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.