"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[Tawnos]

PK was using him as a reference to Columbus's depth when I said that Dubi wouldn't be in our top 6. So he was essentially claiming him to either be a top 6 player or a guy just outside of the top 6. Or he was just mistaken when he name-dropped him.

Just because he doesn't specifically say he is top 6, he was referring to a discussion about top 6 players.

Are you serious with the semantics...

Here you guys go purposefully misunderstanding someone's point again. Read the whole post he put up and don't just freak out about "top 6 Rangers must mean he's talking about top 6 Blue Jackets!!"

 

[Samuel Culper III]

You referred to him in a discussion about the top 6......

I really don't get some of you guys. You say things that imply one thing but since it's not blatant, you go back on your opinions when people challenge them.....

No, I didn't. You read what you wanted out of what I said.

I listed almost ALL of Columbus' forwards (except fourth liners like Boll and Comeau) in response to:

Why are we comparing what Dubi would do here and what he is doing in Columbus?

Fact of the matter is he'd be a 3rd liner here. In Columbus, he HAS to be a top 6 player. They have no one else.

Apples and oranges.

And I said "they're hardly chopped liver on forwards these days". Nowhere did I actually call Letestu a ****ing top-six forward. It's you who I don't get. And I don't seem to be the only one who feels your reading things that aren't there.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Here you guys go purposefully misunderstanding someone's point again. Read the whole post he put up and don't just freak out about "top 6 Rangers must mean he's talking about top 6 Blue Jackets!!"

Purposefully misunderstanding? No. We both know how to read English. The problem was how horrendously worded that phrase was. If the phrase was written correctly, it would not have caused the subsequent confusion.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Here you guys go purposefully misunderstanding someone's point again. Read the whole post he put up and don't just freak out about "top 6 Rangers must mean he's talking about top 6 Blue Jackets!!"

I don't see how his post could be taken for anything other than a discussion about top 6 talent on columbus....

It was clear as day. Rangers have x guys who are top 6 worthy. Columbus has non-chopped liver players who are also top 6 worthy. Letestu was listed in with them.


I'm all for you saying Dubinsky should be top 6 but if we're using letestu as a measuring stick for columbus' top 6 talent......

Also, regarding the Pittsburgh comment earlier, there top 6 hasn't been established until the past year or so. There was tons of room for him to seize an oppurtunity to play on the top 2 wings there.

Ask any pitt fan and they'll tell you the top 6 wings were quite the problem. They seem to have solidified it pretty well with the acquisition of Neal and the emergence of Kunitz.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

No, I didn't. You read what you wanted out of what I said.

And I said "they're hardly chopped liver on forwards these days". Nowhere did I actually call Letestu a ****ing top-six forward. It's you who I don't get. And I don't seem to be the only one who feels your reading things that aren't there.

Same can be said about you, bud.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

No, it can't.

 

[smoneil]

I never stated anyone was trying to "argue" anything. I'm debating that Dubinsky isn't as necessary as people around here make him out to be.

And you are doing so by either presenting misinformation or arguing against points that people AREN'T MAKING.

He's scored above 45 points once in his career....so acting like 45-55 points is the "norm" for him, just isn't true.

Four years ago he had 44 points in 69 games.
Three years ago he had 54 in 77.
Two years ago (his down year), he had 34 in 77 (with about 4 minutes less TOI than he had been getting).
Last year he had 20 in 29.

So yes, you are literally correct in your 45 point statement, but presenting it as you do is incredibly dishonest, as his production rate over the last four years (152 points in 252 games) is just over 49 points in an 82 game season. That's including the only down season of his career. If you look at his production outside of that year, he's had a pace of just over 55 points over an 82 game season. In other words, no matter HOW you want to look at it, 45-55 points is indeed "the norm" for him. It has been for nearly half a decade now.

Ok and where did i say that keeping that team together would have been a mistake....i never did. Although i do believe they played above their heads that year. The only thing i have said is that it will take results with the team as constructed currently to put to bed the fact that we would have been better off without the trade.

You mean aside from your initial post that tried to convince people that that team, despite everything they accomplished, actually sucked and was just really really lucky? I'm excited to see what THIS team can do. I hope they succeed (you will never see me hope for otherwise). That said, after the run two years ago, we should have been competing for a Cup last year. We weren't. We took several steps back, had to fire the coach, and now they have to start all over at step one. In short, we've wasted at least a couple of years worth of Henrik's prime because of the idiocy of that trade.

And can you find any sort of facts that Nash was a "leader" in that revolt, or even an interested party?

I've seen over and over again, people have this sense that just because Nash doesn't fly around and hit people that he isn't trying. He has a style to his game that makes it seem as if he isn't out there giving 110% but it's been the way he always plays. I've never seen someone professionaly question his effort levels. I don't see him as having a lack of attitude, I just see him as more of a player that has a ton of talent and makes it look easier then most.

We have no idea who led the revolt. Torts has no idea who led the revolt. The whole thing came as a shock to him. I'll just say that most of the players on the roster that HAVE that kind of pull were with Torts for years. It seems out of character for Cally, Richards, or Lundqvist to go behind the coach's back. They had history with him, and they don't strike me as a "complain behind your back" crowd. Who else? Stepan? McDonagh? Staal? Why? They all thrived under Torts. Nash is the biggest name that was new to the room. He's the one that has a decade long reputation of practicing when HE wanted to practice. He's the one who got coaches fired in Columbus. All of the sudden, we hear that Torts was cancelling practices because players felt they were being worked too hard? True, there is no smoking gun report or quote that says Nash got Torts fired, but you don't need a crystal ball to predict the obvious.

Nash isn't a grinder, he's not someone who is going to go out there and fight every game or throw around big hits, he's someone who is an offensive specialist. People always want to replicate a Messier type and what they don't realize is those guys don't grow on trees. I guess simply put, I consider Nash and Gaborik complimentary offensive players. They are never going to lead there teams directly to cups, but they will have to play large parts in it.

But he's an offensive specialist who refuses to get dirty. That's why he got shut down in the playoffs. He vanished. Almost 8 million dollars, and losing key contributors, all in the name of offense that refuses to show up when we needed it. Subtract Nash and insert AA and Dubi, and last year's team still makes the playoffs. What exactly did we gain from the deal then when Nash vanishes in those playoffs? At least when Dubi was in a drought he was contributing in other ways. If Nash is off the scoreboard, he is utterly worthless (actually, worse, he's a liability).

I think it was a massive detriment to have brought in so many new pieces in a season that was shortened. The teams that had success last year were ones that had been together.

I think this team is more talented, but they need time together to get things working. They weren't given that last year and it worked against them.

We finally agree on something. My problem is two-fold--we don't know IF this team will gel together (see the 90s for plenty of talented rosters that couldn't do a thing). We also lose a couple of years both making these moves and then waiting for them to come together. This team has a window within which they are a serious threat, and that window is about as long as Lundqvist's prime. These moves wasted some of that window for a CHANCE that it might pay off. That, to me, is just stupid.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Points don't mean much when you aren't a PPG player and can't do anything else besides put up a few points. It's why I hope Zucc becomes more than what he is as he just won't be useful unless he can increase his output.

Myth.

Christensen, yes. Linus Omark, very much. Hell even Marian Gaborik is pretty useless outside his points, but he (usually) scores enough to be valuable. Ovechkin has been the same the past few seasons, let's see if he can turn it around because it didn't use to be that way.

Zuccarello, like Hagelin, is tremendous at creating and sustaining offensive pressure. Thereby creating chances while limiting chances against as the opposing team can't do much without the puck. Zucc has, at least so far, showed a lot of value throughout his Rangers career outside his points.

Just because he is small doesn't mean he is automatically useless outside his points. That's lazy analysis.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

No, it can't.

You know what, **** this forum. You guys are absolutely pathetic. Enjoy the season.

No offense, but instead of getting mad at us you could just realize that you wrote something that appeared to mean something you may not have intended and apologize/clarify. Instead, we go on and on in an argument about semantics.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

No offense, but instead of getting mad at us you could just realize that you wrote something that appeared to mean something you may not have intended and apologize/clarify. Instead, we go on and on in an argument about semantics.

Get off the throne hombre. Clarify? I think the last several posts made it abundantly clear that it wasn't meant as you took it. Do I need to give my posts a title?

Ahem**CLARIFICATION**Ahem

That's not what I meant. And... I apologize.

Praise Lord Jonathan.

Carry on.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

QUOTE=smoneil;72127105]

Four years ago he had 44 points in 69 games.
Three years ago he had 54 in 77.
Two years ago (his down year), he had 34 in 77 (with about 4 minutes less TOI than he had been getting).
Last year he had 20 in 29.

So yes, you are literally correct in your 45 point statement, but presenting it as you do is incredibly dishonest, as his production rate over the last four years (152 points in 252 games) is just over 49 points in an 82 game season. That's including the only down season of his career. If you look at his production outside of that year, he's had a pace of just over 55 points over an 82 game season. In other words, no matter HOW you want to look at it, 45-55 points is indeed "the norm" for him. It has been for nearly half a decade now.[/QUOTE]

You reference that you includ his down year, but you also include his up year.....fact is, he has produced a 45+ point season just ONCE in his career. Just because you extrapolate his overall points, doesn't make him a consistent 45 point player.

You mean aside from your initial post that tried to convince people that that team, despite everything they accomplished, actually sucked and was just really really lucky? I'm excited to see what THIS team can do. I hope they succeed (you will never see me hope for otherwise). That said, after the run two years ago, we should have been competing for a Cup last year. We weren't. We took several steps back, had to fire the coach, and now they have to start all over at step one. In short, we've wasted at least a couple of years worth of Henrik's prime because of the idiocy of that trade.

I absolutely never said that and you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the team sucked. I simply said, i think they played above their heads. It was clearly a very good team since over the course of the season they came in 1st in the conference. But a lot of things went their way that year.

I 100% never said they sucked. Nor do i think that....

We have no idea who led the revolt. Torts has no idea who led the revolt. The whole thing came as a shock to him. I'll just say that most of the players on the roster that HAVE that kind of pull were with Torts for years. It seems out of character for Cally, Richards, or Lundqvist to go behind the coach's back. They had history with him, and they don't strike me as a "complain behind your back" crowd. Who else? Stepan? McDonagh? Staal? Why? They all thrived under Torts. Nash is the biggest name that was new to the room. He's the one that has a decade long reputation of practicing when HE wanted to practice. He's the one who got coaches fired in Columbus. All of the sudden, we hear that Torts was cancelling practices because players felt they were being worked too hard? True, there is no smoking gun report or quote that says Nash got Torts fired, but you don't need a crystal ball to predict the obvious.

So you make a serious assumption that Nash was the guy. If anything, the only rumors were of LUndqvist saying he wanted Torts out. It's so ridiculous to assume that Nash was the guy. With him only having been here for what equated to half a season, I don't see him going to an complaining about the head coach. It was pretty clear that every time i heard him speak he felt blessed to be in NYC instead of Columbus.

But he's an offensive specialist who refuses to get dirty. That's why he got shut down in the playoffs. He vanished. Almost 8 million dollars, and losing key contributors, all in the name of offense that refuses to show up when we needed it. Subtract Nash and insert AA and Dubi, and last year's team still makes the playoffs. What exactly did we gain from the deal then when Nash vanishes in those playoffs? At least when Dubi was in a drought he was contributing in other ways. If Nash is off the scoreboard, he is utterly worthless (actually, worse, he's a liability).

You clearly missed my point. People are always going to complain when offensive specialists don't get dirty. But if that's what you want out of Nash then you're never going to be happy. Same goes for Gaborik, Sedin twins, etc. They are not that type of player. Every one and their mother would like a player that has the offensive talent of Nash along with the nastiness of a Cally or Dubi, but those guys are generational talents.

We finally agree on something. My problem is two-fold--we don't know IF this team will gel together (see the 90s for plenty of talented rosters that couldn't do a thing). We also lose a couple of years both making these moves and then waiting for them to come together. This team has a window within which they are a serious threat, and that window is about as long as Lundqvist's prime. These moves wasted some of that window for a CHANCE that it might pay off. That, to me, is just stupid.

Again, only time will tell. At the end of the day, our opinion's are rooted on wanting this team to be successful.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Get off the throne hombre. Clarify? I think the last several posts made it abundantly clear that it wasn't meant as you took it. Do I need to give my posts a title?

Ahem**CLARIFICATION**Ahem

That's not what I meant. And... I apologize.

Praise Lord Jonathan.

Carry on.


Kiss my ass.

Why are you taking so much offense and acting so nasty, here?

All I am saying is that when you write something so vague and ambiguous and are questioned on it by multiple people you would be better off clarifying the statement instead of getting nasty and defensive. I don't get it, but your prerogative.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Get off the throne hombre. Clarify? I think the last several posts made it abundantly clear that it wasn't meant as you took it. Do I need to give my posts a title?

Ahem**CLARIFICATION**Ahem

That's not what I meant. And... I apologize.

Praise Lord Jonathan.

Carry on.


Kiss my ass.

Instead of freaking out about it when multiple people take what you wrote as something you didn't mean, just clarify and say that's not what i meant.

When you kick and scream it doesn't do any good.

This forum is for debates, at the end of the day we all want what's best for the team, but i don't come here to have people yell and moan when others are simply discussing/debating their opinions.

No one, including myself, is always right. And eventually, only time will tell in regards to this discussion.

There really is no right or wrong here.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Why are you taking so much offense and acting so nasty, here?

All I am saying is that when you write something so vague and ambiguous and are questioned on it by multiple people you would be better off clarifying the statement instead of getting nasty and defensive. I don't get it, but your prerogative.

Questioned by two people, who are both being accused of intentionally misrepresenting what other people post. I'm getting nasty because you know DAMN well I meant all along (that or you can insult your own intelligence and tell me you GENUINELY thought I listed every CBJ forward as a top-six forward) and it's a HABIT on this forum from NYR fans who essentially run counter to any argument that gains support, because it seems to make you look "educated" to go against what all the regular peon fans are thinking.

 

[smoneil]

I would take both Hagelin and Zucc over him in a top 6 role once Hagelin and Callahan are back.

Taking either over Dubi would be incredibly foolish. Hagelin has never put up 40+ points in a season (something Dubinsky has done 4 times). Zuke has yet to put up 40 points in his career. Both players are within 2 years of Dubinsky's age (people seem to forget that Hags is 25, not 22), and neither brings the rest of Dubinsky's game (physical play, draws, hits, defense, transition game, etc). I think Dubi is better at center, and THERE I think you could have an argument (Stepan is clearly better at pivot, but it would depend on whether or not Brassard continues his level of play), but as a LW? Dubi would literally be the best one on the roster, and it wouldn't be particularly close, either.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Questioned by two people, who are both being accused of intentionally misrepresenting what other people post. I'm getting nasty because you know DAMN well I meant all along (that or you can insult your own intelligence and tell me you GENUINELY thought I listed every CBJ forward as a top-six forward) and it's a HABIT on this forum from NYR fans who essentially run counter to any argument that gains support, because it seems to make you look "educated" to go against what all the regular peon fans are thinking.

Uh, the only reason I was "accused of intentionally misrepresenting" a post was your poor wording.

How would I know what you think? I can only go on what you write. Don't blame others for not understanding your mistakes.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Uh, the only reason I was "accused of intentionally misrepresenting" a post was your poor wording.

Go back a few pages. And you know that you knew what I meant. You were accused of intentionally misinterpreting it because it was pretty obvious that you were intentionally reading it how you wanted to. Regarding your edit: you continue to be subtly abrasive. Things like "apologize and clarify next time" and "don't blame others for your mistakes" are passively aggressive and pathetic. When I list a team's entire forward group in response to a post that says "they have no one" and say "they're not chopped liver" it's not THAT difficult to understand what I meant.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Questioned by two people, who are both being accused of intentionally misrepresenting what other people post. I'm getting nasty because you know DAMN well I meant all along (that or you can insult your own intelligence and tell me you GENUINELY thought I listed every CBJ forward as a top-six forward) and it's a HABIT on this forum from NYR fans who essentially run counter to any argument that gains support, because it seems to make you look "educated" to go against what all the regular peon fans are thinking.

I genuinely thought you were referring to Letestu as a top 6 or borderline top 6 forward. And i'm not ashamed to admit that.

Also, I don't consider "most" people on here to be peon fans. I'd consider myself a very non-judgemental human being, but i considerably disagree that Dubinsky is a legitimate top 6 forward.

I don't choose to disagree just to make myself look educated. If i was aiming to do that, trust me, i wouldn't be spending my sunday on a sports message board.

 

[BlaqICE]

The Kings were a much better team than the Devils. Their seed was a fluke. However, if we were to win any year, a year when those Kings were in the finals was as good as any.

I would argue that it was more of a fluke that the Kings won the cup than it was a fluke that they had a poor regular season. You are much more likely to see fluke occurrences when the sample size is smaller. For example, if you flip a coin 10 times, it's not unheard of to get tails 70-80% of the time, but if you flip it 100,000 times, that would be incredible. Likewise, it is more likely that the 20 games that the Kings played in the playoffs was not as accurate a representation of how good they were than the 82 games they played during the regular season. I think the Kings got hot at the right time.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Wrong. Go back a few pages.

I suggest you take your own advice now and then. The "accusation" came after I questioned you on Letestu (post #136 -- after you mistakenly alluded to him being a top six player). Again, I don't see why you are getting so defensive when your own error and/or ambiguousness is the reason for our current discussion.

 

[beef 4 lunch]

Taking either over Dubi would be incredibly foolish. Hagelin has never put up 40+ points in a season (something Dubinsky has done 3 times). Zuke has yet to put up 40 points in his career. Both players are within 2 years of Dubinsky's age (people seem to forget that Hags is 25, not 22), and neither brings the rest of Dubinsky's game (physical play, draws, hits, defense, transition game, etc). I think Dubi is better at center, and THERE I think you could have an argument (Stepan is clearly better at pivot, but it would depend on whether or not Brassard continues his level of play), but as a LW? Dubi would literally be the best one on the roster, and it wouldn't be particularly close, either.

Agreed. Dubi would be a great addition to our current roster. In addition to his skillset, our top six is in desperate need of some grit. He would be a best LW, Hans down.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I didn't mistakenly allude to anything. You knowingly attempted to use my mention of a player you think little of to detract from the ACTUAL point that was clear in my post. Instead of addressing the clear MAIN point of my post, you chose to focus on a superfluous detail and latch onto it because you couldn't refute the central point. It's a common tactic on this board. You do it often, and a lot of our other posters do the same and THAT is why you were accused of intentionally misrepresenting what others say. In no way was Letestu central or important to the debate we were having. You used his inclusion to divert the conversation.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I didn't mistakenly allude to anything. You knowingly attempted to use my mention of a player you think little of to detract from the ACTUAL point that was clear in my post. Instead of addressing the clear MAIN point of my post, you chose to focus on a superfluous detail and latch onto it because you couldn't refute the central point. It's a common tactic on this board. You do it often, and a lot of our other posters do the same and THAT is why you were accused of intentionally misrepresenting what others say. In no way was Letestu central or important to the debate we were having. You used his inclusion to divert the conversation.

Dear Lord. You can't even admit your post was so poorly worded as to be the root cause of this ridiculousness.

I accept the apology you are too stubborn to give.

 

[Tawnos]

I had no problem understanding what you meant in the first place, PK, despite the ambiguity of the post. But maybe I just put a little too much faith in people's intelligence and assumed you couldn't possibly be saying all of those players were top-6 guys. "Nobody is that dumb." And it turns out you weren't. Also is the reason I think people are taking it the wrong way by design.

Why are we bickering about Blue Jackets players who aren't even former Rangers anyway?

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I'm so confused.

OT but Jonathan. I used to despise arguing with you when I didn't care about a lot back when I started. Now you're one of the guys that makes me smile on here.