View Single Post
Old
01-24-2013, 11:51 PM
  #228
trilobyte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 19,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangerboy030 View Post
I said this in the Forward Depth thread, but I think it's worth a mention here:

I've had this in the back of my mind for a while, but I don't think trading for Nash was a smart move as far as the makeup of our roster is concerned.

While the move was really good purely from an asset value standpoint, the impact of losing both Anisimov and Dubinsky means that we were relying heavily on Kreider to be playing the way he did during his playoff run. If he faltered (as he has), our depth instantly becomes suspect, especially on the LW. Losing those 2 also made our lineup very inflexible through the bottom 6.

Nash will be a good player for us, he's the real deal. Purely from a asset value perspective, we won that trade.

But this lineup:

Hagelin - Richards - Gaborik
Dubinsky - Anisimov - Callahan
Kreider - Stepan - Pyatt
Rupp/Asham - Halpern - Boyle

Is superior to what we have now in my opinion.

While some could argue that 2nd/3rd line talent is easier to come by and thus replace than 1st line talent, even without Nash we weren't exactly starved for 1st line talent, with Richards and Gaborik already on the team. Further, remembering back, what killed us in the playoffs insofar as our forward corps was primarily a lack of depth scoring in the bottom 6 (as well as Gaborik playing with 1 arm).

Stars provide the fuel for playoff success, but lineup depth is the engine that wins the championship. With the Nash trade, we've got 4 big barrels full of high octane fuel with Nash, Richards, Gaborik and Lundqvist, but now we've only got a Toyota Camry engine to put it in.
To illustrate how complex this type of analysis can be, let me say that on one level I agree with you about the loss of non-flashy players such as the ones that went to CBJ or were not re-signed.
Then, I read about the possibility of Sather and company planning for the phasing out of Gaborik at contract end. Sure, it is conjecture, and I personally think the Gaborik of right now is valuable, but it is a possibility.

Over a full season, I like the chances of this working much better. This shortened version makes a difference. As I mentioned in another thread, I keep waiting for the promise of an adequate powerplay to be realized. That side of special teams could make a big difference, and perhaps I could be incorrect in believing that it would be impossible for an injection of an undisputed talent like Nash to not provide a margin of games in the win column.

Do I suffer from a case of wearing rose-coloured glasses? Perhaps. I cannot rule it out.

trilobyte is offline   Reply With Quote