Conventional wisdom is that the Kings' two best trade chips from their current NHL roster would be Jack Johnson and Jonathan Bernier (trading either comes with its own risk, as reviewed previously in an article here). That's not saying either guy needs to be traded. It simply means to get something of value, they need to give up something of value. Both players are hot commodities around the league - so, it's a compliment to who and what they are.
To get Nash out of Columbus, it's believed the Kings would have to give up both players, plus possibly Dustin Brown and another draft pick or prospect. That's a huge gamble on one player and would the Kings really be better off for it? They will have lost one of their best defensemen - arguably, their best defenseman this season - plus a top-six forward and added only one player in return.
Nash supporters will argue he isn't 'only' a player, he's a superstar (or at the very least a superstar in waiting). Yes, he's averaged 35 goals per year over the last seven seasons. And, yes, he's been able to do much of that without having linemates nearly as talented as somebody like Anze Kopitar.
However, nabbing the best guy from the worst team has long been one of the riskiest trades in sports. Stats are inflated in those environments. Guys are rarely, if ever, able to duplicate those numbers after moving to higher echelon teams.
When a player has performed well on a strong team, even a championship team, he is much more likely to achieve similar success in the future. Why do you think 'previous championship experience' is valued so highly at the trade deadline? Having been there, done that and performed under that type of stress shows that a player can excel under even the most difficult circumstances - not just when they're playing with house money, in last place and are out there free-wheeling it with little-to-nothing to lose.
Enter Jeff Carter. He's averaged 36 goals over the last four years. More importantly, he did it in the pressure cooker of Philadelphia - one of the most demanding sports towns you'll find in North America.
To be fair, while Nash has never been to the Stanley Cup Finals (where Carter and the Flyers were just a few seasons ago), he has performed at the international level. Perhaps, that's not really a fair comparison though. Those are compressed situations (i.e. short tournaments) and don't always provide the complete picture of what a player brings over a full season.
OK - so, both potential acquisitions are 27 years old, signed to long-term contracts and capable of putting up points. Carter comes with 'baggage' and has done nothing but continually erode his image since arriving in Columbus less than a year ago. On the other hand, Nash is squeaky clean.
And that's exactly why the Kings are better off getting Carter.
Wait, what?
Simple, the Kings can acquire Carter for much less than Nash.
Would they be taking a gamble on him, yes? Will he rebound from his current state, where he seems to be floating through Blue Jackets games on a nightly basis? Don't know. Is he a locker room cancer? Don't know.
But, as discussed above, Nash comes with question marks too.
So, take a risk on Carter because he'll cost you less...and you have one more ace up your sleeve - Mike Richards.
When the former Flyers captain first arrived in Los Angeles last June, GM Dean Lombardi went out of his way to praise the type of guy Richards is and didn't want to put much weight on any bad or questionable stories some people were bringing up. Lombardi lauded him as a winner and strong character guy.
Perfect then.
Carter is Richards' best friend - they're so close, they still talk three to four times a week right now. If anybody can keep Carter on the straight and narrow, it's going to be Richards.
Besides, how much motivation would Carter really need to return to his previous form in LA? He can score goals like he did in Philadelphia and possibly return to the Stanley Cup Finals. Or, he can stay in Columbus, where scoring goals gets him what - a last place banner?
Yet, there's one more reason why Carter makes more sense than Nash. Remember, to get the Blue Jackets' captain, the Kings will most likely have to move Johnson AND Bernier. A deal for Carter wouldn't have to include Johnson.
Theoretically, this leaves him available to move in a deal to the Flyers for James van Riemsdyk - a 22-year old goal scoring left wing, something the Kings desperately need.
The net result of Carter and JVR is two top-six forwards, instead of one, for basically the same package of players. Thus, the Kings are making better use of what they have to work with. Taking a comparable collection of assets and getting more back in return is just smarter business.
Lombardi would also be hedging his bet (of trading Johnson and Bernier) a little this way too. Remember, there's no guarantee that Nash would put up huge numbers in LA. He might, but for every player who was traded to LA and succeeded we could probably name 10 others who have arrived and failed.
From that standpoint, trading Johnson and Bernier could be the wrong move all together. The team might be better served to add a few depth forwards for now and take their chances. Thus, keeping a rock solid defense together. Then, trade Bernier later this summer, only after Jonathan Quick is locked up to a long-term contract.
However, if they're going to roll the dice and go for it now, would you rather take your chances with one lottery ticket or two?
The Mayor
www.twitter.com/MayorNHL
www.facebook.com/MayorsManor
RELATED ARTICLES:
Mike Richards comments on Jeff Carter trade rumors
Trade Rumors - five things at play for the LA Kings
Darryl Sutter calls out Kopitar and Brown
Dustin Brown may have found the elusive 'I' in team
Kings locker room is tense because of all the trade rumors, per Doughty
This makes sense... And it would further our evolution into Philly West. I like it.
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY!!! ;-)
ReplyDeleteJJ for JVR
ReplyDeleteJB and DP for JC
Love it!
DO IT DEANO! Most sense I've heard in 2 weeks!!!
ReplyDeleteIt makes too much sense. Which is why it won't happen
ReplyDeleteLike it get it done already Dean
ReplyDeleteso the argument made here makes sense...except for the money. Carter has an 11 year contract. So he'd be on the books thru 2021-2022! Granted it goes down there towards the end, but the cap hit is still $5.3M all the way thru. oF course, you could argue that although Nash's contract is only to 2017-2018, it's is at $7.8M per year, a significantly larger chunk.
ReplyDeleteAlso, talking playoffs, Carter's record is mixed. Two good years (11 pts in 17 games, 7 pts in 12 games) and two bad years (1 pt in 6 and 2 pts in 6) in terms of playoff production.
Overall, i agree in terms of the price to get the player, Carter would be waaaaaay cheaper, but that contract is a tough pill to swallow...
Another huge reason why I like the Carter trade better is because of the lower cap hit. Why is the lower cap hit a big deal? The Kings will NEED to resign Quick and that extra 2 million or so can be the difference between locking Quick up or watching him walk.
ReplyDeleteLOL. LA becomes philly west. The road to disaster. Moving Schenn and Simmonds was a mistake. Lombardi has made Holmgren look like a genius. That's as easy as moving a 5 ton bolder with your back. Trading for Carter will fix Scott Howsons big mistake but it will amount to a double fleecing of Lombardi.
ReplyDeleteI'd trade Clifford and a couple 2nd rounders for a forward with speed who can play the left side and shoot the puck. The Leafs have an abundance of left wing goal scorers (McArthur, Lombardi ... Lupul not available) but need some size. Have Dean call Burkie he needs a goalie ... bad bad badly.
ReplyDeleteI would not give up any prospects or front line players for Nash or Carter at this point. Lomabardi's trades have been a flop Penner for Teubert and Schenn/Simmons for the overpaid and underachieving Mike Richards. The Kings are tied to his contract for several more years.
ReplyDeleteThe reason they can not score, in my opinion, has more to do with their structure than the personnel. In addition to being as boring as hockey can get they willing spend an inordinate amount of time in their own end by design. The throw it in and chase method of their offense has not worked for two years and works even less in Manchester (where I am a season ticket holder). I watch the Kings as often as I can via Center Ice mostly to see how the Manchester grads are doing. I think the Kings (and the Monarchs) for that matter need a new "style" as well as new GM's.
I agree with anonymous. The Kings need a couple of slick, fast forwards to play with the big bodies they have up front. Did you see what speed did for Phoenix last night.
ReplyDeleteYou a genius.
ReplyDelete