-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
slipknottin
Registered User
I said before it happened I wouldn't do it.
Also said I wouldn't sign Richards and said they should have traded gaborik years ago to the kings
Also said I wouldn't sign Richards and said they should have traded gaborik years ago to the kings
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
slipknottin
Registered User
I'm 99.9% sure Nash isn't completely healthy OR he's not finishing plays/playing with an edge to avoid getting hurt. Possible a combination of both. See; Callahan, Ryan
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
slipknottin
Registered User
Oh no question. I wanted him here at the time, however, seeing what it did to our chemistry, and given his abysmal playoff performance, I would most certainly NOT do it again.
Thank you for further proving my point. He's playing scared and it's pretty obvious
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
I was leery of acquiring Nash ever since he was on the market during the 2011-12 season.
He's not a player you build an offense around. Columbus tried that and failed, and now the Rangers are trying the same thing and the results don't look much better. I think he's fine as a complementary piece, like his role on Team Canada, but relying on him as a focal point of the offense and/or as leader in the locker room could be problematic.
He's not a player you build an offense around. Columbus tried that and failed, and now the Rangers are trying the same thing and the results don't look much better. I think he's fine as a complementary piece, like his role on Team Canada, but relying on him as a focal point of the offense and/or as leader in the locker room could be problematic.
I voted No.
I'm still unsure how I feel about the trade but I am leaning towards No.
Sometimes I watch Nash and am amazed, other times I am thinking "Where the hell is Nash?"
I'm still unsure how I feel about the trade but I am leaning towards No.
Sometimes I watch Nash and am amazed, other times I am thinking "Where the hell is Nash?"
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
No offense to you, but the question is really not a fair one. There's the benefit of seeing how history has played out.
I said yes because I don't think the Rangers gave up one extraordinary player in the deal (and still don't).Turns our they didn't have the internal resources to replace the players they dealt. Or the didn't find replacements via FA.
The powers that be decided who was part of their core and didn't give up anyone who was in that core (Callahan, McDonagh, Kreider, Hagelin, Staal, Girardi, possiblyDel Zotto etc). And they got a guy who was the additional goal scorer they proved to be lacking in the playoffs — one who was younger than Mark Messier when he was acquired.
Carlos Ranger
Zucc-a-Rella
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Still the right move. That 11-12 team was probably not repeating the run it had all other factors considered. Glen forgot to make the rest of the necessary changes to this team to support making a move for a guy like Rick Nash. Rick Nash looks defeated and disengaged this year but if this team wasn't built the way it is that might not be the case.
More reactionary nonsense. Almost the entire team is bad. Easy to talk about how bad moves are when nothing is going right.
More reactionary nonsense. Almost the entire team is bad. Easy to talk about how bad moves are when nothing is going right.
Reactionary nonsense? Yeah......about that......
It just further illustrates Sather's inability to assess his team's chemistry and recognize players that are important to the identity. Dubinsky (and Prust) were HUGE pieces of that identity, and our idiot GM didn't correctly value their importance.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I don't see the Nash trade in a vacuum as being the problem. In culmination the other moves or non moves prior and after the trade are the issue as far as I see it.
Nash is not that player who can put a team on his back, he needs a supporting cast. Rangers have given him a declining Richards (which in my opinion was the poorest move), a 1st/2nd line tweener center in Stepan, and some speed but not necessarily play makers on his other wing. On D they gave him or anyone else Del Zotto to get him the puck, usually by trying to pass it 100 feet through 3 defenders.
Then they filled the rest of the team with players who refuse to back up each other in the toughness department and they get the Nash they have, an injured or scared of being injured shell of his best days.
Nash is not that player who can put a team on his back, he needs a supporting cast. Rangers have given him a declining Richards (which in my opinion was the poorest move), a 1st/2nd line tweener center in Stepan, and some speed but not necessarily play makers on his other wing. On D they gave him or anyone else Del Zotto to get him the puck, usually by trying to pass it 100 feet through 3 defenders.
Then they filled the rest of the team with players who refuse to back up each other in the toughness department and they get the Nash they have, an injured or scared of being injured shell of his best days.
In hindsight, I think the answer is obvious, but not because of the trade itself. The biggest issue was that Sather dealt away important pieces, but then never replaced them. Nash is an excellent player, but once again, he's been inserted on a pretty mediocre team and has been asked to carry them on his back.
I know there are people who didn't want Nash, but the majority of those people were still advocating for more scoring in the form of Jeff Carter, Iginla, Doan, etc. Who knows how those deals would have worked out for this team?
I know there are people who didn't want Nash, but the majority of those people were still advocating for more scoring in the form of Jeff Carter, Iginla, Doan, etc. Who knows how those deals would have worked out for this team?
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
Yes. Turns out the organization want as primed for a run at the cup as most fans believed. If anything people should be more disappointed in the fact that our defense, goaltending, and prospects haven't been as good as we thought they would be.
Honestly I don't think the results would be any different. This has been what's plagued us since Sather took over; making random moves and inserting random pieces. We had an identity, which we then took to Los Alamos and dropped a nuclear bomb on.
Our glue was broken the day that trade was made. Then we went ahead and let Prust go, traded Gaborik, and fired the coach that had this team playing the best since I was in high school.
Honestly, it's like...he's TRYING to be the worst GM in history. Really just an unbelievably horrible thing for us fans to have to deal with. It's like dating ugly chicks for so long, then somehow this smokeshow wants you.....and you date for a little bit and she dumps you....then back to ugly chicks.
(sigh)
Don't mind the trade.
I do mind the half-assed attempt to replenish the depth lost in the trade/to free agency that off-season.
I do mind the half-assed attempt to replenish the depth lost in the trade/to free agency that off-season.
They were playing a sheltered game that limited mistakes. The movement towards opening things up really hurt this team. It exposed players as not being that good.
I never understood why so many fans thought the team was being held back.
Samuel Culper III
Mr. Woodhull...
No. I never got the Rick Nash hype when he was in Columbus but gave him the benefit of the doubt because I only watched him a handful of times each year and consensus seemed that he was a leader and game changer who would be putting up 75-90 points annually on a better team. Now that he's been here and I've seen him night in and out I'm positive that he IS completely overrated and I don't even like him that much as a player. He's supremely talented but he's heartless and soft and for a player his size it's infuriating. He shows up in bursts and gets his points, but he's a very frustrating player to watch and I stand by my original opinion.
You make that deal all day long
They weren't playing a sheltered style. They were playing an unsustainable style. The ECF appearance was a big overachievement and one that had no chance of being repeated with the same personnel.
They weren't playing a sheltered style. They were playing an unsustainable style. The ECF appearance was a big overachievement and one that had no chance of being repeated with the same personnel.
