Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Thread Part IV: Yak Yak Yak Yak

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
  • 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.
Dfence033 said:
How much would the Rangers have to add for any of these? Could any of them become a realistic package-for-package deal with MDZ?
Click to expand...

If Del Zotto had the potential to be in the top 20 defensemen of the 2011-2012 season with 41 points, I think any team that needs a young offensive defensemen (Such as Edmonton, Florida, Tampa Bay) will be open to taking him straight up for a reasonable price granted that his value has been questionable as of last year.
 
Barbara Underhill said:
.95 ppg is definitely not enough production! You've wowed me once again.
Click to expand...

Evander Kane:

2009: 26 pts in 66 GP - .39 ppg
2010: 43 pts in 73 GP - .59 ppg
2011: 57 pts in 74 GP - .77 ppg
2012: 33 pts in 48 GP - .69 ppg

Average in those 4 years - .61 ppg

At no point did he get near the .95 ppg mark. The argument isn't Nash, it's Kane. How many times was Nash ineffective because he relied too much on his dazzling? Are we going to have 2 profile players skating side to side, holding onto the puck, who get blanked when we play a team with a decent defense?

Furthermore, you have proven incapable of properly arguing. You pick and choose things and go on tangents just to try and make it seem like my points are invalid. If what we're talking about is Kane, stay on Kane.

Then again.. at this point I don't expect anything over a high school argument level out of you anyway.
 
kenjets36 said:
Evander Kane:

2009: 26 pts in 66 GP - .39 ppg
2010: 43 pts in 73 GP - .59 ppg
2011: 57 pts in 74 GP - .77 ppg
2012: 33 pts in 48 GP - .69 ppg

Average in those 4 years - .61 ppg

At no point did he get near the .95 ppg mark. The argument isn't Nash, it's Kane. How many times was Nash ineffective because he relied too much on his dazzling? Are we going to have 2 profile players skating side to side, holding onto the puck, who get blanked when we play a team with a decent defense?

Furthermore, you have proven incapable of properly arguing. You pick and choose things and go on tangents just to try and make it seem like my points are invalid. If what we're talking about is Kane, stay on Kane.

Then again.. at this point I don't expect anything over a high school argument level out of you anyway.
Click to expand...

Your comment was that Kane would be just like Nash lots of fancy plays not enough production. Hence my response. Is it really that hard to understand? I went on a tangent? You referenced Nash and used him as a comparable to what you imagined Kane would be, or do you forget doing that?
 
Barbara Underhill said:
Your comment was that Kane would be just like Nash lots of fancy plays not enough production. Hence my response. Is it really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Where was Nash's production during the playoffs and down the stretch when we needed it most, smart guy?
 
kenjets36 said:
Where was Nash's production during the playoffs and down the stretch when we needed it most, smart guy?
Click to expand...

You mean like the 19 pts he had in the last 19 games of the season, or do those not count?

Playoffs is a different story, I have never defended his playoff performance, nor have I defended the teams performance as a whole in the playoffs.

Any more questions?
 
Zibanejad from Ottawa? Filler pieces going either way. Would make sense, he fits the mold they seem to be trying to develop in NY. Good size, speed, hockey IQ
 
Barbara Underhill said:
You mean like the 19 pts he had in the last 19 games of the season, or do those not count?

Playoffs is a different story, I have never defended his playoff performance, nor have I defended the teams performance as a whole in the playoffs.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

The point was he was inefficient. If he only shows up when it's convenient and easy and doesn't when the team needs him most he's inconsistent and inefficient.

19 pts in 19 games is too general, let's break it down.

2 after we clinched in a meaningless game.

2 vs Buffalo in a blow out (terrible team who was out of the playoffs).
3 vs Fla who was another terrible team out of the playoffs.
2 vs Tor when we lost.
1 vs Carolina, another terrible team.
1 vs Pitt in a loss.
2 vs Winnipeg a borderline playoff team with a glaring defensive holes.
3 vs. Phi another underachieving team with glaring defensive holes.

He recorded at least a point in 8/18 games (not including the 19th game where the team had already made the playoffs) down the stretch. Not very efficient if you ask me.
 
NYR Viper said:
Zibanejad from Ottawa? Filler pieces going either way. Would make sense, he fits the mold they seem to be trying to develop in NY. Good size, speed, hockey IQ
Click to expand...

