Dubi and MDZ totaled 75 points. Dubinsky is better than that, on a normal year he puts up around 50 points. So lets say around 90 points in total. Now you can make the argument that Nash puts up at least 70 points with the rangers. It's a loss.
Sorry just can't justify trading for him.
You're assuming the player who replaces DZ scores 0 points?
For the sake of argument, let's say Erixon or Schultz or whoever takes DZ's spot scores 20 points. Then it's a wash. Any more than 20 and it's a positive. And also the fact that Nash will play on a higher line than Dubinsky, means that guys like Hagelin get knocked down a line and face easier opposition, thus likely increasing their production as well.
Not necessarily advocating the Nash deal; just pointing out an important factor that you may have overlooked.
You're assuming the player who replaces DZ scores 0 points?
For the sake of argument, let's say Erixon or Schultz or whoever takes DZ's spot scores 20 points. Then it's a wash. Any more than 20 and it's a positive. And also the fact that Nash will play on a higher line than Dubinsky, means that guys like Hagelin get knocked down a line and face easier opposition, thus likely increasing their production as well.
Not necessarily advocating the Nash deal; just pointing out an important factor that you may have overlooked.
They very well could. You're right. But you can't guarantee it. Just like you can't guarantee that Nash will all the sudden start producing more than the norm that he has entire career just because he is playing on a better team. It is not as though he played with completely incompetent players in CBJ. People act like his teammates were a bunch of stick figures or cones on the ice. If Nash were to come an score 90+ points I'd eat crow but I don't see it happening.
And even if DZ's replacement scores 20 points making it even you still:
1. Lose Miller/McIlrath/Thomas/Fast someone along those lines
2. Give up a 1st round pick in a good draft imo
3. Take on a cap killing contract
They very well could. You're right. But you can't guarantee it. Just like you can't guarantee that Nash will all the sudden start producing more than the norm that he has entire career just because he is playing on a better team. It is not as though he played with completely incompetent players in CBJ. People act like his teammates were a bunch of stick figures or cones on the ice. If Nash were to come an score 90+ points I'd eat crow but I don't see it happening.
And even if DZ's replacement scores 20 points making it even you still:
1. Lose Miller/McIlrath/Thomas/Fast someone along those lines
2. Give up a 1st round pick in a good draft imo
3. Take on a cap killing contract
Agreed. Certainly valid points. Nash is intriguing but has just as much "baggage" (in his case, a gigantic cap-hit) as Radulov, who everyone seems to make such a fuss over. If Radulov can be had for a pick, he's the much better option.
Try to sign Justin Schultz.
Go into the season with Radulov. See how the team does and then assess the needs before or at the deadline. If we still need Nash, we can try to make that deal (assuming someone else on his list hasn't already caved and traded for him) or we can add a rental like Whitney or Selanne or even Iginla, who would still have an extra year on his deal, but would cost less than Nash and who's contract would be much less stifling, despite having a similar cap-hit, since it's only for 1 more season.
Needs change.
Injuries change everything.
What we need right now may be filled by the deadline, internally by a young player, or internally by tweaking the system to be more conducive to creating quality scoring chances.
And positions that we think we have covered may become glaring needs by January.
It's always good to go into the season with some flexibility. The Kings just won the cup with a vastly different lineup than they opened the season with.
It's always good to go into the season with some flexibility. The Kings just won the cup with a vastly different lineup than they opened the season with.
Vastly?
The core of the team was basically exactly the same except for Jeff Carter. There was some movement in their bottom-6 and obviously Voynov replacing Johnson, but I wouldn't call the team vastly different.
Trent Hunter-Jeff Carter
Brad Richardson-Colin Fraser
Scott Parse-Jordan Nolan
Ethan Moreau-Dwight King
Jack Johnson-Slava Voynov
Also, Richardson and Parse were still Kings players, just not in the lineup.
And by the way, there's something specific about the Carter trade that a lot of the fans wanting to trade a defenseman for a forward need to remember.
The Kings made that trade after they had Alec Martinez and Slava Voynov pushing for top-4 type minutes, not before. At this moment, we don't have a defenseman who is doing that. Maybe Erixon will next season. Maybe Schultz will if we sign him. But the point is that the Kings had a ready replacement for Jack Johnson. We do not yet have a ready replacement for any one of Staal, Girardi, McDonagh or Del Zotto. When we do, then we can talk about dealing someone.
The core of the team was basically exactly the same except for Jeff Carter. There was some movement in their bottom-6 and obviously Voynov replacing Johnson, but I wouldn't call the team vastly different.
Trent Hunter-Jeff Carter
Brad Richardson-Colin Fraser
Scott Parse-Jordan Nolan
Ethan Moreau-Dwight King
Jack Johnson-Slava Voynov
Also, Richardson and Parse were still Kings players, just not in the lineup.
Hence why I said a vastly different LINEUP, rather than ROSTER.
Hence why I said a vastly different LINEUP, rather than ROSTER.
...
5 of 20 players, 3 of whom are bottom-6 forwards, is a vastly different lineup? Not in my mind. Basically, you're talking about two major lineup changes from the Carter trade. The rest is minutia (not that King wasn't an important part of the lineup, of course)
And by the way, there's something specific about the Carter trade that a lot of the fans wanting to trade a defenseman for a forward need to remember.
The Kings made that trade after they had Alec Martinez and Slava Voynov pushing for top-4 type minutes, not before. At this moment, we don't have a defenseman who is doing that. Maybe Erixon will next season. Maybe Schultz will if we sign him. But the point is that the Kings had a ready replacement for Jack Johnson. We do not yet have a ready replacement for any one of Staal, Girardi, McDonagh or Del Zotto. When we do, then we can talk about dealing someone.
I watch the Kings more than any other team in the league outside the Rangers, and have for years.
I can tell you right now, while those two were pushing for those minutes, I was VERY skeptical about either one of those two being able to handle the minutes and responsibility that came with them. Martinez had excelled in short stints there, and had looked good in limited duties, but no one could have seen him playing this well in that role this soon. Everyone knew he had the potential, it was a matter of whether the timing was right or not.
So, to break it down, I think you're a little off on that analysis, however, you made a good point and made it clear. That, I completely agree with. Not enough in the cupboard to take a shot like that this early dealing Del Zotto, and with Columbus getting Jack Johnson, I don't see them wanting MDZ anymore like they did.
I watch the Kings more than any other team in the league outside the Rangers, and have for years.
I can tell you right now, while those two were pushing for those minutes, I was VERY skeptical about either one of those two being able to handle the minutes and responsibility that came with them. Martinez had excelled in short stints there, and had looked good in limited duties, but no one could have seen him playing this well in that role this soon. Everyone knew he had the potential, it was a matter of whether the timing was right or not.
So, to break it down, I think you're a little off on that analysis, however, you made a good point and made it clear. That, I completely agree with. Not enough in the cupboard to take a shot like that this early dealing Del Zotto, and with Columbus getting Jack Johnson, I don't see them wanting MDZ anymore like they did.
Well, even when they're pushing, the truth is that you never know how someone is going to perform until they're in the situation. The point, which you understood, was that Lombardi had the patience to wait until he felt he had the horses to move someone. I'd be surprised if Sather felt we are at that point. I certainly don't.
5 of 20 players, 3 of whom are bottom-6 forwards, is a vastly different lineup? Not in my mind. Basically, you're talking about two major lineup changes from the Carter trade. The rest is minutia (not that King wasn't an important part of the lineup, of course)
Yes. 25% of the lineup actually is a lot.
I don't know why you're nitpicking this anyway.
If the Kings didn't have much turnover, does the point not still stand that we don't need to have our Stanley Cup winning lineup set in October?
If the Kings didn't have much turnover, does the point not still stand that we don't need to have our Stanley Cup winning lineup set in October?
Get the thorn out of your rear!
Just feels like you were trying to justify all of the crazy things you've proposed doing to this team by using the Kings as an example. I'm just pointing out that while some individual players changed, the overall makeup of the team did not change very much. The Kings/Lombardi story is one of patience and measured and prudent moves. You don't win Cups by drastic overhauls of the roster. Just ask the Flyers.
Just feels like you were trying to justify all of the crazy things you've proposed doing to this team by using the Kings as an example. I'm just pointing out that while some individual players changed, the overall makeup of the team did not change very much. The Kings/Lombardi story is one of patience and measured and prudent moves. You don't win Cups by drastic overhauls of the roster. Just ask the Flyers.
You're confusing two different threads.
In the post of mine that you quoted in this thread, I was arguing AGAINST overhauling the roster.
I said that instead of trading for Nash, or even settling for Parise (who, while great that he only costs cap-space, isn't the specific type of winger we lack/need), we should trade a pick for Radulov and try to sign Justin Schultz.
That's why I was using the Kings as an example, because they were patient, but not patient to a fault. They waited until the right time and then had the balls to pull the trigger on the right deals during the season when the right deal came along (Jeff Carter) to put them over the top. It certainly helped that the rest of the team found their offensive game at the same time, and that Quick stayed hot throughout the playoffs, but you have to credit Lombardi too for finding the right balance of patience and aggressiveness.
I suggested that we make those two moves our offseason priority, and then wait patiently like hawks during the season for the right player to become available either before or at the deadline.
If the team struggles the same way we have to score goals and it's obvious we need a big name like Nash, we still have the assets to do it, and we'll have gotten an idea of how far along Erixon is in his development, and (assuming we sign him) how much Schultz can handle at this level. Then we can make a more educated move or non-move.
OR, if the team is scoring goals, then maybe we only need to add a rental like Whitney, Selanne, etc.
OR, perhaps the needs change completely and we need to add a rental defenseman. Visnovsky, Gonchar, Streit, Regehr, Enstrom, Scuderi are all set to be UFA after this upcoming season.
Needs change over the course of the season.
It's in many ways better to NOT have your lineup set in stone to start the season. Flexibility is so crucial and valuable in a hard cap league.
This is what I was suggesting.
I know that in the offseason thread, I come up with a wild proposal every day. It's the offseason. Im bored. Please don't take everything so seriously. It's just fuel for discussion and speculation. Im not seriously suggesting we trade Marc Staal+ for Nash and the 2nd overall.
It is not next year that you need to look at, it is the following. For a realistic prespective, teh Rangers need to sign Henke, Callahan and Stepan THIS year to see how much cap room is left. And the cap amount will decrease.
And by the way, there's something specific about the Carter trade that a lot of the fans wanting to trade a defenseman for a forward need to remember.
The Kings made that trade after they had Alec Martinez and Slava Voynov pushing for top-4 type minutes, not before. At this moment, we don't have a defenseman who is doing that. Maybe Erixon will next season. Maybe Schultz will if we sign him. But the point is that the Kings had a ready replacement for Jack Johnson. We do not yet have a ready replacement for any one of Staal, Girardi, McDonagh or Del Zotto. When we do, then we can talk about dealing someone.
Tawnos is spot on. There are only three defensemen signed for next season with Sauer out on the shelf. Us Ranger fans have a bad habit of picking on the weakest defenseman on the roster, just bashing away at the guy.
This summer its Del Z after he redeemed himself from a poor performance last season with folks covering for him, but with Bickel, Stralman, Woywitka, Scott basically being considered cast offs, the Rangers need to add defensmen.
Tawnos is spot on. There are only three defensemen signed for next season with Sauer out on the shelf. Us Ranger fans have a bad habit of picking on the weakest defenseman on the roster, just bashing away at the guy.
This summer its Del Z after he redeemed himself from a poor performance last season with folks covering for him, but with Bickel, Stralman, Woywitka, Scott basically being considered cast offs, the Rangers need to add defensmen.
I would sign Stralman but he wants too much $$$ I have heard. 1,6 M plus. He will walk IMO
A week after Larry Brooks reported in the New York Post that the Rangers had contacted the Predators regarding Radulov, he followed up on Sunday by writing the Blueshirts interest is “conditional.”
Brooks claimed GM Glen Sather and his staff are weighing Radulov’s potential against alternatives (Columbus’ Rick Nash, Anaheim’s Bobby Ryan, New Jersey’s Zach Parise) that could be available this summer. Brooks also reported one other NHL team might have interest in Radulov.
I'm not all that concerned with what Ryan or his GM said or didn't say.
Just think about it.
Why would Ryan be available right now?
Why would they trade him for anything less than massive overpayment?
He still finished the season with 31 goals and almost 60 points, after a very slow start.
The whole team had a bad year, mostly due to a horrible first half. They should bounce back. They're definitely a playoff team.
No reason for them to trade Ryan unless someone really overpays. Makes no sense to get rid of a young, big, 30 goal scorer on a great contract for a weak return.
If Dubinsky is moved, there's no cap issue at all now or in the future with Parise.
I think Sather is going to go hard after Parise. If that means involving the expense of trading Dubinsky somewhere along the offseason then so be it.
The draft is the priority... so its about that time to start the draft day trade rumors involving Dubinsky.
it's all good. Makes for good discussion.
