Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Thread: Who Won the Trade?

  1. #41
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    76,026
    Rep Power
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    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...
    That's why I think the trade was a wash.

    If people remember, we traded away all our depth and grit to get Gaby with Nash...then had to trade Gaby among other assets for depth.

    Overall, this trade looks like:

    To CBJ:
    Gaborik
    Dubinsky
    AA
    Erixon
    2 firsts
    Less team success

    To NYR
    Nash
    Brassard
    Moore
    Dorsett
    More team success

    Eh...

  2. #42
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136
    Sounds like a wash to me


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  3. #43
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    26,067
    Rep Power
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    That's why I think the trade was a wash.

    If people remember, we traded away all our depth and grit to get Gaby with Nash...then had to trade Gaby among other assets for depth.

    Overall, this trade looks like:

    To CBJ:
    Gaborik
    Dubinsky
    AA
    Erixon
    2 firsts
    Less team success

    To NYR
    Nash
    Brassard
    Moore
    Dorsett
    More team success

    Eh...
    I don’t think we can lump the trades all together, that’s not what I meant.

    IMO, we clearly lost the Gaborik trade (sure, do the math to present day, blah blah) but we traded him at a huge discount because he wanted out. Wish we got to see him under AV.
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  4. #44
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,020
    Rep Power
    26
    Not sure the rangers had to trade Gaborik because he wanted out. My memory is they traded him because like Pete said they lost their depth. Maybe both is true to a degree but I doubt management makes that trade just because gabby asked for it

  5. #45
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    76,026
    Rep Power
    502
    Gaby didn't ask for out. Torts was done with him.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,227
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    You brought up points not me.
    And it wasnít Dubinsky for Nash


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    I also brought up how well the Rangers performed since that trade. If you can honestly say that you think the Rangers would have done better had they kept that package, I don't know what to say... I can't have a conversation with you if you continually look past the teams results. Which 95% of NHL fans can only wish for. The Rangers were a perennial playoff team that went much deeper than most teams, more often. I fucking HATE AV, but to complain about the Rangers last decade of being actual contenders with 2 maybe even a case for 3 different head coaches and multiple formulas as teams is being spoiled.

    Nash was brought here and the team went to the cup finals and ANOTHER conference final... What is the complaint?

  7. #47
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136

    Who Won the Trade?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    I also brought up how well the Rangers performed since that trade. If you can honestly say that you think the Rangers would have done better had they kept that package, I don't know what to say... I can't have a conversation with you if you continually look past the teams results. Which 95% of NHL fans can only wish for. The Rangers were a perennial playoff team that went much deeper than most teams, more often. I fucking HATE AV, but to complain about the Rangers last decade of being actual contenders with 2 maybe even a case for 3 different head coaches and multiple formulas as teams is being spoiled.

    Nash was brought here and the team went to the cup finals and ANOTHER conference final... What is the complaint?
    That this team sold its future for the Stanley cup (rightfully so).
    And that Nash more often than not disappeared in the playoffs.

    We didnít get to the finals because of Nash, we got their in spite of him. He was 10th on the team in goals? 10th in points ?


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Last edited by Puck Head; 08-21-2018 at 08:00 PM.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,227
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    That this team sold its future for the Stanley cup (rightfully so).
    And that Nash more often than not disappeared in the playoffs.

    We didn’t get to the finals because of Nash, we got their in spite of him. He was 10th on the team in goals? 10th in points ?


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    What future??? Dubinsky is 2 years younger. Anisimov isn't very special... What future was traded?

    Nash was a part of the team. He definitely drew defenders and played a solid two way game. I'm not going to say I didn't expect more from Nash. I totally did and said so. In saying that, they still win the trade. Nash is the better player.

    If all three were sent in separate trades last season, or even the season before that. Are you going to tell me Nash doesn't bring back a bigger haul than any of these guys? Seriously?

  9. #49
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    What future??? Dubinsky is 2 years younger. Anisimov isn't very special... What future was traded?

    Nash was a part of the team. He definitely drew defenders and played a solid two way game. I'm not going to say I didn't expect more from Nash. I totally did and said so. In saying that, they still win the trade. Nash is the better player.

    If all three were sent in separate trades last season, or even the season before that. Are you going to tell me Nash doesn't bring back a bigger haul than any of these guys? Seriously?
    We made multiple trades for a few years, sacrificing the future, and like i said rightfully so.
    And in regards to Nash trade.
    Dunsinsky 2 years younger
    Anisimov 4 years younger
    1st round pick
    And one of our top prospects

    You keep saying Nash was a better player...i have no idea what you are talking about. There were multiple pieces moving the other way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  10. #50
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,227
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    We made multiple trades for a few years, sacrificing the future, and like i said rightfully so.
    And in regards to Nash trade.
    Dunsinsky 2 years younger
    Anisimov 4 years younger
    1st round pick
    And one of our top prospects

    You keep saying Nash was a better player...i have no idea what you are talking about. There were multiple pieces moving the other way.


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    So we made multiple moves and that gets blamed on Nash?

    Rick Nash is a MUCH better player than Dubinsky and Anisimov.

    What don't you understand? One is a legit top line forward. The other two are not. If you don't trade a third line center and a young center that is unproven, along with a 1st for a top line forward in his prime already signed long term in a non capped league (at the time...)........

    What top line winger has been dealt for less in recent years?

    Rick Nash as of last year was a more valuable player than the other two. And that's years into the "future" you speak of. If that's the case, isn't that still a win? I mean, can we add in what Nash brought to the team in trade? Is it still not better?

  11. #51
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    So we made multiple moves and that gets blamed on Nash?

    Rick Nash is a MUCH better player than Dubinsky and Anisimov.

    What don't you understand? One is a legit top line forward. The other two are not. If you don't trade a third line center and a young center that is unproven, along with a 1st for a top line forward in his prime already signed long term in a non capped league (at the time...)........

    What top line winger has been dealt for less in recent years?

    Rick Nash as of last year was a more valuable player than the other two. And that's years into the "future" you speak of. If that's the case, isn't that still a win? I mean, can we add in what Nash brought to the team in trade? Is it still not better?
    What exactly am I blaming on Nash?
    We were built to win then, and made the moves to do so. For various reasons we didnít win, one being Nashís poor playoff performances. Especially the year we went to the finals.

    As you said, he was a proven first line player...yet he only scored 3 goals that playoffs ?

    And the signed long term in a Mom capped league? I have no idea what that means. He had a massive contract and a salary cap was activated 6-7 years prior to us getting him?


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  12. #52
    Senior Member Junior Division
    The Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,227
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    What exactly am I blaming on Nash?
    We were built to win then, and made the moves to do so. For various reasons we didn’t win, one being Nash’s poor playoff performances. Especially the year we went to the finals.

    As you said, he was a proven first line player...yet he only scored 3 goals that playoffs ?

    And the signed long term in a Mom capped league? I have no idea what that means. He had a massive contract and a salary cap was activated 6-7 years prior to us getting him?


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    To me it reads like you are saying the Rangers ruined their "future" by trading for Nash. Their future with Nash on the team, got them to a cup final and a conference final, of which I'm pretty sure you said earlier, the Rangers got to one WITHOUT Nash... In some way trying to proclaim the team didn't need Nash to begin with.

    He scored 3 goals yes. He also opened up the ice and got more attention from opposing teams than any player. And again. For the third time... I too expected more from him... BECAUSE he was a proven 1st line talent. To say any different is delusional.

    Mom capped league???? No wonder why you don't know what I'm saying. Because I didn't say mom. You're not reading....

    Nash signed that contract 2-3 years prior to the last CBA. When there was no cap. The Rangers got him before the lockout. His contract wasn't a foreseen problem, because I don't think many (especially Sather) believed there would be a tight cap implemented. Add in that that was the going rate for a top line player... He wasn't seen as overpaid at all. So, with that in mind, his cap hit wasn't so bad at the time of the trade. If cap hit isn't an issue (and it wasn't even when the cap was inserted), you trade that package for Rick Nash. Every. Time.

  13. #53
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    76,026
    Rep Power
    502
    If the best thing you can say about Nash is that he opened up space that's fucking terrible.

    Columbus overpaid to keep Nash because...Columbus. This was even discussed when he signed.

    The NHL got a cap in 05-06. Nash signed in 10-11.

  14. #54
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,518
    Rep Power
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    To me it reads like you are saying the Rangers ruined their "future" by trading for Nash. Their future with Nash on the team, got them to a cup final and a conference final, of which I'm pretty sure you said earlier, the Rangers got to one WITHOUT Nash... In some way trying to proclaim the team didn't need Nash to begin with.

    He scored 3 goals yes. He also opened up the ice and got more attention from opposing teams than any player. And again. For the third time... I too expected more from him... BECAUSE he was a proven 1st line talent. To say any different is delusional.

    Mom capped league???? No wonder why you don't know what I'm saying. Because I didn't say mom. You're not reading....

    Nash signed that contract 2-3 years prior to the last CBA. When there was no cap. The Rangers got him before the lockout. His contract wasn't a foreseen problem, because I don't think many (especially Sather) believed there would be a tight cap implemented. Add in that that was the going rate for a top line player... He wasn't seen as overpaid at all. So, with that in mind, his cap hit wasn't so bad at the time of the trade. If cap hit isn't an issue (and it wasn't even when the cap was inserted), you trade that package for Rick Nash. Every. Time.
    The NHL Salary cap was instituted after the 2004/2005 season was lost to a lockout. Nash signed the deal you are refering to in 2010/11, half a decade later.

    I don't see Puck saying that the Nash trade alone ruined their prospect system, just that it played a part (it did). He rightly says it was time for the Rangers to make the kind of moves that they did, including getting Nash, but that Nash underperformed, contributing to them not winning a championship. That's a difficult position to argue against. He clearly underperformed. That is not to say he did nothing of value, just not enough, and certainly not enough when you factor in his percentage of the salary cap and the assets they moved to get him.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  15. #55
    Very Large Member BSBH Prospect
    Vodka Drunkenski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,800
    Rep Power
    139
    If only Nash scored on the empty net in OT in game 5
    Hidden Content

    Let's Go Rangers!

  16. #56
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136

    Who Won the Trade?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
    To me it reads like you are saying the Rangers ruined their "future" by trading for Nash. Their future with Nash on the team, got them to a cup final and a conference final, of which I'm pretty sure you said earlier, the Rangers got to one WITHOUT Nash... In some way trying to proclaim the team didn't need Nash to begin with.

    He scored 3 goals yes. He also opened up the ice and got more attention from opposing teams than any player. And again. For the third time... I too expected more from him... BECAUSE he was a proven 1st line talent. To say any different is delusional.

    Mom capped league???? No wonder why you don't know what I'm saying. Because I didn't say mom. You're not reading....

    Nash signed that contract 2-3 years prior to the last CBA. When there was no cap. The Rangers got him before the lockout. His contract wasn't a foreseen problem, because I don't think many (especially Sather) believed there would be a tight cap implemented. Add in that that was the going rate for a top line player... He wasn't seen as overpaid at all. So, with that in mind, his cap hit wasn't so bad at the time of the trade. If cap hit isn't an issue (and it wasn't even when the cap was inserted), you trade that package for Rick Nash. Every. Time.
    Non capped league.
    Are you under the assumption that there was no cap when we traded for Nash??

    The cap went into place after Nashís 2nd year in the league. (2005)
    His contract was signed in 2010


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Last edited by Puck Head; 08-22-2018 at 02:36 PM.

  17. #57
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    The NHL Salary cap was instituted after the 2004/2005 season was lost to a lockout. Nash signed the deal you are refering to in 2010/11, half a decade later.

    I don't see Puck saying that the Nash trade alone ruined their prospect system, just that it played a part (it did). He rightly says it was time for the Rangers to make the kind of moves that they did, including getting Nash, but that Nash underperformed, contributing to them not winning a championship. That's a difficult position to argue against. He clearly underperformed. That is not to say he did nothing of value, just not enough, and certainly not enough when you factor in his percentage of the salary cap and the assets they moved to get him.
    From henceforth thy shall explain Pucks thinking.
    You clarified exactly my points
    Thank you


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

  18. #58
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,518
    Rep Power
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck Head View Post
    From henceforth thy shall explain Pucks thinking.
    You clarified exactly my points
    Thank you


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Does that make me your Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

  19. #59
    Senior Member Midget Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,536
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Does that make me your Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
    Only if you suggest taking away security clearances as a vindictive punishment against those who exercise their 1st amendment rights to criticize the current administration. And then take great glee in the presser you give spewing your grotesque idea of revenge. And then the next day suggest that Trump missed mentioning former President Obama as another unworthy statesmen who should have his clearance stripped.

    Lastly, if you use your affiliation with Jesus to move your unChristian agenda, then we will call you Sarah the Succubus.

  20. #60
    Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Puck Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    10,809
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    Does that make me your Sarah Huckabee Sanders?
    Iím ready for us to take the next step in this relationship.

    What side of bed do you prefer ?


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •