Canucksbiggestfan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlsson`s Flo Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 trade for nash and trade him to the bruins for Lucic and Seidenberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 They are going to find a way to hypnotize Luongo into accepting a move to Columbus first lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABurrows14 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMacNamedDre Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'd throw Burrows into a package deal for Nash rather than Higgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamic_canuck21 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'd throw Burrows into a package deal for Nash rather than Higgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckRow Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckRow Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onesmallleap Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLLmAtlc Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.