Riley Nash had a career year in 2017-18. That’s a good thing. He is now an Unrestricted Free Agent (UFA). That’s good for him, but bad for his last employer, the Boston Bruins. Nash’s versatility and dependability made him a near invaluable member of the Black and Gold this past season. While many assumed he priced himself out of the Bruins plans after his 4 point (15g, 26a) season, that may not be so based on some new projections from Hockey Graphs editor Matt Cane.

In his projections, Matt predicts that the most likely deal is a 3 year deal at $2.27M per season, a significant raise from the $900k he made the last two seasons, but still within reason for the Bruins to pay. There’s a few things to note here, the first is probabilities, with the 3 year deal coming in at 33.06%, followed by a 2 year deal ($1.93M per) at 23.86%. The next highest is a one year deal ($1.94M) at 13.80% probability. Given Riley Nash’s career year and relatively low career earnings, a one year deal seems fairly unlikely so for the purposes of this article we will focus on the 2 and 3 year options. The second is Matt’s projections are based on a increased salary cap of $80M. Keep in mind these aren’t perfect as there are many factors that can’t be easily quantified (i.e. a hometown discount), but they are a great framework for discussion.

The Bruins are clearly looking to get younger across their lineup, and they will likely pass on most of the “old” or veteran players like Gionta, Wingels and Holden, but there is danger in going too young on a team with Stanley Cup aspirations. Riley Nash is the perfect bridge between the current roster and the younger center prospects in the pipeline, whether he is the 3C or 4C. Everyone is excited to see players like JFK, Frederic and others play in the NHL, but none of those players can step in and replace Nash’s all around versatility in all facets of the game.

We all like to make fun of hockey people overvaluing intangibles, but Nash is literally a Swiss army knife for his coaches, with no real weaknesses in his game, where even the strongest of prospects is going to need to be carried at times. Even if we are talking purely offense, it’s unlikely a true rookie will exceeds Nash’s 41 points, either. So now that we covered why it makes sense to bring Nash back, can the Bruins afford it? Yes. They can afford him, no matter which of the 3 aforementioned options they choose.

So it makes sense to bring him back and they can afford him, so what’s the downside? Term, and roster spots frankly. The longer they sign him, the riskier the deal gets as is the case anytime you sign a player after a career year, a 3 year deal could quickly go from a win to a Chris Kelly situation, especially if the cap doesn’t rise as much as expected. In addition to the dollars, signing Nash for 2-3 years means a younger player(s) isn’t getting his ice time. Given the breadth of talent in the Bruins pipeline, that’s nothing to dismiss lightly. In 2 years players like Studnicka. Trent Frederic, JFK and maybe even Zach Senyshyn will be fighting to stay in the big leagues.

After this coming season, the Bruins will have big names like Zdeno Chara, Charlie McAvoy, Brandon Carlo, Danton Heinen and Ryan Donato all up for new deals, among others. While the cap will rise twice in that time, the Bruins still need to be conscious of their spending to avoid ending up in cap “jail”. Signing veteran players to multi-year deals is example A in the bad GM’s handbook, but is the risk on a one or two year deal acceptable to keep your roster depth intact during your Cup window? Personally, I’d sign him to a one year deal without reservation, however unlikely that is. A two year deal at roughly $4M is probably the perfect middle ground, with both sides taking on an acceptable amount of risk. Three years is too much risk to me, for the reasons discussed earlier. If Nash commands that long a term, which he may very well, let another team take that risk. At the end of the day, I’d rather risk a short term, low AAV deal for a player you already know will work in your system, than overpay to bring in a free agent who may not click, like Beleskey or even Backes to some extent. Those deals are a lot harder to manage than a two year deal for players of Nash’s caliber, even if he doesn’t match his output from last year.

I think Nash will command more than the projections show personally, and if that’s the case he’s as good as gone. If he falls in the ranges mentioned, I look forward to my take aging ever so gracefully. Signing 30 year old forwards on the heels of a career year always works out, right?

So what do you think, do you let him walk, sign him to a one year deal, two years or three years?