SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Boston Bruins

Boston Bruins Acquire Rick Nash

Feb. 25, 2018 at 10:19 a.m.
#1
BreKel
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 460
To Bruins: Rick Nash (50% retained)

To Rangers: Ryan Spooner, Ryan Lindgren, Matt Beleskey (50% retained), 2018 1st, 2019 7th
Feb. 25, 2018 at 12:23 p.m.
#2
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 163
Quoting: BreKel
To Bruins: Rick Nash (50% retained)

To Rangers: Ryan Spooner, Ryan Lindgren, Matt Beleskey (50% retained), 2018 1st, 2019 7th


And your thoughts on the trade?
Feb. 25, 2018 at 1:43 p.m.
#3
Thread Starter
BreKel
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 460
Quoting: PaulDunnill
And your thoughts on the trade?


I like the trade. Bruins get a legit 2nd line winger for krejci. Didn’t think they gave up nearly as much as others feel.
Feb. 25, 2018 at 1:59 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 9,552
Likes: 3,052
Quoting: BreKel
I like the trade. Bruins get a legit 2nd line winger for krejci. Didn’t think they gave up nearly as much as others feel.


2018 1st + good prospect + top 9 winger for a rental top 6 winger isn't that much? I'm just asking. I feel like Nash is a good addition and makes the Bruins better in their playoff hunt, but they paid an awful lot to get him. Then again, everyone has been moved for way more than what they're actually worth.

I'm just curious to see what they do with the name on the back of his jersey squinty smile
Feb. 25, 2018 at 2:12 p.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 786
Likes: 473
Quoting: DavidBooth7
2018 1st + good prospect + top 9 winger for a rental top 6 winger isn't that much? I'm just asking. I feel like Nash is a good addition and makes the Bruins better in their playoff hunt, but they paid an awful lot to get him. Then again, everyone has been moved for way more than what they're actually worth.

I'm just curious to see what they do with the name on the back of his jersey squinty smile

Booth my man, although it could be seen as an overpayment. Bruins have been looking to get rid of spooner for over a year now. He didnt have a future in boston and may not even have a future in new york. They take half of beleskey's contract. Late first round pick and a LD prospect which boston already has a overhaul of. It almost looks like boston took to separate trades and mashed them into one. One to get rid of beleskey and one to get nash
nobody liked this.
Feb. 25, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.
#6
LongtimeLeafsufferer
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2015
Posts: 59,068
Likes: 22,463
Quoting: DavidBooth7
2018 1st + good prospect + top 9 winger for a rental top 6 winger isn't that much? I'm just asking. I feel like Nash is a good addition and makes the Bruins better in their playoff hunt, but they paid an awful lot to get him. Then again, everyone has been moved for way more than what they're actually worth.

I'm just curious to see what they do with the name on the back of his jersey squinty smile


Are you suggesting the Bruins should have traded Riley Nash to the Rangers to make it easy for "sewers of the sweaters". Riley and Rick could have just exchanged sweaters and lockers.
nobody liked this.
Feb. 25, 2018 at 4:22 p.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 9,552
Likes: 3,052
Quoting: palhal
Are you suggesting the Bruins should have traded Riley Nash to the Rangers to make it easy for "sewers of the sweaters". Riley and Rick could have just exchanged sweaters and lockers.


Nah I wanna see them have to spell out "RIC. NASH" on that jersey. Even better, the full "RICK NASH"
Feb. 25, 2018 at 4:24 p.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 786
Likes: 473
Quoting: DavidBooth7
Nah I wanna see them have to spell out "RIC. NASH" on that jersey. Even better, the full "RICK NASH"


sadly they aren't doing anything. Its just going to be Nash & Nash. Only the numbers to differentiate
Feb. 25, 2018 at 4:26 p.m.
#9
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2017
Posts: 9,552
Likes: 3,052
Quoting: Pasta88Sauce
sadly they aren't doing anything. Its just going to be Nash & Nash. Only the numbers to differentiate


Awe shucks that's a shame lol
Pasta88Sauce liked this.
Feb. 25, 2018 at 5:15 p.m.
#10
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2017
Posts: 972
Likes: 108
I don't like this deal very much. It's one of those "All-in" type deals. You can't afford to give away a fringe 2nd line RW + 1st + top 4 d prospect for a rental if we lose in the first couple of rounds. If Nash is really good then it won't be terrible, but I just don't understand why Sweeney took this type of risk on this year. Grabner only cost a 2nd + marginal prospect and I would have been looking at Maroon from EDM.

