View Single Post
06-19-2012, 11:34 PM
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,577
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JohnnyOnTheSpot View Post
I just don't get it. Trading for Nash would be akin to a man being attracted to women, not men, and just getting bored one day and aggressively hunting for sex with a man who is sought after by many. Why? No one knows, makes no sense, it fills no needs or desires, and it's just kind of the cool thing to do apparently.

The team needs D. Use all resources to get D-men. I don't get it.
That's an ... odd way of making the point.

But here's the simple justification for acquiring Nash--Jagr is (likely) gone, Hartnell is not a reliable 37-goal scorer, Voracek can't / won't shoot, and JVR hasn't proven he can produce consistently.

We lack a bona-fide top-line scorer to go with Giroux's pass-first mentality. Nash is that.

Now, that said, I wouldn't move heaven and earth to get him--but I don't think it is accurate to state that "it makes no sense" or "fills no needs."

His cap hit is a concern, but isn't unmanageable given our roster structure.

I think there are better options out there that are rumored to be available (Kane, Ryan), and my bottom line for Nash--JVR + two of (Mez, Bob, Read, and our 1st) is probably not enough to get him.

But, all that aside, Nash would comfortably be the 2nd best forward (and probably player) on this team.

Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 06-19-2012 at 11:49 PM. Reason: Grammatical correction.
Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote