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

[stokes84]

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.

Maybe. These guys all have reputations on how they take care of themselves. If our staff thinks Nash is a guy that can have a long career, he can be a Hossa type.

 

[sabrebuild]

In a world where miracles happen and Murray has brass stones the size of beach balls. What if you got them both.

You get a top 9

Kane Eichel Nash
Girgs Reinhart . ROR
Moulson Larsson. Foligno/Gionta

Pretty legit group even this year. And let's say you realistically gave up,

Ennis, 21st and a B prospect for Nash

Zadorov, 31st and Comp her for ROR.

Heavy prices to pay but... does that really kill our rebuild?

The team's best players are still under 22, and on the roster so long term core players are in place.

You still have long term prospects that are legit in fasching, mccabe, Bailey, Florentino, Malone, both notre dame guys and your 2016 1st and 2nd.

I'm not sure if I couldn't be convinced not to load up and go for contention, since we still would have significant replacement prospects coming up.

 

[Onslow]

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.

Nash does not fit the timeframe of this team. We just completed the tear-down portion of the rebuild. Now we will begin to build back up. If the Sabres were looking to contend this year or next, then Nash might be an option. But we aren't. So Nash becomes unnecessary.

I wouldn't give up much for ROR either. At least not without a contract extension in place.

 

[Deevo]

In a world where miracles happen and Murray has brass stones the size of beach balls. What if you got them both.

You get a top 9

Kane Eichel Nash
Girgs Reinhart . ROR
Moulson Larsson. Foligno/Gionta

Pretty legit group even this year. And let's say you realistically gave up,

Ennis, 21st and a B prospect for Nash

Zadorov, 31st and Comp her for ROR.

Heavy prices to pay but... does that really kill our rebuild?

The team's best players are still under 22, and on the roster so long term core players are in place.

You still have long term prospects that are legit in fasching, mccabe, Bailey, Florentino, Malone, both notre dame guys and your 2016 1st and 2nd.

I'm not sure if I couldn't be convinced not to load up and go for contention, since we still would have significant replacement prospects coming up.

Scary group...

 

[Sabretip]

There is nothing linking the Sabres to "being in" on Nash beyond Friedman's imagination. He's just speculating.

Exactly - there's too much we've heard from Murray and Bylsma to believe there's any credibility to the idea. Nash's age, position and cost to acquire him are all bad fits with where the Sabres are - and by the time the team is a contender, Nash will be on the decline.

 

[Zip15]

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.

This statement again begs the question of when people believe the Sabres are going to be "competitive." Many are talking like they won't be competitive for another 3-4 years. I guarantee you that Murray thinks they will/should be competing for a playoff spot in 2016-17. I would define that as competitive.

Nash does not fit the timeframe of this team. We just completed the tear-down portion of the rebuild. Now we will begin to build back up. If the Sabres were looking to contend this year or next, then Nash might be an option. But we aren't. So Nash becomes unnecessary.

I wouldn't give up much for ROR either. At least not without a contract extension in place.

The goal for this team is to be in the playoffs in 2016-17. Acquiring Nash is not inconsistent with that timeframe.

Exactly - there's too much we've heard from Murray and Bylsma to believe there's any credibility to the idea. Nash's age, position and cost to acquire him are all bad fits with where the Sabres are - and by the time the team is a contender, Nash will be on the decline.

Decline from being the best ES goal scorer in the NHL since the lockout? So, what, like the 5th or 10th best ES goal scorer in the NHL? Heaven forbid.

 

[Zip15]

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 suppose we disagree on the premise. I think Murray's and the organization's "plans" are to constantly get better. If that means you can get Nash for a 2nd liner like Ennis and a mid-late 1st round pick, I think Murray jumps at it.

Acquiring Nash is hardly short-sighted or a knee-jerk reaction. He makes the team better in the near- and mid-term. As I've repeatedly said, I'd withhold judgment on acquiring Nash until I knew the exact price. But it seems many, including you, are trying to kill the idea in the crib and suggest that Murray wouldn't at least be interested.

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.

