View Single Post
10-21-2013, 07:45 PM
Registered User
shinchanyo's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 3,378
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I pride myself on my panache.

That's sometimes true. The Rangers did have an identity. They made the Nash trade (and I still like the Nash deal) without having the pieces in place the replace what they gave up to get him. They didn't give up starts. But they did deal very specific kind off players for which they didn;t have internal replacements. They were also the kind of player that they have had trouble drafting and developing. That lack of internal options made them have to deal Gaborik to fill those spots and give the roster players who would fit into the coach's system.Then they fired the coach. This is the perfect example of a directionless organization with no vision or long-term plan.
Nash replaced one of those pieces (artie or Dubs). So let's say hypothetically he replaced Artie. I'd argue Nash does way more than simply replace Artie but let's just say it's even. We now have to replace Dubs. Not replacing Dubs would not have been the thing that tore the team apart. Combine "Not replacing Dubs" with losing Prust, Feds, Richards and Gabs. Most impactful of all is losing the latter two. If they played last year the way they usually played the team would have been much better. The Nash trade had nothing to do with those two falling off a cliff. You wrote up there u still like the Nash trade but too many people act like it did a significantly large amount of damage to the team which defies logic and ignores what happened to two 80 pt players who used to take over games

Last edited by shinchanyo; 10-21-2013 at 07:59 PM..
shinchanyo is offline   Reply With Quote