View Single Post
05-06-2013, 05:44 PM
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Zenith View Post
Well, the Gaborik trade was clearly a good decision, with the recent news of Gaborik re-injuring his groin he is pretty much done. We got three solid, young NHL players in return. There really is no room to complain about that move, it was handled excellently by Sather, IMO.

The Clowe trade is the move I can see people having problems with, and I can see why. I was behind the trade 100% and I still am. I like Clowe a lot and I like what he's brought to this lineup. I think, of he plays, he's going to have a noticeable impact on the game tonight. That said, yeah, it hurts giving up two/three top-90 picks for a player who might not be here long term, although I think the Rangers are going to try and keep Clowe (at a reasonable price, hopefully).

The Nash trade...well, the jury is still out on that one. Nash had a very productive season, and with the recent acquisitions, Dubinsky/Anisimov aren't missed. The contract is hard to swallow, but, again, I think it's a good move. It hurts giving up the first rounder, but Nash is a great goal scorer who is big and, IMO, he has been better than Gaborik ever has in the playoffs, even if he hasn't produced any points no one has produced in the playoffs, thus far.

I don't know if the Nash/Gaborik trades were done for the reasons you say Sather has always been interested in Nash, and the time to trade Gaborik was at the deadline.

Again, though, that doesn't mean I want Sather to stay. Just that I don't think those two moves in particular were bad, or even misguided moves.
The point SBOB was making was not questioning the quality of the individual moves, but that they appear to be bi-polar in nature...need moar scoring so ship off a bunch of depth...oh no need moar jam because we got rid of our depth so trade on of our scorers for more depth.

NHRangerfan is offline