Gaborik vs. Nash

[Thirty One]

Tis true.

Nash is a perennial loser. He is being outscored by Brian Broiler.

3 Rangers have more points than Boyle. Zero have more goals.

 

[Kershaw]

Common Misconceptions

"Gaborik doesn't show up for big games, Rick Nash won Olympic Gold!"

The 2nd part is true, Rick Nash did win Olympic Gold, as a passenger on the most stacked team in recent history. Let's compare their Olympic totals:

Nash Olympic Stats: 13 GP 2 G 4 A 6 PTS
Gaborik Olympic Stats: 13 GP 7 G 5 A 12 PTS

"Rick Nash has never had linemate help throughout his career!"

Well neither has Gaborik, outside of Pavol Demitra and a washed up Brad Richards. He put up career highs with Christensen and Prospal.

Gaborik never shows up for the playoffs, a notorious playoff choker and soft player.

Gaborik in his sophomore season with the Wild had 17 pts in 18 GP. The Wild were the 7th seed I believe. Those 17 pts were only behind Scott Neidermayer and Jamie Langenbrunner, players who played one more series than Gaborik. Yes, Gaborik had a disappointing postseason in 2011, but in 2012 he was still the team's scoring threat with one good shoulder. It is extremely tough to play with a torn shoulder labrum and I doubt we get past Washington without his OT winner and PPG play that series. Rick Nash was completely neutralized in his first series against the Wings and the same is happening this year against the Caps. I see no reason to believe Rick Nash 'plays much better when it counts'. He has yet to prove it.

 

[Thirty One]

To be crystal clear, I have no issue with Nash and I am confident he will regain his scoring touch, he is too talented not to.
My beef is with how this board views european players, they are quick to label them "soft", enigmatic".

If Gaborik isn't soft and enigmatic, the words should be removed from the dictionary.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'll take Nash AINEC. Nash is 28. Gaborik is 32. If Nash gives the Rangers what Gaborik gave for the past 3+ seasons I will be happy.

Younger and healthier player

 

[Boruto]

Debate is moot. They both suck (in the PO).

 

[Thirty One]

Debate is moot. They both suck (in the PO).

Nash wins due to smaller sample size.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Still can't compare just yet. Gaborik's first post season with us was extremely unimpressive so I'll hold judgement until Nash has played a similar amount of years.

 

[Fitzy]

I eagerly await Nash's playoff heroics.

But as far as Gaborik is concerned, though I'd love to have him right now, the way Moore and Brassard have looked we've made out pretty well in that deal.

I wish he was here to help us out, but with Staals injury and Brad's poor play, having Brassard and Moore has been huge for us.

Question then becomes; are we a better team right now hypothetically with Dubinsky, Anisimov, and Erixon instead of Nash? I don't think we are.

 

[Kwayry]

If Gaborik isn't soft and enigmatic, the words should be removed from the dictionary.

Anybody who plays with a torn labrum and delivers a triple OT playoff game winner is not soft.
A player that scores 40+ goals in 2 out of 3 seasons with the Rangers is not enigmatic.

This ain't Wolski we are talking about.

I have never heard these terms applied to a non european player, why is that?

 

[Kwayry]

I eagerly await Nash's playoff heroics.

But as far as Gaborik is concerned, though I'd love to have him right now, the way Moore and Brassard have looked we've made out pretty well in that deal.

I wish he was here to help us out, but with Staals injury and Brad's poor play, having Brassard and Moore has been huge for us.

Question then becomes; are we a better team right now hypothetically with Dubinsky, Anisimov, and Erixon instead of Nash? I don't think we are.

You have to make the trade 10 out of 10 times. To turn good talent into elite talent is a no brainer.

 

[Trxjw]

I don't think I've ever seen so many people so desperate to prove a guy a failure before he plays a full season with the team. It's absolutely hilarious.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I don't think I've ever seen so many people so desperate to prove a guy a failure before he plays a full season with the team. It's absolutely hilarious.

Yeah, I also love how everyone is trying to romanticize what Gaborik did here, too. Yeah, it's great that he played in the playoffs with a torn labrum, but aside from the series against Washington (which was a second round series, BTW, Nash hasn't even gotten there yet) he was terrible in the playoffs. He was a complete no-show in 2011 when we needed him to come up big.

Let's not forget that regardless of Nash's age, the playoff experience is still very new to him — he's only played in what is now 10 games in the playoffs. Gaborik had experience in the playoffs before his Ranger days.

 

[Fitzy]

You have to make the trade 10 out of 10 times. To turn good talent into elite talent is a no brainer.

We did the opposite with Gaborik, and everyone thinks it was a great deal.

The best justification I've heard thus far is that A) Dubinsky was overpriced, B) That Nash is younger and healthier than Gaborik and C) That Moore could end up being much, much better than Erixon will be.

 

[Thirty One]

Anybody who plays with a torn labrum and delivers a triple OT playoff game winner is not soft.

You may have something on the soft argument, but he's definitely an enigma.

A player that scores 40+ goals in 2 out of 3 seasons with the Rangers is not enigmatic.

It says somewhere in Moneyball, a flake can hit 40 home runs but a flake cannot hit for a .300 average. The fact that he sandwiched a 22 goal season in between those seasons I think adds to the enigma case.

I have never heard these terms applied to a non european player, why is that?

Because you selective ignore those cases, is my best guess.

You've never heard Tom Poti described as soft or Alexandre Daigle described as an enigma?

 

[Kershaw]

You have to make the trade 10 out of 10 times. To turn good talent into elite talent is a no brainer.

Well that kinda contradicts the Gaborik trade, no? The Rangers traded elite talent into good talent, but it was still a good move.

 

[Thirty One]

We did the opposite with Gaborik, and everyone thinks it was a great deal.

The best justification I've heard thus far is that A) Dubinsky was overpriced, B) That Nash is younger and healthier than Gaborik and C) That Moore could end up being much, much better than Erixon will be.

D) Brassard is better than than Dubinsky/Anisimov.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Well that kinda contradicts the Gaborik trade, no? The Rangers traded elite talent into good talent, but it was still a good move.

Not really, Gaborik is broken down and older than Nash.

 

[Thirty One]

Well that kinda contradicts the Gaborik trade, no? The Rangers traded elite talent into good talent, but it was still a good move.

Gaborik is controllable for one more year, and inspires no confidence in me that he'll be elite in that year.

 

[Kershaw]

Not really, Gaborik is broken down and older than Nash.

Is this based on one shortened season? His shot ratio was on par with his career averages. Players such as Hossa, Kane, Zetterberg, Nash had just as worse stretches over 35 games last season.

 

[Thirty One]

Is this based on one shortened season? His shot ratio was on par with his career averages. Players such as Hossa, Kane, Zetterberg, Nash had just as worse stretches over 35 games last season.

That combined with Gaborik's history.

 

[Kwayry]

You may have something on the soft argument, but he's definitely an enigma.


It says somewhere in Moneyball, a flake can hit 40 home runs but a flake cannot hit for a .300 average. The fact that he sandwiched a 22 goal season in between those seasons I think adds to the enigma case.


Because you selective ignore those cases, is my best guess.

You've never heard Tom Poti described as soft or Alexandre Daigle described as an enigma?

Or he just had a shoulder injury?
He suffered the injury the first week of the season after an illegal boarding hit against the Leafs. He missed a month because of it.

 

[Kershaw]

Gaborik is controllable for one more year, and inspires no confidence in me that he'll be elite in that year.

I don't think Nash will be elite for the duration of his contract and won't be worth his staggering 7.8 mil cap hit based on past pedigree. The sooner you get out of one of the contracts, whether it's Gaborik/Nash, the better. There are maybe 4-5 wingers that contending teams can build around as their main offensive threats and neither Nash/Gaborik are those.

 

[Kwayry]

Well that kinda contradicts the Gaborik trade, no? The Rangers traded elite talent into good talent, but it was still a good move.

There is no contradiction.

 

[Riverdale]

It doesn't really matter if Nash is as good as Gabby or if one is better than the other. We didn't trade one for the other. It just so happens that they are/were the go-to offensive guys. If we traded Gabby for Nash then it would be a different story.

We acquired Brassard, Moore and Dorsett for Gabby. When its those three VS Gabby the former come up on top. Especially considering how great Brass has been playing for us. I did not like the trade at all and I will gladly eat crow now. Hopefully it continues to be a great trade.

With that being said, I think its also a little too early to compare them as playoff performers. Nash is inexperienced in the playoffs. He needs to step it up, but there has also been times when we have all said the same about Gabby in the post-season.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

All this argument confirms to me is that the New York Rangers have 1 elite player on their roster. Henrik Lundqvist.

Truly elite positional players do not get shut down in the playoffs. The injury conspiracy theory is one thing, but I've seen a few posters throw their hands up saying they're double-teaming Nash and thats all there is to it. You think the league's elite dont get double-teamed too?