Truth & Rumors > NHL

The snag keeping Nash from New York

Views
13615
Comments
43

08:33 AM ET 07.04 | According to a Tuesday report out of Columbus, GM Scott Howson has not demanded that Chris Kreider, Ryan McDonagh or Derek Stepan be included in any deal for Rick Nash. But if that's true, what exactly is holding up a deal for the 28-year-old right wing? Well, to start, Kreider, McDonagh and Stepan are not the only young, core players the Blueshirts are reluctant to trade. Michael Del Zotto, 22, a restricted free agent who had a bounce-back year in his third NHL season, also falls into that category. ... Of the remaining Ranger forwards, that would seem to point to speedy 23-year-old winger Carl Hagelin -- who had 38 points in 64 games in his rookie season playing frequently on the Blueshirts' top line -- and possibly 19-year-old prospect J.T. Miller.

New York Daily News

Rick Nash, Getty Images Rick Nash, Getty Images
Comment #1 has been removed
July 4, 2012  09:08 AM ET

I'd rather have Bobby Ryan.

July 4, 2012  09:21 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

I predict Islanders.

That's just mean. What did Nash ever do to you?

July 4, 2012  09:25 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

I'd rather have Bobby Ryan.

I don't the asking price will be anything less.

July 4, 2012  09:26 AM ET

I don't think the asking price will be anything less.

July 4, 2012  09:31 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

I don't think the asking price will be anything less.

Contract is better and i dont see nash as a saviour.

July 4, 2012  09:33 AM ET

Why wouldn't' the Ragners give up Stephan to be a centerpiece. I would jump on that if I were them.

July 4, 2012  09:38 AM ET

You gotta give something to get something. By principle if I was Howson I would tell Slats to take a hike. Obtaining anything less than 2 SOLID prospects in return for Nash should be enough for any remaining Jackets fan to mail in their resignation.

I really don't like their choice in nets (i think they shoulda gotten something more than Bob), but I can live with it. They're upgrading in nets, they acquired a good d at the deadline & they drafted the supposed best D in the draft. Sending Nash out for a good D prospect & a forward can only see this team get better.

July 4, 2012  09:44 AM ET

Am I the only one who thinks Nash may be one of the most overrated players in the NHL?

He's a very good player, but is worth 8 million of your cap for the next buncha years?

July 4, 2012  10:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

You gotta give something to get something. By principle if I was Howson I would tell Slats to take a hike. Obtaining anything less than 2 SOLID prospects in return for Nash should be enough for any remaining Jackets fan to mail in their resignation. I really don't like their choice in nets (i think they shoulda gotten something more than Bob), but I can live with it. They're upgrading in nets, they acquired a good d at the deadline & they drafted the supposed best D in the draft. Sending Nash out for a good D prospect & a forward can only see this team get better.

I think your analysis is spot on as well as your comments elsewhere on the insanity of many of the contracts being offered this off-season. GMs (owners) have only themselves to blame. Of course the danger comes when good sense takes over and then Fehr and the NHLPA start suing the league for "collusion".

July 4, 2012  10:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

You gotta give something to get something. By principle if I was Howson I would tell Slats to take a hike. Obtaining anything less than 2 SOLID prospects in return for Nash should be enough for any remaining Jackets fan to mail in their resignation. I really don't like their choice in nets (i think they shoulda gotten something more than Bob), but I can live with it. They're upgrading in nets, they acquired a good d at the deadline & they drafted the supposed best D in the draft. Sending Nash out for a good D prospect & a forward can only see this team get better.

Now if they only played in a place where the fans care...

July 4, 2012  10:09 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Am I the only one who thinks Nash may be one of the most overrated players in the NHL?He's a very good player, but is worth 8 million of your cap for the next buncha years?

I'd actually LOVE to see nash play beside an elite centreman on a team with a little bit of depth. If the opposing team's game plan doesn't read '1. Shut down Nash, 2. Shut down Nash, 3. Shut down Nash' I think he'd really show everyone how good he is.

July 4, 2012  10:13 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

Now if they only played in a place where the fans care...

but really, if you lived in Columbus, would you care? I certainly would not. That team is a train wreck. Even real serious hockey fans couldn<t possibly commit themselves to watching the jackets for a full season, so what are the chances that the casual fan will?

July 4, 2012  10:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

I think your analysis is spot on as well as your comments elsewhere on the insanity of many of the contracts being offered this off-season. GMs (owners) have only themselves to blame. Of course the danger comes when good sense takes over and then Fehr and the NHLPA start suing the league for "collusion".

Whats ridiculous is that we are staring yet another work stoppage straight in the face...yet the owners simply cant help themselves from doling out absolutely ridiculous contracts that dont even make sense in Bizarro world.

To take a page from Hank, the cap is crap. Kill it, drink its blood. Post lock-out the cap was set at 52 million. That was already well above the average salaries teams were paying pre-cap. The mentality now is that in order to be comepttive you MUST be up at the cap ceiling. This season the league is moving north of 70 million. There are probably only 3-4 teams that were spending to that point pre-lockout. The net result is that teams hand out ridiculous contracts in order to be competitive. If you dont offer a foolish contract someone else will. The players have nothing to be upset about, their bottom line has gone up considerably and then ownership only have themselves to blame.

July 4, 2012  10:32 AM ET
QUOTE(#14):

but really, if you lived in Columbus, would you care? I certainly would not. That team is a train wreck. Even real serious hockey fans couldn<t possibly commit themselves to watching the jackets for a full season, so what are the chances that the casual fan will?

AGREED completely

July 4, 2012  10:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

.Whats ridiculous is that we are staring yet another work stoppage straight in the face...yet the owners simply cant help themselves from doling out absolutely ridiculous contracts that dont even make sense in Bizarro world. To take a page from Hank, the cap is crap. Kill it, drink its blood. Post lock-out the cap was set at 52 million. That was already well above the average salaries teams were paying pre-cap. The mentality now is that in order to be comepttive you MUST be up at the cap ceiling. This season the league is moving north of 70 million. There are probably only 3-4 teams that were spending to that point pre-lockout. The net result is that teams hand out ridiculous contracts in order to be competitive. If you dont offer a foolish contract someone else will. The players have nothing to be upset about, their bottom line has gone up considerably and then ownership only have themselves to blame.

Although initially I supported the cap I no longer do. It's simply a way for the PA and ownership to kid themselves about payroll equality. Maybe, and I haven't really thought about it that much, the way to handle some of this is a "luxury" tax a la MLB. Spend what you want and if it annually exceeds "X" you pay a tax which is split among those teams who don't. One problem with that though is teams with a minimum payroll collect their share of the tax and can actually make a profit regardless of their record. The Pittsburgh Pirates did this for years.

July 4, 2012  11:04 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

Although initially I supported the cap I no longer do. It's simply a way for the PA and ownership to kid themselves about payroll equality. Maybe, and I haven't really thought about it that much, the way to handle some of this is a "luxury" tax a la MLB. Spend what you want and if it annually exceeds "X" you pay a tax which is split among those teams who don't. One problem with that though is teams with a minimum payroll collect their share of the tax and can actually make a profit regardless of their record. The Pittsburgh Pirates did this for years.

definitely something to think about. Funny thing about the whole equality thing in pro sports...I came across an article the other day that says the Miami Heat actually lost money last season...and this despite sell-outs, having a loaded roster & winning the championship. Given their payroll they had to pay a bunch of luxury taxes to the league. On top of that their tv deal is garbage because their local market doesnt do that well & the nationally televised games (of which they had by far the most) dont generate extra revenue. Jersey rights are paid in a lump sum, so the Heat dont benefit additionally from the massive sales (except in the local market.

Im not 100% sure that I am buying this, not sure if ownership owns the arean + concessions rights + parking...if they do they are surely set up as different companies, in which case the Heat basketball team can say <yeah, we lost money>... either way, its interesting to see that on some level the ownership had to make decisions as to how important winning is and at what cost.

I really dont mind a system that will allow teams to put in tons of money if they think that winning is more important than making money.

July 4, 2012  11:06 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

I'd actually LOVE to see nash play beside an elite centreman on a team with a little bit of depth. If the opposing team's game plan doesn't read '1. Shut down Nash, 2. Shut down Nash, 3. Shut down Nash' I think he'd really show everyone how good he is.

He'd fit in well with the Kings forwards. If they'd signed him they'd be even a bigger threat to repeat than they're now. But ..... they decided to go with Pancake Man instead.

July 4, 2012  11:12 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

Although initially I supported the cap I no longer do. It's simply a way for the PA and ownership to kid themselves about payroll equality.

You speak the truth. As long as all the loopholes remain in place, the cap is a huge joke. We've seen time an again how teams have managed to circumvent it and get away with it.

 
July 4, 2012  11:14 AM ET
QUOTE(#20):

You speak the truth. As long as all the loopholes remain in place, the cap is a huge joke. We've seen time an again how teams have managed to circumvent it and get away with it.

Circumventing the cap sounds painful.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2277
    Comments
    230
  2. 2
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    1806
    Comments
    139
  3. 3
    Joel Quenneville's Midnight Hawk favored to win Illinois Derby
    Views
    448
    Comments
    88
  4. 4
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    6606
    Comments
    88
  5. 5
    Accuser's lawyer calls for Florida State to charge Jameis Winston
    Views
    2838
    Comments
    27

SI.com

SI Photos