View Single Post
02-16-2012, 10:45 PM
Registered User
Zil's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,302
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NvincentYvalentineR View Post
Yeah thats it! We must keep Kreider because he has legit 1st line upside instead of acquiring a player who is already a 1st liner on a god awful team! Makes tons of sense dude!

Im not for acquiring Rick Nash. However, I believe the notion of not trading Kreider to acquire a 1st line talent who is capable of putting up 35-40+ goals and is at least a 70 point player who has been stuck on a god awful team since he was drafted is absolutely asinine.
You're being deliberately obtuse. If you make a post scoffing at the notion that trading Kreider is a big deal, then expect backlash for it. Kreider has premium value not only because he might be that premium caliber forward we're all looking for, but also because he'd be giving us that performance for a fraction of the price cap-wise. That's not something you just throw away.

Second, nobody's giving us a first-liner straight up for Kreider. Stop acting like that's what we're turning down. If you're for trading Kreider, then you're for trading Kreider and multiple other assets. That is an even bigger deal.

Third, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRADING KREIDER NOW, THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRADING HIM FOR RICK NASH. Bobby Ryan isn't walking through that door. Don't hide behind some kind of "well I wouldn't do it for Nash, because of his contract and their demands"-type statement. Nash is the only first-liner remotely close to the trade market. Either back off the trading Kreider is no big deal rhetoric, or embrace the Nash ludicrousness.

Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
First and foremost, Rick Nash is a 70 point player if you ignore his rookie season.

Secondly, only 1 New York Rangers is on pace to eclipse the 70 pt mark this season, Marian Gaborik (on pace to score 72 points, makes 7.5 mil a year).

Thirdly Nash does it basically single handedly for the bulk of his career.

If you hate on Nash, then I'd expect to hear some hate on Gaborik.
Gaborik was a free agent. Nash is not. It's a false parallel.

Last edited by Zil: 02-17-2012 at 01:35 AM.
Zil is offline