View Single Post
Old
07-08-2012, 11:14 PM
  #97
Cash for Nash
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
For me (and to be clear, I've NEVER wanted Nash on the Rangers, regardless of the price) it's more about the fact that Nash comes with a pack of excuses. Yes, his team is bad. He's not the only star player to play on a bad team. Those other players still find a way to put up star stats.

The Rangers used to make a living getting guys like Nash. Expensive. Underwhelming. Supposedly going to be a "totally different player" as soon as they pull on a Rangers' sweater. Bottom line, almost every single time, that underwhelming player was just as underwhelming (frankly, they were usually worse) when they got to the Rangers.

The excuses are also ridiculous when you consider the team that he would be joining. Nash plays well with Team Canada? Lovely for him. If you don't know this, let me remind you--the Rangers aren't Team Canada. They don't have the skill and they don't play anything even resembling the same system. The other popular excuse--Nash would put up more points when surrounded by more talented players--who would that be, exactly? Gaborik and Callahan play the same position. Richards plays with Gaborik. The whole reason the Rangers seem to be interested in Nash is because they have trouble scoring. Doesn't it strike you as odd that one of the excuses for Nash is that he'll score more when surrounded by players/a system that doesn't score many goals?

Finally, the biggest knock against acquiring Nash is that he just doesn't know how to win. He's been in the league a long time, and he hasn't ever been a winner. Even his biggest accomplishments are things that he didn't win outright (he tied for the Richard in the weakest year ever in the history of that trophy). Nash was developed amid failure. He's seen highly touted young players fail one after the other. Season after season, he's breathed, slept, eaten and lived failure. When a player does that for 10 years, I'm sorry, but he's not going to be part of any solution. The Rangers, with the team they have, came within two games of the Stanley Cup finals. Subtracting key pieces from that puzzle for a player who only knows how to lose is just pure foolishness.

Yes, Nash is a talented player with some appealing stats. The Rangers have been fooled into believing in such players too many times in the past. At the end of the day, he's just another overpaid "what could have been" who doesn't know how to win.
This is nonsense.

He would be the roster player on your entire team (goalie excluded).
Only Gaborik might rival him and that is very debateable.

Cash for Nash is offline