The Dude Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodka Drunkenski Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 If only Nash scored on the empty net in OT in game 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Go Rangers!! Thankfully without over-rated and over paid Tricky Rick; perimeter player extroadinaire!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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 Nash?s 2nd year in the league. (2005) His contract was signed in 2010 Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Does that make me your Sarah Huckabee Sanders? I?m 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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 Wow, that's a fucking flame if I ever saw one. "You think like Puckhead"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 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. Great big apology to Puck. I have no excuse for being a complete moron in getting the lockout year totally fucking wrong. I think I saw in Nashs stats that he played in the Swiss league in 12/13, and somehow inexcusably got that confused with the lockout year. Very sorry. That was pretty damn dumb. Still disagree about ruining any future in making the deal. I stated 3 times that Nash underperformed and that I expected more. I know of no free agents or other trade possibilities that happened in that time frame, that the Rangers could have made. In the end, with trading him, the Rangers now have Buch, Spooner, Lindgren, and K'Andre Miller. They walk away with all that after going to a conference final and a cup final.. The future looks fine to me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Great big apology to Puck. I have no excuse for being a complete moron in getting the lockout year totally fucking wrong. I think I saw in Nashs stats that he played in the Swiss league in 12/13, and somehow inexcusably got that confused with the lockout year. Very sorry. That was pretty damn dumb. Still disagree about ruining any future in making the deal. I stated 3 times that Nash underperformed and that I expected more. I know of no free agents or other trade possibilities that happened in that time frame, that the Rangers could have made. In the end, with trading him, the Rangers now have Buch, Spooner, Lindgren, and K'Andre Miller. They walk away with all that after going to a conference final and a cup final.. The future looks fine to me.. Take your moron mistake and multiply by 10 for my average day. x15 when hungover Good chat Cheers Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 I?m 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 The left, but I'm flexible. Did I mention I'm flexible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Great big apology to Puck. I have no excuse for being a complete moron in getting the lockout year totally fucking wrong. I think I saw in Nashs stats that he played in the Swiss league in 12/13, and somehow inexcusably got that confused with the lockout year. Very sorry. That was pretty damn dumb. Still disagree about ruining any future in making the deal. I stated 3 times that Nash underperformed and that I expected more. I know of no free agents or other trade possibilities that happened in that time frame, that the Rangers could have made. In the end, with trading him, the Rangers now have Buch, Spooner, Lindgren, and K'Andre Miller. They walk away with all that after going to a conference final and a cup final.. The future looks fine to me.. Sounds like everyone's pretty much on the same page. Nash trade was worthwhile. Nash underperformed, though he still had value. Had Nash performed in the playoffs, the Rangers would have had a significantly better chance at a cup. Nash trade was part of the reason the Rangers were ranked 29th in prospects last year. Gorton's done a bang up job with the rebuild, moving them up to the top 3rd in the league in prospects in a little over a year. We all good with the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Sounds like everyone's pretty much on the same page. Nash trade was worthwhile. Nash underperformed, though he still had value. Had Nash performed in the playoffs, the Rangers would have had a significantly better chance at a cup. Nash trade was part of the reason the Rangers were ranked 29th in prospects last year. Gorton's done a bang up job with the rebuild, moving them up to the top 3rd in the league in prospects in a little over a year. We all good with the above? Cash, money dollars, my good man! I think that's a pretty accurate summary! Jagermeister all around! :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Sounds like everyone's pretty much on the same page. Nash trade was worthwhile. Nash underperformed, though he still had value. Had Nash performed in the playoffs, the Rangers would have had a significantly better chance at a cup. Nash trade was part of the reason the Rangers were ranked 29th in prospects last year. Gorton's done a bang up job with the rebuild, moving them up to the top 3rd in the league in prospects in a little over a year. We all good with the above? Nope. I don't see how the Nash trade was part of the reason why they were ranked 29th. Not like anything they traded was a game breaker. Each were replaced in the roles they played. Maybe including that 1st rounder hurt, but I'd say the lack of any 1st before and after that deal hurt more. IMO the Yandle and MSL trade hurt them waaaaaay more. I'm reserving judgement on Gorton's rebuild. Im not all in on all of the picks he's made and this stock pile of D men prospects IMO is weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Nope. I don't see how the Nash trade was part of the reason why they were ranked 29th. Not like anything they traded was a game breaker. Each were replaced in the roles they played. Maybe including that 1st rounder hurt, but I'd say the lack of any 1st before and after that deal hurt more. IMO the Yandle and MSL trade hurt them waaaaaay more. I'm reserving judgement on Gorton's rebuild. Im not all in on all of the picks he's made and this stock pile of D men prospects IMO is weird. It's all a part of the same pie. No one piece buried them, but the first and Erixon would have been added to the prospect pool. I realize Erixon never materialized, but that doesn't mean losing him didn't hurt the Rangers' prospect system as well. The Yandle and MSL trades do "hurt more" because this is a cumulative thing. Trade one or two firsts over a 5 year span will hurt your prospect pool, but not devistate it. No single deal did that, they were all a part of it. As to Gorton's rebuild, it obviously gets judged on how things end up, but so far, he's done a terrific job of bringing in a volume of young assets. That's what I want to see at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Respecttheblue Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Compared to Columbus, we won. We had multiple playoff runs with Nash being a big part. Anisimov topped out at mid 40 points after he was traded to Chicago and Dubinsky will a cap casualty. Rangers didn?t ?lose? much. Yep, I have to agree, I think NYR handily won it, and I doubt very much we'd have been able to pull the Anisimov for Panarin via Saad trade hijinks that the Blue Jackets did. But anyway it's about what those players accomplished while in uniform and the immediate draft picks (Buchnevich.) To me, no matter how frustrating Nash's scoring woes were at the wrong time (and remember concussions) it was hands-down a NYR win on face value. And i liked Dubi and Anisimov, but what they became was not enough to get us anywhere near where we got with Nash and the others that came back the other way, IMO. Yep rmc 51 it would have been nice to have Dubi (and element we have arguably missed) and Nash, but that was not on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatfrancesa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Rangers made it to the ecf and a number 1 seed the year before Nash was acquired. The best the rangers ever did with Nash is win two more games. I’m not saying the rangers lost the deal. I really don’t even get the discussion. The rangers didn’t win the cup thereforeon their end the deal is not a win. Columbus was rebuilding and they are coming to an end of their window. This far they have still never won even a playoff round. So they didn’t win either. In the end the deal to me is just another of many that had no consequence of anything. Both teams in the end are left desiring more from what they got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Brassard scored some big fucking goals for us so I might be crazy...but...were we better off with Gaby, Dubi and AA...or Nash, Brassard, Moore and Dorsett. Tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Brassard scored some big fucking goals for us so I might be crazy...but...were we better off with Gaby, Dubi and AA...or Nash, Brassard, Moore and Dorsett. Tough call. The way I see it: Gaborik > Nash Brassard > Dubi AA > Moore/Dorsett I'll take Gaborik and company...along with the 1st round pick we lost in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Would have meant cutting ties with Torts earlier. That was the biggest driving factor behind the Gaby deal that season. Which may have meant no AV. Hard to say. He wasn't fired by then either. 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.