouldn't value him as more than that and you shouldn't assess his value as such.
Thanks for the lesson, and for talking down to me. You comparing Halpern and Nash is laughable. Trading a young guy with upside (like Lokti or Purcell) for Halpern is completely different than trading for a Olympic gold medalist, captain, in his prime and locked up.
Turning an unproven, undersized Lokti (who I AM A FAN OF) into a 27 year old star winger is a good thing. It's called asset management.
He's not talking down to you, and I think you're still not understanding the point he is trying to make.
Yes it is, but the point in having assets is to be able to upgrade your roster. Richards and Nash are upgrades (those that think simmer is god need not reply). The holes that are left are easier to fill up than getting a 2nd line center and a 1st line winger in Nash and Richards.
To be fair, the Kings have not Replaced Zues/Smyth/Simmer/frolov with productive players.
He's not talking down to you, and I think you're still not understanding the point he is trying to make.
Clearly. I don't want Lokti or JJ traded. I just believe for Nash it would be worth it. It's my opinion; there's a great chance if it happens, I will be proven an idiot for that opinion. I just think the holes trading those players opens up are easier to deal with considering the great player we would get in return.
Odd line of thought. Andy Moog was Fuhr's backup, I guess he could go as a secondary piece in a trade too huh?
You trade a guy based on his value, not on his position on the team. Bernier is a backup here, but that doesn't mean Columbus wouldn't value him as more than that and you shouldn't assess his value as such.
Correct, value him such. But again he's the current back up. If it costs him to bring in a 1st line winger you do it.
I'm not undervaluing him, looking at it as an organizational strength that can be dealt from to acquire other areas that are weak.
Same goes with Johnson. I like Jack, one of my favorite players on the Kings. However with Voynov and Martinez it makes Johnson the more valuable asset to acquire Nash. I would not go and trade Bernier or Johnson for peanuts. It's Nash, a proven all-star only 27 years of age. Doesn't get much better.....
Thanks for the lesson, and for talking down to me. You comparing Halpern and Nash is laughable. Trading a young guy with upside (like Lokti or Purcell) for Halpern is completely different than trading for a Olympic gold medalist, captain, in his prime and locked up.
Turning an unproven, undersized Lokti (who I AM A FAN OF) into a 27 year old star winger is a good thing. It's called asset management.
Maybe I need to talk down to you if you honestly think I (or damacles for that matter) is comparing nash to Halpern.
We are saying it's not fruitful for this organization to add in players who are not needed to be added to trades. Purcell is an example of that. He was not needed in that trade, but DL included him for whatever reason (maybe contract numbers, i don't recall). It was obviously a bad move. The same can apply to to Loki in this case, and as such you don't just add him in simply to get a deal done. That's what happened with Purcell, and Purcell came back to bite us in the ass.
It has NOTHING to do with who the Kings are trading for. it could be Gretzky, I don't care. If you can pull the trigger on the deal without adding in a piece which might seem minute at the time, you do it. Adding Loki in is IMO overkill, considering Bernier and Johnson are already in the deal.
Now, do you get it that the principal of what we are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the player we are getting in the deal, but rather has everything to do with overpaying needlessly with what may turn out to be valuebale assets long-term?
Maybe I need to talk down to you if you honestly think I (or damacles for that matter) is comparing nash to Halpern.
We are saying it's not fruitful for this organization to add in players who are not needed to be added to trades. Purcell is an example of that. He was not needed in that trade, but DL included him for whatever reason (maybe contract numbers, i don't recall). It was obviously a bad move. The same can apply to to Loki in this case, and as such you don't just add him in simply to get a deal done. That's what happened with Purcell, and Purcell came back to bite us in the ass.
It has NOTHING to do with who the Kings are trading for. it could be Gretzky, I don't care. If you can pull the trigger on the deal without adding in a piece which might seem minute at the time, you do it. Adding Loki in is IMO overkill, considering Bernier and Johnson are already in the deal.
Now, do you get it that the principal of what we are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the player we are getting in the deal, but rather has everything to do with overpaying needlessly with what may turn out to be valuebale assets long-term?
I couldn't say that myself thank you. JJ and Johnny B are enough, If Columbus wants more...Take a hike.\
Although If Columbus wants to add say A prospect similar to Loki's skill set You listen and work with that.
Maybe I need to talk down to you if you honestly think I (or damacles for that matter) is comparing nash to Halpern.
We are saying it's not fruitful for this organization to add in players who are not needed to be added to trades. Purcell is an example of that. He was not needed in that trade, but DL included him for whatever reason (maybe contract numbers, i don't recall). It was obviously a bad move. The same can apply to to Loki in this case, and as such you don't just add him in simply to get a deal done. That's what happened with Purcell, and Purcell came back to bite us in the ass.
It has NOTHING to do with who the Kings are trading for. it could be Gretzky, I don't care. If you can pull the trigger on the deal without adding in a piece which might seem minute at the time, you do it. Adding Loki in is IMO overkill, considering Bernier and Johnson are already in the deal.
Now, do you get it that the principal of what we are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the player we are getting in the deal, but rather has everything to do with overpaying needlessly with what may turn out to be valuebale assets long-term?
Well obviously, if we can get it done while keeping Lokti I will be that much happier. I guess I just don't hold Lokti in such high regard that I would let it kill a Nash trade. As much promise as Lokti shows, there is no guarantee he will be an impact player. Hopefully DL is working his ass off to get it done for as little as possible.
I guess where we differ is that I would be ok overpaying a bit to get a sure thing, that fills our biggest need.
To be fair, the Kings have not Replaced Zues/Smyth/Simmer/frolov with productive players.
I've wanted DL gone for a while now. It was obvious when we freakin signed Moreau and Hunter as replacements. Not to defend DL but....
Smyth wanted out. Understand why it was done.
Zues - made 4 million a year and was slow as a snail. Everyone on these boards wanted him replaced as well. No one knew the impact he had on this offense though.
Simmer's spot was replaced by Richards. I'm not going to get into the Richards vs simmer debate here.
Frolov. I miss Frolov. Good guy, underachieved.
You are right though, DL failed to replace these guys whatsoever.
The players you mentioned played the system the Kings so called wanted. gritty, grinding, along the boards yucky icky boring hockey. They are gone now, time for DL and company to go so our core can play like they are capable.
People don't realize that these are the exact reasons why a deal won't get done. All they see are the 2 goals that bounced off Loktionov and they say if that's the sticking point in the Nash deal, Dean's an idiot. But Lokti is a prospect who could be VERY good one day soon, number one, and number two I personally am not a big fan of deals where 3+ NHL roster players are moved for one body, especially when we've recently completed a deal like that. Make too many of those deals, and we're emptying out the asset vault pretty quick which leaves us boned in the event of an injury or two.
I couldn't say that myself thank you. JJ and Johnny B are enough, If Columbus wants more...Take a hike.\
Although If Columbus wants to add say A prospect similar to Loki's skill set You listen and work with that.
Again, that's a totally valid position to take and 99% of the time I would agree. I guess I just feel like players like this aren't available to the Kings very often, so when they are, we can't just let the opportunity pass.
People don't realize that these are the exact reasons why a deal won't get done. All they see are the 2 goals that bounced off Loktionov and they say if that's the sticking point in the Nash deal, Dean's an idiot. But Lokti is a prospect who could be VERY good one day soon, number one, and number two I personally am not a big fan of deals where 3+ NHL roster players are moved for one body, especially when we've recently completed a deal like that. Make too many of those deals, and we're emptying out the asset vault pretty quick which leaves us boned in the event of an injury or two.
Boston is a good example of not making moves like that. Boston has incredable DEPTH.
They have 28 players STILL on there current roster or in the system(have hit the roster at least 50 games) that they have drafted since 2006. That is very good Drafting and Development.
Last edited by damacles1156: 02-21-2012 at 01:53 AM.
Like I've been saying also, and this article mentioned, this would signal to Quick a go-for it attitude. A real attempt to improve the offense, and hopefully, would make him more amenable to a reasonable extension.
as much as we have debated this it really comes down to parting with jack that might kill the trade,JB will be a career backup barring career ending injury to 32 or his frustration to not scoring sends him back to Conn. area, and lokti is not a standard 3 rd line center so letting these two go is/would be better for their careers, but jack is a whole different cat, a -90 dman that arrived with a moniker and a legend no one this side of tiger williams/dave schultz could have lived up to, kill jack kill has started less fights than our goalie and while at times shows brillance at others shows little dmanesq hockey sense and can look awesome while playing a -3 game...............you have to give to get and the other day most seemed ok with jack going to philly for 2 kids,jvr and read, who if we had time to wait for them to develop we could wait out lokti but we need help now and whether or not you believe it nash and to a lesser degree carter type players are not always available when you have assets, and thats what they are, to get them. While DL has been slow to pull the trigger in the past I have faith he will do what is best for today and the future,nash, gaborik or even carter would open the ice up for the skilled guys here already, and if you wonder where the faith comes from it the belief we will win the cup this year as will the cubs win the world series which will trigger the mayan end of the world ...peace
P.S. You should prepare for the loss of Bernier. His exit is 99.9% certain given Quick's health holds up. He has no future on this team whatsoever regardless of his capability.
Hope he stays, but either way he's going to do very well in either LA or elsewhere.
Like I've been saying also, and this article mentioned, this would signal to Quick a go-for it attitude. A real attempt to improve the offense, and hopefully, would make him more amenable to a reasonable extension.
Why would he be more amenable to a more reasonable extension if some team back East is willing to pay him what he wants? Plus he won't even have anyone on his heels anymore in this organization. His agent is probably salivating right now.
I am pretty hesistant on giving up Johnson, even if it is Nash coming the other way...
I'd much rather give up Voynov, as much as I like the kid. Johnson committed long term to this team and I think he'll make the next step and become a top d-man very soon. Would it be possible to land Nash without giving up Johnson?
Something like Bernier, Voynov, Loktionov, and Penner(cap dump) for Nash? I wish...
We then resign Stoll for a couple years at a lower cap hit(2.5mil area), seeing as how he likes it here, and hasn't done so great this season.
Nash-Kopi-Williams
Gagne(when healthy)-Richards-Brown
King-Stoll-Nolan(maybe trade for 3rd line Wing help too?)
Clifford-Richardson/Fraser-Westgarth/Lewis
