Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
This is a bad hockey team man.
We need Rick "Superstar" Nash to come here and save the day and carry this team to a Stanley Cup.
my bad. It's 3:18am where I am so cut me some slack. my comment still applies to a whole lot of you, except it's less clever on my end since you all have different usernames
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
I get, and somewhat agree, with what you're getting at with this. But it does beg the question: how much of the team that actually won the Cup was homegrown?
Think of trading a seemingly stalled Dubinsky in the deal for Nash the same way you might think of trading a seemingly stalled Turcotte in the deal for Larmer
Honestly, if the Rangers don't get Nash, I'm fine. If they get him for Dubinsky, McIlrath, Thomas, 1st, I'm fine. If they get him for more than that, I'm pissed.
Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
Throughout the last 5 games, we've scored 11 goals. 3 have been from D-men (2 by Staal, 1 by McD) and the other 8 have been from the top two lines. So if you don't think we need scoring depth, then I don't know what to tell you man. I know its a small sample size, but just look at the 3rd line: 14 goals between Dubi/Prust/Boyle. Atrocious.
Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
This team does need another Nash'esk player. That spreads out the offense, takes more focus off Gaborik, and forces other teams coaches to choose who to match their best defensive players against, either Nash or Gaborik. It also adds more offensive scoring depth which is needed in the playoffs.
This team isn't going to lose all of their young players in this deal. Sather has made it clear through the media that the highest he will go is Dubinsky, McI (Or possibly Erixon), Thomas, and a 1st.
This team would still have Callahan, Stepan, McD, Staal, MDZ, Erixon (Or McI), Miller, Anisimov, Hagelin, Sauer, Girardi, and Kreider.
You are over reacting and projecting this doomsday scenario where Sather will trade a large portion of the above named players. The team has the depth to make this type of move. They need to add a player like Nash, Ryan, Parise, etc. Ryan isn't getting dealt and there isn't a guarantee that Parise signs here in the offseason (And if he did, Dubinsky is getting dealt in the summer instead of now). Nash is interested in coming to New York and if the price is right, you pull the trigger.
Can't win cups with a large pool of prospects that have never seen the light of an NHL arena during a regular season game. You win with strong goaltending (Got it), strong backend and team defense (Got it), strength down the middle (Got it), and scoring depth throughout the line up (Don't got it). Nash puts this team over the top.
If you did on the 2nd Avalanche goal you'll notice Rick Nash, yes RICK NASH, in front of Steve Mason sprawling out in an effort to block a shot. Yea he plays no defense.
OT losses mean nothing in the playoffs, which is what I'm concerned with at this point. A loss is a loss.
How many playoff games will Biron be playing? He's got two of those losses. In the last 10 games, the Rangers have been shut out twice, scored 2 goals once, scored 3 goals four times, 4 goals once and 5 goals twice. It's obviously always nice to get some extra scoring, but let's not pretend that this is one of those old Rangers' "give up two goals and the game is over" teams. It is possible to add scoring without giving up more than our 1st rounder and a middling prospect.
Throughout the last 5 games, we've scored 11 goals. 3 have been from D-men (2 by Staal, 1 by McD) and the other 8 have been from the top two lines. So if you don't think we need scoring depth, then I don't know what to tell you man. I know its a small sample size, but just look at the 3rd line: 14 goals between Dubi/Prust/Boyle. Atrocious.
No one is claiming this team doesn't need scoring.
What we don't need is to mortgage the future cap space and bring in an overpaid player getting paid 7.8 mill. for the next 6 years.
If you did on the 2nd Avalanche goal you'll notice Rick Nash, yes RICK NASH, in front of Steve Mason sprawling out in an effort to block a shot. Yea he plays no defense.
If you did on the 2nd Avalanche goal you'll notice Rick Nash, yes RICK NASH, in front of Steve Mason sprawling out in an effort to block a shot. Yea he plays no defense.
No one is claiming this team doesn't need scoring.
What we don't need is to mortgage the future cap space and bring in an overpaid player getting paid 7.8 mill. for the next 6 years.
What other options are there? Signing Parise presents a similar situation (and there is no guarantee he comes here), and there is no guarantee that Kreider becomes even close to what Rick Nash is.
Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
Did you see those PP goals?
The first one was a decent shot by Staal, but really that's on Nabokov.
The second? LOL! Yeah that's the Rangers scoring prowess right there! Banking it in off Nabby's save and Hamonic's thigh.
Gabby's goal was the only thing even reminiscent of a scoring threat. As per the usual this year.
A better argument would be, that when this teams defense and goaltending is on, they don't need to score more than 1-2 goals, because they will completely dominate the other teams scoring threats.
__________________
"I used to pray for good things . I used to ask the Hockey Gods for puck luck for the NYR .
Now all I want is Torts the smug stupid goatee clown to be fired , . I hate Torts . Please hockey gods make him get fired. Please Sean punch him in face" -- Dorado
I get, and somewhat agree, with what you're getting at with this. But it does beg the question: how much of the team that actually won the Cup was homegrown?
Think of trading a seemingly stalled Dubinsky in the deal for Nash the same way you might think of trading a seemingly stalled Turcotte in the deal for Larmer
Honestly, if the Rangers don't get Nash, I'm fine. If they get him for Dubinsky, McIlrath, Thomas, 1st, I'm fine. If they get him for more than that, I'm pissed.
Holy crap people where are pulling this "mortgage the future" from? Sather has stated through Brooks he's not dealing McD, MDZ, Stepan, Kreider, or Miller.
Dubinsky, Thomas, McI, and a 1st is hardly mortgaging the future.
Im not calling him any of that, but are you seriously basing a guy's skills off one game, specifically one play?
No but I imagine NY RKY feels the need to emphasis these things because the anti-Nash group doesn't want to drop it no matter how many times it's addressed.
