Toggle sidebar

Rick Nash Part II

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ail said:
Is this team a better team than the one prior to Rick Nash's tenure in New York?

Did they or did they not just make it one round further?

Are they, or are they not now instead of a top 20 possession team, a top 10, borderline top 5, possession team?

All of which was already occurring before AV arrived in NY before anyone tries to attribute that to him. Even under Torts last year this team's possession numbers climbed significantly.

People can hate Nash unreasonably but that trade is shaping up to be one of the best things this franchise could have done to turn this team in to a legitimate contender and change the way they play the game. It's not all because of that trade, but it is a big part of it.
Click to expand...

A new coach with a better personality and a great mind for hockey had little influence on the Rangers finishing in the SCF in 2014 over the Rangers finishing in the ECF in 2012.

Shedding the dead weight it the Nash trade was the reason I tell ya! I can't wait until we face the BlueJackets in the early round of the playoffs for the next several years. We really screwed them over, and they will be angry!
 
GregSirico said:
I suppose you would group Crosby in with Nash .. you know over paid and not performing and stuff ... C'MON THIS IS INSANITY.
Click to expand...

Your quote

GregSirico said:
350x700px-LL-82bfff63_not-sure-dog.jpeg
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry. Was I laying it a little thick there?

Rick Nash is paid like Sidney Crosby, yet he's never been close to that sort of player, and when Crosby didn't show, it severely effected the team in the same manner as Rick Nash's performance did for us.
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
Your quote



Oh I'm sorry. Was I laying it a little thick there?

Rick Nash is paid like Sidney Crosby, yet he's never been close to that sort of player, and when Crosby didn't show, it severely effected the team in the same manner as Rick Nash's performance did for us.
Click to expand...

So basically by your logic ... if you get paid well and do not score goals in the playoffs ... you are worthless ... GOT IT.
 
I really wish there was a salary restructuring rule.

Nash is not worth 8 mil. Not even close to it honestly. If the Rangers can trade him though, without taking on a **** contract or retaining any cap than just trade him for anything. If not, than, lets just hope for the best. Sather and co. should know not to rely on him for when it counts the most.
 
My God, I thought the poll would at least be somewhat close. I don't think anyone is against trading Nash for a great return but the return in all likelihood won't be there.

I understand frustration with his lack of scoring but hes still a very important part of this team. If healthy hes going to score 30 goals and put up 60+ points. Hes only 29 and is a legitimate top line threat.

Sorry but I'm keeping the guy who put up a point per game his first season with us and dealt with a concussion for a large part of this season while still leading the team in goals. I'll take my chances that when we get back to the playoffs eventually law of averages will come into play and he will have a strong run, hes too good of a player not to.

And I'm tired of reading that Nash is terrible on the boards, thats basically just made up bs so people can add something else to complain about. The guy routinely ties up defenders going in on the forecheck, moves pucks, walls defenders off to carry the puck off the wall and makes plays. Hes fine on the boards.
 
Dragonborne said:
I really wish there was a salary restructuring rule.
Click to expand...

These big guaranteed contracts are killers. GMs need to be very careful, but on the other hand, they have to get decent players, and not many are available, so the market drives their price too high for what they can really do.
 
GregSirico said:
Ok, so Hossa who had 2 goals, Crosby who had 1 goal, and Corey Perry and Zach Parise are also all WORTHLESS I assume.
Click to expand...

What is not clear to you.

All of those players have better histories of NHL success than Rick Nash. They weren't always worthless, but when they were non-existent for the points you quoted, they severely hurt their respective team's chances.

Rick Nash has never been as good as those players, and he was a non-effective as those players when they were bad.

Where does that put Rick Nash?
 
Dragonborne said:
I really wish there was a salary restructuring rule.

Nash is not worth 8 mil. Not even close to it honestly. If the Rangers can trade him though, without taking on a **** contract or retaining any cap than just trade him for anything. If not, than, lets just hope for the best. Sather and co. should know not to rely on him for when it counts the most.
Click to expand...

Now this I agree with.
 
BlueshirtBlitz said:
Besides Rick Nash and Chris Kreider?

Stepan wasn't particularly good considering he was going up against some of the most elite competition a center could feasibly face in the NHL in every series but MTL (coincidentally where he has his most points), but to say Nash didn't score because of him is absolutely laughable.

We can't really FIT an elite 1C here because of Nash's contract, along with Hank's new contract and the contract McD, a top 3 defenseman in the NHL, is gonna get. I don't want to be the Pittsburgh Penguins. The Rangers are a top 5 team in the NHL with Stepan at 1C (and with Rick Nash at 1RW, too, to stop myself from appearing to identify with the NASHSUXORZ crowd) Stepan is a fine young 1C and it's painfully obvious that Nash's failures to score are on himself.
Click to expand...

Rick Nash and Kreider are to fault as well. However Stepan has a unique ability to carry the puck in to the zone and skate around the back of the net because he decided to hold on to the puck too long which then results in a turnover due to pressure on the forecheck. My other favorite is the one where he tries to make the impossible pass through players and sticks across ice instead of taking the shot which could generate a rebound. Two of his points (goals) were against Montreal in a 7-4 blowout. If Rick Nash scored those goals this board would be in every thread talking about how useless those 2 goals were and how he can only score on back-ups, not adding them to his credentials. Stepan went up against the same elite competition Rick Nash did the entire playoffs, so I don't think that is a very good argument to use when defending Stepan and blasting Rick Nash in the same thread.

I really like Derek, but he is prone to some pretty bad offensive blunders as much as Nash or Kreider and as the pivot for that line he has to take a good portion of the blame. I don't think it is unfair to label Stepan as an elite defensive center with limited offensive ability.

I don't want an elite center with a gigantic cap-hit. I want a young potential elite center with a more offensive side of their game to compliment Stepan's elite defensive abilities. How they obtain that is anyone's guess, maybe they can't, but if Stepan had an offensive side to his game he wouldn't be Stepan he would be Kopitar. He's already as good defensively as Kopitar, he just doesn't have that much offensive ability. If he did he would be a top 5-10 center in this league.
 
Last edited:
In response to the original question, it depends what you are trading him for. If it's a decent young player, or if it gets us out of the contract, you have to think about it. Nash isn't any untouchable. The evidence is not that he is a great player. He's OK but not great.
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
What is not clear to you.

All of those players have better histories of NHL success than Rick Nash. They weren't always worthless, but when they were non-existent for the points you quoted, they severely hurt their respective team's chances.

Rick Nash has never been as good as those players, and he was a non-effective as those players when they were bad.

Where does that put Rick Nash?
Click to expand...

But your overall theme is if you don't score you stink and you are worthless ... ever think of giving credit to the other team defensively? Just a thought.
 
GregSirico said:
But your overall theme is if you don't score you stink and you are worthless ... ever think of giving credit to the other team defensively? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

No!

That is your overall assumption based on what other posters may have said to support your narrative.


In no particular order:

-He did not help us get this far by his defensive play. Other players did more and were better on defense

-He did not score neither enough nor in impact situation. He did not score in the SCF.

-He did not enhance his line or the players around him (Queue up all the other almosts)

-The team was structured around his implied offense, and he didn't deliver

-his cap hit will hurt this team because he will be hard to move and he will hurt the possibility of signing key players and brining in better playoff performers to help Lundqvist during his prime

-Just for perspective, the Rangers may not have a shot during Rick Nash's playing career even if he's not on the Ranger

Should I get down on Dorsett?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom