Speculation: Friedman: "I could see [Buffalo] being interested in a player like Nash too."

[Doug Prishpreed]

Since Murray's been hired, there doesn't seem to be any limit to the amount of baseless rumors about this team. Almost none of them ever turn out to be true. Either the harbor center has a lot of gossipers, or the media just like speculating about him, and a game of telephone ensues, and speculation becomes rumor. I'm tuning this crap out from now on.

It's going to be fun hearing Murray describe his own reaction to this rumor a few weeks from now. I think we know him well enough by now to be able to discern the BS rumors from the real ones. This one has got to be complete rubbish.

 

[sfoote]

No thanks,rather have O'Reilly(without giving up Zadorov) and Sharp if at all possible.Then sign Sekera or a similar dman,I'm fine with Lindback in goal.

 

[TehDoak]

Since Murray's been hired, there doesn't seem to be any limit to the amount of baseless rumors about this team. Almost none of them ever turn out to be true. Either the harbor center has a lot of gossipers, or the media just like speculating about him, and a game of telephone ensues, and speculation becomes rumor. I'm tuning this crap out from now on.

It's going to be fun hearing Murray describe his own reaction to this rumor a few weeks from now. I think we know him well enough by now to be able to discern the BS rumors from the real ones. This one has got to be complete rubbish.

I think its more of the cone of silence being lifted around the Sabres it had under Regier make alot more rumors have legitimacy.

In the Regier era, basically, nothing got out. He ran a tight ship. I imagine most roster talks took place with a small # of people behind closed doors.

Under Murray, I have to think things are a alot more relaxed. Stuff does get out. So, people who pull stuff out of their ass or opening speculate about players and destination and includes Buffalo, it has an air of legitimacy vs when under Regier, you knew that person was pulling stuff out of their ass.

 

[Weltschmerz]

I agree with your view of what likely transpires. But, it appears Boyle wants to stay, and I think NYR are better off keeping him, if they can fit him. If we've learned anything the past decade or so, deep playoff teams can never have enough quality defensive depth. But I've always been a Dan Boyle fan.

Boyle also left money on the table last year to sign with the rangers and got a full NMC in return. Stepan is expected to get 6 per or more. The situation is anything but comfortable, otherwise there would be no rumours about moving Nash.
Sather will handle it somehow, but they might lose Hagelin or Klein or both.

 

[rtfirefly]

Having gone through the most painful segments of a rebuild, the Sabres are, at least, on the path to a more productive future. That future, realistically, is still two or three years away. I'm baffled by those who want to toss the whole rebuild into the trash, and trade away any of the team's future assets for 30-somethings who are no part of the future. There are two sets of historical, empirical facts to consider. People contend that the Sabres have so many prospects (second and third round draft picks) in the pipeline that they can afford to lose some. The reality is that, according to the unimpeachable reality of history, ten percent of those second and third rounders will prove to be serviceable NHL players. Most will be up-and-downers, fill-ins, career minor leaguers, and real-estate agents-in-training. The other statistical reality is that goal scorers peak around the age of twenty-five, tail off as they reach thirty, and drop dramatically after that. Yes there are exceptions. But the facts are the facts. The Sabres can either stay the course with no assurance, but at least some hope, of being a playoff contender in a couple years, or load up on soon-to-be has-beens for the purpose of . . . what? Maybe to make Andrew Peters happy the Sabres can invest $25 million into the Thornton/St.Louis/Lecavalier line. Or even better have a Georg Armstrong/Bert Olmstead/Ed Litzenberger line.

 

[old kummelweck]

Since Murray's been hired, there doesn't seem to be any limit to the amount of baseless rumors about this team. Almost none of them ever turn out to be true. Either the harbor center has a lot of gossipers, or the media just like speculating about him, and a game of telephone ensues, and speculation becomes rumor. I'm tuning this crap out from now on.

It's going to be fun hearing Murray describe his own reaction to this rumor a few weeks from now. I think we know him well enough by now to be able to discern the BS rumors from the real ones. This one has got to be complete rubbish.

Any team that needs to move a big contract will be linked with the sabres as they are a team with both deep pockets and a wealth of desirable assets.

 

[sba]

no no no no no nononononono nnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooope

 

[Zip15]

Since Murray's been hired, there doesn't seem to be any limit to the amount of baseless rumors about this team. Almost none of them ever turn out to be true. Either the harbor center has a lot of gossipers, or the media just like speculating about him, and a game of telephone ensues, and speculation becomes rumor. I'm tuning this crap out from now on.

It's going to be fun hearing Murray describe his own reaction to this rumor a few weeks from now. I think we know him well enough by now to be able to discern the BS rumors from the real ones. This one has got to be complete rubbish.

Not sure I agree, especially when one considers the most prevalent rumor in TM's short tenure--that Myers was on the block despite Murray's denials--turned out to be very true.

Having gone through the most painful segments of a rebuild, the Sabres are, at least, on the path to a more productive future. That future, realistically, is still two or three years away. I'm baffled by those who want to toss the whole rebuild into the trash, and trade away any of the team's future assets for 30-somethings who are no part of the future.

I think the bolded is a bit dramatic. Given that the few who've speculated about the cost have included Ennis, who only has one more year remaining on his contract than Nash--it seems there's an unstated assumption that Ennis would be re-signed while Nash will either leave or we won't want him back at the end of his deal--and a mid-to-late 1st round pick (go back five or six years and check the players who've been picked 20-22 and there's a whole lot more "meh" than "wow") and I think that falls far short of your hyperbolic assertion that we'd be "tossing the whole rebuild in the trash" for such a deal.

Without knowing the true cost, I'm not for or against the deal. But I'm not going to say that it'd be throwing the rebuild in the trash simply because we may spend assets in the form of draft picks or prospects who may or may not make it, and/or young roster players who are just as likely to leave after their contracts expire as Nash would be.

 

[SabresBillsBuffalo]

How did Ennis even get brought up to begin with?

No idea, that's the last name is say.

 

[Zip15]

No idea, that's the last name is say.

Yes, Tyler Ennis The Untouchable. I'm sure Murray values him more than Ristolainen, Eichel, Girgensons, and a couple others. My goodness. The dog days of HF are officially upon us.

 

[Onslow]

No idea, that's the last name is say.

I think people are just speculating that Ennis could be the main piece going back to NYR.

As for the trade? No thanks. Who would you rather spend good assets on? ROR or Nash? Should be an easy answer.

 

[Zip15]

I think people are just speculating that Ennis could be the main piece going back to NYR.

As for the trade? No thanks. Who would you rather spend good assets on? ROR or Nash? Should be an easy answer.

But that's not what's being discussed here. It's not a choice between ROR and Nash. It's reasonable to assume that we don't have the primary piece that Colorado wants --a top-4 LHD--or one with whom we are willing to part (on top of the other pieces it'd likely take). They're separate inquiries.

I think there has to be some level of interest given that if Nash isn't the best ES goal-scorer in the game, he's certainly in the top three.

 

[Dex]

Taking Nash and his full cap hit would be enough of a return for NY, IMO. I would give up a couple of low level prospects like Jacobs and Nevins or someone else who will have trouble sticking with the Amerks just to free up a few contracts.

No way I give up a pick, prospect or top 6 forward

 

[Paxon]

But that's not what's being discussed here. It's not a choice between ROR and Nash. It's reasonable to assume that we don't have the primary piece that Colorado wants --a top-4 LHD--or one with whom we are willing to part (on top of the other pieces it'd likely take). They're separate inquiries.

I think there has to be some level of interest given that if Nash isn't the best ES goal-scorer in the game, he's certainly in the top three.

I don't know why that'd necessitate there being some level of interest. He's 31 and we'd have him for three seasons. I'd love for someone to explain to me why we should acquire an All-Star--level winger for the next three seasons. Acquiring Nash would be contrary to everything Murray said about his approach this offseason.

 

[Onslow]

But that's not what's being discussed here. It's not a choice between ROR and Nash. It's reasonable to assume that we don't have the primary piece that Colorado wants --a top-4 LHD--or one with whom we are willing to part (on top of the other pieces it'd likely take). They're separate inquiries.

I think there has to be some level of interest given that if Nash isn't the best ES goal-scorer in the game, he's certainly in the top three.

The Sabres do have the piece that the Avs want - Zadorov. Young LHD that is inconsistent right now but just oozing with potential. Zad + 21 + something small would probably be enough to get it done. Personally, I wouldn't give up Zad, but that's what it would take.

So if they're separate inquiries, and the Sabres somehow manage to land both, that would probably put a good dent into prospect depth. And idk if we have enough quality in the pipeline right now to do that. I think we need to have two more good drafts (2015 and 2016), and then I'd definitely want to put together a package for another Kane-type trade.

But like I alluded to in the previous post, I'd much rather give up assets for ROR instead of Nash.

 

[yahhockey]

If this were true then TM must also be planning on acquiring a goalie, maybe (probably?) signing a D and miraculously competing next season. If the team isn't all-in on winning next season then it seems pointless to give up any tangible assets for a player in Nash's situation. He is coming off an impressive turnaround season however was this season the outlier or will he continue to produce over the remaining three years of his contract?

I would be willing to give up meaningful assets for an RFA on a cap strapped team but under no circumstances is it worth overpaying or giving up something close to fair value for Nash. Maybe the Rangers could have 21 or a mid-level prospect but if we're talking ____+____+___ to acquire Nash then it's a risky overpayment that benefits the Rangers in the long term far more than it helps us in the short term even without considering the detrimental aspects to our long term plans. If this was 17/18, we're coming off of our first playoff appearance in years and in the discussion for a division title then I would consider giving up assets for a player similar to Nash but it's hard to imagine the benefits outweigh the cost of making a trade like this today.

After reading the article he isn't even convinced that Nash will leave the Rangers let alone have any tangible information that Buffalo is interested. It seems like the betting odds would favour Nash staying with New York so the odds of him leaving and Buffalo acquiring him would be quite high and probably not worth the time that we will put into the discussion on these boards. If Nash demands a trade and we are one of a handful of teams he requested to be traded to then we can start a meaning dialogue about his value and the assets we would be willing to part with.

 

[SabresBillsBuffalo]

Yes, Tyler Ennis The Untouchable. I'm sure Murray values him more than Ristolainen, Eichel, Girgensons, and a couple others. My goodness. The dog days of HF are officially upon us.

I meant that's the last name id say, just because I like the guy.

Tim Murray has come out and said He has no interest in trading ennis. Many times.

The dog days of HF are officially here when someone gets that bothered because someone says on of our top 3 dynamic forwards is a name I wouldn't mention in a trade.

 

[Zip15]

I don't know why that'd necessitate there being some level of interest.

For starters, we've been a historically bad offensive team for the last two years.

He's 31 and we'd have him for three seasons. I'd love for someone to explain to me why we should acquire an All-Star--level winger for the next three seasons. Acquiring Nash would be contrary to everything Murray said about his approach this offseason.

I can't imagine Murray envisions every scenario that may arise or player that may pop free when he makes a statement. I don't think Murray should need to qualify that he'd at least have some level of interest--which is the limit of what I said--if a player like Rick Nash or Corey Perry ever popped free. I mean, does it need to be said? Of course he would have interest and he'd inquire.

As far as not fitting the rebuild, what do people think Murray's timeline is for making the playoffs? I'd bet the house he thinks this has to be a playoff team by 2016-17, which is Year 2 of the three remaining on Nash's deal. To get to the playoffs by 2016-17, I think they need to add at least another forward of the Kane/ROR/Nash ilk. Generally, those players are typically not available for only money in UFA; rather, they have to be traded for. Accordingly, we're probably not done spending young assets to improve the roster.

Acquiring a player like Nash also helps you maximize the ELC and non-arbitration years of guys like Eichel, Risto, Zads, Girgensons, et al. I hope Murray isn't looking to sit on his hands while the organization takes lumps during those players' cheap years under the guise of "developing the young players"--they can develop while winning, too.

The Sabres do have the piece that the Avs want - Zadorov. Young LHD that is inconsistent right now but just oozing with potential. Zad + 21 + something small would probably be enough to get it done. Personally, I wouldn't give up Zad, but that's what it would take.

Which is essentially what I said (see bolded):

But that's not what's being discussed here. It's not a choice between ROR and Nash. It's reasonable to assume that we don't have the primary piece that Colorado wants --a top-4 LHD--or one with whom we are willing to part (on top of the other pieces it'd likely take). They're separate inquiries.

I think there has to be some level of interest given that if Nash isn't the best ES goal-scorer in the game, he's certainly in the top three.

I'm alluding to Zads there. Also, no guarantee Colorado wants Zads. He has another developmental year (or two, gasp) ahead of him. Colorado may want immediate help if they're giving up ROR, and there'll be plenty of teams willing to give them that more immediate help if they can get their hands on ROR.

Acquiring ROR checks the age group box but entails as much risk, if not more, than acquiring Nash. As much as we'd all hope Pegula Bucks can buy an ROR extension, if ROR has his heart set on going to UFA and playing in a bigger market, we'll have given up big assets and have nothing to show for it in just over a year for now. Trading for Nash gives you three years.

Jame and I were two of the original ROR-to-Buffalo fanboys. You're preaching to the choir about acquiring ROR. But that's not without significant risk.

 

[Zip15]

I meant that's the last name id say, just because I like the guy.

Tim Murray has come out and said He has no interest in trading ennis. Many times.

The dog days of HF are officially here when someone gets that bothered because someone says on of our top 3 dynamic forwards is a name I wouldn't mention in a trade.

Tim Murray also said he wasn't trading Tyler Myers. Many times.

 

[Paxon]

For starters, we've been a historically bad offensive team for the last two years.

That's irrelevant. We've been a historically bad team for the last two years but that's inherent motivation to make a trade outside of the team's plans.

I can't imagine Murray envisions every scenario that may arise or player that may pop free when he makes a statement. I don't think Murray should need to qualify that he'd at least have some level of interest--which is the limit of what I said--if a player like Rick Nash or Corey Perry ever popped free. I mean, does it need to be said? Of course he would have interest and he'd inquire.

If they popped free... in free agency. The idea that Murray would be interested in trading for Corey Perry is beyond absurd to me. Rick Nash would make more sense because the cost would be much lower. If Rick Nash were available for not much more than what he'd cost us in assets as a free agent (nothing) then I'm sure there would be interest. That isn't realistic, though.

As far as not fitting the rebuild, what do people think Murray's timeline is for making the playoffs? I'd bet the house he thinks this has to be a playoff team by 2016-17, which is Year 2 of the three remaining on Nash's deal. To get to the playoffs by 2016-17, I think they need to add at least another forward of the Kane/ROR/Nash ilk. Generally, those players are typically not available for only money in UFA; rather, they have to be traded for. Accordingly, we're probably not done spending young assets to improve the roster.

So trade for a player who isn't 31 with 3 years left on his deal...? What's the point of acquiring a player you say we need to make the playoffs only to then lose him, presumably leaving us not a playoff team? Or are we going to just develop another Rick Nash to replace him with immediately? I do not see how this follows any sort of a plan. The plan should be to improve every year, not to make a major improvement next year and then regress after a couple of seasons because the basis for that improvement would be gone.

There's a reason that every single time Murray has ever touched on the notion of "accelerating" the rebuild it involves players of Kane and ROR's age, because those are the players it makes sense to pay up/more for. Those players will be here when we're a contender. Nash won't. Acquiring a player of Nash's age/contract term makes sense only in free agency or in a trade of negligible asset cost. In two years paying what it'd cost for a 31 year old Rick Nash with 3 years left would make sense, provided it works cap-wise. Not now.

Acquiring a player like Nash also helps you maximize the ELC and non-arbitration years of guys like Eichel, Risto, Zads, Girgensons, et al. I hope Murray isn't looking to sit on his hands while the organization takes lumps during those players' cheap years under the guise of "developing the young players"--they can develop while winning, too.

By squeaking into the playoffs? I don't understand how that maximizes their ELC years, whatever that means. If the team becomes a contender at some point with them as a core then their ELC years were maximized to any degree that it matters.

Tim Murray also said he wasn't trading Tyler Myers. Many times.

I can't remember him saying that a single time.

 

[Onslow]

Acquiring ROR checks the age group box but entails as much risk, if not more, than acquiring Nash. As much as we'd all hope Pegula Bucks can buy an ROR extension, if ROR has his heart set on going to UFA and playing in a bigger market, we'll have given up big assets and have nothing to show for it in just over a year for now. Trading for Nash gives you three years.

Jame and I were two of the original ROR-to-Buffalo fanboys. You're preaching to the choir about acquiring ROR. But that's not without significant risk.

Right, and that's why I'm leery of acquiring him. It would cost assets I'm not willing to give up and then he could walk for nothing. I like ROR a lot. But I'm not in love with him. I'd be willing to wait until he hits UFA and then Murray/Peggy can make their pitch w/o risking assets.

As far as Nash goes, I have no interest. Hopefully the Sabres don't either. Fortunately, it's just speculation at this point.

 

[SoFFacet]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but was the only support for this rumor the fact that TM acquired Evander Kane last year?

This is just like when the ad bar starts trying to sell me more copies of the thing that I literally just bought online and obviously don't need another of.

 

[jBuds]

Also his playoff production is the result of a thankless role and is a symptom of the Rangers not being all that good as a postseason team.

No it's not.

The man doesn't produce points in the playoffs. He doesn't play poorly... By any means. He just doesn't score.

It made a lot more sense to me last year. But after his regular season this year, I thought he would produce. Didn't happen.

I'd take him for SURE. I wouldn't give up what we would need to to get him. So it's moot.

 

[stokes84]

I think people are just speculating that Ennis could be the main piece going back to NYR.

As for the trade? No thanks. Who would you rather spend good assets on? ROR or Nash? Should be an easy answer.

It is an easy answer. Nash, of course. 40 goal scorers don't grow on trees. Nash is the much more valuable player and is a first liner anywhere he goes. Not to mention RORs pending UFA status, which is a HUGE issue.

 

[Deevo]

It is an easy answer. Nash, of course. 40 goal scorers don't grow on trees. Nash is the much more valuable player and is a first liner anywhere he goes. Not to mention RORs pending UFA status, which is a HUGE issue.

ROR is a better fit for our young club, assuming he agrees to an extension. Nash is likely going to be on the downslope of his career once we're competitive.