Mike Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Umm yes. Why not? Miller is considered to be BETTER than Nash by many here. Look at the playoff numbers sir. Miller- 40 games 1 goal. Nash. 77 games 15 goals Why is it "oh my"? You want to put down a guy for his performance, yet this young and considered untouchable guy, who will get about 6+ million on his next contract can't be put down or questioned? Nash is making money earned prior to the lock out for a guy perceived to be a top tier scorer, which he was as a Ranger. Miller is about to make roughly a million or so less than that.... And his playoff numbers look like that..... and he hasn't sniffed 30 goals in the regular season as of yet, much less 40. People want to keep a worse version Rick Nash and keep the cap fucked as we load up on mediocre players, but we HAVE to unload Nash and not go for another chance at a cup? ... I feel it's a legit comparison. Why don't you? First off, you're making a comparison because of what you perceive as people's beliefs on this forum. There's your first, and crucial mistake. Secondly, Miller doesn't make Nash money, and will never be the player Nash is, so the expectations are different. For the record, I like both of them. Also, JT will have to finish strong to get 6 mill per. He's probably looking at 3-4 years with around 5 per at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Who cares what we did in the last ten years? Let's focus on the recent past and present. We got bounced in the playoffs by an average Senators squad. This year we're a fringe playoff team that is going to have to fight to stay in wild card position. Why? Because we're an average team. We've got a fighting chance of a deep playoff run if Lundqvist is on and we get some scoring, but we're probably looking at a first or second round exit. Rebuild is necessary to change the status quo, but management will probably be OK as long as we keep making the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Change the status quo of being one of the top teams, consistently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 fletch find me one team in any sport that traded their way out of a playoff spot a month before the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Everyone here watches hockey all year, and watches the playoffs every spring, yet most have a hard time getting it. Amazeballs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 First off, you're making a comparison because of what you perceive as people's beliefs on this forum. There's your first, and crucial mistake. Secondly, Miller doesn't make Nash money, and will never be the player Nash is, so the expectations are different. For the record, I like both of them. Also, JT will have to finish strong to get 6 mill per. He's probably looking at 3-4 years with around 5 per at the moment. How is my "first mistake" a mistake? Do I have to put a vote on it to make it fact? There is definitely a pro Miller camp here that is also very anti Nash. Not very crucial at all. That's the feel of the board. The board is very down on Nash. I'm not. You're not. A very few others aren't. We aren't the majority. I didn't say everyone. I said many and that's not an exaggeration . Onto my "second mistake"... Miller could make about 6 million on this up coming contract. That's the going rate. I never said he does make that money. I said he will. I myself don't think Miller is anywhere near the player Nash was or is. The comparison is salary vs production, especially in the playoffs. The reason for the comparison is who to continue forward with and where the team goes or expands from there. There are A BUNCH of people who feel that Nash is easily replaced. On this roster the guy who would have to replace him is Miller. I wouldn't do that at the salary he can get. I feel he can get 5.5- 6.5. I don't hitch the reigns to Miller for 4-5 years and expect to compete as they do now. I mean you don't see this stuff where people are talking down what Nash has done here and what he's currently doing? Then I have to continue to read about how this team needs to keep the younger core and rebuild... How can the two not be compared in this context? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Change the status quo of being one of the top teams, consistently? Exactly? Recent history was a cup final and a conference final as well.. ???? Why are we in need of changing the being very close every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 How is my "first mistake" a mistake? Do I have to put a vote on it to make it fact? There is definitely a pro Miller camp here that is also very anti Nash. Not very crucial at all. That's the feel of the board. The board is very down on Nash. I'm not. You're not. A very few others aren't. We aren't the majority. I didn't say everyone. I said many and that's not an exaggeration . Onto my "second mistake"... Miller could make about 6 million on this up coming contract. That's the going rate. I never said he does make that money. I said he will. I myself don't think Miller is anywhere near the player Nash was or is. The comparison is salary vs production, especially in the playoffs. The reason for the comparison is who to continue forward with and where the team goes or expands from there. There are A BUNCH of people who feel that Nash is easily replaced. On this roster the guy who would have to replace him is Miller. I wouldn't do that at the salary he can get. I feel he can get 5.5- 6.5. I don't hitch the reigns to Miller for 4-5 years and expect to compete as they do now. I mean you don't see this stuff where people are talking down what Nash has done here and what he's currently doing? Then I have to continue to read about how this team needs to keep the younger core and rebuild... How can the two not be compared in this context? Because more is expected of Nash in other people's pov in part of his contract. The Rangers didn't give him that contract, and he certainly deserved it at the time he signed it. Until everyone understands that a contract is goven based off recent performances and no one in management around the NHL has a crystal ball, these debates will always exist. In addition, point production is usually going to drop as the player gets older which makes the contract look worse than what it was. Is Hank an 8 million dollar goalie? Has he been one since signing that deal? Will he be one in the next 3-4 years? I think the answer is no, but he WAS worth that in the years leading up to it. It's almost like guys get a little more because they deserve it for what they've done previously and weren't fully compensated for it at the time. I'm ok with that. I don't agree on paying that much for a goalie, but it is what it is. And I'm not bias here, because my son is a goalie and a top one in his age group and as a coach I'd trade his ass for 2 pure goal scorers in a fuckin minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Exactly? Recent history was a cup final and a conference final as well.. ???? Why are we in need of changing the being very close every year? How is the 2013-4 season that had Stepan, Richards, Brassard, Hagelin, Callahan, Boyle, etc relevant to the Rangers present situation? That's why talking about team accomplishments from that far back isn't relevant. Focus on the present roster, or your arguments don't mean jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 The present roster will be in 3rd place in the Metro with a win in AZ tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 If the argument is about last year ... This team, minus Stepan and plus Shatty now, lost to a hot Senators team last year in 6 that took the Pens to OT in a game 7 of the ECF. Yes, the Sens were beatable. No, they're not doing that good right now, but in the middle of a hot stretch anyone can win these games and rounds. 2010 Flyers and the 2012 Kings are just 2 examples of how a mediocre club can make a run at the right time. The current Rangers are a lot better than mediocre despite what some may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/New+York+Rangers+v+Phoenix+Coyotes+xSb0ijdcUVWl.jpg Must be computer generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 The present roster will be in 3rd place in the Metro with a win in AZ tonight. We are light years from being competitive in a 7 game series against the Lightning with Stamkos, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, etc. We are forced to hope we get on a hot streak and go on a Nashville Predator style run in the playoffs. Likely not in the cards, but being a fan means rooting for unlikely outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slgrayson1 Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 How is the 2013-4 season that had Stepan, Richards, Brassard, Hagelin, Callahan, Boyle, etc relevant to the Rangers present situation? That's why talking about team accomplishments from that far back isn't relevant. Focus on the present roster, or your arguments don't mean jackYou are right The 2017-18 personnel is very much better than those 2013-4 guys Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Because more is expected of Nash in other people's pov in part of his contract. The Rangers didn't give him that contract, and he certainly deserved it at the time he signed it. Until everyone understands that a contract is goven based off recent performances and no one in management around the NHL has a crystal ball, these debates will always exist. In addition, point production is usually going to drop as the player gets older which makes the contract look worse than what it was. Is Hank an 8 million dollar goalie? Has he been one since signing that deal? Will he be one in the next 3-4 years? I think the answer is no, but he WAS worth that in the years leading up to it. It's almost like guys get a little more because they deserve it for what they've done previously and weren't fully compensated for it at the time. I'm ok with that. I don't agree on paying that much for a goalie, but it is what it is. And I'm not bias here, because my son is a goalie and a top one in his age group and as a coach I'd trade his ass for 2 pure goal scorers in a fuckin minute. Yeah, I kinda hit that point about Nash's contract with my other post.. At that young age, wouldn't you want the better goalie at that level? Aren't there like 7,000,000,000 goal scorers at that age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 How is the 2013-4 season that had Stepan, Richards, Brassard, Hagelin, Callahan, Boyle, etc relevant to the Rangers present situation? That's why talking about team accomplishments from that far back isn't relevant. Focus on the present roster, or your arguments don't mean jack So, the last two years don't mean anything either? Just games away from the conference finals? The low seed Ottawa took the eventual cup winner to a 7th game with a Dman who had a broken ankle.... A team the Rangers SHOULD have beaten. Year prior they lose to the Penguins, who dominated the whole playoffs and I believe won the cup. I'd like to think the roster has improved from the past two years, by injecting more youth and a PP QB who has the coaches trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 We are light years from being competitive in a 7 game series against the Lightning with Stamkos, Kucherov, Vasilevskiy, etc. We are forced to hope we get on a hot streak and go on a Nashville Predator style run in the playoffs. Likely not in the cards, but being a fan means rooting for unlikely outcomes. The Rangers have beaten them in their only meeting so far this year. 2-1. And that was when they finally turned the season around after sucking donkey dick to start the year. I'm not too scared of Tampa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 for those that were pointing to 2013-4 i wanted to point out how much roster turnover we have had. if last year’s roster was better than then, we should have been able to beat an average senators team in the playoffs. the only reason for optimism is if you believe in our young core improving to the point that we are competitive for a cup while lundqvist is still capable. i don’t see it because i don’t see enough talent and consistent effort on this roster, but i hope they prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The difference from the 2014 team and the 2017 team is simple. The 2014 team was just one season removed from Tortorella. The 2017 team has been turned to baby shit after years and years of AV's vanilla ways. Is it a coincidence that they've regressed every season they've been under AV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The difference from the 2014 team and the 2017 team is simple. The 2014 team was just one season removed from Tortorella. The 2017 team has been turned to baby shit after years and years of AV's vanilla ways. Is it a coincidence that they've regressed every season they've been under AV? I think Mac's regression is a way bigger issue and I don't know if you can blame that on AV. . He was, by far, the best player on the ice in the MTL series, and we don't get to the Cup final without him. Otherwise, there's really no difference between that team and the versions that came after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The difference from the 2014 team and the 2017 team is simple. The 2014 team was just one season removed from Tortorella. The 2017 team has been turned to baby shit after years and years of AV's vanilla ways. Is it a coincidence that they've regressed every season they've been under AV? Give that man a CEEE-GARRRRR!!! Couldn't agree with you more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 The difference from the 2014 team and the 2017 team is simple. The 2014 team was just one season removed from Tortorella. The 2017 team has been turned to baby shit after years and years of AV's vanilla ways. Is it a coincidence that they've regressed every season they've been under AV? Thats completely inaccurate Finals, Conference Finals, 1st Rd, 2nd round Wins: 45, 53, 46, 48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Thats completely inaccurate Finals, Conference Finals, 1st Rd, 2nd round Wins: 45, 53, 46, 48 Completely inaccurate? Are you fucking serious? Final, Conference Finals, 1st rd, 2nd rd. With the exception of last season, its absolutely regression. You can't even argue that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Wow, I just noticed that Fast has the same number of points (17) in 34 games that Nash has in 42. I never have been a Nash-basher and points don't say everything, especially over a half season, but this is getting ridiculous. Are players supposed to be inspired to put up numbers in the last year of their contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 Completely inaccurate? Are you fucking serious? Final, Conference Finals, 1st rd, 2nd rd. With the exception of last season, its absolutely regression. You can't even argue that. That's every team though. It's the consequence of going to a cup final. And, they improved wins and playoff success from year 3 to year 4. So I'm not really sure your point is as direct as you'd like it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.