Obviously, you want to trade from an area of strength to improve the team's weakness i.e sacrificing an abundance of defense for some scoring. It's the lay of the land to execute a trade, you need to part with something of value to get something of value. Not every sports executive is Bob Gainey.
The debate centers around Shea Weber, superstar defenseman of the Nashville Predators. If he doesn't sign a new deal with the team, Nashville will be forced to explore trade options or risk losing him to free agency next season. Weber, 26, is a bruising 6'4'' 234 lb defenseman, with the deadliest right-handed shot in the game today and the ability to score goals from the back line (19 in 2011-12, including 10 PPGs)
A package for Weber would realisticlly be greater than one for Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan and would have to include players not typically discussed in trade rumors this offseason.
One of those players might be stalwart defenseman Dan Girardi.
Purely speculation, but if Weber were to hit the market, Nashville is sure to ask for a defenseman to build around in return. Ryan McDonagh would be off limits. Michael Del Zotto is the easy answer, but may not be Nashville's answer. Tim Erixon is a prospect with good value, but not the centerpeiece of a deal for Weber.
Would NYR Nation be willing to part with Marc Staal or Dan Girardi in a trade for Shea Weber? According to the replies on Twitter, absolutely not. Girardi is here to stay and should be considered "untouchable."
I'm here to say that is narrow-minded thinking if you're trying to build a Cup-winning team.
Very few athletes should be labled as untouchable, meaning if they were to leave, no matter who you brought back, the immediate impact would be detrimental to the team. Henrik Lundqvist is untouchable. Chris Kreider is untouchable (to me). If Staal or Girardi had to be sacrificed to get Weber, would the Rangers be that worse off? You're getting, in return, one of the best defensemen in the NHL today at 26 years old, while still maintaing your core of defense.
No one knows what Nashville would want in return for Weber should they trade him. No one knows what Nashville thinks of Staal or Girardi as potential replacements, as well.
Do I want to see Girardi, Staal or any other homegrown player traded? Of course not. However, if you want to make a trade that adresses a need and improves the team both short term and long term, tough decisions have to be made.
A deal isn't close to happening, New York would need to be assured Weber can be locked up long term and it would take several more pieces besides Girardi/Staal to get it done. There are a lot of peices that would need to fall into place to consummate a deal.
But if Girardi or Staal were the centerpiece needed in a package Nashville wanted for Weber, New York shouldn't say no to it.
*What do YOU think? Should Girardi be included in a trade for Weber is Nashville wanted him? Or is he "untouchable?"
Including Staal or Girardi in a Weber deal is a no-brainer. Weber steps in and does everything either one of them does and everything they don't too, so we don't miss a step. Best part, by moving one of those two, and you make up about half of Weber's cap hit right away. It's the same logic with sending Dubi to Columbus. We're paying Dubi $4 mil, Nash makes $7.8, we only need to find $3.8 to make it happen.
We heap praise on our D, but really Hank is our D. He sees a TON of shots, and has to make unthinkable saves to keep us in the game. On top of Hank, you've got a coach who stresses back checking and defense as a priority, and now you're talking about a D unit who's getting as much help as you can give them.
Our offense struggles but neither Staal or Girardi can offer us much there. Neither is particularly strong in the corners (although Girardi is much better then Staal), or good first passers, and both give up the blueline FAR too easily. We jump down the throats of guys like MDZ and Stralman when they are out of position, but atleast they are trying to make a play. Staal and Girardi are more then happy to surrender the blueline, and back up into Hank, offering little more then an occasional pokecheck, just hoping to slow things down until the cavalry comes.
What Staal and Girardi bring can be replaced, and much easier (and probably cheaper) then people think. Weber gives us EVERYTHING this blueline is missing. A clear number one defenseman, a PP QB with a big shot from the point, and the swinging dick we need pack their to beef up our physical pressence. A top 4 of Weber, McD, MDZ, Staal/Girardi/Sauer gives us better depth AND BALANCE then any lineup with our current group. Taking the pressure off MDZ as the ONLY defenseman who can move the puck, while adding a guy who is proven to do it against top talent makes us look real good on D for years to come.
I'm not at all in favor of trading a bunch of guys to get 2 stars. This team is pretty close as is. If they could get Weber and would have to include Staal or Girardi then I'm not completely opposed. It the package would be a helluva lot less than what's been proposed by some. If it were one of them with a couple of prospects and pick, I could see it. It no way I give up other roster players like Hags or Stepan if Staal or Girardi are in the mix. Weber is better than the 2 of them, but. It by light years.
No. Dan Girardi too is a hard nose defender, he knows the system well and our shot blocking system is something he mastered
Hey neighbor!!!!! welcome back!
Yes & i'll throw in a draft pick. NYR are missing a sniper. They do not have a single player that scares goalies. Gabby has a great shot but not a 1-timer. He scares goalies a different way!
Come on, people. I love Girardi as much as any fan, but what % of GM's, given the choice, would take Girardi over Weber, straight up?
I feel like sometimes you guys just post shit on this blog (comments included) specifically to piss me off. "I really hope they don't blow up this team to make room for a free agent" seemed to be the feelings of everyone at season's end, and of course my feelings as well. But, by the time we are done trading 6 guys for Nash and another 4 guys for Weber, who the hell is left? Honestly, it sounds like "this team" is like 6 guys to you people.
"Introducing, The New York Rangers: Ryan Callahan, Brad Richards, Henrik Lundqvist, Ryan McDonagh, Marian Gaborik, Chris Kreider...and a couple of other assholes we don't give a flying fuck about."
Seriously, there are 23 men on an NHL roster, and they all worked together to get us where we got last year.
@CJ The thing is, this team is all supporting staff. We need elite talent. Supporting staff can be found in alot of places, elite talent, not so much. Sure, everyone loves these guys, and they watched them develop, but having them in our lineup won't make or break us, and what they do can be replaced. It's time people stopped worrying so much about the names on the back of the jerseys, and started thinking about whats best for the name on the front.
@BuckarooClub I would argue that it's YOU that is too concerned with the names on the back. Calling 3 of your 4 lines "Support Staff" is EXACTLY what I am talking about. That sort of sentiment is not only insulting, it's ridiculous. If the name back of your jersey isn't the name of a first round draft pick, Then you're not shit. You don't count.
Even if your top line forwards are putting in over 20 mins a game every game (they rarely do) who's playing the other 2/3 of the game? "Support Staff"? That is total bullshit. "Oh, hey L3, come on off the ice guys. The ACTUAL PLAYERS need to get back on the ice. You guys did a good job being support staff." What a load of shit. Those boys aren't "Support Staff", those boys are getting it done.
Listen, I understand that realistically you need some top level players to put up some big numbers, but that's not all you need. You're gonna go a hell of a lot further in this league, rolling multiple evenly talented lines for approximately even shifts than you are riding the shit out of one line and benching the rest. Yes, in practice you can't actually build a team of 4 evenly balanced lines (that can compete and be under the cap), but there is certainly a midpoint between that, and completely disregarding every player that isn't "Elite Talent" and every line that is't L1.
Or maybe I am just sensitive to that sort of talk, having been a 2nd or 3rd liner my whole life. I just refuse to believe that any of my coaches or my teammates have ever or would ever view me as "Support Staff" and I would die before I played the game that way.
@BuckarooClub @CJ I may be drunk but when you're right, you're right. I have played with those guys and I know what you are talking about. Not sure we have one. I am just not sure what I am willing to give up for one. I'd hate to win a battle and lose the war, you know? And for the record I don't think Nash is the guy for us. I would much rather have Ryan or MAYBE Weber
@CJ I'm not calling 3 of the 4 lines support staff, I'm saying that the players we have are pretty much peaking in those rolls. Outside of Hank, we have good players, and some very good players, but none that are at the level of being among the best in the game.
We have TONS of second and third liners, but we don't have clear cut, #1, best in the game talent on either offense or defense. BR is probably our closest thing up front, but he's really a guy who more of a set up man then a finisher. Gabby can skate fast, and he can snipe if you get it to him, but he can't create his own opportunity, and he tends to dissapear for stretches, especially when we need him the most.
The guys we've talked about trading for (Weber, Nash, and Ryan) play that game at a level that no amount of practice will ever get you too. They were given a gift and they made the most of it. People don't like these guys BECAUSE they were top draft picks, these guys were top draft picks because they were REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, playing amateur hockey, and all three have lived up to the hype.
You said you've played the game, so I'm sure you've seen, or played with guys who did things that seemed unreal. Guys with the softest hands and the dirtiest dangles, snap the puck like no one else. Guys who leave you scratching your head, asking "how'd they do that"? Guys that the other team worries about everytime they're on the ice, cause they can hurt you so many ways. We get some players like that, then we can worry about the complementary pieces, the second and third, and fourth lines.
That's not a knock on the bottom 6 players, or the role they play, or even their importance to the team. It's just that there's lots of guys who can do what the bottom 6 does, but the special players don't come around all the time. You've got to get them when the can, however you can.
@CJ CJ, despite the Rangers success last year they could have easily been bounced from the first round. And the reason? They had no offense. With Gaborik gone for half the season, who is going to score on this team? And trading Girardi, Hagelin, Miller & a #1 is far from blowing up the entire team. Got to give to get my friend.
@KevinDeLury @CJ CJ, keep up the good work. You are the man. Don't see what Nash or Weber brings that we don't make our team worse off to get. The asking prices and salary caps are astronomical. Why doesn't anyone else get this?
@KevinDeLury I know, dude. Just heard too many players names mentioned in too many posts. I am really not feeling good about this offseason at all, and I am getting a little panicky about it. (Also someone has to yell about this shit in the comments, might as well be me.)
@CJ Ha! If there were no counterpoints there would be no reason for comments section. Appreciate your views.
Detroit was banking on getting Suter. They have holes to fill on an aging team. They're going to offer the moon for Weber when he becomes a UFA if not sooner. Staal is an unknown in my opinion due to injury and the staals amassing in Carolina. There's no way IMHO that Staal resigns here when he becomes a UFA in 3 years. Shea Webers don't come around very often.
I'd be more inclined to trade Staal than Girardi. Very good, Right-Handed Defensemen are tough to come by, let a lone a superstar. Having 2 solid right-handed options would be an embarrassment of riches, not to mention the surplus of Left-Handed shots the Rangers already have. McD, Erixon and DZ on the Left side, Weber, Girardi and Stralman/Bickel (or even better Sauer) seems like a very balanced D to me. However with 2 Staals already in Carolina, would Nashville take a risk on Staal leaving after his current deal is up? Kreider, McD, Capt'n Cally, and Hank are my only untouchables in a deal for Weber.
i love danny g, but i also am totally in love with weber. last season danny g posted a +/- of 13, weber 21. if that means that weber will mimic girardi's shut down defense while ALSO putting up outrageous offensive number then i'd do it. i dont know if weber could match the kind of minutes that danny g does, but with a healthy McD and Staal I feel like they could pick up that slack. i'd miss danny g like crazy, but who wouldn't want weber bombing from their blue line?!
I have to disagree completely. For the things Girardi does defensively and minutes he logs is much vore valuale than what Weber would bring to the table for pretty much Power Play only...which is small portionof the over all game. D-men like Girardi are hard to come by (evene strength, penalty kill, shot blocking).. Weber does not have the Defensive d-man skills Girardi has. You ideally want both of them on the same team..lol
Yes, I would do it! Weber is younger than Girardi and a better all around player than Girardi. No offense to G but his shot and his offensive skills aren't at the level that Weber's skill set is. I personally think that G and Weber are about the same defensively but they play different styles. Weber is a bonecrushing D-man where as G is a stay at home, poke check, take the body, block shots kinda player. Weber would significantly help our PP. I would prefer it to be Staal but if we have to trade Girardi in a deal for Weber, I pull the trigger.
@NYfn311 Lots of valid points there. Weber fills a huuuuuuuge hole on the pp. Would be tough to say no.