Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

(Speculation) Rick Nash to Vancouver?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
345 replies to this topic

#31 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,262 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:44 PM

I wouldn't give up Higgins in a trade for Nash, hes to valuable in my opinion.

What the frag is with people wanting to ditch Higgins? They guy is fantastic, I can't think of anything negative to say about him. He just goes out there and does his thing.


Thank you. What the hell is it with people wanting to throw Higgins into deals like a spare part? And adding a 1st round pick with a goaltender to take on an underachieving gargantuan cap hit? Non-merci.

#32 Bill F-ing Murray

Bill F-ing Murray

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:47 PM

Taking back 13 odd million in cap space?

Give your head a shake. Then slam it off your desk.

rinse and repeat.... rinse and repeat

Posted Image


“Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,”

I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me.I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.”

Ricky Gervais


#33 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,262 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:48 PM

Florida does have Markstrom, but he is 4 years+ younger than Schneider...

#34 allkill326

allkill326

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,270 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:50 PM

Florida does have Markstrom, but he is 4 years+ younger than Schneider...


Plus, he's not ready yet. Maybe in three season he will be...
Posted Image

#35 Karlsson`s Flo

Karlsson`s Flo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:56 PM

If the Cap indeed does rise next year to 70mil or whatever it is and the new CBA has nothing to say about it, I'd be glad to take his services for 7.8 a year.

#36 Ron Swansons Moustache

Ron Swansons Moustache

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,324 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:56 PM

Plus, he's not ready yet. Maybe in three season he will be...


I thought i heard too that he had 2 surgeries on his knee already but i could be wrong.
http://Posted Image

#37 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,908 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:58 PM

As much as I hate to say it, the logical guy to give up in a Nash trade (if we are not giving up Luongo or Schneider) is Booth. Nash does what Booth does but way better. Nash is a consistent power forward while Booth is sometimes a power forward. It is also a working basis to let the salaries make sense. In my opinion a realistic deal would be Booth, Kassian, first, second for Nash. Now I know many are going to say why give up Kassian, especially when you just traded for him but the fact is Booth alone will not get Nash.


Also, even for a second I do not buy speculation that Luongo will be dealt to CBJ because it makes 0 sense. As some of you are aware, I hate Luongo a lot and I criticize him to death but in a deal such as this I think it makes sense to deal Schneider (as a poster already mentioned) and I would do it.

Rick Nash type players are RARELY on the market, that is why so many teams are inquiring.

Edited by canuckbeliever, 16 June 2012 - 01:58 PM.


#38 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,413 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:59 PM

Luongo isn't gonna wave his NTC to go to the worst team in the league. At least with him in Toronto they'd make the playoffs.

Schneider, Booth, Ballard, and a 1st for Nash.

They get a top 6 forward, a top 4 defenseman (face it, the only reason Ballard played bottom pairing minutes was because our left side defence is stacked), a really good goalie who's more than ready to be a starter, and a 1st round pick round add to their prospect pool.

Daniel ~ Henrik ~ Nash
Burrows ~ Kesler ~ Kassian

--> Burrows and Kesler have unreal chemistry; Kassian will be the big physical presence, is strong on the boards, and can make some good passes down low.


They have a good team, but they had terrible goaltending last season. Plus Carter absolutely crapped the bed and threw off their entire season.

Luongo will get them in the playoffs next year. That's what Luongo brings and Nash doesn't.

Subbancopy.jpg


#39 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,908 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:00 PM

They have a good team, but they had terrible goaltending last season. Plus Carter absolutely crapped the bed and threw off their entire season.

Luongo will get them in the playoffs next year. That's what Luongo brings and Nash doesn't.


There is no way in hell they make the playoffs next year even with Luongo. You folks give too much credit to Luo. He had a far superior team in Florida (as compared to CBJ) and they didnt make the playoffs. No way that would happen in Columbus

#40 PlanB

PlanB

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:03 PM

If the Cap indeed does rise next year to 70mil or whatever it is and the new CBA has nothing to say about it, I'd be glad to take his services for 7.8 a year.


That's a huge if because the NHL/NHLPA are staring another devastating work stoppage square in the face right now with no signs of progress at the moment.

Salary caps from what I understand are based on the previous year's overall financial growth, so yeah the cap might go up next year, but if a work stoppage occurs the cap could very well go down....way down....the year after that and who wants to be stuck with a 7.8 million dollar cap hit when/if that happens?
Posted Image

#41 Canucksbiggestfan

Canucksbiggestfan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,027 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:05 PM

I can see a deal involving Nash coming here, only if Schneider goes the other way. Luongo will not waive his NTC to go to a rebuilding team.

Van: Schneider, Ballard*, Sweatt, 1st (2013), 2nd (2012)

CBJ: Nash, Boll, 3rd (2012)

* He is traded only because of Salary Cap reasons.

A deal similar to that would make sense, if they wanted anything more then MG should just tell Howson to get real. Again this is only if the Rumours are true.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#42 Karlsson`s Flo

Karlsson`s Flo

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • Joined: 11-June 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:07 PM

As much as I hate to say it, the logical guy to give up in a Nash trade (if we are not giving up Luongo or Schneider) is Booth. Nash does what Booth does but way better. Nash is a consistent power forward while Booth is sometimes a power forward. It is also a working basis to let the salaries make sense. In my opinion a realistic deal would be Booth, Kassian, first, second for Nash. Now I know many are going to say why give up Kassian, especially when you just traded for him but the fact is Booth alone will not get Nash.


Also, even for a second I do not buy speculation that Luongo will be dealt to CBJ because it makes 0 sense. As some of you are aware, I hate Luongo a lot and I criticize him to death but in a deal such as this I think it makes sense to deal Schneider (as a poster already mentioned) and I would do it.

Rick Nash type players are RARELY on the market, that is why so many teams are inquiring.


I can't see CBJ really wanting Booth though. I think they'd ask for Kassian and/or Jensen to replace the power forward abilities of Nash. If they were to take Booth it would be more of a good player with a cap dump reason than a basis.

#43 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,413 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:18 PM

There is no way in hell they make the playoffs next year even with Luongo. You folks give too much credit to Luo. He had a far superior team in Florida (as compared to CBJ) and they didnt make the playoffs. No way that would happen in Columbus


Nope, Florida was way worse. They only had a decent record because of Luongo.

Subbancopy.jpg


#44 LeanBeef

LeanBeef

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:31 PM

trade for nash and trade him to the bruins for Lucic and Seidenberg
Sig too big.
"Being a Canuck fan, maybe sometime down the road be a Vancouver Canuck.... that would conquer all my dreams"
-Milan Lucic

#45 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 02:37 PM

They are going to find a way to hypnotize Luongo into accepting a move to Columbus first lol.

#46 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:05 PM

Thank you. What the hell is it with people wanting to throw Higgins into deals like a spare part? And adding a 1st round pick with a goaltender to take on an underachieving gargantuan cap hit? Non-merci.


You're saying that like it wouldn't take Higgins to get Nash.

I know Higgins is good he's the only winger asset we have that we can part with.

Sammuellson, and Raymond evaporating has left us dry.

Keslerific, on 25 May 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

Gaunce is wayy cooler though, Gaunce is the kind of guy you want to bring with you to Costco

 

vPTJpcO.jpg


#47 ABurrows14

ABurrows14

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:06 PM

It's contract for contract. No chance were trading Schnieder for that contract. If were trading for Nash,would way rather Luongo going the other way.


Problem is Lou would veto that trade alot of lets trade Lou (which I agree) but lets think realistically folks, Lou had a NTC, so he has to approve the deal, meaning it has to be to a team that will have at least a chance of making the playoffs. CBJ suck bad. Toronto at least has a hope with him in net...

Further, we're not trading for Nash because it would throw our who salary structure out of whack, how do you pay a guy the most on the team when he's been outproduced by both Sedins matched by Kesler and has never been a Canuck? How do you then look at guys like Burr/Schnieds/Edler etc and say take a discount to stay with the team.

Lets think a little deeper folks.

#48 Burnsey

Burnsey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:14 PM

Higgins proposals...really? I wouldn't trade Higgins for Nash straight up. Higgins has been the most consistent player all season. Even if he didn't score or get PTS he was at least putting together a solid effort when others looked tired, slow, lazy, in a slump, etc.

Higgins is a hugely valuable guy and I wouldn't even consider trading him. He will be huge for our next cup run in 2013 ;)







trade for nash and trade him to the bruins for Lucic and Seidenberg


haha why not add Marchand while we're at it. Just imagine doing a trade with the Bruins. Just be like the Messier move all over again (to a certain degree).

Edited by Burnsey, 16 June 2012 - 03:16 PM.

team-canada-jarome-iginla-photo.jpg


#49 DaMacNamedDre

DaMacNamedDre

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:15 PM

I think our team was overrated last year and almost every player in the NHL thought the same thing.
The team lacks size and physicality. (side note: resign Bitz asap and get him some backup)
Luongo won us the Presidents Trophy.
Unfortunately he's had a couple mediocre appearances in huge games but he was very,very solid for most of the year.
Both our goalies are superb, if MG moves one of them he better get a monster or 2 in return.
re-signing Mason Raymond is not going to get you anywhere in April-May or June.

id like to see this.

Burrows-Kesler-Nash
Sedin-Sedin-Bitz
Higgins-Gaustad-Kassian
Moen-Lapierre-Chris Neil
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted ImageBodee, on 18 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I haven't been a supporter of the Canucks for long. Mainly because firstly I know nothing about NHL and secondly ESPN America only started showing NHL 3 years ago.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/328055-whats-wrong-with-me
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#50 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,228 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:16 PM

I'd throw Burrows into a package deal for Nash rather than Higgins.

#51 GM

GM

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 06

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:29 PM

I hope all the people complaining about his cap hit aren't the same people who think the Canucks should keep Booth and Ballard.

I doubt CBJ would give up Nash without getting Schneider in return.

Personally I'd rather wait to try to sign UFA Parise before giving up a ton to get Nash.

#52 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:38 PM

If Luongo is the goalie we trade for Nash, we can also kiss Tanev, Jensen, Kassian exc Good-Bye.

Or else a big piece or two of our current roster will be gone.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 16 June 2012 - 03:55 PM.

zackass.png


#53 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,262 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:46 PM

You're saying that like it wouldn't take Higgins to get Nash.

I know Higgins is good he's the only winger asset we have that we can part with.

Sammuellson, and Raymond evaporating has left us dry.



I'm saying that like it is crazy to consider giving up that much for an underachieving, overpaid guy on a team that needs to make changes. The Blue Jackets are in no position to try to command anything like that from the Canucks.
Luongo, Higgins, a 1st and a prospect blueliner for Nash? Never.
Luongo alone is the only way I would consider taking Nash. Anything in addition is salary for picks/prospects.
This nonsense about giving away a handful of assets is silly - on one hand people devalue Luongo (wrongly) based on the term of his contract (which is misleading) and yet they inflate Nash despite an actual albatross contract. Not worth it.
Higgins is the only winger we can part with? You'll have to explain that one - it makes no sense to me.

Edited by oldnews, 16 June 2012 - 03:53 PM.


#54 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,262 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 03:50 PM

Question:
Reporter - "When can we plan the Nash welcoming parade?"
Mike Gillis - "2018".
What has changed?
Either the price has dropped dramatically, the assets in play have fundamentally changed, or someone who writes speculative articles hasn't bothered to review what Gillis has said on the matter.

#55 dynamic_canuck21

dynamic_canuck21

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:12 PM

I'd throw Burrows into a package deal for Nash rather than Higgins.

I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby.

#56 CanuckRow

CanuckRow

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,081 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

Problem is Lou would veto that trade alot of lets trade Lou (which I agree) but lets think realistically folks, Lou had a NTC, so he has to approve the deal, meaning it has to be to a team that will have at least a chance of making the playoffs. CBJ suck bad. Toronto at least has a hope with him in net...

Further, we're not trading for Nash because it would throw our who salary structure out of whack, how do you pay a guy the most on the team when he's been outproduced by both Sedins matched by Kesler and has never been a Canuck? How do you then look at guys like Burr/Schnieds/Edler etc and say take a discount to stay with the team.

Lets think a little deeper folks.

Yeah I agree. It's not very realistic to see a trade like that go threw, unless Luongo is very fond on working with Ian Clark again, who works for the Blue Jackets now.

15yezck.jpg

 

 @Chel24Seven


#57 CanuckRow

CanuckRow

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,081 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:14 PM

I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby.

Posted Image

15yezck.jpg

 

 @Chel24Seven


#58 onesmallleap

onesmallleap

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:28 PM

I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby.

Wow !!! That has got to be the most delusional statement EVER!

#59 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,908 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:29 PM

I'm saying that like it is crazy to consider giving up that much for an underachieving, overpaid guy on a team that needs to make changes. The Blue Jackets are in no position to try to command anything like that from the Canucks.
Luongo, Higgins, a 1st and a prospect blueliner for Nash? Never.
Luongo alone is the only way I would consider taking Nash. Anything in addition is salary for picks/prospects.
This nonsense about giving away a handful of assets is silly - on one hand people devalue Luongo (wrongly) based on the term of his contract (which is misleading) and yet they inflate Nash despite an actual albatross contract. Not worth it.
Higgins is the only winger we can part with? You'll have to explain that one - it makes no sense to me.



Typical CDC idiocy.

You do realize 10 teams have contacted Howson already with 6 engaging in serious talks. Howson is a winning position right now contrary to what you think. Nash is also not an underachieving forward. He has produced 30+ goals 7 of 9 seasons and the only reason he has not hit more than 40 is because his centers have sucked.

The best center he has had has been ANTOINE FREAKING VERMETTE.

Nash has had an absolute crap team and has maximized what he could do. The reason we RIP on Luongo is because he has done the least he could do with an absolutely great time. It is a different end of the same stick. Also Rick has only 6 seasons remaining instead of 10. He is also only 28 years old and about to hit his prime rather than out of it.


Also I will explain the Higgins thing to you. Teams want players they like when they trade really good players. You are not going to get a great player like Nash by giving up a Mason Raymond.

Edited by canuckbeliever, 16 June 2012 - 04:31 PM.


#60 iLLmAtlc

iLLmAtlc

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:32 PM

Just look at what CBJ is reportedly asking for from PHI. They want Couterier, or Schenn and JVR. The Canucks don't have anything close in terms of young talent to match a package like that. If we want Nash I think people would have to be willing to move Burrows or Edler (or both) because CBJ will be asking for those guys I think.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.