What is Rick Nash's legacy as a Blueshirt?

[SA16]

Damn, someone should've just told Rick that.

I think he knew it actually. He scored 1.78 pts/60 in the regular season as a Ranger and 1.67 in the postseason. A 0.11 difference. His goal rate is way lower in the playoffs and assist rate way up which is fine because I'm told he was supposed to get more assists when he left Columbus. So in the playoffs he shot at a slightly lower but still elite rate (10.94 shots/60 compared to 11.97), saw his assist rate spike way up, and scored less goals because he shot 5% instead of 10%.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

For me, he will always be a guy that was the best forward on the team, but people hated him for a handful of things he did, and vilified him because of it

He was one of my favorite Rangers, and it sucks that he is debating retirement currently

He never really got his due here I think. Which sucks

That said the majority of the casual fanbase will remember him for not scoring that goal in the SCF

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

If he turned up his game in the playoffs the way Brassard did for us, he would've been a Cup champion and hero on Broadway. I always viewed him as the guy who was brought in to bring us over the top and he didn't do that, so I don't think of him too fondly. Good regular season player but overall a disappointment for what he did for our franchise, whether the expectations were realistic or not.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Pretty clear his main legacy is to identify who knows what they’re talking about and who doesn’t.

I notice a theme of "Only people who are on my side are smart/knowledgable." from what I guess is the 'pro nash' side of this obvious back and forth. It feels like this Nash discussion is partly driven by a need to be superior moreso than a desire to discuss hockey. Just because I lean toward agreeing Nash was a great NYR who outright failed in some of the PO's and slightly underperformed in others, doesn't mean I agree with the iamveryhockeysmart comments.

P/60 isn't the only thing that should be looked at but I'm getting the feeling it's all that's being used to support the idea he was an undercover hockey God who shouldn't be criticized at all

 

[McRanger]

Nash was great was when he was healthy, but he wasn't healthy nearly enough.

 

[Edge]

His legacy will be reflective of his time here.

He was neither as good as his apologists made him out to be, nor as awful as his detractors insist.

He definitely helped elevate the team. Though for a number of reasons, some of which were not his fault, never quite to the heights that I think the Rangers or most of their fans quite envisioned.

 

[JT Kreider]

For me, he will always be a guy that was the best forward on the team, but people hated him for a handful of things he did, and vilified him because of it

He was one of my favorite Rangers, and it sucks that he is debating retirement currently

He never really got his due here I think. Which sucks

That said the majority of the casual fanbase will remember him for not scoring that goal in the SCF

He never got his due because he sucked in the playoffs. And he was our best forward for a grand total of one season. Stepan was better than him the lockout season. For a guy that was the highest paid on the team and we tore apart our entire core to get that is nowhere near good enough.

And regular season stats aside, Nash was brought in to be the difference maker between being a team that is out in six in the ECF and put us over the top as a Stanley Cup champion. He failed miserably in that. Phil Kessel succeeded with flying colors for the Penguins.

That's why Nash doesn't get his due.

He doesn't deserve it.

2014-15 was our lone peak of the last 20+ years. Everything we had building since the purge before the lockout culminated in those two seasons. We had to come away with a Cup there. It's a huge disappointment that we didn't. And Nash is a very big reason for that.

 

[JT Kreider]

Nash's legacy will always be that of a guy who couldn't get it done when it mattered most. I hate to beat the Kessel comparison to death but it's very apt.

Before the trade to Pittsburgh, Kessel was the butt end of every joke in hockey. Those last few seasons in Toronto absolutely destroyed his reputation around the league.

Fast forward to his dominance in the playoffs and helping the Penguins get back over the hump after bowing out in the playoffs 6 straight seasons and now Kessel is one of the most beloved and respected stars in the NHL today. The guy is a black hole of charisma but everyone loves Phil.

That's a guy who deserved his due and he earned it.

Can't say the same for Nash.

 

[True Blue]

I notice a theme of "Only people who are on my side are smart/knowledgable." from what I guess is the 'pro nash' side of this obvious back and forth.

That about summarizes it.

As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Nash was a solid regular season contributor. Mostly disappeared offensively in the playoffs and the Cup Finals, when his team needed him the most. Good two way player. Helped make the team better. However, as a whole, was not the difference maker that he was brought here to be.

Myriad of possible reasons. The injuries did not help. Neither did his unwillingness to drive to the net and use his size. Maybe he shrank when light was the brightest.

By all accounts, a solid citizen and was well liked in the locker room.

Overall, eh.....Solid, two way regular season player who was not worth the amount that he was getting paid.

And here I thought we would not have to debate Nash ever again around here....

 

[Mac n Gs]

The most annoying thing in Nash debates is the revisionist history complaining about the contract Scott Howson gave him as if it were Sather’s fault.

Howson needed to overpay his one star because he was set to be an UFA in the upcoming year and his team was getting clown-pounded in the Central Division. Nash, along with Gaborik, was our best goal scorer throughout his tenure here. Injuries derailed him, but when healthy, he played very, very well.

 

[JT Kreider]

The most annoying thing in Nash debates is the revisionist history complaining about the contract Scott Howson gave him as if it were Sather’s fault.

Howson needed to overpay his one star because he was set to be an UFA in the upcoming year and his team was getting clown-pounded in the Central Division. Nash, along with Gaborik, was our best goal scorer throughout his tenure here. Injuries derailed him, but when healthy, he played very, very well.

Neither Nash or Lundqvist contracts were a problem. We only entered moderate and very short lived cap hell until the Staal and Girardi contracts. Stralman and Boyle were really the only cap casualties that were worth a damn. Hagelin and Talbot are whatever, we should have gotten more for both of them but it was the smart move to cut bait when we did.

All things considered we've rebounded very nicely from how bad things were looking after we got dusted by the Penguins in 2016.

 

[True Blue]

The most annoying thing in Nash debates is the revisionist history complaining about the contract Scott Howson gave him as if it were Sather’s fault.

Howson needed to overpay his one star because he was set to be an UFA in the upcoming year and his team was getting clown-pounded in the Central Division. Nash, along with Gaborik, was our best goal scorer throughout his tenure here. Injuries derailed him, but when healthy, he played very, very well.

What revisionist history? His contract was worth X. His cap space was worth X. His play did not dictate that it was worth X. Full stop. No one cares who signed him.

The injuries did not help, but neither did his tendency to disappear for stretches. Nor his unwillingness to use his frame and drive to the net. Let's not forget that little aspect.

Overall, he was a good regular season player, who tended to be invisible in the playoffs.

 

[haveandare]

I said basically what we thought we were getting. He scored a lot of points, scored a lot of pretty goals the first few years then faded toward the end of the deal as he got up there in years. I never really thought we were getting a playoff beast for any particular reason. He just didn't have the chance to show whether he would or wouldn't excel in the playoffs prior to coming here so it was an unknown to an extent. I still think the deal was fine value. Dubi had some good years then became a complete anchor. AA never really improved in a big way after being moved. Erixon was nothing. The pick ended up being used on Kerby Rychel who is also a nothing player.

Also, I don't know how many times people need to see or hear this before they internalize it as a fact – when you give a big money UFA deal to a player or get a player already on their big money UFA deal, especially a star player like Nash was at the time, you are very likely going to get years where they do not earn that money toward the end. This is an inevitable outcome of how contracts are structured in this league. The talk about how a 32 year old star player on their retirement deal "isn't earning their money" or "should be better because they make so much" doesn't take into account how this league works. With very few exceptions, the last few years of those types of deals have the player earning less than they make. You can hate every player who this happens to or you can just realize that this happens because of the way this league works and come to terms with this fact.

 

[McRanger]

Nash was horrific at times in the regular season and great at times in the playoffs. Breaking him down to a "regular season player who sucked when it mattered" is comically incorrect.

Nash played the exact same way in the regular season and the playoffs, assuming he was healthy. And overall he just wasn't healthy enough.

 

[SA16]

The difference between regular season Brassard and "Playoff Performer" Brassard is that Brassard shot 10% over his 4 regular seasons and 15% over his 4 playoffs. Predictably that has not continued and he's only shot 5% over his last two playoff runs between OTT/PIT. Guess he's no longer a great playoff performer.

 

[JT Kreider]

Nash was horrific at times in the regular season and great at times in the playoffs. Breaking him down to a "regular season player who sucked when it mattered" is comically incorrect.

Nash played the exact same way in the regular season and the playoffs, assuming he was healthy. And overall he just wasn't healthy enough.

Look in any locker room across the league come playoff time and you'll find a majority of players who "just aren't healthy enough".

The injury thing is such nonsense. Excuses excuses.

 

[Irishguy42]

So...no actual defense of the comment that our defense was Top 3?

Figures.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Look in any locker room across the league come playoff time and you'll find a majority of players who "just aren't healthy enough".

The injury thing is such nonsense. Excuses excuses.

you get your Wahhhhhstrom Isles jersey yet?

 

[JT Kreider]

you get your Wahhhhhstrom Isles jersey yet?

Right, because I don't blindly trust and defend every move in the history of the Rangers I get accused of being an Islanders fan

 

[McRanger]

Look in any locker room across the league come playoff time and you'll find a majority of players who "just aren't healthy enough".

The injury thing is such nonsense. Excuses excuses.

Nash has had such serious and consistent concussion issues that he is contemplating retirement. It plagued him his entire time here. If you can't see the difference between that and your run of the mill "banged up" or "worn down" then you should probably just hit the eject button and leave this conversation.

 

[JT Kreider]

Nash has had such serious and consistent concussion issues that he is contemplating retirement. It plagued him his entire time here. If you can't see the difference between that and your run of the mill "banged up" or "worn down" then you should probably just hit the eject button and leave this conversation.

C'mon mannnnn. He was healthy enough to play 79 games in 2015 and score 42 goals. But his concussion issues only affected him once the calendar turned to April???

Yeah, there was something slowing him down come April. But it wasn't a concussion.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

So...no actual defense of the comment that our defense was Top 3?

Figures.

Holy shit!

I said it was Top 3, when “Rick Nash became a defensemen”, which is so obviously snark if people weren’t foaming at the mouth and responding before giving a post 2 second read.

No shit it wasn’t top 3 ever.

 

[nyr2k2]

Super glad we got rid of the guy, only to have hundreds of posts dedicated to discussing the same things about him. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

For me, he will be remembered as a good guy, a good player, one who always played hard, but overall a disappointment. I didn't really want to acquire him, but when we did, I thought we were getting an elite scorer in his prime. It was only in his first season and the 42-goal season where I felt like we saw that guy. The playoff goal production also was a disappointment, obviously, especially in the Finals year where it maybe was the difference between the result we had and the result we coulda had.

I will look back and not hate the guy, but not particularly look at him fondly.

 

[McRanger]

C'mon mannnnn. He was healthy enough to play 79 games in 2015 and score 42 goals. But his concussion issues only affected him once the calendar turned to April???

Yeah, there was something slowing him down come April. But it wasn't a concussion.

Nash was our best forward in '15 outside of probably Brassard. And there was a pretty massive difference in both play and production compared to '13 and '14 when he was dealing with concussion issues. That should probably tell you something.

 

[McRanger]

Super glad we got rid of the guy, only to have hundreds of posts dedicated to discussing the same things about him. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

For me, he will be remembered as a good guy, a good player, one who always played hard, but overall a disappointment. I didn't really want to acquire him, but when we did, I thought we were getting an elite scorer in his prime. It was only in his first season and the 42-goal season where I felt like we saw that guy. The playoff goal production also was a disappointment, obviously, especially in the Finals year where it maybe was the difference between the result we had and the result we coulda had.

I will look back and not hate the guy, but not particularly look at him fondly.

Yeah the bold just about sums it up.