Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 81

Thread: The Case for Keeping Rick Nash

  1. #1
    Junior Member ClearedForContact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    181
    Rep Power
    1

    The Case for Keeping Rick Nash

    After five seasons, we know what Rick Nash gives us. Offensively speaking, he’ll probably be a 40-point scorer this coming season. He will likely remain the strongest player on the Rangers’ penalty kill and will be a feature on one of the two power play units. Nash as a player is still certainly an asset to any team that he signs with. But at this stage in his career, he will more likely be looking for the best chance at winning a Cup. Here in New York, where he has played in three Conference Finals and one Stanley Cup has afforded him that chance. A chance that is still ever-present with a newly solidified defense and talented young offensive core. That’s not to say that there isn’t opportunity elsewhere. As The Athletic’s Aaron Portzline alludes to, Nash could set his sights back towards Columbus. However, Nash has been more a part of a moderately successful Rangers team than he was in Columbus.

    But what will Nash’s extended tenure with the Blueshirts look like? Let’s examine the career of the newly-retired Shane Doan. At age 33, Doan was still an impactful player, coming off of years of solid production. From 33-35, he averaged 2.0, 2.6, and 1.9 points per 60 minutes played (P/60) respectively. At 32, Nash finished last season with 2.1 P/60. For Doan, it wasn’t until age 38 where his production dipped considerably. Doan was often the top producer on an Arizona team that at times lacked offensive talent. In 2017, Nash was ranked sixth out of all Rangers forwards in scoring. During the 2009-10 season, Doan was the Coyotes leading scorer. Doan’s contract extension—signed at the age of 30—at a $4.55 Annual Average Value (AAV) was a true value for Arizona. And he was “the guy” during the majority of his career. Other, more talented players, came and went on that team, but Doan remained, every time rejecting the lure of free agency.

    Fortunately for Nash, he doesn’t need to be “the guy”. And his next contract doesn’t need to be contingent on this. Nash can still be an impactful player on this team in the ways that he has been while helping the new core grow. A two-year contract at the end of this season will take Nash to 35 where he will likely be signing his last NHL contract. Perhaps with Columbus, as Portzline suggests will happen eventually. To put a number on it, a two-year deal with a $4.2M AAV for a player with the aforementioned skill set and production is certainly fair. This would be comparable to Doan’s five-year extension with Arizona at $4.55 AAV. And if the cap conditions are there, the Rangers should consider it.

    Click here to view the article.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    22
    I hate his contract, and I hate that yet again a team was built around a player who did not live up to his offensive expectations. But I can’t hold that against him. You can’t throw money at something and just expect it to work. The added sting to Rick Nash is that the Rangers acquired his contract in full. No retention. No acknowledgment by Columbus or the Blueshirts at the time that it was an inflated deal.
    I don't agree at all with this statement. In the 8 years prior to the trade Nash averaged over 34 goals a year, with 2 40 goal seasons. In what world is that not worth $7.8 million per? Why would Columbus even entertain retaining salary? Then Nash in his first season had 21 goals and 42 points in 44 games during the shortened season. Two years later he scored 42 goals, so I don't feel this applies either...

    It became clear fairly quickly that this was a markedly bad contract.
    As far as keeping him, if I'm the GM I'm trying to resign him, 3 years no more than $4m. If we can't reach a deal by the deadline I'm trading him.

  3. #3
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Yea, I'm not really sure I agree that the Nash contract was a bad one either.

    I think two years would be good for Nash, but I think you can probably squeeze a little bit extra out of him to drop the AAV. Maybe something like 4 x $12m. He won't be Teemu Selanne but he can be effective until he's 36 or so and, if he's reduced to more of a checking role, $3m for a third-line player isn't unworkable thing.

  4. #4
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    I don't agree at all with this statement. In the 8 years prior to the trade Nash averaged over 34 goals a year, with 2 40 goal seasons. In what world is that not worth $7.8 million per? Why would Columbus even entertain retaining salary? Then Nash in his first season had 21 goals and 42 points in 44 games during the shortened season. Two years later he scored 42 goals, so I don't feel this applies either...



    As far as keeping him, if I'm the GM I'm trying to resign him, 3 years no more than $4m. If we can't reach a deal by the deadline I'm trading him.
    If you compare the two years prior for both Nash and Scott Gomez they have similar types of contracts at similar times, you find:

    Nash - 33g, 34a, 67p and 30g, 29a, 59p.
    Gomez - 16g, 54a, 70p and 16g, 42a, 58p

    So pretty comparable production just prior to each of their trades. Yet Gomez deal was seen as problematic right away, even before knowing what McDonagh would become. Why not with Nash? Now Nash had 3 more seasons similar to those prior two, while Gomez, god love him, only had one more. But these are top dollar contracts for players who are just a step below that top level.

  5. #5
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    If you compare the two years prior for both Nash and Scott Gomez they have similar types of contracts at similar times, you find:

    Nash - 33g, 34a, 67p and 30g, 29a, 59p.
    Gomez - 16g, 54a, 70p and 16g, 42a, 58p

    So pretty comparable production just prior to each of their trades. Yet Gomez deal was seen as problematic right away, even before knowing what McDonagh would become. Why not with Nash? Now Nash had 3 more seasons similar to those prior two, while Gomez, god love him, only had one more. But these are top dollar contracts for players who are just a step below that top level.
    Man, idk if that's a fair comparison. After signing the contract, Nash had seasons with 32, 33, 21 (lockout 42 games), 26 (brain scrambled 65 games) and 42. I think injuries have taken a toll the last couple of seasons, but for 5 seasons in a row, he was well-worth that contract. Essentially, he had 5 straight seasons of 30+ goals after signing. Even last year, he was a 25-goal guy, barring injuries. 15-16 was a bit of a down year, but otherwise, he's been pretty close to his price point.

    Gomez was also 28 when he signed, while Nash was just 26. That makes a big difference when we're talking about value after age 30

  6. #6
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Man, idk if that's a fair comparison. After signing the contract, Nash had seasons with 32, 33, 21 (lockout 42 games), 26 (brain scrambled 65 games) and 42. I think injuries have taken a toll the last couple of seasons, but for 5 seasons in a row, he was well-worth that contract. Essentially, he had 5 straight seasons of 30+ goals after signing. Even last year, he was a 25-goal guy, barring injuries. 15-16 was a bit of a down year, but otherwise, he's been pretty close to his price point.

    Gomez was also 28 when he signed, while Nash was just 26. That makes a big difference when we're talking about value after age 30
    Age is only relevant in hindsight. These are the group of players who are proving that the decline in the more modern NHL happened much sooner than it used to.

    I am also not trying to knock Nash down here. He's a good star player. But that contract was top tier and he wasn't. Look, Crosby signed for $800K more at a similar age 3 years later. Datsyuk signed for $1.2M less just three years prior.

    Marian Gaborik signed for $7.5M for 5 years in 2009 with the Rangers. He had injury concerns, but put up 23 points in 17 games, 83 in 77, 57 in 48 and 66 in 65 in preceding years.

    Dany Heatly signed $7.5M for 6 years in 2008 coming off 103 and 105 point seasons.

    Nash just wasn't that productive in comparison. He signed the deal having produced less than those above and then in the two years after signing had seen his production drop further.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    If you compare the two years prior for both Nash and Scott Gomez they have similar types of contracts at similar times, you find:

    Nash - 33g, 34a, 67p and 30g, 29a, 59p.
    Gomez - 16g, 54a, 70p and 16g, 42a, 58p

    So pretty comparable production just prior to each of their trades. Yet Gomez deal was seen as problematic right away, even before knowing what McDonagh would become. Why not with Nash? Now Nash had 3 more seasons similar to those prior two, while Gomez, god love him, only had one more. But these are top dollar contracts for players who are just a step below that top level.
    I'm not sure what you mean with 2 years prior, prior to what?

    Gomez and Nash differ in a key way. In Nash we traded for a perennial 35 goal scorer, which is arguably more valuable than a high assist 60-70 point guy. In Gomez we had another "Big free agent signing". It's not really far to the players, but they're viewed differently. For all the heat Gomez took here, his production with the Rangers was exactly what it was with the Devils, .80 ppg. Someone's crystal ball was working though, because after one similar season in MTL Gomez completely fell apart.

  8. #8
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean with 2 years prior, prior to what?

    Gomez and Nash differ in a key way. In Nash we traded for a perennial 35 goal scorer, which is arguably more valuable than a high assist 60-70 point guy. In Gomez we had another "Big free agent signing". It's not really far to the players, but they're viewed differently. For all the heat Gomez took here, his production with the Rangers was exactly what it was with the Devils, .80 ppg. Someone's crystal ball was working though, because after one similar season in MTL Gomez completely fell apart.
    Two years prior to each being traded. The point wasn't what we valued, it was two players with similar production and similar salary with similar years left on their deals. I also posted after that with a number of other contracts to consider.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,007
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Age is only relevant in hindsight. These are the group of players who are proving that the decline in the more modern NHL happened much sooner than it used to.

    I am also not trying to knock Nash down here. He's a good star player. But that contract was top tier and he wasn't. Look, Crosby signed for $800K more at a similar age 3 years later. Datsyuk signed for $1.2M less just three years prior.

    Marian Gaborik signed for $7.5M for 5 years in 2009 with the Rangers. He had injury concerns, but put up 23 points in 17 games, 83 in 77, 57 in 48 and 66 in 65 in preceding years.

    Dany Heatly signed $7.5M for 6 years in 2008 coming off 103 and 105 point seasons.

    Nash just wasn't that productive in comparison. He signed the deal having produced less than those above and then in the two years after signing had seen his production drop further.
    But that's the point I made in my previous post...

    From 2003-2004 to 2008-2009 (the years leading up to Nash signing), Nash was a top 10-5 goal scorer in the League, with 0 help from his teammates. He was Columbus' whole franchise and they paid him accordingly. From 2003 up until the trade, Nash had the 5th most goals in the league. It's hard to say he wasn't earning his contract. 2003-2015, 3rd most goals in the league.

    If you look at Gomez he was 24th in the league in points from 1999-2007, and we signed him for over $7m.

  10. #10
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    At this point, I'd take used jock strap from any of the other professional team willing to take Nash & his contact. He's a streak scorer who wasn't worth trading for.


    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division LONG TIME FAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NEVER NEVER LAND
    Posts
    828
    Rep Power
    6
    Nick Ra$h is probably one of the most over paid, over rated so-called elite " power " forwards ever. $8 million per for a guy that is 6'-3", 220 lbs. and is a soft as slush. It's time to say bye, bye Ricky Ca$h..

  12. #12
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by LONG TIME FAN View Post
    Nick Ra$h is probably one of the most over paid, over rated so-called elite " power " forwards ever. $8 million per for a guy that is 6'-3", 220 lbs. and is a soft as slush. It's time to say bye, bye Ricky Ca$h..
    Rick Nash is the best forward, by a mile, that the Rangers have had since Jagr, and carried the entire team in 13-14 until he got hurt and through 14-15. People throw the word "soft" around all the time. But he's not and never has been.

  13. #13
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Rick Nash is the best forward, by a mile, that the Rangers have had since Jagr, and carried the entire team in 13-14 until he got hurt and through 14-15. People throw the word "soft" around all the time. But he's not and never has been.
    Marian Gaborik would like to have a word on that.

  14. #14
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Marian Gaborik would like to have a word on that.
    I don't think it's even close.

    You can make the argument, sure, but I don't.

  15. #15
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    I don't think it's even close.

    You can make the argument, sure, but I don't.
    Gaborik 255gp, 114g (.45 G/GP), 115a (.45 A/GP), 229p (.90 P/GP)

    Nash 315gp, 127g (.40 G/GP), 97a (.31 A/GP), 224p (.71 P/GP)

    Gaborik > Nash as far as point production. You can also easily make the argument that Gaborik had significantly less offensive help than Nash on top of that. Now, Nash wins the defensive side hands down. This makes them much closer than "by a mile" any way you want to look at it.

  16. #16
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Gaborik 255gp, 114g (.45 G/GP), 115a (.45 A/GP), 229p (.90 P/GP)

    Nash 315gp, 127g (.40 G/GP), 97a (.31 A/GP), 224p (.71 P/GP)

    Gaborik > Nash as far as point production. You can also easily make the argument that Gaborik had significantly less offensive help than Nash on top of that. Now, Nash wins the defensive side hands down. This makes them much closer than "by a mile" any way you want to look at it.
    Point production is the only argument you can make, and I wouldn't agree that Gabby had less help. In Gabby's third year, Richards had 25G and Cally had 29G. The year before, Dubi, Cally, and Step were all 20-goal scorers. In Nash's two best seasons, he's played with 1 other 20-goal guy each time. The year he had 42, the only other 20-goal scorer was Kreider who had 21, and the year he got concussed, he missed 17 games and led the team with 26 goals. Richards was second with 20.

    Gabby is one of the best pure goal scorers of this generation and I don't think it's even close how much better Nash's tenure as a Ranger has been.

  17. #17
    Beer Leaguer Bantam Division
    SaveByRichter35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,017
    Rep Power
    27
    I'm torn. Part of me wants to see him resigned at a low, manageable contract so he can *hopefully* play with JT when we sign him next year haha. Part of me wants to send him packing and see what we get in return.

  18. #18
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,436
    Rep Power
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Point production is the only argument you can make, and I wouldn't agree that Gabby had less help. In Gabby's third year, Richards had 25G and Cally had 29G. The year before, Dubi, Cally, and Step were all 20-goal scorers. In Nash's two best seasons, he's played with 1 other 20-goal guy each time. The year he had 42, the only other 20-goal scorer was Kreider who had 21, and the year he got concussed, he missed 17 games and led the team with 26 goals. Richards was second with 20.

    Gabby is one of the best pure goal scorers of this generation and I don't think it's even close how much better Nash's tenure as a Ranger has been.
    From 2012/13 to 1016/17, the Rangers averaged 2.86 G/GP (Nash)

    From 2009/10 to 2012/13, the Rangers averaged 2.69 G/GP (Gaborik)

    So they were more offensivily productive during the Nash years as compared to the Gaborik years.

  19. #19
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,448
    Rep Power
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    From 2012/13 to 1016/17, the Rangers averaged 2.86 G/GP (Nash)

    From 2009/10 to 2012/13, the Rangers averaged 2.69 G/GP (Gaborik)

    So they were more offensivily productive during the Nash years as compared to the Gaborik years.
    That's the difference of 14 goals a season, which, basically, comes down to a bounce or two ever half a dozen games and isn't indicative of anything, especially with different coaches and systems. Plus, Nash's number is inflated by the last couple of seasons, which are outside the two years that I was referring to. If you average the three years starting with the lockout year, Nash's teams only averaged 2.75. In practice, that's no different than 2.69.

    If you want to nitpick, Gabby had a OZS of 59.9, 63, 63.7, and 57.%. Nash has never been over 59 and has been under 55% in three of his five years. And, without looking, Gabby was never burdened with PK time so he played exclusively at 5v5 or on the PP. He should have better offensive stats with all that, regardless of who his teammates are.
    Last edited by Future; 08-31-2017 at 01:13 PM.

  20. #20
    Junior Member Mite Division Slats6NYR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    19
    Rep Power
    1
    In the 5 seasons he's been here, Nash has only 1 great year, 2014-2015, where he played 79 games, and scored 42 goals.
    In his other seasons, he's never scored more then 26 goals in any season, and never played more then 67 games...in other words, he's never played a full season for us.
    The Ranger didn't make the trade for Nash nor pay his 7.8 million a year for this...and not for his defense. He's not worth the extension, and forget trading him, unless it's at the deadline, he's playing well & the Rangers are out of the playoff race.
    He's a 33 year old streak scorer & not worth another 3 years at any price. The team is better off looking to replace him through the 2018 free agency or getting a lucky trade.

    Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •