eberle is worth more than nash

Eberle has never sniffed 40 plus goals in a season. I don't think he his.

Trading Eberle is mostly about shedding his $6 million. Why would they swap that for a guy who makes even more, and will be gone in a year?

Eberle has been more productive than Nash over the past few years, anyway. Three out of Nash's past 4 years have been very underwhelming. Eberle is also 5 years younger.

Nash>Eberle. At putting the puck in the net, perhaps Eberle is now a bit better, though its certainly debatable. However, Nash can play in all three zones, kill penalties, and is a leader. Nash's contract also expires after the year which is honestly advantageous to have versus the Eberle contract. The Rangers couldn't take on Eberle's contract because it then occupies any cap space needed to resign Skjei/Hayes/Miller/Vesey after the 17/18 year.

As an overall player, sure, he brings more to the table. For almost $8 million per year, though, you have to score. You can pay 3 separate guys $8 million combined to kill penalties and "lead."

Bottom line is that neither team is in a position to take on salary, so I don't see the point.

So Rangers retain 1.8 on Nash, making it an even swap salary-wise. Also, if Nash is willing to waive his NMC to go to Edmonton, there's at least a decent chance of him resigning there, likely at a rate somewhere closer to 4 million than 8

He'd have to re-sign for considerably less than $6 million in order for it to remotely make sense for Edmonton. Nash will be 34 when the 2018-2019 season starts. Would Edmonton even want him? Why not just roll with Eberle at that point? It's not like they have to give him away. He's a good player that stays healthy (unlike Nash) and scores 20-25 per year.

Neither of them are worth their contracts, but Nash's might be more appealing to NYR because it expires sooner. Thats the point i'm trying to make.

We agree on that. But I think Edmonton can get better value for Eberle, whether it's draft picks, or a young defenseman with term at a reasonable cost. Something that they can reap the benefits of in the long term. I don't think one year of Rick Nash (producing less than Eberle) and the cap space that opens up afterwards is sufficient.