This isn't very good value at all compared to the other deals Sweeney has completed. I don't know if Chiarelli is refusing to make a deal with Boston because he was fired here, but I think Sweeney should have atleast taken Grabner from NYR given the price differential. I'd rather have Grabner for a 2nd + Cedric Pare or someone like that than Nash for Spooner + Lindgren + 2018 1st. Getting rid of Beleskey at 50% isn't a big enough value to be worth the 1st or Lindgren, so this is kind of a head scratcher to me.

I'm expecting a big post season now. If we hadn't made a deal like this and went on to lose in the 2nd round it wouldn't have bothered me much, but now that we're giving up futures it changes the equation. If we make it to the conference finals I won't be too down on this deal, but anything worse than that would be pretty terrible.
Feb. 25, 2018 at 5:27 p.m.
#11
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 786
Likes: 473
Edited Feb. 25, 2018 at 9:55 p.m.
Quoting: FryesLeapMaine
I don't like this deal very much. It's one of those "All-in" type deals. You can't afford to give away a fringe 2nd line RW + 1st + top 4 d prospect for a rental if we lose in the first couple of rounds. If Nash is really good then it won't be terrible, but I just don't understand why Sweeney took this type of risk on this year. Grabner only cost a 2nd + marginal prospect and I would have been looking at Maroon from EDM.

This isn't very good value at all compared to the other deals Sweeney has completed. I don't know if Chiarelli is refusing to make a deal with Boston because he was fired here, but I think Sweeney should have atleast taken Grabner from NYR given the price differential. I'd rather have Grabner for a 2nd + Cedric Pare or someone like that than Nash for Spooner + Lindgren + 2018 1st. Getting rid of Beleskey at 50% isn't a big enough value to be worth the 1st or Lindgren, so this is kind of a head scratcher to me.

I'm expecting a big post season now. If we hadn't made a deal like this and went on to lose in the 2nd round it wouldn't have bothered me much, but now that we're giving up futures it changes the equation. If we make it to the conference finals I won't be too down on this deal, but anything worse than that would be pretty terrible.


If the bruins were to make a deal for grabner equivalent to the one the rangers expected it would've needed to be a 2nd and lindgren or Vaak. Not cedric Pare
BreKel liked this.
Feb. 26, 2018 at 11:02 a.m.
#12
Thread Starter
BreKel
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 460
Quoting: FryesLeapMaine
I don't like this deal very much. It's one of those "All-in" type deals. You can't afford to give away a fringe 2nd line RW + 1st + top 4 d prospect for a rental if we lose in the first couple of rounds. If Nash is really good then it won't be terrible, but I just don't understand why Sweeney took this type of risk on this year. Grabner only cost a 2nd + marginal prospect and I would have been looking at Maroon from EDM.


Bruins acquired a top 6 winger, which was a need, and didn't give up any of their big-time prospects to do so. I'm not sure why this is viewed as an "all-in" move? All he did was add to a contender this season. That's why he "took on the risk". Every team takes on a risk when making a trade to try and win the Cup. You can afford to give that stuff away when:

1.) You've made 6 first round picks over the last 3 drafts (2015 x3, 2016 x2, 2017 x1).

2.) You replace that 'fringe 2nd line RW" with an actual top 6 RW.

3.) The LHD prospect you traded wasn't one of the big three you currently hold. Zboril/Lauzon/Vaakanainen all ahead of him, and when you have Krug locked up and Grzelcyk showing he's an NHL ready defenseman, he's even farther down the depth chart. Lindgren probably doesn't go professional for another 2 years. Bruins could easily find another defensive prospect in that time.

Quote:
This isn't very good value at all compared to the other deals Sweeney has completed. I don't know if Chiarelli is refusing to make a deal with Boston because he was fired here, but I think Sweeney should have atleast taken Grabner from NYR given the price differential. I'd rather have Grabner for a 2nd + Cedric Pare or someone like that than Nash for Spooner + Lindgren + 2018 1st. Getting rid of Beleskey at 50% isn't a big enough value to be worth the 1st or Lindgren, so this is kind of a head scratcher to me.


You seem to ignore the fact that it takes two to tango, and it's not as simple as "Sweeney should have at least taken Grabner from the NYR". To start, Pare isn't even close to being as equally valued as Rykov. Pare, if he's lucky, will make the NHL as a 4th liner. Rykov has top 4-6 upside. Also, the Rangers probably have scouted Rykov seeing their star goalie prospect, Igor Shestyorkin, plays on the same team. Also, there's a potential that the Devils 2nd is higher than the Bruins 2nd. There's much more that goes into it. Someone like Pare isn't getting you in the conversation either because he's not a prospect that holds any value in a trade.

Quote:
I'm expecting a big post season now. If we hadn't made a deal like this and went on to lose in the 2nd round it wouldn't have bothered me much, but now that we're giving up futures it changes the equation. If we make it to the conference finals I won't be too down on this deal, but anything worse than that would be pretty terrible.


You weren't expecting a big post season before the trade? Bruins have plenty of 'futures' even after this trade. Fans need to get out of this mindset that you need to hold onto everyone. The Bruins made a trade for NHL talent and still have a strong prospect pool. This is an overreaction level comment.
Feb. 26, 2018 at 4:25 p.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 163
Quoting: BreKel
I like the trade. Bruins get a legit 2nd line winger for krejci. Didn’t think they gave up nearly as much as others feel.


agreed, it's non Bruin fans saying we got fleeced. When you have as many strong prospects as we have, you can afford to lose a couple.....he looked good last night, and I think the change will re-invigorate him....
Feb. 26, 2018 at 4:32 p.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 163
Quoting: BreKel
Bruins acquired a top 6 winger, which was a need, and didn't give up any of their big-time prospects to do so. I'm not sure why this is viewed as an "all-in" move? All he did was add to a contender this season. That's why he "took on the risk". Every team takes on a risk when making a trade to try and win the Cup. You can afford to give that stuff away when:

1.) You've made 6 first round picks over the last 3 drafts (2015 x3, 2016 x2, 2017 x1).

2.) You replace that 'fringe 2nd line RW" with an actual top 6 RW.

3.) The LHD prospect you traded wasn't one of the big three you currently hold. Zboril/Lauzon/Vaakanainen all ahead of him, and when you have Krug locked up and Grzelcyk showing he's an NHL ready defenseman, he's even farther down the depth chart. Lindgren probably doesn't go professional for another 2 years. Bruins could easily find another defensive prospect in that time.

Quote:
This isn't very good value at all compared to the other deals Sweeney has completed. I don't know if Chiarelli is refusing to make a deal with Boston because he was fired here, but I think Sweeney should have atleast taken Grabner from NYR given the price differential. I'd rather have Grabner for a 2nd + Cedric Pare or someone like that than Nash for Spooner + Lindgren + 2018 1st. Getting rid of Beleskey at 50% isn't a big enough value to be worth the 1st or Lindgren, so this is kind of a head scratcher to me.


You seem to ignore the fact that it takes two to tango, and it's not as simple as "Sweeney should have at least taken Grabner from the NYR". To start, Pare isn't even close to being as equally valued as Rykov. Pare, if he's lucky, will make the NHL as a 4th liner. Rykov has top 4-6 upside. Also, the Rangers probably have scouted Rykov seeing their star goalie prospect, Igor Shestyorkin, plays on the same team. Also, there's a potential that the Devils 2nd is higher than the Bruins 2nd. There's much more that goes into it. Someone like Pare isn't getting you in the conversation either because he's not a prospect that holds any value in a trade.

Quote:
I'm expecting a big post season now. If we hadn't made a deal like this and went on to lose in the 2nd round it wouldn't have bothered me much, but now that we're giving up futures it changes the equation. If we make it to the conference finals I won't be too down on this deal, but anything worse than that would be pretty terrible.


You weren't expecting a big post season before the trade? Bruins have plenty of 'futures' even after this trade. Fans need to get out of this mindset that you need to hold onto everyone. The Bruins made a trade for NHL talent and still have a strong prospect pool. This is an overreaction level comment.


I guess only Bruin fans really understand the Bruins.....
Feb. 27, 2018 at 7:56 a.m.
#15
Thread Starter
BreKel
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 460
Quoting: PaulDunnill
I guess only Bruin fans really understand the Bruins.....


Well my response was to someone who says they're a Bruins fan. I don't want to derail this thread though and it can happen very quickly with said poster. I'll just say that we're all fans and some fans just know/understand more than others.
Feb. 27, 2018 at 9:49 a.m.
#16
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
I like the deal for both teams. Sweeney has done a nice job drafting and because of it we managed to get a top 6 winger and not really put a dent in our prospect pool. Lingdren is going to be a solid NHL d-man (think Giardi in his prime), but as other have said, he wasn't even one of our top 3-4 LHD prospects.
BreKel liked this.
Feb. 27, 2018 at 8:35 p.m.
#17
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 163
Quoting: ON3M4N
I like the deal for both teams. Sweeney has done a nice job drafting and because of it we managed to get a top 6 winger and not really put a dent in our prospect pool. Lingdren is going to be a solid NHL d-man (think Giardi in his prime), but as other have said, he wasn't even one of our top 3-4 LHD prospects.


AGREED!
Apr. 4, 2018 at 10:29 p.m.
#18
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2017
Posts: 972
Likes: 108
Quoting: ON3M4N
I like the deal for both teams. Sweeney has done a nice job drafting and because of it we managed to get a top 6 winger and not really put a dent in our prospect pool. Lingdren is going to be a solid NHL d-man (think Giardi in his prime), but as other have said, he wasn't even one of our top 3-4 LHD prospects.


I didn't like this deal for Boston honestly. Spooner scores more and isn't an expiring asset. The 1st is a top 31 prospect and Lindgren has #3 potential. Seems like a lot to give up for a guy we likely don't bring back. If we won the cup I'd admit he knew something that I didn't, but I just don't understand why we didn't wait until next year to make our push.
Apr. 7, 2018 at 9:10 a.m.
#19
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: FryesLeapMaine
I didn't like this deal for Boston honestly. Spooner scores more and isn't an expiring asset. The 1st is a top 31 prospect and Lindgren has #3 potential. Seems like a lot to give up for a guy we likely don't bring back. If we won the cup I'd admit he knew something that I didn't, but I just don't understand why we didn't wait until next year to make our push.


I'm sorry what?

- Spooner scores more goals? Spooner has a combined 13 goals this year while Nash has 20 goals. In Spooners best year he had 13 goals while in Nash's worst year he had 15 goals.
- The top 31 prospect thing isn't' a valid point simply because talent is evaluated differentlly by every organization. What's the #35 prospect for one team could be #13 for another
- Lingren should be a solid D-man in the NHL with 2nd pairing potential, but whose he taking down? Chara, Krug, Gryz, Zbroil, Lauzon, Vaak <----Lindgren needs to beat 4 of these guys for a spot right now. Even when Chara retires, Lingren still has to battle 3 guys to to make ths line-up.
BreKel liked this.
Apr. 7, 2018 at 12:28 p.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2017
Posts: 972
Likes: 108
Quoting: ON3M4N
I'm sorry what?

- Spooner scores more goals? Spooner has a combined 13 goals this year while Nash has 20 goals. In Spooners best year he had 13 goals while in Nash's worst year he had 15 goals.
- The top 31 prospect thing isn't' a valid point simply because talent is evaluated differentlly by every organization. What's the #35 prospect for one team could be #13 for another
- Lingren should be a solid D-man in the NHL with 2nd pairing potential, but whose he taking down? Chara, Krug, Gryz, Zbroil, Lauzon, Vaak <----Lindgren needs to beat 4 of these guys for a spot right now. Even when Chara retires, Lingren still has to battle 3 guys to to make ths line-up.


By scores I meant points. He’s much more prolific if you count assists.

The prospect means a top 31 guy out of our system, i’m Not suggesting we’d draft the same player, just that we lost one of the top 31 off our board and nyr gained one on theirs.

Lindgren had a good chance vs zboril, Lauzon and Vaakanainen. I’d agree that we were going to have to move someone at some point, but i’m Confident a better deal than Nash for 1/4th a season would have eventually come along. Just because we have “extra assets” doesn’t mean we should spend them on 30+ year old rentals..... some of that package could have been used on a guy like Hoffman if he gets moved.
Apr. 9, 2018 at 9:27 a.m.
#21
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: FryesLeapMaine
By scores I meant points. He’s much more prolific if you count assists.

The prospect means a top 31 guy out of our system, i’m Not suggesting we’d draft the same player, just that we lost one of the top 31 off our board and nyr gained one on theirs.

Lindgren had a good chance vs zboril, Lauzon and Vaakanainen. I’d agree that we were going to have to move someone at some point, but i’m Confident a better deal than Nash for 1/4th a season would have eventually come along. Just because we have “extra assets” doesn’t mean we should spend them on 30+ year old rentals..... some of that package could have been used on a guy like Hoffman if he gets moved.


With the current state the team is/was in, you make a move to try and win now. Whether you think Rick Nash is that guy or not is a different story. Ultimately though, you moved out a guy who had no future with this team beyond this year (he was getting moved one-way or another), a prospect that should be good, but was buried and a unknown pick.
BreKel liked this.
Apr. 9, 2018 at 4:43 p.m.
#22
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2017
Posts: 972
Likes: 108
Quoting: ON3M4N
With the current state the team is/was in, you make a move to try and win now. Whether you think Rick Nash is that guy or not is a different story. Ultimately though, you moved out a guy who had no future with this team beyond this year (he was getting moved one-way or another), a prospect that should be good, but was buried and a unknown pick.


I like rentals such as Stafford. Affordable price, fills a team need and potential to be better for the team than he had played that season.

Holden was fine because of the modest price, but spending the 3 quality assets this season on Nash might mean we can’t afford to make a deal in the future. I personally think we’re on the way up so I’d rather be in the market next season after the young guys have had that one year of playoff hockey so they’ll know what to expect and the chances of winning increases.

Nash isn’t a great playoff performer either over his career, so he’s not a guarantee to be above average. It all adds up to us missing the mark a bit on this one. I don’t think it’s essential to acquire one of the 3 or 4 biggest rentals to win a cup

Bottom line is teams have a harder time staying competitive the more years they buy at the deadline and I feel like our window opens wider next postseason so that would be when I spent futures. I didn’t feel like Sweeney had to buy anything substantial at the deadline but if he was going to, why didn’t he add a prospect to that deal and acquire McDonagh instead. The deals aren’t that far off imo. Add sentshyn and a conditional 2nd and you’ve got your future top pair lhd.
Apr. 9, 2018 at 5:03 p.m.
#23
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 11,496
Likes: 4,562
Quoting: FryesLeapMaine
I like rentals such as Stafford. Affordable price, fills a team need and potential to be better for the team than he had played that season.

Holden was fine because of the modest price, but spending the 3 quality assets this season on Nash might mean we can’t afford to make a deal in the future. I personally think we’re on the way up so I’d rather be in the market next season after the young guys have had that one year of playoff hockey so they’ll know what to expect and the chances of winning increases.

Nash isn’t a great playoff performer either over his career, so he’s not a guarantee to be above average. It all adds up to us missing the mark a bit on this one. I don’t think it’s essential to acquire one of the 3 or 4 biggest rentals to win a cup

Bottom line is teams have a harder time staying competitive the more years they buy at the deadline and I feel like our window opens wider next postseason so that would be when I spent futures. I didn’t feel like Sweeney had to buy anything substantial at the deadline but if he was going to, why didn’t he add a prospect to that deal and acquire McDonagh instead. The deals aren’t that far off imo. Add sentshyn and a conditional 2nd and you’ve got your future top pair lhd.


I don't think Boston thought they had a huge need for a LHD (as much as B's fans wanted it). They did see a need for a big forward to play along side Krejci though and that's why they paid what they did for Nash.
Apr. 9, 2018 at 5:58 p.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2017
Posts: 972
Likes: 108
Quoting: ON3M4N
I don't think Boston thought they had a huge need for a LHD (as much as B's fans wanted it). They did see a need for a big forward to play along side Krejci though and that's why they paid what they did for Nash.


Right, but their perception of the situation was basically how a druggie views life. Think of right here right now only even if it takes options away from you in the future. I don’t find that intelligent or believe it’s impossible to win without buying a high priced rental, so I’d set myself up for a bigger push the following season when all the kids have a better idea of how to approach the post season.

It wasn’t one of Sweeney’s better moves because the value isn’t actually there. There’s no way to compute Rick Nash playing 1/4th a season + the playoffs being worth a 1st and 2 players who probably held their value at 2nd rounders. If you are actually building your team to be a longtime contender there’s simply no way to consider that the best use of high rated expendable assets.

He’s should have went for someone younger with term imo. I got to simulate some of this stuff from being in the gm game. The prices were high and maybe I had to pay too much, but I upgraded on Krug to Lindholm. I paid krug a 1st + lindgren and Gabrielle for him. I’m more worried about 2019-2020 top pair LHD than getting the best rental rw pwr forward. I ended up with Tuch and a 2nd for 2018 1st because tuc has the size and physicality to play on any line. I projected Krejci making him into a legit 2nd line winger, but that was just my estimation. Crap like that made more sense to me because it actually boosts our competitiveness I. The future as well.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll