Rick Nash

[mas0764]

He's been a bad playoff performer. That's fact.

That's actually not a fact. A fact would be saying "Nash has scored 2 goals in 16 playoff games" but that is not as sensational as saying "He's a bad playoff performer."

Because when you say "2 goals in 16 playoff games" it reminds everyone that 16 games is a really small sample size, especially considering that his team won one of those rounds.

 

[Ail]

We directly lost 2 NHL players from it. You don't get to subtract 1 from that number. That doesn't make any sense. We lost two of our guys from that trade directly. Then comes Nash with his bloated cap hit and we lose more guys indirectly from the trade due to free agency.

Hahahaha really are you going to blame his cap hit on losing players to free agency? You're so biased and scorn over that trade it's embarrassing.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

That's actually not a fact. A fact would be saying "Nash has scored 2 goals in 16 playoff games" but that is not as sensational as saying "He's a bad playoff performer."

Because when you say "2 goals in 16 playoff games" it reminds everyone that 16 games is a really small sample size, especially considering that his team won one of those rounds.

I was the first to give the 2 in 16 stat... I'm not hiding from it. It's an obvious conclusion that when Nash goes for 2 in 16 he's been bad. Those 16 are all playoffs. Therefore he's been bad in the playoffs. A bad playoff performer. That shouldn't be controversial. It's fact.

 

[mas0764]

We directly lost 2 NHL players from it. You don't get to subtract 1 from that number.

Pay attention.

We lost 2 NHL players, but we got one back (Nash).

So we were down 1 player.

That's not blowing up a team. Blowing up a team means stripping off a bunch of quality players. We traded two and got one player back who was better than either of the two that we traded. Happens all the time.

Then comes Nash with his bloated cap hit and we lose more guys indirectly from the trade due to free agency.

Also kinda fictitious. Anisimov and Dubi's cap hits would have not been far off from Nash's.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Hahahaha really are you going to blame his cap hit on losing players to free agency? You're so biased and scorn over that trade it's embarrassing.

Are you trying to deny the existence of a cap? Because I can assure you there is a cap and that going from two lower cap hit players to one gigantic cap hit player directly puts more strain on the team's ability to stay under the cap number.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Pay attention.

We lost 2 NHL players, but we got one back (Nash).

So we were down 1 player.

That's not blowing up a team. Blowing up a team means stripping off a bunch of quality players. We traded two and got one player back who was better than either of the two that we traded. Happens all the time.



Also kinda fictitious. Anisimov and Dubi's cap hits would have not been far off from Nash's.

Losing 2 players. That's losing two players. How do you not get this? Think of it this way, if we traded our whole team for CBJ's or anyone else's whole team we'd be getting back the same number of guys that we'd be losing. A net change of 0. It doesn't follow that we didn't blow up the team in that scenario. Of course that would be blowing up the team.

And Dubi and Anisimov are two players. You can't compare cap totals as dubi + anisimov vs. nash. That's dumb. You'd have to do dubi + anisimov vs. nash + player who replaces the other guy. And then the cap pressure makes it so the second guys is probably worse.

 

[Ail]

Are you trying to deny the existence of a cap? Because I can assure you there is a cap and that going from two lower cap hit players to one gigantic cap hit player directly puts more strain on the team's ability to stay under the cap number.

Sather could have and would have signed any of the FA he lost if he wanted to. Just stop.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Sather could have and would have signed any of the FA he lost if he wanted to. Just stop.

I've heard of plenty of types of deniers before, you're the first cap denier I've heard of.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I was the first to give the 2 in 16 stat... I'm not hiding from it. It's an obvious conclusion that when Nash goes for 2 in 16 he's been bad. Those 16 are all playoffs. Therefore he's been bad in the playoffs. A bad playoff performer. That shouldn't be controversial. It's fact.

"Bad playoff performer" is completely subjective. Nothing factual about that.

 

[damicius]

Are you trying to deny the existence of a cap? Because I can assure you there is a cap and that going from two lower cap hit players to one gigantic cap hit player directly puts more strain on the team's ability to stay under the cap number.

which is not so bad.
There is still enough place to keep all the current players and prevent Sather to bring another Redden,Gomez...etc.
Nash has 7,8mil. for 5 years and he will be 30 in july.

Vanek will be 30 and i guarantee you he will not sign a 5 years contract for 7,8mil., he will sign something like Richards.

Without Nash, Sather will offer 10 years to Vanek or 12 to Stastny etc.

 

[mas0764]

It's fact.

Yeah, again, it's not a fact, its your interpretation of the facts, which are, he's scored 2 goals in 16 playoff games.

I don't think anyone here is saying that is what we want out of him in the playoffs, but again, you are sensationalizing it up by acting like the book is already written and he's "bad" in the playoffs and that's it.

He's played three playoff series. I'm not writing him off yet.

And frankly it's probably more than Dubinksy or Anisimov would score so I'm not that concerned. In Dubi's last 21 playoff games he only scored 3 goals, so it's not like he was lighting the world on fire.

Conversely, Nash has the ability to take off and really produce. It's a possibility that is worth having him here for.

 

[mas0764]

Losing 2 players. That's losing two players. How do you not get this? Think of it this way, if we traded our whole team for CBJ's or anyone else's whole team we'd be getting back the same number of guys that we'd be losing. A net change of 0. It doesn't follow that we didn't blow up the team in that scenario.

Yeah, but that's not what happened. What happened was, we traded two players and got one back, which was a net loss of 1 player.

And the one player we got back was better than either of the two we sent out.

So unless any time you replace two players from a team with one better one, it's "blowing up the team", then your statement is incorrect.

And it is, since I can go around to Pittsburgh or Boston or whoever and find roster change out of more than 2 players in any given offseason.

You'd have to do dubi + anisimov vs. nash + player who replaces the other guy.

And it's probably close.

Which makes it worthwhile when one of the guys is a 30-40 goal scorer.

 

[mas0764]

Are you trying to deny the existence of a cap? Because I can assure you there is a cap and that going from two lower cap hit players to one gigantic cap hit player directly puts more strain on the team's ability to stay under the cap number.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Consolidating two players who would each make in the 4 million range (which Dubi was and AA probably would have been soon) into one player who makes 7 million, but outproduces them combined by time and a half in goals, is actually one of the smartest things you could do, cap wise.

 

[JimmyG89]

It was not the trade that ruined the team. How many times must we go over this? Trading for Nash (7.8) and the other pieces to balance the trade contract wise for Dubi (4.2) Artie (1.875 who now makes 3.2 was an RFA the season after) and Tim Erixon (was going to potentially make the roster, cannot crack Columbus blueline) is not one to regret. 11-3-1 last 15. Made the ECSF last season. It was replacing that depth lost with players who did not make the cut. Taylor Pyatt, Jeff Halpern, Mike Rupp, last season Kreider, JT Miller at 19, Darroll Powe, an injured Gaborik, Arron Asham and a big culprit of Richards playing like hot garbage come last season and being out of shape. These guys did not cut it last season. It's why they made an overhaul mid season. Brought back Zuke. Traded Gaborik for Brassard who performed great last playoffs. Dorsett and John Moore were brought back. Clowe added depth.

Nash was not the issue last season and is not why the team started poorly this season. Dubinsky and Anisimov do not save us. Erixon does not stabilize a defense. This notion coming from one poster that the team was "ruined" and "blown up" is horse manure. It was replacing what they lost in role players. Dubi and Anisimov played on the 3rd line for this team in 11-12. Nash plays on the top line. It is a no brainer trade. It was replacing two 3rd liners that they did not replace.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

That's actually not a fact. A fact would be saying "Nash has scored 2 goals in 16 playoff games" but that is not as sensational as saying "He's a bad playoff performer."

Because when you say "2 goals in 16 playoff games" it reminds everyone that 16 games is a really small sample size, especially considering that his team won one of those rounds.

If he had, say, 8 goals in 16 playoff games, would you be bringing up the small sample size?

 

[JimmyG89]

If he had, say, 8 goals in 16 playoff games, would you be bringing up the small sample size?

Nobody would be bringing anything up at all then.

 

[n8]

kind of childish and annoying

isn't that the HFboards mission statement or something?
it's good to see the puck is moving for Nash. his skill is showing but i don't think he's flat out taken over an entire game yet. that will be the real beast mode.

 

[mas0764]

If he had, say, 8 goals in 16 playoff games, would you be bringing up the small sample size?

I would if someone said "Great, now he will always score 0.5 goals in every playoff game."

The issue is, what is it reasonable to expect? It wouldn't be reasonable to think he's gonna keep up that pace, but it's not reasonable to expect that he's not ever gonna pick up his scoring either.

He's had 3 playoff series. One of them his team won. At least one other of them, he still scored 3 points in 4 games which is not horrible.

It's just early to say he's always going to underperform. The fact that in the regular season he can score in buckets probably means he needs to mentally adjust to the playoffs, but that is sometimes something that comes with experience.

Even for a 30 year old who will be starting his 4th playoff series at some point this spring.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Because when you say "2 goals in 16 playoff games" it reminds everyone that 16 games is a really small sample size, especially considering that his team won one of those rounds.

Well that's really the whole point of the playoffs - they're small, extremely important sample sizes. Like it or not, that's the nature of the playoff beast.

 

[Tawnos]

Nash is now on a 40-goal over 82 pace again. 32 goals if he plays the rest of the way on out with no injuries. What a turn his season has taken.

 

[AWall THE CLAW]

Amongst players who have played at least 30 games this season, Rick Nash is now tied for 10th in the league in goals per game at .49.

Fine turnaround for him, indeed. His goal production is back at elite levels.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I see Kel finally crawled out of whatever hole he was hiding in. Shame.

 

[Inferno]

concussions are big deals. if youve never had one, its really easy to just blow it off as no big deal. ive had quite a few of 'em...sometimes you'll have lingering effects that last months and months....and i dont even play check hockey lol.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

He just puts the puck in the net whenever it touches his stick recently.

Hopefully he doesn't go on a prolonged drought and keeps up the great scoring.