Why the Rangers...

Can’t wait for the 28th.

with all this talk of team chemistry, I’m assuming that I am one of the few people on this blog that was at adult age (not necessarily an adult) during the 1994 trade deadline purge where 25% of the line-up was altered. if this is the reaction now to a potential trade then I can’t imagine your reactions to what occurred in 1994. Kevin would have had the “cliff” picture out every other post (love that pic, lol). P.S. 1994 worked out fine though these are different circumstances. Bottom line is I trust Sather and Co to do the right thing (to trade or not trade). P.S.S. I see 500+ posts then I ignore it. Now that could be an incentive for you all to do that, lol.

Rangers cannot afford rash decision on Nash

Blog: Slap Shots

A slightly different question:

If Rick Nash had been an unrestricted free agent last summer, would anyone have thought it a great idea for the Rangers to sign the power winger to a seven-year, $54.6 million contract carrying a cap hit of $7.8 million per?

Would general manager Glen Sather have really gone all in on Nash, making him not only the highest-paid player on the team, but the fifth-highest paid player (per cap hit) in the NHL while committing to him through 2017-18?

And if the answer to that question is even "not likely," let alone, "probably not," much less, "are you nuts?" even while acknowledging free agents get premium prices because teams don’t have to relinquish valuable assets in order to add them, then why would Sather make that commitment now when the cost will include prime beef?

Let’s put aside the subject of chemistry and instead address math as it applies to the East-leading Rangers, who learned what it’s like to have a collective target on their backs when blitzed out of the gate in last night’s 4-2 loss at the Garden to the desperate Blackhawks.

For if the Blueshirts were to acquire Nash, they would be complicating their ability to keep the core of the team together over the next three summers when the contracts of 12 important players — including Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan Callahan, Marian Gaborik, Ryan McDonagh, Derek Stepan, Michael Del Zotto and Carl Hagelin — will expire, with most in line for considerable bumps in pay.

It is impossible to predict the outcome of the negotiations that will produce the new collective bargaining agreement that will go into effect next season. But even if the percentage of the players’ take is reduced, no one should count on a rollback of salaries this time.

This means that $7.8 million would remain $7.8 million. This means that acquiring Nash would effectively shut the door on the Rangers being able to bid on Ryan Suter or Zach Parise if either hits the open market this summer. This means that the Rangers would be out of the picture if and when Shea Weber becomes available.

This means that the Blueshirts would be out when Corey Perry, Ryan Getzlaf and Jordan Staal could become unrestricted free agents in 2013 and thus, might be available leading up to next season’s deadline when the Rangers and their needs will be much easier to define.

This situation is not analogous to the one at the 1994 trade deadline, when no team in the NHL was more desperate to win than the Rangers and every job in the organization — including Mark Messier’s — would have been in jeopardy had that team not ended the 54-year-drought.

This isn’t 1994, when coach Mike Keenan did not believe the team was equipped with enough blue-collar workers to get through the grind and authorized moving young Tony Amonte for a couple of role players, one of whom was, of course, Stephane Matteau.

This isn’t then, when Keenan did not believe Mike Gartner had the Right Stuff, and so insisted on moving the sniper for warhorse Glenn Anderson.

Forget the cost in assets that would not include Boston College’s effectively untouchable Chris Kreider, but almost certainly would feature Brandon Dubinsky, who was the Rangers’ best forward in last year’s playoff series against the Caps.

Instead simply consider the cost of the contract and the pure commitment in cap space over the next seven years it would take to get Nash, whose acquisition would represent not just tinkering with the chemistry, but fundamentally changing the formula.

There is no reason to rush to judgment here. Just because Sather has a lifetime contract doesn’t mean he should give one to Nash.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/rangers/rangers_cannot_afford_rash_decision_cyhOrhiJM9bVNg1K529ZNI#ixzz1meHKbB4M

At this point I don’t think any of us really want Nash here because of the cost of players and cap hit. Sather is not going to do this unless the price is right….end of story on Nash….however, watching the breakdown last night, we all can see the need for another scorer. I’d prefer that scorer to be Jeff Carter, he will be had for less and the cap hit is managable with Dubi going the other way. The bottom line is this……..some of us think that Chemistry will be uprooted with the absence of one player……its not going to happen, Carter is also a tremendous upgrade. You might see Tyutin come back as well.

http://www.snyrangersblog.com/2012/02/17/buzz-the-rangers-players-want-rick-nash-and-the-chance-that-brandon-dubinsky-is-traded/

i say we trade cam talbot for graham nash. maybe they’ll throw in crosby and stills. add a 4 th rounder we could get neil young, a great canadian.stills and young have experience in the big leagues with buffalo springfield