Perry shouldn't cost much more given the similarity in their regular season numbers, especially over the last few years--say nothing for the fact that Perry gets to play with Getzlaf. Nash has a 12.5% shooting percentage in the regular season, and 4.8% in the playoffs. I think that's eventually due for some regression to the mean. Nash doesn't become a perimeter player once the playoffs start.

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.

What? Are you assuming we're definitely re-signing Ennis after this contract? Ennis is the only actual name I've seen floated in this thread. It seems many are bemoaning a possibility that we'd lose Nash after three years, but ignore the fact that it's just as likely that Ennis would leave after his deal expires in four years.

As I said above, Nash isn't a one-year fix--he'd be here for three seasons. Upgrading from Ennis to Nash with the added expense of losing one extra year of Ennis and the chance to draft, who, Colin White, is a chance I'm willing to take.

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.

Again with the slavish adherence to the age group preference. It's a preference, it's not a requirement. Do you truly believe that if a talented 27 or 28 year old is available that Murray avoids it altogether because he isn't 24 or under? If he would be interested in that player, then that runs counter to all the age group statements

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

He made the comment several times that the media had him trading Tyler Myers numerous times but he wasn't looking to do so. There were many in here who gleefully posted the comments in the never-ending debates about whether we should/would trade Myers.

 

[My Cozen Dylan]

In a world where miracles happen and Murray has brass stones the size of beach balls. What if you got them both.

You get a top 9

Kane Eichel Nash
Girgs Reinhart . ROR
Moulson Larsson. Foligno/Gionta

Pretty legit group even this year. And let's say you realistically gave up,

Ennis, 21st and a B prospect for Nash

Zadorov, 31st and Comp her for ROR.

Heavy prices to pay but... does that really kill our rebuild?

The team's best players are still under 22, and on the roster so long term core players are in place.

You still have long term prospects that are legit in fasching, mccabe, Bailey, Florentino, Malone, both notre dame guys and your 2016 1st and 2nd.

I'm not sure if I couldn't be convinced not to load up and go for contention, since we still would have significant replacement prospects coming up.

I'd be so psyched if we had that top-9.

 

[joshjull]

The OP and title of the article itself are incredibly misleading. It makes it seem as if the Sabres asked about him or have expressed interest. But, as I posted earlier, there is NOTHING in the article saying the Sabres are interested in Nash. NOTHING. Just Friedman speculating with flawed logic that we might be a team interested


The following is the entirety of his comments specific to Buffalo…….

“The team I think to watch in something like this is a team like Buffalo. They already went out and they got Evander Kane. I could see them being interested in a player like Nash too. Tim’s a bit aggressive that way. But again, I’m not 100 percent convinced that one’s going to happen.

There is nothing there but pure speculation. Plus a lack of understanding on Friedman's part of what Murray's oft stated plans are and why someone like Kane was targeted (his age) and why Nash would not be for the same reason (age). Everything Murray has said about his plan for this offseason says there is no way Nash would be a player he would be looking to acquire.

 

[Husko]

I really don't get it. He doesn't seem like a good fit for this team at all.

 

[Paxon]

I suppose we disagree on the premise. I think Murray's and the organization's "plans" are to constantly get better. If that means you can get Nash for a 2nd liner like Ennis and a mid-late 1st round pick, I think Murray jumps at it.

How do you "constantly get better" by trading futures for players who will only be with you for 3 seasons?

Acquiring Nash is hardly short-sighted or a knee-jerk reaction. He makes the team better in the near- and mid-term. As I've repeatedly said, I'd withhold judgment on acquiring Nash until I knew the exact price. But it seems many, including you, are trying to kill the idea in the crib and suggest that Murray wouldn't at least be interested.

"Near- and mid-term" is by nature short-sighted.

Perry shouldn't cost much more given the similarity in their regular season numbers, especially over the last few years--say nothing for the fact that Perry gets to play with Getzlaf. Nash has a 12.5% shooting percentage in the regular season, and 4.8% in the playoffs. I think that's eventually due for some regression to the mean. Nash doesn't become a perimeter player once the playoffs start.

Perry is better and his team isn't in quite the same position as the Rangers. The price difference would be substantial in my mind.

What? Are you assuming we're definitely re-signing Ennis after this contract? Ennis is the only actual name I've seen floated in this thread. It seems many are bemoaning a possibility that we'd lose Nash after three years, but ignore the fact that it's just as likely that Ennis would leave after his deal expires in four years.

Did I mention re-signing Ennis once? Did I mention Tyler Ennis once? No, so I don't know what in christ you're talking about. However, the pretty obvious difference is that Nash would be 34 at the time his contract would be up and Ennis would be substantially younger. I doubt we'd want to re-sign Nash in 3 years. Ennis, perhaps we would.

As I said above, Nash isn't a one-year fix--he'd be here for three seasons. Upgrading from Ennis to Nash with the added expense of losing one extra year of Ennis and the chance to draft, who, Colin White, is a chance I'm willing to take.

Three seasons, during which we will not be a Cup contender, we've marginally upgraded the team.

Again with the slavish adherence to the age group preference. It's a preference, it's not a requirement. Do you truly believe that if a talented 27 or 28 year old is available that Murray avoids it altogether because he isn't 24 or under? If he would be interested in that player, then that runs counter to all the age group statements

Slavish adherence? Please. He explicitly stated the targets that fit in with his plan. Who said he wouldn't stray from it? Straying all the way to paying up what it'd cost to bring in a 31 year-old Nash on a 3 year deal is not merely a matter of being flexible. It's contrary to the plan, period. Your examples -- 27 and 28 year-olds... maybe you should say that if we were talking about 27 and 28 year-olds, which we aren't. The difference between 24 and 27 is not nearly the same as the difference between 24 and 31. Why bring that up at all?

He made the comment several times that the media had him trading Tyler Myers numerous times but he wasn't looking to do so. There were many in here who gleefully posted the comments in the never-ending debates about whether we should/would trade Myers.

What he said is that he wasn't shopping Myers and that he wouldn't trade him unless he got an offer that knocked his socks off. He never said "I'm not trading Tyler Myers".

----

Moreover, this idea that upgrading from Ennis to Nash is necessary to be a playoff team in 2016-2017 is overstating. The effect it'd have on whether or not we make the playoffs is likely negligible. It'd make a us a better team, but it's not going to change the team's fortunes, which should be a pretty serious requirement when you're making a high-cost, short-term move in the middle of a rebuild.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I really don't get it. He doesn't seem like a good fit for this team at all.

I disagree. I think having someone like that takes pressure off Eichel and Reinhart.

 

[Irving Zisman]

The OP and title of the article itself are incredibly misleading. It makes it seem as if the Sabres asked about him or have expressed interest. But, as I posted earlier, there is NOTHING in the article saying the Sabres are interested in Nash. NOTHING. Just Friedman speculating with flawed logic that we might be a team interested


The following is the entirety of his comments specific to Buffalo…….



There is nothing there but pure speculation. Plus a lack of understanding on Friedman's part of what Murray's oft stated plans are and why someone like Kane was targeted (his age) and why Nash would not be for the same reason (age). Everything Murray has said about his plan for this offseason says there is no way Nash would be a player he would be looking to acquire.

Thanks for posting this. Amazing how much stock is given to one Talking Head's speculation.

And to give up high quality assets... For Rick Nash? Woof.

People have already mentioned the obvious: Age, not fitting the window/lack of cost-controlled years, etc.

But to entertain paying big assets for of all people, Richard Nash, is just awful.

I want him and his long rap sheet of underwhelming-ness nowhere near our young core. I still have nightmares when I think about his playoff no-shows in Columbus. And more so from drunk Ohio State diehards proclaiming him "best player in the league."

Obligatory hyperbole: Is Nash the most overrated (and overhyped) player since the lockout? I'm having a harder time thinking of a guy with more "legend" than Nash.

 

[Irving Zisman]

I disagree. I think having someone like that takes pressure off Eichel and Reinhart.

Plenty of cheaper (both contract and asset cost) options than Nash. It's just such an unnecessary move for a team like ours to make.

 

[stokes84]

I disagree. I think having someone like that takes pressure off Eichel and Reinhart.

Yup. It is a fundamental error of many rebuilds to wait for their high draft picks to develop while throwing them to the wolves with no kingpin to take the pressure off of them. Let them develop in the shadows of Kane, Nash, Girgensons and take over the offense when they are ready.

 

[kenfury]

In a world where miracles happen and Murray has brass stones the size of beach balls. What if you got them both.

You get a top 9

Kane Eichel Nash
Girgs Reinhart . ROR
Moulson Larsson. Foligno/Gionta

Pretty legit group even this year.

Looks good. Problem is what that looks like in 2020. ROR and Nash have moved on. Moulson can barely skate, Compher and Zads got traded so the future mid-tier replacements are playing in COL. Ennis is in the prime of his career on a speedy Rangers. Also over half of those 2nd and 3rd rounders that we love have busted (statistically they will). The Sabres become an incomplete puzzle of mismatched pieces. So no, you stay the course.

 

[ZZamboni]

No thanks to the silly "let's throw bleep against the wall" speculation about Nash.

 

[Bps21*]

So your philosophy is predicting the worst case of every scenario and then acting out of fear?

Edit: In reply to two posts up

 

[Zip15]

Thanks for posting this. Amazing how much stock is given to one Talking Head's speculation.

And to give up high quality assets... For Rick Nash? Woof.

People have already mentioned the obvious: Age, not fitting the window/lack of cost-controlled years, etc.

But to entertain paying big assets for of all people, Richard Nash, is just awful.

I want him and his long rap sheet of underwhelming-ness nowhere near our young core. I still have nightmares when I think about his playoff no-shows in Columbus. And more so from drunk Ohio State diehards proclaiming him "best player in the league."

By that, I hope you're referring to all the times CBJ missed the playoffs and not no-shows in the playoffs by Nash. You know, since they only played four playoff games in his tenure there.

Obligatory hyperbole: Is Nash the most overrated (and overhyped) player since the lockout? I'm having a harder time thinking of a guy with more "legend" than Nash.

Not the most overrated, but certainly the best ES goal-scorer since the lockout.

 

[Sabreality]

i'm not trading assets for a 31 yr old, no matter how talented, for 3 years and then UFA.

this is a move that gets made in 2 years.

 

[Zip15]

How do you "constantly get better" by trading futures for players who will only be with you for 3 seasons?

You get better by acquiring a 1st line player who's an elite ES scorer. Nash's ES goals/60 rank:

Rolling 3-year from 2012-13 through 14-15: 1st
Rolling 2-year from 2013-14 through 14-15: T-1st (w/Perry)
2014-15: 1st

Quite simply, he is the best ES goal scorer in the NHL. Better than Perry. Better than Ovechkin. (Both of whom are or will be 30 when next season starts. Funny, I don't hear talk of those players declining.) And he's done it without sheltered minutes and without an elite center. Getting that type of player helps you get better.

Also, I don't see why a guy who'd have to waive a NTC to come to Buffalo in the first place would definitely be leaving in three years. He's from Brampton, so you'd think there'd be some value to him in playing 100 miles from where he grew up.

"Near- and mid-term" is by nature short-sighted.

Not true. Meanwhile, you advocate for Murray to not even consider trading for a player of Nash's ilk in favor of hoping you can get a 24-and-under forward.

Did I mention re-signing Ennis once? Did I mention Tyler Ennis once? No, so I don't know what in christ you're talking about. However, the pretty obvious difference is that Nash would be 34 at the time his contract would be up and Ennis would be substantially younger. I doubt we'd want to re-sign Nash in 3 years. Ennis, perhaps we would.

Ennis is the only player whose name has been bandied about in this thread regarding a potential return for Nash--and his name has been more that sufficient to nip any discussion concerning Nash in the bud. Second, why wouldn't we want to re-sign Nash in three years? Is he going to fall off the face of the earth? Even some regression still puts him among the best goal-scorers in the NHL. And he'll be 34, not 40. Some are talking like he's going to be Jon Cheechoo in three years.

Three seasons, during which we will not be a Cup contender, we've marginally upgraded the team.

Rick Nash is a marginal upgrade? Good heavens, where am I?

Slavish adherence? Please. He explicitly stated the targets that fit in with his plan. Who said he wouldn't stray from it? Straying all the way to paying up what it'd cost to bring in a 31 year-old Nash on a 3 year deal is not merely a matter of being flexible. It's contrary to the plan, period.

Plans need to be tweaked as opportunities present themselves. Like if one of the best goal-scorers in the league pops free. Murray has to look into it and I know he'd be interested. To say otherwise is foolish.

Moreover, this idea that upgrading from Ennis to Nash is necessary to be a playoff team in 2016-2017 is overstating. The effect it'd have on whether or not we make the playoffs is likely negligible. It'd make a us a better team, but it's not going to change the team's fortunes, which should be a pretty serious requirement when you're making a high-cost, short-term move in the middle of a rebuild.

I've never stated that once. My view is that Murray has to at least be interested in a player like Nash. The majority view in here seems to be "OMG, he doesn't fit and he makes no sense," and Murray shouldn't even look into the situation. Nash makes plenty of sense if the cost is reasonable--and the cost has not been so much as approximated by a single person in this thread, which is probably a source of much of this argument. He makes the team better over the next several years, including during at least two seasons that Murray expects to be in the playoffs. If the cost is Ennis and 21 and some other middling pieces--which is the position I've operated from throughout this thread--you have to think long and hard about it, even if he falls outside of Murray's preferred age bracket.

 

[enthusiast]

did ovechkin die zip

 

[Zip15]

did ovechkin die zip

No, why? Ovie is a great scorer in his own right, obviously. He's 18th in ES goals/60 over the last three seasons:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...=0&type=individual&sort=igoals60&sortdir=DESC

Not surprisingly, though, Ovie is the undisputed goal-scoring king on the PP, and it's not even close:

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...=0&type=individual&sort=igoals60&sortdir=DESC

 

[alehman42]

The two camps of people really seem to be talking past each other here.

Those that think that Nash will cost Ennis, a 1st round pick, or another top prospect are rightfully arguing that given where the Sabres are in their rebuild, it makes no sense to give up core pieces of the future for a 31-year-old on a 3-year contract, no matter how good he is.

Those that think that Nash could be had as primarily a salary dump, with only a mid-round pick or so-so prospect going back, are rightfully arguing that it would be foolish to pass up one of the best forwards in hockey just because he's over 30 and expensive. The Sabres will have cap room to spare over the next 3 years, and a player of Nash's calibre would take some pressure off the young core, and could accelerate their return to contention.

We have no idea how motivated the Rangers are to move Nash, so we have no idea which of the above groups are correct.

(There are also a handful of people advocating for trading a big package for Nash, and another handful who would turn him down as a pure salary dump. These people are, for lack of a more tactful way to put things, foolish).

As a Sabres fan who's tired of rooting for losses, I hope the Rangers find themselves cap-screwed and just dump his contract on us. That may be a pipe dream, but there's no way for any of us to know that yet.

 

[Zip15]

The two camps of people really seem to be talking past each other here.

Those that think that Nash will cost Ennis, a 1st round pick, or another top prospect are rightfully arguing that given where the Sabres are in their rebuild, it makes no sense to give up core pieces of the future for a 31-year-old on a 3-year contract, no matter how good he is.

Those that think that Nash could be had as primarily a salary dump, with only a mid-round pick or so-so prospect going back, are rightfully arguing that it would be foolish to pass up one of the best forwards in hockey just because he's over 30 and expensive. The Sabres will have cap room to spare over the next 3 years, and a player of Nash's calibre would take some pressure off the young core, and could accelerate their return to contention.

We have no idea how motivated the Rangers are to move Nash, so we have no idea which of the above groups are correct.

(There are also a handful of people advocating for trading a big package for Nash, and another handful who would turn him down as a pure salary dump. These people are, for lack of a more tactful way to put things, foolish).

As a Sabres fan who's tired of rooting for losses, I hope the Rangers find themselves cap-screwed and just dump his contract on us. That may be a pipe dream, but there's no way for any of us to know that.

No, I'm definitely arguing that if the cost for Nash was only Ennis (signed for only one more season than Nash), 21st overall, and a non-elite prospect along the lines of Compher or Bailey, you probably have to pull the trigger--assuming they were getting nowhere with ROR and Colorado.