Player Discussion Rick Nash

[Mac n Gs]

Rick Nash has been playing well since the groin injury, but has had ridiculously bad puck luck, but let's just ignore all of his positives in a derisive manner by labeling it as "things and stuff."

 

[Crease]

Genuine question. What does bad puck luck mean? In my mind, a player either finds a way to finish his chances or doesn't--and that is a major component of his effectiveness. Caveat: I'm a goalie, so I have very limited perspective on what it means to be a skater going through a scoring drought.

 

[Thirty One]

We can discuss anything, but your contention seems to be rooted in hindsight. You are looking back at Nash's production and are making efforts to minimize his lack of production by comparing it to players who at the time of the deal were certainly not comprables.

Are you clear on what hindsight means? Me discussing Anisimov and Dubinsky's salary and production at the time of the trade is not hindsight. You discussing Nash's production afterwards is.

And I agree that Dubinsky and Anisimov aren't and weren't comparable to Nash. That's why I like the Nash trade.

No, my point is that the Rangers paid a high price for Nash. And have not had nearly enough of a return on their investment.

And my issue is that you're judging the return and the price at entirely different scales.

Adding players together to try to justify production vs. contracts does not really make a lot of sense to me. Especially when you are comparing them to just one player, and need to present them as one to bolster your argument.

OK, we can deal with them individually.

In the 2012 playoffs:
Anisimov scored 3 goals
Dubinsky scored 0 goals

Why do you consider Anisimov and Dubinsky (as individuals)valuable assets at the time of the trade, if Nash's lack of scoring in 2014 demolishes his value?

 

[Thirty One]

Genuine question. What does bad puck luck mean? In my mind, a player either finds a way to finish his chances or doesn't--and that is a major component of his effectiveness. Caveat: I'm a goalie, so I have very limited perspective on what it means to be a skater going through a scoring drought.

As a goalie, you'll sometimes rob a player and you'll sometimes let a weak one in (don't lie, I know you do). Shooters can put a high quality shot on and get no goal or a low quality shot and get a goal based on which Crease they get for that attempt. Over the long haul, those should even out, but because goals is such a small-sample stat, it can take a while.

Now if you were going to say that puck luck is an overused term that's used when we don't have an apparent explanation, I would agree with you.

 

[Miller Time NYR]

Looked like he found another gear after scoring that goal. However we need Nash to have that fire before running into one (although it was a nice goal). I wouldn't mind AV or the Media really getting on him, if he doesn't produce much in the remaining games, to see if it can light a fire for the playoffs.

 

[True Blue]

Rick Nash has been playing well since the groin injury, but has had ridiculously bad puck luck, but let's just ignore all of his positives in a derisive manner by labeling it as "things and stuff."

In 9 years prior to coming to the Rangers, he averaged 32 goals per year. He has hit that number once since coming to the Rangers. But we are not even discussing his regular season, which honestly he has been a pretty good player for the team. However, in 4 years worth of playoffs with the Rangers, he played in 61 games. He scored 11 goals. Yeah, it's very nice that he does "stuff n' things" but that is just not good enough when it counts the most from your team's most important and highest paid forward. It's been long enough to where one can point to something besides him having bad luck.

 

[True Blue]

Are you clear on what hindsight means? Me discussing Anisimov and Dubinsky's salary and production at the time of the trade is not hindsight. You discussing Nash's production afterwards is.

And I agree that Dubinsky and Anisimov aren't and weren't comparable to Nash. That's why I like the Nash trade.

You are the one making the comparisons. Why not judge his performance on his own instead of minimizing his failure by whitewashing?

And my issue is that you're judging the return and the price at entirely different scales.

The Rangers have paid X in assets. They are paying Y every year for their acquisition. They have received Z in return. My view is that Z makes for a poor return.

OK, we can deal with them individually.

In the 2012 playoffs:
Anisimov scored 3 goals
Dubinsky scored 0 goals

Not germane to the conversation regarding Nash. And fair good comparables.

Why do you consider Anisimov and Dubinsky (as individuals)valuable assets at the time of the trade, if Nash's lack of scoring in 2014 demolishes his value?