I wish. Wanted him since last year. Actually jokingly said MDZ for Zibby.
 
kenjets36 said:
The point was he was inefficient. If he only shows up when it's convenient and easy and doesn't when the team needs him most he's inconsistent and inefficient.

19 pts in 19 games is too general, let's break it down.

2 after we clinched in a meaningless game.

2 vs Buffalo in a blow out (terrible team who was out of the playoffs).
3 vs Fla who was another terrible team out of the playoffs.
2 vs Tor when we lost.
1 vs Carolina, another terrible team.
1 vs Pitt in a loss.
2 vs Winnipeg a borderline playoff team with a glaring defensive holes.
3 vs. Phi another underachieving team with glaring defensive holes.

He recorded at least a point in 8/18 games (not including the 19th game where the team had already made the playoffs) down the stretch. Not very efficient if you ask me.
Click to expand...

So he is like the majority of NHL players?

Scoring in 60% of games over the course of last season seems to be common among the top 20 scorers not including the likes of Malkin,Crosby,Ovechkin, and Stamkos. The truly elite scored around 65% in some cases more.

As far as your down the stretch argument goes, you'd be surprised at some of the other players that dipped but I don't have the time or desire to go through the entire list.

Fact of the matter is he produced well and helped the team win games, and make the playoffs. You can disagree but that's the truth.

+1 on the efficiency argument I haven't dissected a lot of players stats in that manner, too time consuming and not generally considered common practice. Although it doesn't really prove anything other than he was a top 20 scorer and produced as often as a lot of the others.
 
kenjets36 said:
The point was he was inefficient. If he only shows up when it's convenient and easy and doesn't when the team needs him most he's inconsistent and inefficient.

19 pts in 19 games is too general, let's break it down.

2 after we clinched in a meaningless game.

2 vs Buffalo in a blow out (terrible team who was out of the playoffs).
3 vs Fla who was another terrible team out of the playoffs.
2 vs Tor when we lost.
1 vs Carolina, another terrible team.
1 vs Pitt in a loss.
2 vs Winnipeg a borderline playoff team with a glaring defensive holes.
3 vs. Phi another underachieving team with glaring defensive holes.

He recorded at least a point in 8/18 games (not including the 19th game where the team had already made the playoffs) down the stretch. Not very efficient if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Only showing up when it is convenient and easy? What? Is there such a thing in the NHL? Maybe if all 19 points were on empty net goals...

Yeah, he only scores against teams who are awful or have "glaring defensive holes." If he scored in games they won, he contributed, and if he scored in games they lost, he showed up when others did not. So what about the other guys who inefficiently scored in those "bad team" games, but didn't score in the loss to Pitt and Toronto?

What am I reading? What makes a player an efficient scorer? An 80 point player who scores 1 point in all but 2 games? How can you even set a measure as to what makes a player efficient or inefficient in scoring? Where do you draw the line between efficiency and scoring when it's easy?

That production may not be very efficient in your opinion, but it's not a very good argument in mine.
 
Ailurophile said:
Only showing up when it is convenient and easy? What? Is there such a thing in the NHL? Maybe if all 19 points were on empty net goals...

Yeah, he only scores against teams who are awful or have "glaring defensive holes." If he scored in games they won, he contributed, and if he scored in games they lost, he showed up when others did not. So what about the other guys who inefficiently scored in those "bad team" games, but didn't score in the loss to Pitt and Toronto?

What am I reading? What makes a player an efficient scorer? An 80 point player who scores 1 point in all but 2 games? How can you even set a measure as to what makes a player efficient or inefficient in scoring? Where do you draw the line between efficiency and scoring when it's easy?

That production may not be very efficient in your opinion, but it's not a very good argument in mine.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I give him credit for finding another loophole in the argument, proved difficult to counter and I honestly don't care to because after looking into it I could tell it was going to end up being about semantics.

I started a thread a few months ago in which I analyzed Nash's goals after people started throwing around the notion that Nash only scores "meaningless" goals or goals against weak competition or when the game is already won. I think it did a good job of debunking that rumor.
 
Koekkoek4U said:
If Del Zotto had the potential to be in the top 20 defensemen of the 2011-2012 season with 41 points, I think any team that needs a young offensive defensemen (Such as Edmonton, Florida, Tampa Bay) will be open to taking him straight up for a reasonable price granted that his value has been questionable as of last year.
Click to expand...

