Nash Trade Redux

[Ail]

I was in favor of getting Nash. Even now I can't say we are a better team if the trade never took place.

With that said, it's becoming painfully obvious that Nash is the guy who plays with "the guy" -- as opposed to being "the guy."

This is my stance as well.

The problem with the people saying, "I told you so!" about Nash is that they immediately use his tenure here as proof that this team would be better off without him, which is not only impossible to know, but also unlikely.

A lot of things ran that '11-'12 team off the rails the following year and it wasn't just Nash related. In fact Nash was one of two bright spots last year.

It's sad to think that if Nash does not justify his being traded for before he moves on from this club, that people will use it as an excuse for years to come as to why the Rangers returned to the "Dark Ages" and destroyed a winning environment. An exaggerated and perpetually unverifiable claim. Reading it for the next decade should be fantastic.

 

[cd211]

deff still happy about the trade.. just wish we someway kept Dubi and moved another piece..

you need to better your team and take risks.. we needed more of a scoring threat, he was available we got him.. we thought kreider wouldve made an impact last year..

his heart and grit is surely missed..

its just bs how the players arent responding well to the coaching change bc i feel we have the talent, nothings meshing well..

 

[Edge]

And now what? Cue the "We need to bring someone for Nash to play with and make him go" discussions and rumors. Insert name X in for Nash, and you have practially every big name that Sather has acuired during his tenure. And then trades are made to bring in another expensive player who will let Nash play. THen that player fails. And before you know it, you are starting with the yells that the team canibalizes its youth. And then more band aid trades are made.

This story tends to repeat itself. Sather just could not help himself after 11-12. He had to meddle.

In fairness though, I never thought the 11-12 team was going to take it to the next level without some help.

This team has had a hard time scoring for several years now. We've changed coaches, we've added some players, etc. The reality is that those teams were hard-working, low scoring teams.

I've always felt that the problem is that this team tried to rebuild on the fly, as opposed to taking a year or two to use its improved scouting department to get some high draft picks and high impact, young scorers to build around.

When you look at the teams that are more or less challenging for the cup, many of them are built around significant, early first round talent, or the parts they acquired for those significant, early first round talent.

Guys like Stepan, Callahan, Hagelin, etc. are the guys who support the drafting of players like Toews, or Kane, etc. Just imagine if this team had actually drafted a top end talent in 2003, 2005, 2006 or 2007 to go along with the gems they found in later rounds -- they wouldn't need to go out and trade for Nash, or sign Richards.

I firmly believe that a lot of what we're seeing now is the difference between sucking it up for two years, about eight years ago, versus what we did.

At the end of the day, we just don't have the young, top end offensive talent we need. I love hard working guys as much as the next person, but I think some people may be kidding themselves if they think that bigger and better things were right around the corner. It may have been a more enjoyable team to watch, because it worked hard, but the difference in the end result - a legit shot at a championship - is not all that different. It was just an easier medicine to take when we actually liked the taste.

 

[Ola]

Edge- I definitely agree.

And in typical NY fashion people are extremely fast forgetting what Nash did for us last season. I've followed this team for a little more than 20 years, during those years 3-4 guys has put a team on their back and that is what Nash did last season when he put a team on his back and carried it alone (Hank did not have that great of a year last season during the regular season).

We should also note that Nash is not a good PP player, never will be. A PP is all about passing tempo and being able to handle being pressured.

Getting Nash was however a cap dump.

When you summerize what we got, I would never reverse the trade. We gave up two decent but almost regularly struggling 2-3 line forwards, an offensive D without PP ability and a first for a player that takes up a ton of space on the ice and can score goals by himself and break things open.

I only fear that the insane pressure Nash is facing in NY could break him.

 

[Off Sides]

I firmly believe that a lot of what we're seeing now is the difference between sucking it up for two years, about eight years ago, versus what we did.

In 8 years the same statement will be just as true. If they don't suck it up and sell now when they have a great opportunity to, finish in their natural draft position for a couple years, it's just going to be the same thing.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

What did Nash do for us last year? Did he do something different than Gaborik in years past, which people are happy to discount. Put up gaudy regular season numbers and play soft, invisible hockey when he was needed?

I actually agree with Edge's post with one caveat. It's not just an easier medicine to swallow when the team's efforts amount to mediocrity and a mid-round playoff exit but the compete level and hardwork is present. When we were the most blue collar, stingy team in the league and willed/lucked our way to game 6 of the ECF we were a team worth investing in. Whether we had the talent to genuinely compete (I think we'd have been bulldozed by the Kings) or not we had an identity and a team we knew would show up, play a certain way and on any given night, if Hank was in the zone and just one guy stepped up and gave us that extra goal of support we could at least hang with any team and make them bite their nails going into the third. That's an exciting role to play. The wild card. The spoiler. The team that works so hard they just might upset anybody they face. As a fan the only thing more you can ask for, beyond being entertained and believing you have a chance in every match is actually winning it all.

I agree that we're long overdue a proper rebuild and that if we want to genuinely be up there with the big dog, annual contenders than that's the only way we're going to obtain the top end talent to do so. But in an organization that has made it clear they'd rather be a poor playoff team every year than build a genuine contender, I would much rather have built on that blue collar identity and cultivated that mentality so that I could at least have pride in the team on the ice than bring back the heartless, mercenary mentality that guys like Nash come with. Yes, it's easier medicine to swallow, but even if it doesn't genuinely cure the mediocrity that has plagued this franchise, it does halve some other pleasant axis effects that this roster can't provide.

 

[smoneil]

Edge- I definitely agree.

And in typical NY fashion people are extremely fast forgetting what Nash did for us last season. I've followed this team for a little more than 20 years, during those years 3-4 guys has put a team on their back and that is what Nash did last season when he put a team on his back and carried it alone (Hank did not have that great of a year last season during the regular season).

We should also note that Nash is not a good PP player, never will be. A PP is all about passing tempo and being able to handle being pressured.

Getting Nash was however a cap dump.

When you summerize what we got, I would never reverse the trade. We gave up two decent but almost regularly struggling 2-3 line forwards, an offensive D without PP ability and a first for a player that takes up a ton of space on the ice and can score goals by himself and break things open.

I only fear that the insane pressure Nash is facing in NY could break him.

I'm not forgetting last season, Ola, but I do think you are romanticizing it a little bit. While I don't think anybody put the team on their back last season, if I had to pick a name, it would be Stepan, not Nash. Nash was cold as ice to start the season last year. I remember at one point, whichever line Stepan was moved to immediately became the Rangers best (ie- only) scoring line. Nash away from Stepan struggled. Even then, before the Gaborik trade and the best stretch of Brassard's career that followed it, the Rangers were in serious danger of missing the playoffs altogether.

Also, people point to Nash's production last year and act like it's something new. Nash has never had a problem putting up points. His problems have been putting up points against good teams and playing/practicing hard all the time (instead of just when he wants to). People on here were surprised when the playoffs rolled around and he scored zero goals in the (7 game) first round series. Was that how he "carried the team on his back"? It should have been no shock at all. Yeah, Nash had 21 regular season goals. You know how many of those were against playoff teams? Six. And only two of those were against a team that was an upper seed.

If you want a player to put up a shiny stat line, then Nash is your man. If you want to win? He's anathema to that. For proof, I point you to the last decade plus of NHL hockey.

 

[Off Sides]

the heartless, mercenary mentality

I think that comes with the management style of Sather more so than the players themselves.

Coddle the free agents to the maximum, gush over the marketability of "star" players and trade for them, fight with every home grown player in contract disputes until they reach free agent status. Byproduct = heartless, mercenary mentality

 

[Blueshirt Special]

First couple of times I saw Nash play for the Rangers at the Garden I thought "Wow! this guys is the real deal! And he's not old and past his prime! Did we get it right?"



I hope he is able to shake off whatever funk he is in and score 25-30 goals for us, but realistically he is never going to put the team on his back ala Jagr. He can score goals but it seems like conditions have to be perfect for him. He doesn't make other players better, he needs better players.

 

[RangersHank*]

First couple of times I saw Nash play for the Rangers at the Garden I thought "Wow! this guys is the real deal! And he's not old and past his prime! Did we get it right?"



I hope he is able to shake off whatever funk he is in and score 25-30 goals for us, but realistically he is never going to put the team on his back ala Jagr. He can score goals but it seems like conditions have to be perfect for him. He doesn't make other players better, he needs better players.

What did you say about Gaborik when you first saw him at MSG?

 

[Blueshirt Special]

What did you say about Gaborik when you first saw him at MSG?

same thing

 

[Edge]

What did Nash do for us last year? Did he do something different than Gaborik in years past, which people are happy to discount. Put up gaudy regular season numbers and play soft, invisible hockey when he was needed?

I actually agree with Edge's post with one caveat. It's not just an easier medicine to swallow when the team's efforts amount to mediocrity and a mid-round playoff exit but the compete level and hardwork is present. When we were the most blue collar, stingy team in the league and willed/lucked our way to game 6 of the ECF we were a team worth investing in. Whether we had the talent to genuinely compete (I think we'd have been bulldozed by the Kings) or not we had an identity and a team we knew would show up, play a certain way and on any given night, if Hank was in the zone and just one guy stepped up and gave us that extra goal of support we could at least hang with any team and make them bite their nails going into the third. That's an exciting role to play. The wild card. The spoiler. The team that works so hard they just might upset anybody they face. As a fan the only thing more you can ask for, beyond being entertained and believing you have a chance in every match is actually winning it all.

I agree that we're long overdue a proper rebuild and that if we want to genuinely be up there with the big dog, annual contenders than that's the only way we're going to obtain the top end talent to do so. But in an organization that has made it clear they'd rather be a poor playoff team every year than build a genuine contender, I would much rather have built on that blue collar identity and cultivated that mentality so that I could at least have pride in the team on the ice than bring back the heartless, mercenary mentality that guys like Nash come with. Yes, it's easier medicine to swallow, but even if it doesn't genuinely cure the mediocrity that has plagued this franchise, it does halve some other pleasant axis effects that this roster can't provide.

I know I've said this in the past, and it's not a popular stance, but I can't help but feel that team in ECF was almost unreal - they never looked dominant, and at times looked like they were barely a playoff team. The hard part was figuring out how to invest in that team, without giving up significant portions of its nucleus.

The other reality is that for as good as our scouting has been, we've missed out on some intriguing young offensive talent the past 5 or 6 years - Saad, Eberle, Tarasenko, etc. Now don't get me wrong, other teams missed those guys too -- but for an offensively starved team, finding those guys is a must.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Does this bum even make team Canada this year? Maybe he just needs a coach like Torts to get the best out of him. What a loser.

 

[Cassano]

Does this bum even make team Canada this year? Maybe he just needs a coach like Torts to get the best out of him. What a loser.

Best years under Hitchcock who is a tough SOB and Torts.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Best years under Hitchcock who is a tough SOB and Torts.

Maybe Sather should have considered there might be a difference between the coach the players want and the coach they need.

 

[ChrisKreider20]

I don't like Nash's game to be honest.
He simply does not make the players around him better. He holds onto the puck too long and gives away the pick too frequently. He just isn't a complete player. He is a good scorer and talent but he just isn't a player to build a team around. He is a born loser.

I'd trade him for picks & prospects. Some team would still pay up for him.

Trade him for Dustin Brown, Dean Lombardi would do it lol

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Maybe Sather should have considered there might be a difference between the coach the players want and the coach they need.

That's a bingo!

 

[rdhstlr23]

In fairness though, I never thought the 11-12 team was going to take it to the next level without some help.

This team has had a hard time scoring for several years now. We've changed coaches, we've added some players, etc. The reality is that those teams were hard-working, low scoring teams.

I've always felt that the problem is that this team tried to rebuild on the fly, as opposed to taking a year or two to use its improved scouting department to get some high draft picks and high impact, young scorers to build around.

When you look at the teams that are more or less challenging for the cup, many of them are built around significant, early first round talent, or the parts they acquired for those significant, early first round talent.

Guys like Stepan, Callahan, Hagelin, etc. are the guys who support the drafting of players like Toews, or Kane, etc. Just imagine if this team had actually drafted a top end talent in 2003, 2005, 2006 or 2007 to go along with the gems they found in later rounds -- they wouldn't need to go out and trade for Nash, or sign Richards.

I firmly believe that a lot of what we're seeing now is the difference between sucking it up for two years, about eight years ago, versus what we did.

At the end of the day, we just don't have the young, top end offensive talent we need. I love hard working guys as much as the next person, but I think some people may be kidding themselves if they think that bigger and better things were right around the corner. It may have been a more enjoyable team to watch, because it worked hard, but the difference in the end result - a legit shot at a championship - is not all that different. It was just an easier medicine to take when we actually liked the taste.

This. All of this. So much this.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Nash looks like every big NYR acquisition over the years. One good season. Right about on par with his recent trend. Not his prime. But good enough. Then his play drops off the face of the earth. Every. Time.

He was never a high motor player who competed every shift. He was opportunistic and had the ability to create out of nothing on his own. He looks like a flat out shell of himself. He looks afraid to engage. He looks like a player who has had 2 concussions in a calendar year. It's frustrating and sad.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

In fairness though, I never thought the 11-12 team was going to take it to the next level without some help.

This team has had a hard time scoring for several years now. We've changed coaches, we've added some players, etc. The reality is that those teams were hard-working, low scoring teams.

I've always felt that the problem is that this team tried to rebuild on the fly, as opposed to taking a year or two to use its improved scouting department to get some high draft picks and high impact, young scorers to build around.

When you look at the teams that are more or less challenging for the cup, many of them are built around significant, early first round talent, or the parts they acquired for those significant, early first round talent.

Guys like Stepan, Callahan, Hagelin, etc. are the guys who support the drafting of players like Toews, or Kane, etc. Just imagine if this team had actually drafted a top end talent in 2003, 2005, 2006 or 2007 to go along with the gems they found in later rounds -- they wouldn't need to go out and trade for Nash, or sign Richards.

I firmly believe that a lot of what we're seeing now is the difference between sucking it up for two years, about eight years ago, versus what we did.

At the end of the day, we just don't have the young, top end offensive talent we need. I love hard working guys as much as the next person, but I think some people may be kidding themselves if they think that bigger and better things were right around the corner. It may have been a more enjoyable team to watch, because it worked hard, but the difference in the end result - a legit shot at a championship - is not all that different. It was just an easier medicine to take when we actually liked the taste.

Spot on. Great post. Harsh reality. Going for it in the Jagr era, while alluring at the time, was a huge mistake. I still would at least rather watch a hard working team than this...but in terms of being a contender it's the truth.

 

[RangersHank*]

In fairness though, I never thought the 11-12 team was going to take it to the next level without some help.

This team has had a hard time scoring for several years now. We've changed coaches, we've added some players, etc. The reality is that those teams were hard-working, low scoring teams.

I've always felt that the problem is that this team tried to rebuild on the fly, as opposed to taking a year or two to use its improved scouting department to get some high draft picks and high impact, young scorers to build around.

When you look at the teams that are more or less challenging for the cup, many of them are built around significant, early first round talent, or the parts they acquired for those significant, early first round talent.

Guys like Stepan, Callahan, Hagelin, etc. are the guys who support the drafting of players like Toews, or Kane, etc. Just imagine if this team had actually drafted a top end talent in 2003, 2005, 2006 or 2007 to go along with the gems they found in later rounds -- they wouldn't need to go out and trade for Nash, or sign Richards.

I firmly believe that a lot of what we're seeing now is the difference between sucking it up for two years, about eight years ago, versus what we did.

At the end of the day, we just don't have the young, top end offensive talent we need. I love hard working guys as much as the next person, but I think some people may be kidding themselves if they think that bigger and better things were right around the corner. It may have been a more enjoyable team to watch, because it worked hard, but the difference in the end result - a legit shot at a championship - is not all that different. It was just an easier medicine to take when we actually liked the taste.

Or what if we drafted differently and got Parise/Getzlaf and Eberle and Tarasenko/Schwartz? You dont need top 2-3 picks, you need to make sure you get a good player out of good drafts and we havent. Add Parise, Tarasenko and Eberle to our top 6 right now and push some guys down a line and see what you get.

Parise-Richards-Zuccarello
Kreider-Stepan-Eberle
Hagelin-Miller-Callahan

See? Not a bad top 9

 

[RangersHank*]

Forgot Tarasenko, team is so stacked that i forgot to include him

 

[Kel Varnsen]

We're in the Dark Ages Nash.0

 

[rkhum]

Ummmm is it possible

That we could have gotten Nash without giving up Dubi and possibly AA?

Would a package of Hagelin, Miller, Erixon, and a first done it?
Or toss in Del Zotto?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

That we could have gotten Nash without giving up Dubi and possibly AA?

Would a package of Hagelin, Miller, Erixon, and a first done it?
Or toss in Del Zotto?

Nope.