Them plus Erixon + a 1st round pick at the time were considered good assets. Nash's lack of scoring in the playoffs demolishes the Rangers ROI.

 

[Thirty One]

You are the one making the comparisons.

What is evaluating a trade if not comparing what you gave up to what you got?

Why not judge his performance on his own instead of minimizing his failure by whitewashing?

I have no problem discussing Nash's performance by itself. A quick scan of this thread would show that. When people start to say that the Rangers came out the loser in the trade, I think it's fair to judge what they traded by the same standards you judge Nash by.

 

[db2011]

Nash trade was 10/10. You do it every time.

that's what most of us think, too.

win/win!

edit: but seriously, trading Nash opened up a lot of possibilities for the Jackets. By the conventional standards, Rangers got the best player (by far) so won the deal, but if the Jackets lost that one, it was a productive loss. I was very happy to see him leave the CBJ and had it out for him for a long time, but I've softened (like Nash!) and now root for him (except against the Jackets). Wouldn't even mind a short contract back in Columbus to bookend his career.

Good luck in the playoffs to Nasher and you guys.

Anyway, carry on

 

[offdacrossbar]

the rick nash trade isnt the issue now. all in the past. i do that deal again every time. peeps get old and slow down. it happens. large guys like nash hit the wall and it shows. its showing.

winning the cup is the only thing that matters

and to be honest, im not counting on nash doing all that much to make that happen. sadly, hes just not that good a player anymore.

age. happens.

 

[True Blue]

What is evaluating a trade if not comparing what you gave up to what you got?

And the asset value given at the time of the deal and the price to keep their investment has not been worth the return in my view.

I have no problem discussing Nash's performance by itself. A quick scan of this thread would show that. When people start to say that the Rangers came out the loser in the trade, I think it's fair to judge what they traded by the same standards you judge Nash by.

By adding two players together to justify salary and by making efforts to white wash Nash's own failures by comparing it to other players? Sorry, that is asinine. Players like Nash get judged to a different standard. What you are doing would be like comparing Lundqvist to Raanta. Sorry, two different standards here. And all of it to mask Nash's failures.

Think we are just about done here.

 

[Thirty One]

And the asset value given at the time of the deal and the price to keep their investment has not been worth the return in my view.

By adding two players together to justify salary and by making efforts to white wash Nash's own failures by comparing it to other players? Sorry, that is asinine. Players like Nash get judged to a different standard. What you are doing would be like comparing Lundqvist to Raanta. Sorry, two different standards here. And all of it to mask Nash's failures.

Think we are just about done here.

And I would trade a couple of players who can't be judged to a higher standard for one that can any day.

 

[True Blue]

And I would trade a couple of players who can't be judged to a higher standard for one that can any day.

Then why not offer 5 first round picks for Shea Webber? Or 10 1st round picks for Stamkos?

Or why not Krieder, Skej, Hayes & Vesey for Malkin? You are getting one player who is judged by a higher standard.

 

[NickyFotiu]

When discussing trades be it Nash or anyone else we should all look at the exact trade and drop all this "asset" talk. Every player and every pick can be called an asset including Tanner Glass but by not placing a real value on them it overrates them and implies they would have turned in to gold otherwise. It is intellectually dishonest because it makes it impossible to to judge any trade in reality.

The trade in reality was:

Rick Nash, Steven Delisle and Columbus' 3rd round pick (Pavel Buchnevich) in 2013 NHL Draft for Brandon Dubinsky, Artem Anisimov, Tim Erixon and NY Rangers' 1st round pick (Kerby Rychel) in 2013 NHL Draft.

I put the players still in the NHL in bold.

 

[True Blue]

When discussing trades be it Nash or anyone else we should all look at the exact trade and drop all this "asset" talk. Every player and every pick can be called an asset including Tanner Glass but by not placing a real value on them it overrates them and implies they would have turned in to gold otherwise. It is intellectually dishonest because it makes it impossible to to judge any trade in reality.

That is not reality. 1st round picks are assets. Any pick is an asset. Even a 7th rounder.

As for Nash, first judge amount of assets given up. Then judge how much the ongoing expense of that maintaining that asset is. Then judge what exactly has the ROI been for the transaction.

 

[NickyFotiu]

That is not reality. 1st round picks are assets. Any pick is an asset. Even a 7th rounder.

As for Nash, first judge amount of assets given up. Then judge how much the ongoing expense of that maintaining that asset is. Then judge what exactly has the ROI been for the transaction.

Pretending that every 7th round pick can turn in to Lundy is intellectually dishonest. Anything is an asset in the real world. Rolls of tape are assets in the real world but this is the NHL not the real world. You are putting ridiculous qualifications on NHL trades that make them impossible to judge. If we can only look at a pick as a pick not the player who was actually picked its impossible to judge. If we can only look at who a player may have possibly been traded for not their actual production it makes a trade impossible to judge. I think you are a good poster and a smart guy but your standard for trades make things impossible. If we traded Glass and a 6th round pick tomorrow for Trouba you could say it was a bad trade because that 6th round pick was an asset that might have turned in to Pavel Datzyuk.

 

[Leonardo87]

It's mind boggling how he scores two huge goals in the last two games, only for the Rangers to lose them both. Man, has to be frustrating for him. I feel for him. He has looked very good as of late also.

 

[Thirty One]

Then why not offer 5 first round picks for Shea Webber? Or 10 1st round picks for Stamkos?

Or why not Krieder, Skej, Hayes & Vesey for Malkin? You are getting one player who is judged by a higher standard.

You won't hear me say that lesser assets can't combine to a greater asset. Just that in this case I don't think they do.

It's mind boggling how he scores two huge goals in the last two games, only for the Rangers to lose them both. Man, has to be frustrating for him. I feel for him. He has looked very good as of late also.

Just shows how not clutch he is, IMO.

I think these last two goals are good examples for the puck luck conversation. In both you can see the good things he did to help create the chance. But if you do a Zach Morris time-out from the moment the puck leaves his stick, you can easily see how factors outside his control could lead to the puck staying out. But they went in so we're happy.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Nash is a hard player to understand. If you threw stats out the window and/or were new to hockey and just watched him play, he 'looks' like he's one of the best players in the league based on some of the things he can do out there on the ice, regularly.

Somewhat similar to Alex Kovalev in that regard. Kovi would stickhandle through a defense only to not make a goal out of it.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Respect. Now please have a good playoffs. That can completely overshadow a bad regular season for Rick.

“I’m here to score goals. I get paid to score goals,” Nash told The Post before the game. “I’m supposed to provide offense. That’s what the team expects of me. That’s what I expect of myself.”

“Because that’s not good enough,” said this unfailingly pleasant man and selfless teammate. “I take pride in my defensive game and in being a complete player, but I know why I’m here and that’s not it.”

“I know scoring is down around the league; what, Sid [Crosby] is the only guy with 40 [41]? It’s hard to score,” said Nash, who drew three tripping penalties in this one. “But it tears at me. It frustrates me. It frustrates me, no end.”

“I can’t say whether people are hard on me or not, but I know that I’m hard on myself. I’m hardest on myself,” Nash said. “I’m expected to score goals. I’m expected to put up numbers.

“That’s my job. That’s why I’m here.”

http://nypost.com/2017/03/23/it-tears-at-me-rick-nash-opens-up-about-source-of-his-frustration/

 

[Thirty One]

"I get paid to score goals"

Welp. I guess it is in his contract.

I remember when Gretzky scored 10 goals in the 1997 playoffs and everyone was like "HE'S PAID TO GET ASSISTS"

 

[Raspewtin]

"Rick Nash is paid to score goals" is a great way of saying "my player evaluation is truly horrendous, please don't listen"

 

[Irishguy42]

"Rick Nash is paid to score goals" is a great way of saying "my player evaluation is truly horrendous, please don't listen"

But it was Nash himself who said it. So is his evaluation of himself truly horrendous and we shouldn't listen to him?

:thinking emoji:

 

[Raspewtin]

But it was Nash himself who said it. So is his evaluation of himself truly horrendous and we shouldn't listen to him?

:thinking emoji:

more or less, yeah.

 

[Irishguy42]

more or less, yeah.