New York Islanders - San Jose Sharks

[SharksGM]

This is a doozy...

To the Islanders:

Alexander Radulov (67)
Andrew Cogliano (71)
SJ 3rd 2014

To the Sharks:

Rick Nash (86)

Confirmed. This deal is simultaneously tough and a no-brainer. Nash is consistently one of the top forwards in the league and a shoo-in for the Selke - they ought to just rename it the Nash. He's signed for 3 years at the money he deserves, but isn't too greedy to bolt at the end of the deal. I think he'd be swell alongside Thornton and kick it up a notch in the playoffs.

On the other hand, I gave up a couple of guys who could each outscore him in a good year and certainly will do so combined. Radulov's even slightly better offensively and a 99 shooter on a good deal, he can score 40 on his own and Cogliano can put up 30 if he's lucky. They're both younger than Nash and Cogs can play center in a pinch too. I only feel comfortable giving them up because I have decent depth on the wings, and scoring wingers do seem to move around every once in a while. It's a risk I think I have to take because of Nash's insane grinding ability, though, and after all I did manage to win a Cup without Radulov (yea yea, with Lidstrom, I know...).

Thanks for the dealing, Chris, and good luck to you.

[IslandersGM]

We have a deal. I split scoring between two different players who combined can put up numbers larger than Nash alone.

Financials should be fine too.


Thanks for the deal.

[Virtual Jarmo]

We have a deal. I split scoring between two different players who combined can put up numbers larger than Nash alone.

Financials should be fine too.


Thanks for the deal.

We're going to need more of an explanation than this, Chris.

[IslandersGM]

I'm splitting the scoring between two players so potentially I should get more offense. I want to move Nash as this team is rebuilding. I've not got two assets I can move later if I choose to do so instead of one.


I don't think there is any debate that both players (Cogs and Rad) can put up points.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Upon extensive Committee review, all three Committee members have voted to reject this proposed deal.

Reasoning: There are a few reasons why this trade has been rejected and they will be outlined in this response. First, I would like to thank everybody for not posting their thoughts in the trade thread and instead PMing me with their opinions. That's the way that things should be handled - in a professional, private, and respectful manner. Please know that your opinions were considered, but were not the reason for our decision.

As for the trade itself, we took a very long look at this deal. We were in unanimous agreement that Rick Nash is a top-five player in the file and has significant value. Outside of Eric Staal, Nash may be the player with the most value in the file. Nash is 86 CON, 99 HI, doesn't turn the puck over, puts up points, and is a dominant force year in and year out. While Andrew Cogliano and Alexander Radulov are nice offensive pieces, they provide very little in the form of defense. Where Nash is a complete player, both Cogliano and Radulov are mostly one-dimensional.

Chris brought up the argument that both can put up points, which is correct, but between the points Nash puts up AND the goals he prevents by being a high-quality defense forward, that's going to negate any additional offense Cogliano and Radulov provide. Chris also failed to give an adequate explanation for this deal. There were numerous suitors for Nash from what I was told (full disclosure: myself included), but we find it hard to believe that this trade presented the most value and made the most sense. A better explanation would have helped and could have swayed us. We are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a GM with a clear, laid-out plan because it can give us some insight into why a deal is being made.

Instead, the Islanders did not fill any of the team's needs and gave up Nash's consistent, two-way play while not addressing a weak defensive corps and sacrificed one of the few defensive forwards on the team. There's no plan illustrated here.

Chris said in his last explanation that the team is "rebuilding". So the team's best asset is traded for two one-dimensional players and no futures of consequence?

Rationale from the GMs aside, there's simply not enough value here for Nash and the throw-in of a late third round pick does extremely little to close the gap. In fact, the Islanders even add 2.5M in salary if Cogliano gets re-signed at the end of the season for 4.8M and change. No, the Islanders may not have cap concerns now, but 2.5M is at least one, if not more, roster player that could seriously fill one of the team's many needs.

The original Nash deal to NYI was for two first-round picks, Erik Gudbranson and Brendan Gaunce, a starting goaltender, Pekka Rinne, and Maxim Kitsyn, a high second-rounder in our ridiculously good 2010 draft, a player who is as good as Cogliano except for the fact that he cannot play center, but makes up for it with 77 HI. If that's Nash's value, or at least in the ballpark, then this proposed deal doesn't come close.

One Committee member said of the deal:

Chris is not a rookie GM. But he's letting a lot of value slip away. The previous GM nearly gutted his team to get Nash.

The 3rd is just bizarre the more I think about it. Really, both guys decided that that's the asset to balance out the deal?

Another Committee member said of the deal:

Chris could at least get some more youthful building blocks. Or at least two guys with CONs over 70. Sure, both Radulov and Cogliano will score, and may combine to score more points than Nash, but combined they're not going to add up to Nash's contribution to a team, because of his two-way play and his consistency. And, as has already been pointed out, his hitting attribute makes him nearly unstoppable on the right line.

Agreed that the 3rd is useless. Could be a moderate player who's not ready for prime-time until 2016 at the earliest.

Further words from the Committee:

Yeah, I was waiting for a more in-depth explanation but that added nothing.

It doesn't make much sense. NYI has been in a perpetual rebuild for four years, although you can't blame Chris for that. If you want to rebuild, you don't deal Nash for players two years younger than him. If you want to speed up your rebuild, you're not dealing Nash.

IMO Nash is more valuable than any other of the big forwards because of his 99HI. AR/Cogs are solid offensive talents, but they aren't gamebreakers like Nash is. Radulov can on occasion (on offense), but his CON holds him back.

Ultimately, there's not enough value here for Nash. At a minimum, there needs to be a quality third piece added onto Cogliano and Radulov, if not a fourth one depending on that third piece. We're talking about one of the file's best players, but we're not talking about a return that matches Nash's value.

As per the Rulebook, you two can attempt the same core of a deal one more time. I ask that if you want to express any additional thoughts that you do so via PM and I will bring my Committee members into the discussion if I see fit.