He just became the whipping boy in a city where most of its denizens are very achievement focus. DZ's fault is that he plateaued at a very young age as a third year pro.

Granted that is still a top 4 defenseman that averages ~.5 ppg, and plays 20+ min a night, shows up in elimination games, and is not 24 years old. He still plateaued even if that level of play earned him some Norris votes.

He isn't without value just because fans want a whipping boy on the back end. There are only a few players I'd trade him for, and they are all better than him. Fans here are clamoring for another Zubov deal from their respective perceptions.
 
I would only deal Zotto for Yakupov or Zibanejad. But who can we trust to replace Del Zotto's regular minutes? Falk? Allen? Skej? Not too sure you can fully trust those 3 w/ regular full time minutes. Certainly not McILrath as he has proven time after time that he is nowhere close to being ready.

I think we'll be getting a d-men back for Del Zotto.
 
hpNYR said:
I would only deal Zotto for Yakupov or Zibanejad. But who can we trust to replace Del Zotto's regular minutes? Falk? Allen? Skej? Not too sure you can fully trust those 3 w/ regular full time minutes. Certainly not McILrath as he has proven time after time that he is nowhere close to being ready.

I think we'll be getting a d-men back for Del Zotto.
Click to expand...

Certainly not Skjei....
 
hpNYR said:
I would only deal Zotto for Yakupov or Zibanejad. But who can we trust to replace Del Zotto's regular minutes? Falk? Allen? Skej? Not too sure you can fully trust those 3 w/ regular full time minutes. Certainly not McILrath as he has proven time after time that he is nowhere close to being ready.

I think we'll be getting a d-men back for Del Zotto.
Click to expand...

DZ for Zib + Karlsson :laugh:
 
Barbara Underhill said:
So he is like the majority of NHL players?

Scoring in 60% of games over the course of last season seems to be common among the top 20 scorers not including the likes of Malkin,Crosby,Ovechkin, and Stamkos. The truly elite scored around 65% in some cases more.

As far as your down the stretch argument goes, you'd be surprised at some of the other players that dipped but I don't have the time or desire to go through the entire list.

Fact of the matter is he produced well and helped the team win games, and make the playoffs. You can disagree but that's the truth.

+1 on the efficiency argument I haven't dissected a lot of players stats in that manner, too time consuming and not generally considered common practice. Although it doesn't really prove anything other than he was a top 20 scorer and produced as often as a lot of the others.
Click to expand...

We need an elite scoring touch. Ovechkin, in that same period, elevated his play and scored in 14/19 or 13/18 of his final 18/19 games. Nash not only gets paid comparably to Ovechkin but he has comparable talent. Many people on here deny it but he's one of the most talented players in the league. He should be more productive. You gave me the statistics that he was a .95 ppg player. Where was the 1 pt a game down the stretch when we really needed it? Elite players have to find it deep in themselves to elevate their play when the times get tough. Malkin did it for a whole season a few years back when Crosby was seriously hurt. Ovechkin did it last year when his team was mediocre.

The argument was about efficiency. For someone being paid 7.8, 8/18 against the worst teams in those 18 is not going to cut it.

Now back to Kane, he can't even touch Nash's jock strap. At that stage in his career Nash was one of the most promising players in the league. After his first 2 years Nash was close to 1 ppg a year. He went over a couple times, came close a couple times, all without any type of support. Kane has had similar support, if not better, and he's no where near the type of player. Yet he probably takes roughly the same amount of shots as Nash. He's even less efficient. How many of these type of players can we have? How many of these types of players can we afford to trade the farm for?

Gaborik was another example. He only cost money but for 7.5 he should have been raising his level of play even more.

As far as the as successful as statement - Kane can't even compare to Nash. What I mean is we can't have such low efficiency players be our "star" players.
 
Ailurophile said:
Only showing up when it is convenient and easy? What? Is there such a thing in the NHL? Maybe if all 19 points were on empty net goals...

Yeah, he only scores against teams who are awful or have "glaring defensive holes." If he scored in games they won, he contributed, and if he scored in games they lost, he showed up when others did not. So what about the other guys who inefficiently scored in those "bad team" games, but didn't score in the loss to Pitt and Toronto?

