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

[CaptPantalones]

For those and the speculation crowd, Friedman doesn't usually speculate unless there is some merit to it. See the spezza trade

 

[Zip15]

For those and the speculation crowd, Friedman doesn't usually speculate unless there is some merit to it. See the spezza trade

Regardless, the biggest stumbling block to a Nash-to-Buffalo trade isn't some notion that the best ES scorer in the league, post-lockout, doesn't "fit" on the worst offensive team since the lockout, it's that Nash has no reason to waive his NTC to come to Buffalo. The Rags should be a Cup contender for another year or two while Buffalo is finding its way. If he truly has any interest in joining this organization, he can reconsider waiving in a couple years if given the chance, or join the team through UFA. For now, though, he's not waiving to come to Buffalo.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I think almost everyone is overestimating the cost here. Let's look back at the first Nash trade. Columbus got a 26yo Dubinsky coming off a poor season (NYR was probably looking at him primarily as a cap dump), a 24yo Anismov (solid youngish bottom 6er), Erixon (pretty good D prospect at the time, had a good season in the AHL prior to trade but hadn't been too successful in his NHL call-ups), and a late 1st. Cap/bottom 6 + bottom 6 + 1st + a quality prospect.

Based on that, I'd think an offer would look something like: Hodgson (salary dump/reclamation project/or NYR can buy him out for a bunch of cap savings) + Foligno (quality young bottom 6er) + NYI 1st OR NYI 2nd + BUF 2016 2nd + a good prospect (maybe NYR would take a chance on Grigs? Maybe someone like Compher or McCabe.)
Alternatively, I could also see something like Moulson (if he'd waive, he let's NYR replace a decent amount of Nash's goals at a smaller cap hit) + some stuff.

I tend to agree more with those who think Nash makes little sense for us right now, and I doubt he'd waive his NTC for Buffalo, but I just wanted to point out that I doubt he would reasonably cost us Ennis + a 1st + a prospect.

 

[CaptPantalones]

Regardless, the biggest stumbling block to a Nash-to-Buffalo trade isn't some notion that the best ES scorer in the league, post-lockout, doesn't "fit" on the worst offensive team since the lockout, it's that Nash has no reason to waive his NTC to come to Buffalo. The Rags should be a Cup contender for another year or two while Buffalo is finding its way. If he truly has any interest in joining this organization, he can reconsider waiving in a couple years if given the chance, or join the team through UFA. For now, though, he's not waiving to come to Buffalo.

His NTC is invalid until July 1 when a modified kicks in. At least that's what I've reas

 

[enthusiast]

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

I don't agree that the top ranked in x/60 makes someone the best at X in the league

wouldn't that make landeskog the best ES point scorer or something

 

[stokes84]

I think almost everyone is overestimating the cost here. Let's look back at the first Nash trade. Columbus got a 26yo Dubinsky coming off a poor season (NYR was probably looking at him primarily as a cap dump), a 24yo Anismov (solid youngish bottom 6er), Erixon (pretty good D prospect at the time, had a good season in the AHL prior to trade but hadn't been too successful in his NHL call-ups), and a late 1st. Cap/bottom 6 + bottom 6 + 1st + a quality prospect.

Based on that, I'd think an offer would look something like: Hodgson (salary dump/reclamation project/or NYR can buy him out for a bunch of cap savings) + Foligno (quality young bottom 6er) + NYI 1st OR NYI 2nd + BUF 2016 2nd + a good prospect (maybe NYR would take a chance on Grigs? Maybe someone like Compher or McCabe.)
Alternatively, I could also see something like Moulson (if he'd waive, he let's NYR replace a decent amount of Nash's goals at a smaller cap hit) + some stuff.

I tend to agree more with those who think Nash makes little sense for us right now, and I doubt he'd waive his NTC for Buffalo, but I just wanted to point out that I doubt he would reasonably cost us Ennis + a 1st + a prospect.

Just like every other major transaction, it all depends on how motivated the seller is, and none of us have a clue. But if Friedman is talking about it, there is likely something there. That said, If you called with the Hodgson + Foligno offer, you'd get hung up on. You'd be better off offering a 3rd round pick than Hodgson and his salary. In Dubinsky's down season, he still scored a lot more than Hodgson (not far from Hodgsons career high) and played a really strong defensive game.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Just like every other major transaction, it all depends on how motivated the seller is, and none of us have a clue. But if Friedman is talking about it, there is likely something there. That said, If you called with the Hodgson + Foligno offer, you'd get hung up on. You'd be better off offering a 3rd round pick than Hodgson and his salary.

Eh, maybe, but with Nash's cap hit and the number of teams already up against the ceiling, I doubt there are going to be too many bidders for his services. And I'd wager that pretty much every offer for him will include a cap dump of some sort. At least Hodgson can be bought out for 1/3 of his salary and leave the team with a pretty negligible amount of dead space tied up in his cap hit.

 

[UnleashRasmus]

I think almost everyone is overestimating the cost here. Let's look back at the first Nash trade. Columbus got a 26yo Dubinsky coming off a poor season (NYR was probably looking at him primarily as a cap dump), a 24yo Anismov (solid youngish bottom 6er), Erixon (pretty good D prospect at the time, had a good season in the AHL prior to trade but hadn't been too successful in his NHL call-ups), and a late 1st. Cap/bottom 6 + bottom 6 + 1st + a quality prospect.

Based on that, I'd think an offer would look something like: Hodgson (salary dump/reclamation project/or NYR can buy him out for a bunch of cap savings) + Foligno (quality young bottom 6er) + NYI 1st OR NYI 2nd + BUF 2016 2nd + a good prospect (maybe NYR would take a chance on Grigs? Maybe someone like Compher or McCabe.)
Alternatively, I could also see something like Moulson (if he'd waive, he let's NYR replace a decent amount of Nash's goals at a smaller cap hit) + some stuff.

I tend to agree more with those who think Nash makes little sense for us right now, and I doubt he'd waive his NTC for Buffalo, but I just wanted to point out that I doubt he would reasonably cost us Ennis + a 1st + a prospect.

Most of this makes sense. To be honest, writers are following leads and rumors happen. Nash doesn't make any sense for the Sabres at this stage. I honestly don't really see the fit, unless the Rangers are really that desperate. The Moulson or Hodgson ideas would be something to look at, but trading draft picks and younger players makes little sense to me.

 

[sabrebuild]

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.

Let's assume Nash is gone. But there's no reason why ROR would be gone. He would likely be in year 5 of his 8 year deal we resigned him too.

And Comp her is one of those 2nd round picks you say will likely bust so no big loss there.

Your top 4 on defense still boasts Risto, Bogo, Pysyk and McCabe, without knowing how younger guys turn our and fa.

Moulson is done before 2020 in any scenario and I imagine Fasching or our 2016 1st could fill his role quite well. Or another fa.

The reality is that our core guys should stay for the next decade.

Risto, Eichel, Reinhart, Girgs, ROR if we signed him and Bogo for now.

Everyone else will basically being rotating around those guys. Depending on contract changes because of success, identifying players you don't trust long term, etc. People will move a lot.

It's time to start loading up good players around the young talent. You have plenty of assets to spend and not be in the hole after you spend.

 

[Paxon]

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.

Yes, it helps you get better... for the three years he's here -- three years where we won't be contenders regardless. I won't say there's no value in that, but it's not a lot of value.

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.

See below

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.

Nowhere have I said anything like that. I'm not holding out hope for anything nor do I see it as only making one move or the other. I simply do not want to acquire Nash for what I believe it would cost. I don't care if Murray makes a single trade this offseason. He really doesn't have to. However, taking what you're saying here, wouldn't the reasonable compromise be to split the difference and trade for a player who is 27-28 if one shakes out over the next 1-3 years? Someone who can help the team now and then, you know, be here when the team is a contender?

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.

He'll be 34 at the start of his next contract. In three years every single important player on our team will be off their ELC's. It's at least not a gimme that the team would want/be able to re-sign him at his market value. The risk he wouldn't be here in 3 years is high. The fact he grew up 100 miles from here doesn't make me feel better about the odds.

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

It's a marginal upgrade on the fortunes of the team. Having Nash won't make the team a contender if it otherwise isn't, which it very likely will not be during his 3 years here. Adding Nash to Ennis might be another story because suddenly we have four legit top 6 wingers. Having Nash instead of Ennis doesn't magically make our defense and center group -- an average age of, what, 20? -- suddenly experienced.

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.

I'm not saying he wouldn't even call the Rangers but the idea that he'd be in on Nash to any substantial degree is something we wouldn't be talking about if not for this purely speculative article. That should say it all really.

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.

I wouldn't think too long and hard about it. #21 should be used for the future of the team, which I define as being beyond these next 2-3 years. It's possible Nash would be here beyond those 3 years but considering the risk that he won't and his age, that's not maximizing the future outlook of our team in my mind. I don't see why that is less important than maximizing the ELC years of our players. We should be concerned about maximizing their prime years.

I will say that if Murray did in fact trade Ennis and #21 for Nash I wouldn't be upset at the end of the day. I just don't see it making sense nor do I see Murray as targeting Nash in any way.

 

[Djp]

I like it but at what cost? It would start with Ennis and 21 I think.

No way would I trade Ennis or 21 for Nash.

I look at Nash as a cap dump.

I would look at Nash for Hodgson + 2016 3rd

I miss the Darcy Regier era.... where things plodded along and were fairly predictable.
It's hard to know what Murray is going to do even after he is pretty honest during interviews.

****

The reasons Nash would make sense:
1. If he doesn't cost a ton because of the high cap hit.
2. His high cap hit is only for 3 years, which we have (or need to use) the space.
3. Can help this team with scoring during the regular season.

Reasons this doesn't make sense:
1. The purpose of Pegula Sabres is to win multiple Stanley Cups. I want Nash no where near this team when we are supposed to be contending for the Cup.
2. If he costs us any of our core youth.
3. Can he play on the right wing?

I agree...

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?

zads is going no where....

ROR for #31+ Pysyk+Compher or #21 and only one of the two players.

Nash for Hodgson + 3rd


I am not giving up any real assets for Nash.

 

[Deevo]

No way would I trade Ennis or 21 for Nash.

I look at Nash as a cap dump.

I would look at Nash for Hodgson + 2016 3rd




I agree...




zads is going no where....

ROR for #31+ Pysyk+Compher or #21 and only one of the two players.

Nash for Hodgson + 3rd


I am not giving up any real assets for Nash.

Rick Nash was 3rd in goals last year. Hodgson was 371st. Let's be realistic here...

 

[stokes84]

The guy had almost 1/3 as many goals as our entire team last year by himself and we have people calling him a cap dump.

 

[Ruckus007]

It's a marginal upgrade on the fortunes of the team. Having Nash won't make the team a contender if it otherwise isn't, which it very likely will not be during his 3 years here. Adding Nash to Ennis might be another story because suddenly we have four legit top 6 wingers. Having Nash instead of Ennis doesn't magically make our defense and center group -- an average age of, what, 20? -- suddenly experienced.

I've never paid a ton of thought to the arguments about what kind of rebuilding model the team, but if we look at Chicago, they won their first cup three years after Kane was drafted (four after Toews).

If we don't look at this just in terms of Nash but from a larger standpoint the Sabres have much to do in building a top contender and there's a very fine distinction between making moves that will get the team closer to that goal and moves that just feed this cockamamie idea of "accelerating the rebuild" (whatever that means). I truly don't know when this team will be competing for playoffs and Finals appearances so I'm not going to assume to know when that window will open (and close) and I don't think it's a good idea to look at moves and acquisitions under the lens of "I don't think they'll be a contender before his contract is out."

All of that is to say that even though a player in a situation such as Nash's doesn't fit Murray's stated preferences for acquisitions, I'm not going to use any perception of the team's timeline in considering the idea.

 

[flashsabre]

Why would NYR want Ennis? If they move Nash it is strictly as a cap dump to get his salary off the books so they can re-sign their core. They are not making a hockey trade in which they bring salary back.

The only way Nash makes sense to Buff is if they are doing the Rags a favor by taking him and the cost is minimal in assets. A couple draft picks and a prospect like Cornel.

It won't be a blockbuster hockey trade if it does happen.

 

[Deevo]

Why would NYR want Ennis? If they move Nash it is strictly as a cap dump to get his salary off the books so they can re-sign their core. They are not making a hockey trade in which they bring salary back.

The only way Nash makes sense to Buff is if they are doing the Rags a favor by taking him and the cost is minimal in assets. A couple draft picks and a prospect like Cornel.

It won't be a blockbuster hockey trade if it does happen.

Ennis has a much more cap friendly deal than Nash, is much younger, and has shown that he's just starting to break out. Why the hell wouldn't they want Ennis?

This thread hurts me.

 

[Jame]

Ennis has a much more cap friendly deal than Nash, is much younger, and has shown that he's just starting to break out. Why the hell wouldn't they want Ennis?

This thread hurts me.

because they are a playoff team/contender

 

[Zip15]

I've never paid a ton of thought to the arguments about what kind of rebuilding model the team, but if we look at Chicago, they won their first cup three years after Kane was drafted (four after Toews).

If we don't look at this just in terms of Nash but from a larger standpoint the Sabres have much to do in building a top contender and there's a very fine distinction between making moves that will get the team closer to that goal and moves that just feed this cockamamie idea of "accelerating the rebuild" (whatever that means). I truly don't know when this team will be competing for playoffs and Finals appearances so I'm not going to assume to know when that window will open (and close) and I don't think it's a good idea to look at moves and acquisitions under the lens of "I don't think they'll be a contender before his contract is out."

All of that is to say that even though a player in a situation such as Nash's doesn't fit Murray's stated preferences for acquisitions, I'm not going to use any perception of the team's timeline in considering the idea.

Further to that point, Pittsburgh was a finalist in Crosby's third post-draft season (Malkin's 4th), and then went on to win the Cup in their fourth and fifth post-draft seasons, respectively. If the youngsters are as good as advertised and have a steep development curve, it can turn around pretty quickly.

 

[stokes84]

because they are a playoff team/contender

True, they would probably want Larsson.

 

[Revelate]

because they are a playoff team/contender

in the limited playoff experience he has, Ennis has played well imo.

 

[Jame]

True, they would probably want Larsson.

They already have Chris Kreider

 

[Jame]

in the limited playoff experience he has, Ennis has played well imo.

He's just not the type of player anyone is looking to acquire when viewing themselves as a 4 round playoff team, especially when dealing their best players.

Ennis is a "nice to have", not something you look to acquire to further your contending team.

 

[CaptPantalones]

Why would NYR want Ennis? If they move Nash it is strictly as a cap dump to get his salary off the books so they can re-sign their core. They are not making a hockey trade in which they bring salary back.

The only way Nash makes sense to Buff is if they are doing the Rags a favor by taking him and the cost is minimal in assets. A couple draft picks and a prospect like Cornel.

It won't be a blockbuster hockey trade if it does happen.

What is the Sabres biggest problem? Scoring goals.

What does Rick Nash do consistently over a period of years very well? Score goals.

It's a smart move to try and make its not going to be a dump deal

 

[joshjull]

His NTC is invalid until July 1 when a modified kicks in. At least that's what I've reas

He has a full no movement clause that changes to a modified NTC on July 1st. For him to go anywhere before July 1st he would have to waive to go there.

 

[Sabres Dynasty]

It would take way too much.

No thanks.