The Case for Rick Nash

It's been a polarizing topic to say the least, but I wanted to take a crack at presenting the best possible case for Rick Nash in a medium that allows me the use of more than 140 characters at a time. I unabashedly believe that we should trade for Rick Nash, and I wouldn't be adverse to giving up Dubinsky, Kreider, and a 1st rounder to get it done.

Here's what I'm thinking:

#1: The Skills

This, at least, should not be in question. Of all active players who entered the league the same year or later than Nash, only five have more points: Eric Staal, Crosby, Spezza, Ovechkin, and Zetterburg. That's pretty impressive company to keep. He has scored 30 or more goals 6 out of his 9 seasons in the league (counting this one, and with a move to a team with a better offense 12 goals in 20 games isn't entirely out of the question), and has topped 40 twice. That is huge for a team that doesn't have a lot of dynamic goal scorers. He's also topped 30 assists each of the past 5 seasons, and only needs 9 more to do it again this year. Given that he hasn't been passing to a squad that is even playoff-caliber most years makes that even more impressive. Plus, he can do things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBQArUjP89w. There aren't too many other guys in the league who can do that, and he should pay IMMEDIATE dividends for his linemates.

Plus, Nash is only going to get better when playing with a better team. In the two years that he topped 40 goals, the team's leading assist-getters were David Vyborny and Nash himself (though one should assume he was not assisting on his own goals) respectively. Currently, the players who have had the biggest effect on Nash's game is Vinny Prospal (assisted on 6 of Nash's goals, and had Nash assist on 3 of his) and what's left of Jeff Carter (assisted by Carter 4 times, assisted to Carter 4 times).  Nash has never played with anyone who is as good a playmaker as Richards or even Stepan. Given that Richards has had some level of demonstrable effect on the more talented players he plays with (he has assists on 8 of Cally's career-high 23 goals, though it seems like you couldn't get Dubinsky started even if you hooked him up to jumper cables), it is safe to assume that having Richards and Nash together would be beneficial to both. 

As an added bonus, Nash provides serious shootout skills, without wasting minutes on a guy like Christiansen. Currently, Nash is tied for 6th all-time with 27 shootout goals, and scores at about a 40% clip in the skills competition. The Rangers get REALLY ugly really quickly in the shootout: only 4 guys on the current roster have taken more than 10 shots, two of them shoot less than 21% (Gabby and Cally) and one of them is Wojtek Wolski (who makes up for his skill in the shootout by underperforming impressively in all other facets of the game). Putting Nash and Richards in the shootout with Hank in goal is a recipe that has the potential to steal a ton of points during the regular season, which will only get better if MZA is brought up, ostensibly to replace Wolski.

#2: He'll fit with the team concept

I've heard a ton of talk about the team chemistry and how it will all go to hell if Nash is brought on board. I just don't see that happening. First off, Nash is a good soldier. As far as I can tell, he never criticizes management or throws his teammates under the bus. If anyone has cause to, he does, given that he has spent nine seasons toiling away with little or nothing around him. When the Jackets finally went out and picked up some offense to put around him, both Carter and Wisnewski missed significant time. Yet you never hear him complain. Second, he ASKED to come here. He knows what the power structure looks like in New York, but he wanted to come here anyway. I can't imagine he wants to come here and immediately cause a power struggle. Third, he can play with the kind of grit and jam that Torts wants. He has hovered around 100 hits the past two years, and he is well on his way to doing so again (Though he has picked it up in the last few games. Showing off for Torts, maybe?). Finally, sometimes trades have to be made. I can only imagine what Twitter would have looked like if it existed when both Gartner and Amonte got traded. Sometimes you have to make moves to improve the team; winning is a great way to improve team chemistry.

#3: Improves Roster Functionality

Right now, the Rangers legitimately have three lines: The GAS line, Richards-Cally-??, and the Boyle-Prust-?? line. Our 4th line is a loose confederation of spare parts that is rarely, if ever, used; sort of an Island of Misfit Forwards. While the team is, as usual, in fantastic shape, having three forwards average 20 minutes a night (Cally, Gabby, Richards), while the 4th line guys play 7 min a night and don't play the PK (Rupp and Bickel against CHI) is a recipe that will get you some tired forwards in the playoffs. Insofar as possible, I believe that it is helpful to have 3 lines that can score and a 4th line that is at least semi-functional.

Assuming Nash is traded for Dubinsky and Wolski is sent somewhere (ANYWHERE!!) for cap relief, our lines could look like this:

1. Gaborik-Stepan-AA (its not broke, don't fix it)
2. Nash-Richards-MZA (brought up to replace Wolski). Three fantastic playmakers on this line, all of whom have the ability to score. Find me a better 2nd line in the NHL.
3. Cally-Mitchell-Hagelin. This line is gritty and will absolutely kill you with their speed. I'd of course prefer to upgrade Mitchell, but I think Cally will get his regardless, especially if the other team has to account for Hagelin's speed. Plus, Mitchell is statistically the best faceoff guy out of all our centers, winning nearly 60% of his draws.
4. Prust-Boyle-Feds/Rupp. With Fedotenko, its a counter-punching line that has shown the ability to play well together in the past. With Rupp, its a hard-nosed checking line with the ability and willingness to drop the gloves. This is a 4th line that Torts will play, and Boyle/Prust will see time together on the PK. This gives the other three lines the chance to take a breather without sacrificing the on-ice talent.

Nash would also slot directly into our PP, and provide some much needed scoring ability. In his 9-year career, he's topped 10 PPG 4 times and handed out more than 10 PPA 7 times (including this year). Any help on the PP would be a welcome sight indeed. Also, and I had the benefit of watching last night's game before I finished the blog entry, Nash certainly seems like the type of guy you'd want to bring on as an extra attacker, doesn't he?

END AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT

Now, when you hear people talk about the reasons why they don't want Nash, it boils down to some combination of three arguments: Chemistry, Cap Room, and Concept. Given that I addressed the chemistry concerns above, the remainder of my time will be used to discuss the other two.

Argument #1: It's going to screw up our cap

Nash is expensive, I'm not going to dispute that. But I disagree with the argument that it will somehow prevent us from resigning "our young guys." In the immediate future, I see no problem with keeping Nash under the cap. This year, according to CapGeek, we can accept a cap hit of up to $5.8mil. Just trading Dubinsky puts that over $10mil, meaning that we can sign Nash and bring up MZA or Erixon; finding a way to get rid of Wolski's salary would give us $4mil more room to make moves.

Next year, we have $20mil of room, assuming a Dubinsky trade, leaving us 12mil left after Nash gets his. Next year's UFA's of note are: Feds, Prust, Mitchell, Avery, Biron, Woywitka, and Eminger. I don't see the need to resign any of them except Prust and maybe Biron. Mitchell is ok, but could be upgraded. What we do with our defense depends a lot on whether Sauer is healthy. We could resign Biron, or resign and bring up Chad Johnson, who is currently 13th in the AHL in GAA as a more long-term choice. The RFA's of note are: Wolski, DZ, Stralman, Bickel, and MZA. Wolski should clearly be gone, and Bickel might be rendered unnecessary. I like MZA, and if he plays well this year, he might find himself a spot. If not, the only one's we'll probably resign are DZ and Stralman. Given that the only guys we need to resign are DZ, Stralman, and Prust, and assuming a 20% raise for each of them (which is generous), it would cost us around $3.5 mil to resign all of them, leaving us 6 roster spots to fill with around $9mil, which leaves us $1.5mil to spend on each spot, basically equivalent to the contract we handed Rupp. Assuming we keep Biron for around $1mil, that leaves $8 mil for 5 roster spots. So we're not screwed next year.

The year after is where things become a bit harder to deal with. We have no UFA's of note, but we have to think about 5 RFAs: AA, Hagelin, Stepan, Sauer, and McD. Barring a breakout season from any of the others, I think that we can safely prioritize McD and Stepan, and probably resign two of the other three, or have found a replacement from the minors (i.e. Erixon, McIlrath, Thomas, Miller, Bourque, all of whom would be on the last year of their entry-level deals, and would be plenty affordable). So, we're still in good shape.

In 2014-15, all hell breaks loose. Potential UFAs: Gabby, Cally, Henrik, Boyle, Rupp, and Girardi (Redden will be one too, but something tells me he's a lower priority). Plus Erixon, McIlrath, Thomas, Miller, and Bourque will all be RFAs. This is a problem, BUT it would have been a problem even without Nash. And, under my scenario, WE HAVE RICK NASH. He's only 27, has no major injury history, and is one of the top 10 scorers to come into the league in the last decade. We will have been the best team in the league, at least on paper, for the previous three years. That's almost unheard of in the salary cap era. In summation, I don't see the potential cap problems as a reason not to trade for a superstar player in the middle of his prime.

#2 We Can't Trade Our Best Prospect Away


The final argument is that we can't trade away Chris Kreider, who (by all accounts) has been dominant in college this year; there are also some who are unwilling to trade Dubinsky, but the Kreider argument seems to be much more frequent. I understand that Krieder is really good right now, but that is no guarantee that he's going to be good in the pros.  I figure that, barring watching hours upon hours of tape, the best way to look at Kreider is by draft position and by current college stats.

Draft Position: We took Kreider in the 1st round, pick 19. In previous seasons, some notable guys who were picked in that area (within 3 picks either direction) were: Sbisa, DZ, Eberle, Pacioretty, C. Stewart, Giroux, Parent, Rask, and Zajac (as well as a bunch of guys who haven't made the NHL yet). Giroux is a superstar, Eberle an All-Star, and the rest of the guys are serviceable NHL players. So Kreider could end up being Giroux, but he could also end up being Chris Stewart; I'd trade Dubinsky, Stewart, and a #1 every time for Nash.

Stats: Kreider right now has 19 goals and 16 assists for a total of 35 points. What would you say about the guy if he finished the season with 22 goals and 30 assists. You'd probably say he was destined for NHL stardom. What if I  told you that was Brian Boyle's junior year stat line at BC? Kreider's physical development makes him a man among boys at the college level, but it is no guaranty of success in the pros, where everyone is bigger and faster than in college. Kreider's a lottery ticket and therefore comes with some level of risk. Its possible that we wouldn't even get him for another few years (maybe another year at BC and one with the Whale), by which point Nash would have been on the team for two years and still only be 29. Kreider still hasn't stepped onto an NHL rink and I think that getting a proven superstar more than makes up for what we might lose with Kreider.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but if you don't, let me know why in the comments. The level of discussion with other fans is one of the best things about being a Ranger fan.

May all your hits be crits,
B