Weber or Nash

[gabby10]

if you were Glen Sather, both teams open to trades, who would you rather pull the trigger on and why? i honestly thing that Nash's best years are behind him. If he was as big a superstar as his contract indicates, he would have more than 59 points in 82 games. Look at John Tavares. Totally different players, but both have teammates with plenty of potential, who unfortunately play awful. But Tavares still managed to finish the year 7th in the league in points with 81. Weber is in the prime of his career. I would trade dubi, and a draft pick for his rights alone. but i digress. what do you guys think?

[Isca92]

You do realize the players are a year apart. Gaborik signed the same contract Nash did minus 300k a year. Nash best years were under a defensive minded coach where he killed penalties (hitchcock). Kings and Devils, both teams top players, played not just pp but pk, Brown, Kopitar, Richards (best pk forward), Carter, Parise, Henrique, and Kovi (before he got hurt). They were a threat short handed, as Nash would be. Nash number 1 center was Prospal. Yes, Carter was there but he was injured and cried that he didn't want to be there (a cancer). Nash brings size, speed, hands, and a shot, things that not one player on this roster has all of.

If Nash goes to Philly, one of the teams rumored watch how those numbers change. He'll go down in my book as a player that this board had written off like Kovi (doesnt look selfish to me, ask a real Devil fan and they will say he passes to much to break that name) Buff (hes only good cause of who he plays with 2 years later has made the ASG each year).

I love Weber, but why Weber doesn't make as much sense to me. Hes everything this blue line needs, a big right handed shot. But they dont need someone to log top line minutes. His contract will be atleast 7.5 which is the same ball park as Nash. That would tie up 15 million in 3 dman a year before Mcdonagh gets a raise. Thats alot of money on the blue line.

IMO, the bottom line comes down to our D needs depth (hopefully that depth brings a right handed shooter), our offense needs top end skill, we have plenty of depth and thats why I think Nash is a better fit then Weber.

[aanddann]

tough one. you could look at it from two schools of thought:

1) do you want to have a VERY good defense that has an extremely capable offense and a shut down goaltender with a PP that runs on creativity and passing

or

2) do you want to have a SHUT DOWN defense that has an unpredictable (albeit capable) offense and a shut down goaltender with a PP that runs based off of point shots/garbage goals

for me, i would choose option 1, and the reasons why are pretty simple. last year Nashville was a tremendous defense. they were as lock down as they come and they had a goaltender that no one can dispute is as talented as Hank. they were an offensively capable team, but they really werent overly threatening, with Kostitsyn and Radulov probably being their 1 and 2 scoring options along with some Mike Fisher.

in the playoffs, they struggled to get out of games despite valiant efforts by their back 7 (or 8, depending on whether they carried 6 or 7 d). if they maybe had another hi end offensive talent maybe were talking about them and Lord Stanley.

in our case, it seems to me that we are a team with an incredibly capable young defense that is realistically two quality depth defenseman away from being a cup calibur unit. Erixon, Schultz, D-Mac, maybe these are the quality D-men we need. I think one could make the argument that while unproven, they are all upgrades over the likes of Woywitka, Eminger, Stralman (sometimes).

I think adding a Weber to that mix would clearly make us a better team, who could dispute that? But the fact of the matter is, his impact wouldnt be as heavy as a Rick Nash would be. See, if we trade say, Duby, MDZ, AA and a 1st (seems to be everyones suggested package) for Nash, the money that comes off the books to get Nash, pays for Nash. You can then spend all of the other cap room you have already to improve all of the depth positions that are of need. you can oven slightly overpay for a player if its someone you really want. AND you'll still have room left over to take care of your home growns who need to be NYR lifers (lookin at you McD).

So, my vote goes to Nash.

[NYY09]

Nash, and its not even close.

The Rangers are set at D with only the bottom pairing to address. Like Isca said, no need to tie up another 7.5 on the blue-line with the more obvious need being scoring.

[Garden Faithful]

You do realize the players are a year apart. Gaborik signed the same contract Nash did minus 300k a year. Nash best years were under a defensive minded coach where he killed penalties (hitchcock). Kings and Devils, both teams top players, played not just pp but pk, Brown, Kopitar, Richards (best pk forward), Carter, Parise, Henrique, and Kovi (before he got hurt). They were a threat short handed, as Nash would be. Nash number 1 center was Prospal. Yes, Carter was there but he was injured and cried that he didn't want to be there (a cancer). Nash brings size, speed, hands, and a shot, things that not one player on this roster has all of.

