SA16
Sixstring
Nash looked the same last night as he always does except his shots actually went in the net.
Player Discussion Rick Nash
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
- Status
LeetchisGod
This is a bad hockey team.
I disagree. His skating was much more explosive than I've seen in many games. Seemed to have more energy.
silverfish
got perma'd
$20 says if his shots didn't go in the net that most of HFNYR's takes today would be "same ole' Nash, can't finish". But since they did go in, the takes are "explosive" skating.
Stay woooooooooooooooooooke
NYRFAN218
King
Yeah, Nash didn’t really do anything differently last night at all. If he took that shot on the breakaway and got stopped he would have been executed on the boards today. He needs to finish his chances obviously and he did that last night but his all around game was really no different than most of the games he’s played this year.
LeetchisGod
This is a bad hockey team.
Harbor no illusions, one game doesn't change my opinion on Nash. He should be dealt at the deadline. Last night was the exception not the rule for a long time now. He'll turn back into a pumpkin soon enough. His days of being a consistent goal scorer in this league are over.
I would say that at this point, as has been the evident case in the last x amount of years, Nash is what he is.
tjs252
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2007
- 506
- 0
Here's the dilemma - as long as Lundqvist is here we won't rebuild. Nash is very good and by all indications, happy here (I hate doing the results driven thing with Nash - yes he's paid to score goals and should be scoring more than he is - on most nights, he's our most noticeable forward, whether or not he's scoring).
Also, I'd rather have the next 2-3 years of Nash on an extension than the 2-3 years of development needed for the second or third rounder we'd get for him in trade. I'm firmly in the keep him and re-sign him camp.
Also, I'd rather have the next 2-3 years of Nash on an extension than the 2-3 years of development needed for the second or third rounder we'd get for him in trade. I'm firmly in the keep him and re-sign him camp.
Lets fatten this turkey up in the next few weeks before the trade deadline.
My question to the bolded is why. Lundqvist is my favorite Ranger, by far, of the last 20 years but it is malpractice to forego the avenue that is best of the team to cater to your soon to be 36 year old goaltender.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Nash is what he is.
7 of his 11 goals and 1/4 of his season point totals have come in 5 games.
I'd say there's decent odds that he pops in another few goals over the next 3 games or so. Of course it's the 12 games that come after that are usually the problem.
7 of his 11 goals and 1/4 of his season point totals have come in 5 games.
I'd say there's decent odds that he pops in another few goals over the next 3 games or so. Of course it's the 12 games that come after that are usually the problem.
will1066
If you score four, you better f'n win the game
- Oct 12, 2008
- 52,661
- 75,980
A rebuild would take some time to make the team competitive again. Hank doesn't have that luxury of a window now. There wouldn't be immediate results benefiting him.
Well thats a big problem, and I've seen this cycle of insanity play itself out far too many times as a Ranger fan. By the time Lundqvist is 40 and his contract is expiring, there will be another poor excuse presented as to why the Rangers cant take a step back to take 3 steps forward.
will1066
If you score four, you better f'n win the game
- Oct 12, 2008
- 52,661
- 75,980
Actually, my thought is to trade Hank and do a deep-dive rebuild if we're gonna rebuild. Contract theories, NTC/NMC theories, and goalie jobs around the league already occupied aside, move him for assets while he's having a heck of year. This team/org would need a sea change to shift the entire atmosphere.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,993
- 23,000
There are levels between total rebuild and going all in. We've seen it in practice already. Trade Brassard for Zib and a 2nd. Sign Grabner. Trade Stepan and Raanta for 7th overall and ADA. Sign Shattenkirk.
Whether or not they sell players, they are still going to try to compete.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,993
- 23,000
It would probably be impossible to trade Lundqvist without retaining salary. If we are doing a total rebuild, that wouldn't be an issue, but I don't think we need to totally tear it down and start over. We have a lot of good players. We need to trade some of the older ones for younger assets and try to find some great players.
SA16
Sixstring
Yea I mean he always skates like that and he always gets chance. This time he happened to score on two of them so now he's an explosive skater even though it's the same as usual.
Generational he is far from. VERY far from.
He is a third/second line tweener who, with help can score 20 goals. Good two way player. Nothing spectacular.
This team's window is closed. 2 3 years more of Nash? If you are not paying him to score goals, then what are you paying him for? Solid two-way play? That is not the $$$ that he will demand. And they cannot tie up money into such a depreciating asset.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
The sad thing is this team knows its window is closed, but I don't see them walking away from playoff dollars.
Additionally, I would agree with the sentiment that this team feels a sort-of moral obligation to field a veteran team in front of Lundqvist.
Additionally, I would agree with the sentiment that this team feels a sort-of moral obligation to field a veteran team in front of Lundqvist.
silverfish
got perma'd
Can't help myself.
How many players do you think have more goals than Rick Nash since 2002? Can I ask you to post your guess first, and then go look it up?
Now, obviously we have to take longevity & games played into account, so you let me know if you want to...
EXTRAPOLATE
those numbers
eco's bones
Registered User
I think some people need to get used to this sad fact. Henrik Lundqvist is probably not going to win a Stanley Cup for the Rangers. He's been outstanding for the past three months but FWIW even maintaining that level of play he might not be able to carry this team into the playoffs. This team just isn't a good team--it's a mediocre team and if we keeping on retreading has beens it's not likely going to be good enough in the next 3 or 4 years either. So making personnel decisions based on the idea that the window is still open for the Rangers would be a big mistake--this team of ours deals the future for the now when it thinks it's got a shot--we cannot sell any more future for aging veterans--it will only set us back further.
There is no way in hell that I would bring Nash back. He's had his chance--he's getting older and he's declining.
There is no way in hell that I would bring Nash back. He's had his chance--he's getting older and he's declining.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
so then back to the "bad luck " narrative again ?
nash looked faster and more engaged. his moves were quicker and his shot was as well. he played a great game. he stood out.
problem is, we won't see him again for 2 weeks.
Nor can I. There are ways to phrase certain items.....making them far more grandiose than they are.
First of all, what does the term "generational" mean to you? In the context of this conversation and how it is being used, one would ass-u-me that it is stating that Rick Nash is a once in a generation goal scorer. Now Nash has 427, which places him outside of the top 50. And certainly not everyone on the list ahead of them is "generational". Unless you are stating that players like Brian Bellows are also players that come along once in a generation. And frankly, how many years are we ascribing to being generational?
So let's presume that you are not calling him a goal scorer that comes along once every generation. Then what are you debating? As you seem to have a problem with me stating that he is NOT a generational goal scorer. After all, that is the topic that you jumped into. Or do you have an issue of what I stating of what he is NOW as opposed to what he was THEN? Because frankly, in the context of this conversation, who friggin' cares how many goals he has since 2002?
silverfish
got perma'd
Is he a generational goal scorer? I don't think so. I think the word generational gets thrown around too much.
Is he an ELITE scorer of THIS generation? Without question. Objectively.
When you want to answer the question I posed to you, how many players do you think since 2002 have more goals than Nash, we can continue this conversation.
EDIT - And again, I'll caveat that Nash has quite a lot of GP in that timeframe, and that needs to be taken into account. So you let me know when EXTRAPOLATING works for you, and when it doesn't.
Last edited:
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 13Staked: $22,383.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-