And a franchise player as josh noted two posts prior
And a franchise player as josh noted two posts prior
In Columbus, where he was.
Not in NY, as he wasn’t, and wasn’t expected to be, as I said.
Lias Andersson for #AJT2019
The talk was he'd finally have help...
Turns out he needed much more help
Expectations by whom? He absolutely was brought here to be a game changer. To be a singular offensive player the rangers didn’t have. To drive the play and score meaningful goals come spring time. He was a franchise player in Columbus you say. He was paid as such. Expectations of him did not drop when he was traded. He wasn’t expected to be a franchise player in Columbus and something less here. Yes the rangers could surround him with better players but never was he taking a back seat in importance.
Exactly. Are people still butt hurt about the loss of Dubinsky? Come onnnnnnnn. They keep those two, they don't do anything. Nash wasn't some gigantic overpaid player. Girardi, Staal, Lundqvist, Richards in his final year here were bigger burdens than Nashs contract.Originally Posted by josh
For crying out loud, Dubinsky is making 5.8 million and has done donkey dick compared to what Nash helped this team accomplish.
No doubt the Rangers win that trade. I do that deal 10 out of 10 times.
Dubinsky had 16 points last season and hardly played in the playoffs.. Columbus contemplated buying him out... I'd imagine if he doesnt get his shit together, he might wind up on waivers this year... Maybe he CAN be a Ranger again.
BTW Nash is only two years older than Dubinsky. It's not like they traded for an old man...
But it's not like they ruined the franchise in doing so. They gave up a guy that became an overpaid role player, and a decent center that isn't some kind of difference maker.
You trade depth players for a potential difference maker. Nash did ok here. Can't blame the teams failure completely on him.
No doubt, most expected more from him. Especially in the playoffs. I don't think keeping that package, gets the Rangers close to what they were. Disappointment or not.
Errr, Nash had like 28 pts last season
Season before
Nash- 38
Dubsinsky- 41
Season before that
Nash- 36
Dubinsky- 48
Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
As much as I find it intriguing that since the trade Dubinsky's production on a mediocre team was almost as good as Nash's on a perennial contender, the argument isn't Dubinsky vs. Nash. The argument is what else could they have done with the assets they gave up for Nash, plus 8 million in cap space that has been tied up in Nash for the last 6 years. Clearly he was not built to perform when it matters most. He never was. It was a failed trade no matter how you slice it. They were an ECF team the year before they got Nash. They saw the Cup Finals once, and not because of Nash, as that was the worst playoff performance of his career.
I don’t question the trade and the intentions. I don’t even have an issue saying that the rangers won the trade. My argument is the expectations of what they were trading for and what they got in Nash. The team was already at the precipice before he got here. He was the final piece to put them over the top. He was the elite player who would fill the scoresheet when the games tightened up. He was supposed to be the missing piece. That was the idea when that trade went down. End of story.
With the return Rangers got for Nash (Spooner, beleskey, 1st) there's no way Rangers lost the trade with CBJ. They got the best player, was the most successful team and got a good return for him.
Overpaid, under performer that never lived up to expectations in NY, while making $8 mil per year. Slice it anyway you want; came to MSG because he whined his way out of Columbus after getting countless millions in salary. So-called " power forward " who showed little of that, and played on the perimeter more often than not, imo. Never cared for him; injury prone and he was a failure with Boston as well.
Columbus still hasn't gone past the first round. We've made some strong playoff runs with Nash.
Nash turned into more draft picks. We also got Buch from our pick while they got a guy who barely had a cup of coffee in the league with their first rounder
We won that trade by a ton
__________________________________
The real question when examining the winner of the trade is looking back, knowing everything you know now- would you still make the trade?
In my opinion the answer is Yes, no doubt.
Nash, while not a 50 goal scorer was a threat that needed to be accounted for every shift, he played about as good a 2 way game as you could have asked for. Yeah, the last couple years injuries and concussions sucked, but looking at the whole package- we won. If I was put in time machine back to trade date, I'd pull the trigger exactly as it was originally composed.
Knowing that we would not win a Cup? Absolutely not. I would have invested the assets and cap space elsewhere.
Using your baseline, every draft pick, free agent, trade, coaching hire, GM and/or Owner action since June 1994 has been a failure. That's one hell of a high bar.
because im bored and like to post,
I have a bigger issues with the trades that followed over this one. Gaborik for Brassard, picks for Clowe, Mike Rupp.
Acquired St. Louis and Carcillo the following year, followed by Yandle.
And the team was playing well under AV. What could have been...
Lias Andersson for #AJT2019
That is quite an over-reaching conclusion based on my answer to the question you posed. Winning championships is usually the measure of success for contending teams, which the Rangers have been for the better part of the last decade. The team was an ECF finalist the year before they acquired Nash. The team was built for a run, and they had some assets to acquire a piece that could put them over the top to win a Cup. They made moves and have no Cup to show for it. Yes, I call that a failure. Apparently, this describes a success for you.
One thing to note.
Nash had a much greater impact on the culture and professionalism of the younger players.
Much more so than Anisimov or Dubinsky would have had
Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Ok. You build a team around Dubinsky. I'll build one around Nash. I don't think many people on Earth would be behind you.
We REALLY going to debate who the better player is? Really?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote