nash is a headcase. even if he is in a secondary role, he will disappear when you need him most. he's anti-clutch. that's never going to change. that's why a trade has to be garbage out for their garbage in.
nash is a headcase. even if he is in a secondary role, he will disappear when you need him most. he's anti-clutch. that's never going to change. that's why a trade has to be garbage out for their garbage in.
I disagree... And so does this article...
http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2016/...potential-move
Nash has been a consistent force for the Rangers, despite the fan outrage that would confuse an outsider to thinking he's the worst player in New York Rangers history. In the 248 games he's played as a Ranger (regular season) he's scored 104 goals (good for 8th in the league in total goals over that span). At a goals-per-game basis, his 0.419% goals per game is good for 5th in the league over his time on Broadway. Those aren't shabby numbers.
People will yell about how he's not a playoff producer. About how he wasn't good enough. About how he was only a 40-goal scorer once (this ignores his 20-goal season in the lockout shortened year). About how he sucks.
Could Nash have better playoff numbers? Yeah, there's really no debating that. Does the lack of goals mean Nash sucked in the playoffs? No. The past two years Nash has had very good production (granted this year's was only five games) and the work he does defensively helped keep the Rangers afloat against speedier teams.
coastal (07-07-2016)
Mike Harrington says it's ************.
Last year was an injury filled season... Yet his output projected to 20.5 goals over 82 games. Have a look at what he did in 2015 when he didn't play injured... 43.6 goals over 82 games. Combine the last 2 seasons and he's still scoring .41 goals per game... That's 33.6 goals over an 82 game season.
Here's the thing about Nash no one seems to appreciate: He's a true three-zone star. New York is a tough room to play, no one is denying that, but the hate Nash gets on a daily basis from this fanbase is insane.
Nash is one of those rare elite goal scorers who can impact the game even when he's not scoring. He's a monster in his own zone and in the neutral zone.As an example: with Nash out Mats Zuccarello and Derick Brassard floundered in the possession game and saw a decrease in their own production. Why? Because Nash was no longer pulling the opposing team's defense away from them and they didn't have the puck as much because Nash helped carry their possession.
A lot of people don't want to admit to it, but Nash's impact on the game goes far beyond his goals and assists. Especially when his play adds to the team's overall offense
Here's my question. If nash is as good as advertised, why trade him in the first place?
Like I said, unless the package going to new York is minimal, I don't have much interest in a 32 year old player who is in decline. I feel the sabres shoukd restock their system so they can be like tampa. Constantly recycling players. They play at an elite level and keep their prospect cupboard well stocked.
If the sabres were to go after nash, it would cost them alot. With the sabres not ready to contend for a cup (realistically. They are a potential playoff team) I don't feel the move and subsequent trade off is worth it.
I'd prefer the sabres to add some depth via free agency and maybe explore a trade for a d-man, but that's really it. Okposo filled so many needs.
If the price was right, then sure. But I would imagine it being steep.
http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/2016/0....T05OmpDd.dpbs
Last edited by JATMtheJATM; 07-07-2016 at 12:14 PM.
1) Rangers motivation is purely cap... I've read that they need to address that.
2) Nash, being on the decline, is based 100% on 1 injury plagued season... May or may not be true... NHL.com has him ranked as #68 for forwards.
3) Okposo is a great addition. But may be a wash if we lose/dump Kane. We're still looking to fill top 6... ROR, Eichle, Reinhart, & Okposo for sure... Kane, Ennis, Vesey depending on their independent circumstances. Leaves no doubt we need at least 1 more IMO. And at the least, Nash is a 20 goal scorer (my money's on 30+) with a 1 year commitment (risk).
4) Price, as reported, is our 3rd center (Girgensons), or our trouble top 6 forward (Kane), and/or our mush head, undersized top 6 forward (Ennis). Low risk, high reward IMO.
I'd rather keep ennis. When healthy, he can produce, play all forward positions, and works his ass off. Injury troubles, yeah. But nash has em too.
Our top 6 can survive as it is. And vesey could sign too.
the real move would be to just tender one of the ranger RFA and see if we get that younger guy. like krieder. that'd force the rangers to either sign him or get crunched harder under the cap and maybe move nash for absolutely nothing because they have no other choice.
I wouldn't part with girgs
currently...
Top 5 C... ROR, Jackle, Reinhart, Girgensonns, Ennis... Room to lose 1 if Reinhart returns to his natural position.
Top 3 LW... Kane, Foligno, Larson... Need 1 desperately... Especially if Kane is run outta town. May force Reinhart to abandon center again... Can you say Rick Nash?
Top 3 RW... Okposo, Gionta, Fasching... Pretty desperate need here as well... Gonna need help here as well.
Best move is to trade Ennis (and player/prospect/draft pick) for Nash... And we still need a RW or 2 to fill out an effective 3rd & 4th lines.
You guys can have Stafford back. That will help you at RW.
rbochan (07-08-2016)
mightysimi (07-09-2016),WagonCircler (07-08-2016)
What about hudler? He's got good possession numbers, can score and play all 3 forward positions.... and he would come cheap