If Nash goes to Philly, one of the teams rumored watch how those numbers change. He'll go down in my book as a player that this board had written off like Kovi (doesnt look selfish to me, ask a real Devil fan and they will say he passes to much to break that name) Buff (hes only good cause of who he plays with 2 years later has made the ASG each year).

I love Weber, but why Weber doesn't make as much sense to me. Hes everything this blue line needs, a big right handed shot. But they dont need someone to log top line minutes. His contract will be atleast 7.5 which is the same ball park as Nash. That would tie up 15 million in 3 dman a year before Mcdonagh gets a raise. Thats alot of money on the blue line.

IMO, the bottom line comes down to our D needs depth (hopefully that depth brings a right handed shooter), our offense needs top end skill, we have plenty of depth and thats why I think Nash is a better fit then Weber.

And another three years which makes a big difference.

[bsi]

Nash by a landslide. I have no idea why people lower Nash's value. He's played on a terrible team since he came into the league yet he's had two 40+ goal seasons and 5 30+ goal seasons, on the worst team in the league in all those years. He's the ONLY reason Columbus made the playoffs one year by scoring a point a game and 40 goals. He's huge, hits, can skate like the wind and has a great shot. The only knock on him coming here is the fact that Columbus wants a bus load for him and his contract is a little tricky to fit on this roster with all the future signings we have to do. Also, anyone questioning his lack of big game experience fails to recognize the fact that on a team loaded with superstars he's always at or near the top of scoring on team Canada. In his International experience post junior he's had 54 games, 26 goals and 27 assists for 53 points and a 2007 WHC MVP. What he'd add to this team would take us to the next level, it's just a matter of getting him without tearing apart what we already have. The other thing is that Nash has played left wing at the worlds, maybe he could move there for us too, Nash Richards and Gaborik would be deadly, or Nash Stepan Callahan with Kreider Richards and Gaborik as the other line.....so lethal. But having said all that and exhausting my fingers, I doubt we'll be able to make a good deal for him.

[Isca92]

Gardenfaithful, yeah his contract is longer but hes not injury prone like Gabs. Hes only signed to 35 not like hes signed til 39.

BSI, I agree with everything you said there. We have the pieces to give up and Glenn is a great trader. They know they arent getting Kreider, but they could settle with Hags, which I don't want to lose him but to get Nash, Im ok with it.

[commonsense12]

Neither.

Rangers are deep on defense and Nash's contract is terrible. He isnt a PPG player and his contract amount dictates that he should be. I think we could use the almost 8 mill plus the trade assets on different players and be better off.

[IAmARanger18]

Love them both but the choice here for me is Nash.

[bsi]

Gardenfaithful, yeah his contract is longer but hes not injury prone like Gabs. Hes only signed to 35 not like hes signed til 39.

BSI, I agree with everything you said there. We have the pieces to give up and Glenn is a great trader. They know they arent getting Kreider, but they could settle with Hags, which I don't want to lose him but to get Nash, Im ok with it.

I have no problem giving up Hagelin, he's too small to be a playoff player. I like his energy but I see him as the next Petr Prucha, he's gonna put up a couple good years but he'll burn out once he gets knocked around some.

[Isca92]

Bsi, assuming you mean great rookie year and nothing after that. I think Hags will be decent but hes got high value, but teams adjust to speed. Which is what they did by not holding the blue line. It be great to get one of these offensive players avaialble without giving up both him or Kreider, but when they demand kreider, hags becomes a settling spot.

[MJL80]

I have no problem giving up Hagelin, he's too small to be a playoff player. I like his energy but I see him as the next Petr Prucha, he's gonna put up a couple good years but he'll burn out once he gets knocked around some.

My thoughts exactly

[beast023]

nash is easily one of my favorite players in the game, but what if we were able to get weber and radulov for not much more if anything more?

[beast023]

and on top of that i wouldn't say parise is completely out of the question either until his name is on a new contract

[gabby10]

ok.. since i forgot about radulov (lol), what would you rather do. radulov and weber in a big package deal, or nash? now things get interesting....