Proposal: NYR-BuF

[bfaust30]

Nash for Jake Mcabb + Girgesons + 3rd rounder

Click to read more...

 

[SnoopDogg]

Awful for the Sabres

 

[CanadienShark]

You're rightly going to be torn apart by Sabres fans.

 

[Stegosaurus]

Yeah, quite bad. With the premium on defensemen these days Nash wouldn't be able to bring back McNabb straight up. Forget about Girgensons.

 

[Yatzhee]

No thank you

 

[Doriva]

Why didn't you put this in the Nash thread you started less than a day ago...?

 

[Dogewow]

Hell to the no for Buffalo.

Getting sick of seeing these "Nash to Buffalo" threads. We don't have spectacular wingers on the left side by any means, but we're solid with guys like Ennis/Kane. We'll eventually have Nylander on our left side in the top 6 (who will hopefully be an upgrade over our current guys). And if Vesey doesn't sign with us, I see Tim Murray trying to go in another direction other than Nash.

 

[ForsakenSabre]

I will be polite and say no thank you.

 

[paulmm3]

Buffalo says no

 

[Hockeyfan6781]

 

[DJN21]

Nash for Jake Mcabb + Girgesons + 3rd rounder

Hard to part with McNabb or Mcabb at this point in our rebuild...

 

[Lundy HOF]

Isn't McCabe LHD? Why do the Rangers do this? No need for Grig and we don't need a LHD. Only way this works is if it is a precursor move imo:

 

[go4hockey]

Nash for Jake Mcabb + Girgesons + 3rd rounder

Wow you overvalue Nash by a mile. There is no way Buffalo touches this.

 

[Ace]

Maybe for the 3rd

 

[JT Kreider]

Not as bad as Buffalo fans are making it out, to be honest.

An established young player and an NHL ready prospect/borderline graduate seems to be a pretty reasonable asking price. And especially if we retain on Nash. For every million we retain on him, that improves his value.

But HF has spoken so I guess we have no choice but to give up Nash for Ennis and Franson. Because that seems far more fair.

 

[lifeisruff]

"Awful" is a bit of an overstatement from Buffalo POV

It's still a hard no.

 

[Djp]

Nash for Jake Mcabb + Girgesons + 3rd rounder

Is Nash in a time machine taking him back 10 years???

 

[Ace]

I wouldn't trade McCabe for him straight up at 7.8 million dollars per year.

That's a ridiculous contract to be getting McCabe, Girgensons and a pick. Who in the world wants to pay Nash 7.8 MILLION dollars?

And then on top of that laughable payment...you get TWO good young players with 4 RFA years left each? For a 32 year old with 2 years at an inflated salary? Where do we sign?

It's deservedly being destroyed.

 

[JThorne]

McNabb was traded to Los Angeles. McCabe is still in the Sabres system and was the chosen young defenseman over Pysyk, who was traded to Florida for Kulikov. He is our second best young D behind Risto. Not exactly a player you trade after just trading another young D.

Girgensens is a glue player. You may look at the stat sheet and see a bad year, but the kid is only 22. He should be just graduating from the AHL into a full time spot in the NHL but he's already got two full seasons behind him. He can play in the top 9 and not be a drag offensively while being very sound defensively. He's the type of guy you need in the playoffs. Trading him for scoring when we just signed Okposo is pure stupidity. Tim Murray isn't stupid.

 

[Dishface]

No.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 4 characters

 

[truthbluth]

So, what am I supposed to think? Either you don't know who Jake McCabe is, or you don't know who Rick Nash is. It's hard to tell, but since this is wildly out of balance for the Sabres, I will assume the former. Jake McCabe is, right now, arguably the Sabres 2nd best defensemen, on an amazing contract for 3 years, and he's young enough (22), that it's reasonable to expect him to get a lot better. So let's just assume that you don't know who he is, and revise your proposal to:

Girgensons + 3rd <=> Nash

Well, now your talking. Nash is still a force on offense, though his defensive zone play is abysmal. He's old enough that this decline in 2 of the past 3 years is concerning. But he is also a star player, which is not nothing. On the other hand, Girgensons is good. He's very good. His down statistical season aside, he was really good in his limited chances playing with top talent. When he played on Eichel's wing, the Sabres scored a ridiculous 3G/60 5v5. A full goal higher then Eichel apart. Not a blip either. They played 260 minutes together, more than any other player ZG played with. He just didn't rack up the points. Rick Nash is a better player, no doubt, but he's on a expensive contract, on the downside of his career, plays LW only, and is only under team control for two years, while ZG is cost controlled, 21 years old, can play wing or center and is a very effective shut down center, and is under team control for at least 4 more years.

Based on that, I reject your revised (by me) trade. I'd rather move forward with ZG than Rick Nash.

 

[JaeTM]

So, what am I supposed to think? Either you don't know who Jake McCabe is, or you don't know who Rick Nash is. It's hard to tell, but since this is wildly out of balance for the Sabres, I will assume the former. Jake McCabe is, right now, arguably the Sabres 2nd best defensemen, on an amazing contract for 3 years, and he's young enough (22), that it's reasonable to expect him to get a lot better. So let's just assume that you don't know who he is, and revise your proposal to:

Girgensons + 3rd <=> Nash

Well, now your talking. Nash is still a force on offense, though his defensive zone play is abysmal. He's old enough that this decline in 2 of the past 3 years is concerning. But he is also a star player, which is not nothing. On the other hand, Girgensons is good. He's very good. His down statistical season aside, he was really good in his limited chances playing with top talent. When he played on Eichel's wing, the Sabres scored a ridiculous 3G/60 5v5. A full goal higher then Eichel apart. Not a blip either. They played 260 minutes together, more than any other player ZG played with. He just didn't rack up the points. Rick Nash is a better player, no doubt, but he's on a expensive contract, on the downside of his career, plays LW only, and is only under team control for two years, while ZG is cost controlled, 21 years old, can play wing or center and is a very effective shut down center, and is under team control for at least 4 more years.

Based on that, I reject your revised (by me) trade. I'd rather move forward with ZG than Rick Nash.

Stopped reading at the bold. Rangers have played a ton of games the past few seasons and it Nash remains a Ranger next season I expect a bounce back season with elite defensive play with 30 goals. People must forget that he was hurt last year and his playoff series vs the Pens wasn't bad nor was it bad the prior year when we made it to the ECF.

 

[Beacon]

Stopped reading at the bold. Rangers have played a ton of games the past few seasons and it Nash remains a Ranger next season I expect a bounce back season with elite defensive play with 30 goals. People must forget that he was hurt last year and his playoff series vs the Pens wasn't bad nor was it bad the prior year when we made it to the ECF.

The claim that Nash is abysmal can only come from a guy who didn't watch him, which raises the question why someone would have an opinion that strong when he has no clue.

 

[HiddenInLight]

Even if we were to ignore the fact that the value is horrible, the Sabres cant afford to trade away any LHD, so McCabe is a nonstarter....

 

[truthbluth]

The claim that Nash is abysmal can only come from a guy who didn't watch him, which raises the question why someone would have an opinion that strong when he has no clue.

It's funny how a player can have an occasional stick check, or well timed hit, or a short handed goal and that makes him a good defensive player, despite consistently bad results in the neutral zone and back checking. Ok by me. Keep your defensive wizard, we'll keep ours, who, you know actually is a borderline elite defensive forward.