"Aww, that's Nash-ty." Nash Rumors Part V: McKenzie says down to Rangers/Sharks
View Single Post
02-23-2012, 01:27 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Originally Posted by
I could probably go through this entire thread to get my answer but that seems rather daunting
What are Rangers fans opinion on your GM/organization trying to get Nash on the roster?
I can't help but think it's a terrible idea and for the life of me can't figure out why you guys would be pursuing him when it will cost so much to get him.. especially when your team is so damn good as it is. Are you guys willing to mess with the psyche of the locker room and losing key/hardworking guys to get a big name player like him?
No doubt Nash would be an exciting player to have but again.. I just can't fathom why the Rangers would risk so much just to have him in a Ranger sweater when your team is primed for a Cup run as it is. Wouldn't it make more sense to just get some depth?
Anyway, hope I didn't come off as a wet blanket or anything! I'm genuinely curious is all to what you, the fans think about this.
I think the answer is pretty simple: We're not pursuing him at a cost that is uncomfortable for our organization. Brooks reported that our offer is Dubinsky, Thomas, McIlrath, and a 1st round pick. Nash is a definitive upgrade on Dubinsky. Thomas is a promising player, but is probably two years away from the NHL, if he makes it at all. McIlrath is likely to be an NHLer in some capacity, but is probably 3 years away from realizing his potential at the pro level. The 1st rounder likely won't have any impact on this team for 4+ years.
So when you look at it in terms of the "big picture" we're getting an immediate improvement over a guy who has been disappointing this year and dealing away assets that may or may not have an impact on this team down the line.
This team's issue isn't depth or role players. We have those in abundance. What we lack is offensive prowess up front. The market is thin for top-six upgrades, so why not bring in a guy who not only fills that void, but excels in that role?
Aside from the long-term cap implications, which we really know very little about, there isn't much "risk" involved here at all. People act as if we're gutting the team for Nash. We're not.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Trxjw