The Dude Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 Most likely you are right re: no Cup with those guys versus Nash, but you really do not know that. What we do know for sure is they did not win one with Nash when they were already a Cup contender before acquiring him, and in the process they lost two center trade chips and a 1st round pick along with 8 mill in cap space. I'm sure there are plenty of other options that would have been available either by trade or by signing with that cap space. Dubinsky is the exact kind of player everyone talks about this team needing by the way. Someone who plays a hard nosed game, defends teammates, and doesn't completely suck offensively...and they traded him for someone who was softer than Charmin and failed to perform in the playoffs when they needed him most. 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 At the time it was a trade they had to make. The team needed a high end scorer and that is what they went for....nothing wrong with that. But in retrospect, it failed. A Cup contending team brought him in and still did not win a Cup. He did not put them over the top. They went for it and lost. Same thing with the Yandle and MSL trades. No Cup = failure...but nobody is going to blame the Rangers for going for it. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlairBettsBlocksEverything Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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? You brought up points not me. And it wasn?t Dubinsky for Nash Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Sounds like a wash to me Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Gaby didn't ask for out. Torts was done with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 You brought up points not me. And it wasn?t 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.