Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

(Speculation) Rick Nash to Vancouver?


  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

#61 Mighty Walrus

Mighty Walrus

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:36 PM

I'd rather get evander.
  • 1

#62 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,863 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:37 PM

Also the asking price is slightly albatross at this point. Howson isnt learning his mistakes yet.


http://aol.sportingn...ed-wings-sharks



Howson still is asking for "four or five major pieces" for the big winger, according to Newsday's Arthur Staple. Staple covers the Rangers, who were discussing a trade with Columbus in February but balked at the asking price, which reportedly included Chris Kreider. Kreider, of course, emerged as a star during the Rangers' run to the Eastern Conference finals.


Posted ImageRick Nash requested a trade out of Columbus during the season. (AP Photo)


Echoing Staple is Andy Strickland, an NHL reporter and radio host in St. Louis, who said that "two roster players and two prospects" are Columbus' starting point




Read more: http://aol.sportingn...s#ixzz1y0DeLReI


  • 0

#63 Pears

Pears

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,841 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:40 PM

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

I'd take Burr over Higgins anyday
  • 2
Posted Image

Credit to (>'-')> for the amazing sig!!

#64 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,339 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:51 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.


Schneider and Jensen would be the starting point. Then we would probably have to add Booth and possibly Ballard.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#65 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:53 PM

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.


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

Burrows - the other toss in in this thread, has 89 goals in the last three years - Nash had 95. Burrows scores them all five on five. Burrows kills penalties. Higgins is also an all around stud. Together they make exactly half what Nash does.

Building a winner is about getting the best value dollar for dollar under the cap - not chasing after every shiny overvalued asset on the market - which is where the CDC idiocy lies.

Feel free to get in line with the other sheep willing to sell the farm. Four or five assets - crazy.

Edited by oldnews, 16 June 2012 - 05:00 PM.

  • 3

#66 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:56 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 ;)









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).


I'm sorry, but if you say that you wouldn't
Trade Higgins for Nash straight up, you are really a honer
  • 0
Posted Image

#67 BoKnows53

BoKnows53

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 594 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:03 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.


When Philly asked about Schneider, Gillis wanted Giroux in return. But blue jackets have to trade him and they won't get equal value back.
  • 0

#68 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,959 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:25 PM

As a Canuck fan, I like that goalie tandem more than the Blackhawks used to like seeing Lou in the play off's each year!

:bigblush:

If he goes to Toronto, we'll have to see him every Saturday night on CBC. DO NOT WANT!

Panthers have Clemmensen and Markstrom. And the Blackhawks have Crawford and Emery as a tandem.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 16 June 2012 - 05:25 PM.

  • 0

#69 Hunter Shinkaruk #9

Hunter Shinkaruk #9

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:26 PM

Would a 3-way trade be possible?
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to the incomparable, -Vintage Canuck-. Thank you, sir!

#70 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:39 PM

It's what i was saying awhile ago. Schneider, not Luongo, would have to be moved for Nash. The Thomas situation eliminates Boston from the mix, leaving the Rangers and Philly and whoever else. However, the Rangers and Philly don't have a star goalie that they can part with.

Does Nash to Vancouver count as a 'bold move'?

Anyone?


Quit your daydreaming, melonhead. Cheers.


TOML
  • 0
Posted Image

#71 Mighty Walrus

Mighty Walrus

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:40 PM

When Philly asked about Schneider, Gillis wanted Giroux in return. But blue jackets have to trade him and they won't get equal value back.


Really?
  • 0

#72 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:48 PM

Would a 3-way trade be possible?


Yes but forget Nash...
Luongo to Toronto
Schnenn and/or whatever Maplelosers to Philly.
Couturier and Simmonds to Vancouver, muahahaha.

Edited by oldnews, 16 June 2012 - 05:50 PM.

  • 0

#73 NP-4815162342

NP-4815162342

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:54 PM

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

I wouldn't either bro haha
  • 0

#74 Merci

Merci

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

Why I think Columbus has as much chance as anywhere.
  • Toronto would eat him alive if he played poorly.
  • TB doesn't want him
  • Columbus is in between Florida and Montreal
  • Luongo is only 33 he still has time to get his elite game back, Columbus could just be a refocus period before he goes to a contender
  • Maybe Gillis says that the Nash deal is by far the best offer he is getting
  • For some reason he doesn't want to touch Florida


If we acqured Nash we would essentially need a tough 3rd ine grinder to replace Higgins, and hopefully sign Garrison and Shultz.

Sedin Sedin Burrows
Booth Kesler Nash
Ott Lapierre Kassian
Moen Pallson Hansen

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Garrison
Ballard Schultz/Tanev

Schneider
  • 0

vPTJpcO.jpg


#75 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

Nash, Parise, Weber...these guys could all cause locker-room chaos. These guys are big fish and team captains. Suddenly you throw them into the Nucks locker room with its core leadership, egos etc (Hank, Bieksa, Kesler) and who is captain? who is the real leader?

Think Bieksa's leadership role will be in tact if Weber signs? How about Hank with Nash on the team (makes more money and is more of a physically dominating, carry the team on his back type)?

These big acquisitions can cause issues within the team which is partly why they often don't make the huge difference everyone expects. Players are forced to take on different roles and lose influence. It can be tricky.


kinda like Richards in LA? Or maybe Raymond Borque in COL? Or maybe like Chris Chelios and all the other great players that went to DET and won cups?
  • 0

#76 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 64,678 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:20 PM

I would'nt even do Burrows for Crosby.


Because of Cap?
  • 0
Posted Image

#77 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:24 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 ;)









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).

:picard:
  • 0

#78 ButterBean

ButterBean

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:27 PM

I'd take Burr over Higgins anyday

I'm just saying only if it was for Nash. Because if we did get Nash it would be foolish not to put him with the Sedins. That leaves Burrows on the 2nd or 3rd line and I think Higgins suites that role better because he would likely be a cheaper option and more disciplined. I know huge Burrows will probably hate this haha.
  • 0

#79 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,931 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:29 PM

yeah.. i don't care how much you think you know about hockey...

if you deal Schneider for Nash you go over the cap and handicap your own team

we have 15 million in cap space and need 5 guys, if we ditch a 900k guy we have over 15 and a half million and bring in Nash for was it 7.8m? That leaves us about 8million to get a million dollar backup, and 4 other 1 or 2 million dollar players..easy. Not that I think nash is coming, but it can be done pretty easy considering all our core are already signed.
  • 0


CDC GM League Posted Image General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#80 Ṣpiderman

Ṣpiderman

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:31 PM

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

Burrows - the other toss in in this thread, has 89 goals in the last three years - Nash had 95. Burrows scores them all five on five. Burrows kills penalties. Higgins is also an all around stud. Together they make exactly half what Nash does.

Building a winner is about getting the best value dollar for dollar under the cap - not chasing after every shiny overvalued asset on the market - which is where the CDC idiocy lies.

Feel free to get in line with the other sheep willing to sell the farm. Four or five assets - crazy.


Who does Burrows play with again?
  • 0

Posted Image


#81 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:33 PM

Who does Burrows play with again?

Anyone you need him to.
  • 0

#82 Canuck or Die

Canuck or Die

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,350 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:58 PM

Why the hell would we sign Nash with his cap hit, when we asked our big players to take discounts? We would have to sell the farm for Nash, and only idiots seem to be willing to do that. No, I would not give up Nash for either Higgins or Burrows. You losers can facepalm all you want, the only idiots here are the ones suggesting we should even bother with Nash.
  • 0
EMBRACE THE HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO CANUCKS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We WILL be drinking from Lord Stanley's Cup soon, Canucks Nation!

Posted Image

#83 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:05 PM

Luongo for Nash.

Straight up, both equal price, otherwise I'm not taking that massive contract. Both players would help their new teams A LOT.
  • 0
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#84 canuckbeliever

canuckbeliever

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,863 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 07

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:08 PM

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

Burrows - the other toss in in this thread, has 89 goals in the last three years - Nash had 95. Burrows scores them all five on five. Burrows kills penalties. Higgins is also an all around stud. Together they make exactly half what Nash does.

Building a winner is about getting the best value dollar for dollar under the cap - not chasing after every shiny overvalued asset on the market - which is where the CDC idiocy lies.

Feel free to get in line with the other sheep willing to sell the farm. Four or five assets - crazy.



Right because I clearly said giving up 4-5 assets makes sense right. :sadno:

READ THEN WRITE
  • 0

#85 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,339 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:18 PM

Sedin Sedin Nash
Higgins Kesler Burrows
Raymond Malhotra Hansen
Kassian Lapierre Jensen

Hamhuis Bieksa
Edler Schultz
Ballard Tanev

Luongo
Lack

Dream lineup.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#86 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:19 PM

Right because I clearly said giving up 4-5 assets makes sense right. :sadno:

READ THEN WRITE



That's pretty ironic.

You jumped in suggesting my post was "typical CDC idiocy", trying to school me as to why Higgins must be sent to Columbus, when what I was disagreeing with were proposals including Luongo, Higgins/Burrows, a 1st rounder and defensive prospect for Nash. Higgns and Burrows are not toss-ins in 4 or 5 piece deals for one over-rated, overpaid asset.

Not to mention that the Sportingnews source above clearly states that "Howson still is asking for "four or five major pieces" for the big winger."

"READ THEN WRITE" - or read before you start calling throwing around terms like "idiocy".

Edited by oldnews, 16 June 2012 - 07:24 PM.

  • 0

#87 KING ALBERTS

KING ALBERTS

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 10

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:21 PM

Why the hell would we sign Nash with his cap hit, when we asked our big players to take discounts? We would have to sell the farm for Nash, and only idiots seem to be willing to do that. No, I would not give up Nash for either Higgins or Burrows. You losers can facepalm all you want, the only idiots here are the ones suggesting we should even bother with Nash.


Posted Image


players like nash only come around every once in a while, there aren't many power forwards in this league that can put up 30 goals a season consistently... someone with that much size and that level of finishing would turn the sedin line into the biggest threat in the league
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

i fel off the banwagon and hit my hed on a rok


#88 northernnuckfan

northernnuckfan

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:21 PM

How about trade Luongo to Toronto for the 5th over all pick, then trade the Booth, Ballard and the 5th over all pick for Nash.
  • 0

#89 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,151 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:10 PM

Posted Image


players like nash only come around every once in a while, there aren't many power forwards in this league that can put up 30 goals a season consistently... someone with that much size and that level of finishing would turn the sedin line into the biggest threat in the league


Guys like Luongo and Burrows don't come around every day.
Power forwards like Perry, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kopitar, igninla, Staal, Morrow, Brown, Lucic, Backes... don't come around every day - but that doesn't mean they are worth 4 or 5 premier assets, including another guy in the top 10 at his position (like Luongo), and a heart and soul player like Burrows (or Higgins), and a 1st round pick (recent deals like that where picks that turned into Seguin or Couturier come to mind), and another prospect...The Sedin line with Burrows is already among the biggest threats in the NHL.

Nash isn't enough of an upgrade to justify thinning your team out like that. To give up a package like that, the Canucks lose big...

2018.
  • 0

#90 Tangelos

Tangelos

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,329 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 12

Posted 16 June 2012 - 08:17 PM

Schneider is our guy, and theres no way Luongo would fetch us Nash straight up. Realistically, Kesler would probably have to be thrown into the deal somehow. So assuming Luongo would want to live in Columbus Ohio which is pretty far-fetched:

Luongo, Kesler, Tanev for Nash, Brassard.

Personally I don't consider Nash to be a superstar, or even a top 50 player but for some reason he is extremely hyped up. Probably cause he was a 1st overall pick. But, the fact is many teams will be bidding for him so we would probably have to overpay.
  • 0
Posted Image

Previously:
6OH!4, Doug The Thug Glatt




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.