The Rangers traded the least possible to get an all-star first liner. Your whole post only critiques Nash and doesn't offer an alternative. By your logic there was no winning scenario for NYR that involved getting Rick Nash at all outside of them getting him off re-entry waivers. So if your argument is that the Rangers lose no matter what because they got Rick Nash then that's fair.
Huh? Everyone asks for the moon. Where was there going to appear a better market? Let's review the facts about Rick Nash:
- He turned 28 a month ago.
- He's not a play driver but no one cares about that so...
- While he's scored 95 goals over the last 3 seasons, which ranks 12th in the league over that span...
- ...he's signed at the 5th highest cap hit in the league and signed until 2018 when he is 36.
The only way this trade is a win is if Columbus was that bad/NYR is that good that he becomes a 40 goal forward who can drive play in New York. I wouldn't bet on that happening. And if the cap goes down and salaries don't get rolled back significantly, Nash is still on a rotten contract. Again, imagine Nash is a UFA - do you want to sign him at that cap hit until 2018? Probably not.
Edited by ben00rs, 23 July 2012 - 02:29 PM.