No one gets paid for the playoffsProbably because you could have two Zucc’s for Nash’s cap hit.
No one gets paid for the playoffsProbably because you could have two Zucc’s for Nash’s cap hit.
Only Stepan and Brassard have more playoff points over Nash's tenure. Only Brassard has more ES points. Only Stepan and Brassard have more ES goals. All situations? Just add Kreider to that short list. Only Brass and Taco score at a better rate at ES.
If you want to call out Nash for his lack of production in the playoffs, call out everyone sans Brassard. Why doesnt Zuccarello get ripped for producing at a worse pace than Nash? Kreider gets worshipped and Nash outpaces him. Beaves and MSL get remembered as clutch in the playoffs, you know who outpaced their production? Rick Nash. How bout Kevin Hayes's 7 points in 34 games?
Literally only Brassard performed better than Nash across the board. Thats it.
No one gets paid for the playoffs
Richards and MSL? Nash outperformed them. This is a biased narrative built upon very selective memories.Can’t be on the team in the playoffs if we can’t afford to sign you. I can play semantics too. You understood the point. You get paid like the man, hyped like the man, people expect you to be the man. Kreider, Hayes, Zucc aren’t “the man”. Nash was supposed to be.
Richards and MSL? Nash outperformed them. This is a biased narrative built upon very selective memories.
Dont you have a coach to defend?
No one gets paid for the playoffs
I remember Richards being the subject of some pretty serious criticism.
MSL, for one thing, was 38 and then 39 years old when we had him. If his tank ran out in the playoffs people were less surprised. The year MSL was 38 years old he had 15 points in 25 playoff games. Richards had 12 points as 33 years old. Nash had 10 points at 29. The following year Richards was gone, MSL was 39 and had only 7 points. Nash had 14. In the two years that we had MSL, MSL had 22 points and Nash had 24. MSL was 38/39. Nash was 29/30.
As I've been saying for a while, it is not at all weird how people defend Rick Nash.
RIP 2014
Hopefully we get a good return for him.
Richards and MSL? Nash outperformed them. This is a biased narrative built upon very selective memories.
Dedicated to you and AV?
Yea because if he retired we were f***ed. It was more about the structure of his contract and the CBA than it was about his play.RangersTown™ was desperate to buy him out, and then did...
Yea because if he retired we were ****ed. It was more about the structure of his contract and the CBA than it was about his play.
You have to literally be Girardi level atrocious to get bought out for your play.
See post #1283
By the way, are you numb nuts in some chat room?
Nah, you're just that predictable.
None of your damn business what I watch on tv.Which team you running too with a hair sandwich this post season ?
Wrong. He had 6 years left. We had a compliance buyout available to use that had to be used that year.No it really wasn't.
The beaver was disappointing in the blueshirt to say the least.
Wrong. He had 6 years left. We had a compliance buyout available to use that had to be used that year.
Sather called the decision "extremely difficult," adding that Richards' "leadership and guidance for our young players was invaluable."
Was he disappointing? Yea. Was he bought out because of his play and the fans dislike of him? **** no
Gorton basically did with Girardi.Really I'm surprised Slats didn't grab the mic and say "gtfo you big toothed *****"
His underwhelming play was more than half of the decision.
Richards was so bad that the best team in the league at the time thought he was worth a look.
Silly Blackhawks with their Stanley Cup.
Gorton basically did with Girardi.
Sure if Richards was setting the world on fire, yea we wouldve kept him. He had 6 years left at 6.66 per. A compliance buyout to get out of this potentially crippling contract had to be used. This isnt the same situation as Girardi where it was "we would literally rather have negative cap space than your corpse." Richards play was not the primary motivator behind this buyout, it was a business decision.
So you're admitting it was about money and not play.Well hopefully someone picks up a cheap third liner Rick Nash for a run as the Beaver was for the Blackhawks after the buyout.
The capital gains on that lump sum must have been more than his salary in CHI-town.
You brought up the Richards buyout to imply he wasnt living up to expectations and was subject to just as much criticism as Nash.Yes. Business decisions involve off loading players not living up to expectations.
If your argument is "well if he played for free, you'd like him then huh Reg..." , we can't get anywhere.