What am I reading? What makes a player an efficient scorer? An 80 point player who scores 1 point in all but 2 games? How can you even set a measure as to what makes a player efficient or inefficient in scoring? Where do you draw the line between efficiency and scoring when it's easy?

That production may not be very efficient in your opinion, but it's not a very good argument in mine.
Click to expand...

What is exactly a good argument in yours then? What is your stance? Did he raise his level of play? Did he show up? Was he a difference maker in the games he didn't score?

No. You don't have a good argument. The stats I gave you show a trend... a not so good trend. I love Nash. I want him to succeed. But it's alarming that those stats show what they do.

What's even worse is that during the playoffs he literally did nothing. We relied on him and nothing. When you have a player with that much talent, someone who is supposed to be your leader, and he can't elevate how he plays... that shows unreliability.

I'd love to hear your argument. That he was a big game player? He didn't show it here last year. You can't back that up.

What happens when we trade for someone who's even more inefficient in putting the puck in the back of the net and plays the same way (Kane)?
 
McRanger said:
I wouldn't mess with the Kreider-Stepan-mza line (yet) but I would not be upset if the Hagelin-Richards-Callahan line was broken up.

Put Richards back on the wing. He's played his best hockey this season there. He doesn't look as gassed when he's on the wing.

Richards-Brassard-Nash
Kreider-Stepan-MZA
Hagelin-Boyle-Callahan
Pouliot-Moore-Dorsett


Honestly I do not hate it i thought i would but I dont.:handclap:
Mash and Miller to the pack. Pyatt waived.

The top 2 lines can score. We'll see if that 2nd line can stick. I love the idea of a back-to-100% Stepan going against a lower D pair nightly.

Boyle is not an offensive dynamo but I think the 3rd line can score more than it gives up on most nights while logging tough minutes.

The 4th line has a nice mix of skill and grit, as long as they can stay out of the box.
Click to expand...


I do not hate it I thought i would but I dont :handclap:
 
kenjets36 said:
We need an elite scoring touch. Ovechkin, in that same period, elevated his play and scored in 14/19 or 13/18 of his final 18/19 games. Nash not only gets paid comparably to Ovechkin but he has comparable talent. Many people on here deny it but he's one of the most talented players in the league. He should be more productive. You gave me the statistics that he was a .95 ppg player. Where was the 1 pt a game down the stretch when we really needed it? Elite players have to find it deep in themselves to elevate their play when the times get tough. Malkin did it for a whole season a few years back when Crosby was seriously hurt. Ovechkin did it last year when his team was mediocre.

The argument was about efficiency. For someone being paid 7.8, 8/18 against the worst teams in those 18 is not going to cut it.

Now back to Kane, he can't even touch Nash's jock strap. At that stage in his career Nash was one of the most promising players in the league. After his first 2 years Nash was close to 1 ppg a year. He went over a couple times, came close a couple times, all without any type of support. Kane has had similar support, if not better, and he's no where near the type of player. Yet he probably takes roughly the same amount of shots as Nash. He's even less efficient. How many of these type of players can we have? How many of these types of players can we afford to trade the farm for?

Gaborik was another example. He only cost money but for 7.5 he should have been raising his level of play even more.

As far as the as successful as statement - Kane can't even compare to Nash. What I mean is we can't have such low efficiency players be our "star" players.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, but you also have to give it more time IMO. Kane is a heck of a player and I'm not going to argue definitively that he would produce more here, or will produce when he gets older. But I think he will, and would.

As far as Nash is concerned his contract is a complete non factor for me, reason being is we didn't give it to him. It's a bad contract I think a lot of people would agree. Possibly even Nash.

What we have seen of him is that he can produce at a high level against pretty much any team, sure those games towards the end of the season we played weak competition. But we didn't all year and his production was up there with some top tier players, namely Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kessel and Toews as far as the % of games they scored a point in. That's not bad company.

You're looking for an Ovechkin and you won't find one unless you tank. So I am happy with what we have, especially considering our relative success compared to the teams that have been able to pick up #1 picks. Outside of a few teams they haven't won much more than the Rangers.

I'll give Nash the rest of this year and the PO's if we make it and I am confident we will to prove what he's made of. I think he will come back and produce close to a PPG and will have a larger impact in the PO's this year. Time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom