Thread: Speculation: FINAL: Where does Nash end up?
View Single Post
05-23-2012, 02:10 AM
Mayor Bee
Mayor Bee's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,148
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Southlake View Post
Fair enough re: bridge burning and list expansion.

And no, saying Nash is a better player isn't anything against Pavelski. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but I don't feel any need to beat down on Nash as a result. The conversation gets overly tedious whenever Nash fans want to argue that Pavelski is the equivalent of a third line pylon. (Likewise, when Sharks fans try to argue that Nash is some kind of inept player that somehow stumbled on to Team Canada)
Just like the post quoted below.

Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Just like Heatley right? That argument is thoroughly disproved, it almost never happens. Plus, Marleau had his most productive season not paired with Thornton, just like Pavelski, yet that stupid argument persists. It's made by people who flat out don't know what they are talking about.

EVEN if Nash scored 45 how is 1 goal, and decidedly weaker defense worth an extra $1m per season?

God that argument annoys the crap out of me, it is such falicy. Veteran players do not go to new teams and miraculously increase production, no matter how many times this is said people just keep spewing this garbage.

More often than not players continue to produce at essentially the same rate regardless of the quality of their team. There are rare exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.
Hold on a sec. Marleau's 86-point season came in the first year after the lockout (with Cheechoo's 56 goals), and he's hit 40 goals (44) the one time. Putting a possible 45 goals by Nash against Marleau as "one better" is quite a twist of logic, since that 44-goal season was three years ago.

Nash is a better talent, but he has not been a better player for several years now. Pavelski works harder, is more versatile, and half the price. He produces at the same rate (even on our 3rd line, without Thornton), is far better defensively, leads the league in face-offs, blocks more shots, at half the price.
- Works harder: that's debatable. Neither you nor I is in the locker room, and neither one of us has been in the locker room of both teams. Andrew Murray and Manny Malhotra are the only two who have. Pavelski being 5'11" and looking like he's always moving doesn't mean he's going any harder or fast than a guy who's 6'4" and takes long strides.

- More versatile: also debatable. Hitchcock, Noel, and Richards have all played Nash on the PK because he's good at it, and obviously he gets power play time. Arniel didn't have him on the PK (but did like to have either Kris Russell or Grant Clitsome out there), which is part of the reason why Scott Arniel is not an NHL coach any more.

- Produces at the same rate: come on. Pavelski has exceeded 25 goals once, Nash has done it 8 times (seven 30-goal seasons, two of them 40+). This year is the first time Pavelski has outproduced Nash in anything (by 1 goal and 1 assist), and the extra 1:30 average ice time probably has something to do with that.

- Leads the league in faceoffs: so? Even if it were true (it's not), there's never been a study done that demonstrates a positive correlation between faceoff percentage and...well, anything. Bergeron and Toews, by the way, led the league in faceoff percentage, and both of them took a ton more draws than Pavelski.

- Blocks more shots: so? There are major style differences between the two players. Nash, defensively, plays up high in the zone because it forces the defensemen to stay up high because he's a significant breakaway threat. So a defenseman isn't going to just unload a shot from 60' out; he's going to look to pass or advance the puck in some way. This is also why Nash is an effective PKer; the point men have to play up high out of respect for his offense.

- At half the price: and the same number of Stanley Cup rings.

I'm sure most people would look at this and think I'm criticizing Pavelski. Quite the opposite is true. I'd love to have him in Columbus. But to try to hold him up as an equal player to Rick Nash is absurd. If you want to talk about salary or contract length, be my guest. But the better player? Come on.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote