Latest Nash word... - Page 3 - Fantasy Sports Forums

tgraveline · #21 02-23-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metaldude26

Oh is that the secret? Clearly he needs to get off his usual Cocoa Pebbles diet then.

Same here, I'm a Cinnamon Toast Crunch kind of guy. That's probably why I'm not in the pros, never mind the fact that I'm not a great skater lol.

baumer · #22 02-23-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross10019

I am seemingly in the minority in thinking the Rangers should go hard after Nash, and I said as much in disagreeing with Jeff Angus' take expressed in his Rambles.

The Rangers have LOTS of young talent they can use in such a move, they are the youngest team inthe league. Not including guys on the roster now, they have Christian Thomas and Chris Kreider who will very soon be able to step right into the lineup, in the latter case, think a Max Pacioretty-like impact when he joins. And on D with McD/Sauer/DelZ already on the roster, guys like Erixon are also expendable.

As for cap hit, there are only two years left on Gabby's contract, after which $7.5M comes off the cap and they'll have Nash plus these young wingers to build around without too much of a drop from losing Gabby.

But in the end, to me this comes down to the Rangers obvious current window of opportunity. Despite having such a solid young core of DelZ/McD/STepan, the window for the NYR to win a Cup is NOW, and over the next 3 years or so, in other words when guys like Gaborik, Richards and especially Lundqvist start to decline. A guy like Nash IMMEDIATELY increases their chances at a Cup this year and for the next few years, and I think he will be monstrous in that regard despite his previous struggles with CBJ. The one knock is lockerroom chemistry, namely does Sather want to mess with what is obviouslyl a tight lockerroom - I think the answer to that is YES, if it brings them that much closer to winning a Cup this year, and the players will buy into that and they have enough leaders in that room (Cally, Richards, Lundy) to make sure it results in minimal impact on the players and their performance. In the end, the players will know that getting that closer to the Cup takes precedence over friendships and allegiances, and they are professionals who must deal with the fact that this is a business, after all. So as much as they won't like a Dubinsky (obvious candidate) being traded, they'll live with it and move on.

In Sather's shoes, I go hard at Nash for these reasons. A guy like Jones will help secondary scoring, a guy like Nash brings size and elite skill that is rare in this league. You bring Nash in you immediately give Lundqvist that much more immediate goal support, which will be huge in their quest for the Cup, plus Nash' size will come in handy in the playoffs. You could keep Gabby/Anisimov/Stepan and put Nash with Richards/Callahan on line 2, what a great top 6. Do you think Nash won't produce with Richards and Callahan on his line? Guess again. Sure you might argue that Nash and Richards are both shooters, which is one of the problems many of us foresaw with Howson's ill-advised move to bring in Carter to center Nash, but Richards is in another universe from Carter in terms of playmaking skill, so I don't think you can compare form that perspective.

So count me on the side of the Rangers pushing for Nash now.

Great post, worth rep. Except you forget one tiny thing.

RICK NASH has more than 70 points once in his career and that was four seasons ago. His production has gone down ever since then. The three years after his 79 points he had 67, 66 and is on pace for about 63 this year. And this is a guy you would rather have than Gaborik? Why? Because he's big?

Nash, like OV, is lazy. He has nothing to play for. He's about as complacent and you can get. He's set for the next 100 years on his contract. I don't get they hype for Nash. I just don't.

Czechline · #23 02-23-2012, 02:18 PM

The Rangers have NO NEED to sell the farm to get Nash. They are winning and are poised to be competitive at the least. Sure, Nash would be a huge addition but no cup gaurentee. Also, they could potentially hurt chemistry with any move, cap strap themselves for the future, etc., etc., etc. They don't HAVE to make a move, why would they give up TOO much just to get him. You only make the deal if it's right for you.

CLB has sucked/sucks now/will continue to suck; they are the ones that need to shake things up.

You're not going to piss NYR fans off either way by getting a really good deal or saying you love the team the way it is sticking with our home-grown talent.

Plus, CLB should only be talking with teams that have a stud goalie to give up as that's their biggest need.

ross10019 · #24 02-23-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baumer

Great post, worth rep. Except you forget one tiny thing.

RICK NASH has more than 70 points once in his career and that was four seasons ago. His production has gone down ever since then. The three years after his 79 points he had 67, 66 and is on pace for about 63 this year. And this is a guy you would rather have than Gaborik? Why? Because he's big?

Nash, like OV, is lazy. He has nothing to play for. He's about as complacent and you can get. He's set for the next 100 years on his contract. I don't get they hype for Nash. I just don't.

I think you, like Jeff in the Ramble, are really stretching it to say he's a "lazy" player. I have rarely heard that, as much as his point production has been underwhelming, even from Portzline and the other CBJ beat writers. I think it's an unfair knock, frankly. Can you or Jeff show me examples of where he's been knocked for being lazy? I think it's a blanket assumption based largely on the complete catastrophe his team has become.

As for his 100-year contract, if anything I think it showed the commitment he was making to that franchise when he signed there, knowing that he could get the same (or an even better) deal if he went UFA and with a contending team, maybe even original six and/or big market.

I don't think there are very many GMs in the league who will balk at getting Nash because of his underwhelming point totals. Truth is he's never been on a team where he could put up the big points, has never had the support of big time players. Now you can say neither has Gaborik and he's produced anyway, and that's a very fair point, but here's the rub:

1. You can have BOTH Nash and Gaborik for the next 2 years, and that gives you so much more ammunition for the Cup run in both those years.

2. Gaborik will be what, 31 or 32 at the end of those 2 years. With his injury history. don't you think he'll be a risky long term signing at that point?

Nash, notwithstanding the contract, has EVERYTHING to play for - this is a guy who has played ONE playoff series in his entire NHL career! Did he have something to play for in the Olympics in 2010? Yes, but it wasn't money, and play he did, he was a beast. Did he have something to play for in the World Championships in 2008? Same answer. His line with Getzlaf and Heatley was beastly, and he was key to its success.

Rick Nash is that ultra-rare combo of size, speed and sublime skill, with an elite shot. Guys like this don't become available very often if at all. Any GM would kill to have this guy in their lineup. Do I think the cap hit and term limits the field of GMs who can take him on and bid for him? Yes, of course. So does the fact that very few teams have the assets to be able to trade for him without hurting their lineup now and/or putting a dent in their future.

The Rangers are one of maybe 2 or 3 teams that can make this happen. They can give up elite prospects like Kreider and a current, productive young NHLer like Dubinsky, plus a high draft pick, and their cupboard will be far from bare over the next 5 years or so PLUS it will not hurt them at all for this year's run, in fact it will be a massive upgarde (anyone who tells me Nash isn't a giant upgrade over Dubinsky, even with salary/cap, is nutso in my view).

If you were to tell Tortorella, "Hey Torts, we're going to give you Rick Nash for the next few years and it's going to cost us Dubinsky, Kreider, 1st", you know what he'd say? He'd say "I hate to lose a guy like Dubinsky and that Kreider kid is special, but this is Rick f..ng Nash we're talking about, bring him on and we'll make sure the team chemistry isn't impacted."

ross10019 · #25 02-23-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czechline

The Rangers have NO NEED to sell the farm to get Nash. They are winning and are poised to be competitive at the least. Sure, Nash would be a huge addition but no cup gaurentee. Also, they could potentially hurt chemistry with any move, cap strap themselves for the future, etc., etc., etc. They don't HAVE to make a move, why would they give up TOO much just to get him. You only make the deal if it's right for you.

CLB has sucked/sucks now/will continue to suck; they are the ones that need to shake things up.

You're not going to piss NYR fans off either way by getting a really good deal or saying you love the team the way it is sticking with our home-grown talent.

Plus, CLB should only be talking with teams that have a stud goalie to give up as that's their biggest need.

See my latest post. I would hardly qualify Dubinsky/prospect/1st as selling the farm, even if they throw in a dman. For some other teams maybe, but not for the Rangers with the depth they have in their lineup and among their prospects. Nash immediately makes the Rangers even more of a force by bringing in huge scoring ability including on the PP, one of the lone sore spots so far this year. He's worth it.

baumer · #26 02-23-2012, 02:40 PM

Nash signed his 100 year contract in Columbus because it's away from the spotlight. He had the chance to sign in any hockey hotbed. He could have went to Toronto, NY, Philly, anywhere. And he chose to stay in Columbus. And why? The way it looks to me is that he would rather get 65 points a year and make zillions of dollars in a hockey dead zone like Columbus than go to a place like said above cities where you have 6 reporters covering your practise and if you have one bad shift, you have those same reporters hounding you and nit picking at every single mistake you made.

In Columbus, he makes 8 mill a year, can go out anonymously, practise as hard or as softly as he feels like doing, play hard one night and take the rest of the week off and no one will say boo to him about it.

In my eyes, Nash has proven that he doesn't want the pressure of playing in a real hockey market. He'd get torn apart. He's happy playing in anonymity in Columbus. And I don't blame him for it. What a life he leads. Millions of dollars, no one bugs you at the clubs or restaurants, you can go to the movies without people hounding you for autographs and it's just an over all great thing to have....money without the fame.

That's why i don't think he's a good fit in a place like NY or Toronto. My guess is he'll end up in LA or SJ.....they don't care about hockey there the way we do here.

ross10019 · #27 02-23-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baumer

Nash signed his 100 year contract in Columbus because it's away from the spotlight. He had the chance to sign in any hockey hotbed. He could have went to Toronto, NY, Philly, anywhere. And he chose to stay in Columbus. And why? The way it looks to me is that he would rather get 65 points a year and make zillions of dollars in a hockey dead zone like Columbus than go to a place like said above cities where you have 6 reporters covering your practise and if you have one bad shift, you have those same reporters hounding you and nit picking at every single mistake you made.

In Columbus, he makes 8 mill a year, can go out anonymously, practise as hard or as softly as he feels like doing, play hard one night and take the rest of the week off and no one will say boo to him about it.

In my eyes, Nash has proven that he doesn't want the pressure of playing in a real hockey market. He'd get torn apart. He's happy playing in anonymity in Columbus. And I don't blame him for it. What a life he leads. Millions of dollars, no one bugs you at the clubs or restaurants, you can go to the movies without people hounding you for autographs and it's just an over all great thing to have....money without the fame.

That's why i don't think he's a good fit in a place like NY or Toronto. My guess is he'll end up in LA or SJ.....they don't care about hockey there the way we do here.

You can easily spin it the other way, which is how I see it. Nash could have taken the same (maybe more) money to go to a hotter hockey market, but he stayed in Columbus due to loyalty to the team and wanting to build a winning hockey club in a city he's grown to love.

Where is the evidence that it's your take, and not the above take?

Or is this a big market-centric thing where if a player doesn't want to come to your city, it's got to be because he "doesn't want the pressure, wants to play in anonymity, etc." rather than any other reason?

duducks · #28 02-23-2012, 03:01 PM

With Brad Richards playing (at least scoring) below expectations, bringing in Nash not only adds Nash's production to the lineup, but could play a big part in making Brad Richards the man who they thought they signed.

Not a Rangers fan by any means, but I think Nash would be a great fit. Worry about the cup now, worry about the cap later.

ross10019 · #29 02-23-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duducks

Not a Rangers fan by any means, but I think Nash would be a great fit. Worry about the cup now, worry about the cap later.

Exactly. Especially since adding Nash's 7.5M and subtracting $4m+ (Dubinsky) is not exactly wrecking your cap situation, especially with other guys coming off the cap in future years.

baumer · #30 02-23-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ross10019

You can easily spin it the other way, which is how I see it. Nash could have taken the same (maybe more) money to go to a hotter hockey market, but he stayed in Columbus due to loyalty to the team and wanting to build a winning hockey club in a city he's grown to love.

Where is the evidence that it's your take, and not the above take?

Or is this a big market-centric thing where if a player doesn't want to come to your city, it's got to be because he "doesn't want the pressure, wants to play in anonymity, etc." rather than any other reason?

What do you mean where's my evidence? Do you think I know Rick on a personal level? Where's your evidence otherwise? I can point at the fact that for all of his so called skills and potential, he has never really hit superstar status. Hell, he's not even star status. 65 points a year puts you at less than guys like Derek Roy.

I don't have this evidence because I'm not on the inside. But Nash has publically been ridiculed before for being lazy so I'll go with that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Fantasy Ranking

Login Form