HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Rick Nash

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2012, 12:48 PM
  #76
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I said 'nearly identical offensive numbers' which you clearly don't comprehend.

Offensively, they are nearly identical, defensively, Pavelski is vastly superior. I'm not sure what about that I can explain more clearly.
They aren't nearly identical offenisvely though. Nash is FAR superior. They are the same age and Rick Nash averages 66.5 points per 82 games played(playing on consistently weak offensive teams) while Pavelski averages 58 points per 82 games played.

Other than this season (when the Sharks finished 13th in GPG) they haven't finsihed outside of the top 5 in offence once in Pavelski's career.
Columbus hasn't been any better than 21st overall in GPG in that time frame and have consistently been in the bottom 5.

Honestly, if you want to say you'd rather have Pavelski because he's so much cheaper...good on you. But you just lose credibility when you claim he's basically as good as Nash is offensively.

And Nash is a pretty solid all around guy too.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 12:55 PM
  #77
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
They aren't nearly identical offenisvely though. Nash is FAR superior.

And Nash is a pretty solid all around guy too.
Except you can't back that up because in the last two years Pavelski has better numbers than Nash. I'm sorry, the 'better team' argument does not hold a lot of weight with defensive numbers either. I can see an argument (though I disagree) about offensive numbers, but even so you have to admit the absolute best we could expect from Nash is to return to his career best offensive numbers of 40 goals and 79 points.

So Pavelski's best point total ever is: 31g, 66 points.

So you think we should take an enormous risk in trading a for Rick Nash just to gain the potential of him scoring 9 more goals and 13 more points than Pavelski, for DOUBLE the pay?

9 goals and 13 points is not worth $4m in salary and the defensive difference between he two players, especially when he hasn't put up those numbers in 4 seasons.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 12:57 PM
  #78
Doug19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: Aland Islands
Posts: 6,022
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I said 'nearly identical offensive numbers' which you clearly don't comprehend.

Offensively, they are nearly identical, defensively, Pavelski is vastly superior. I'm not sure what about that I can explain more clearly.
Your flat out wrong, so there really isn't anything you can say. Pretty easy for a player to put up comfortable numbers getting to hide behind some of the best offensive players in the game. Also where are these defensive facts you are clamoring about? Last I checked the two play completely different roles in the defensive zone, so you frankly have no facts at all, other than the 4 games you watch Nash play every year.

Doug19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 12:59 PM
  #79
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Except you can't back that up because in the last two years Pavelski has better numbers than Nash. I'm sorry, the 'better team' argument does not hold a lot of weight with defensive numbers either. I can see an argument (though I disagree) about offensive numbers, but even so you have to admit the absolute best we could expect from Nash is to return to his career best offensive numbers of 40 goals and 79 points.

So Pavelski's best point total ever is: 31g, 66 points.

So you think we should take an enormous risk in trading a for Rick Nash just to gain the potential of him scoring 9 more goals and 13 more points than Pavelski, for DOUBLE the pay?

9 goals and 13 points is not worth $4m in salary and the defensive difference between he two players, especially when he hasn't put up those numbers in 4 seasons.
You wouldn't be acquiring Nash for the regular season point totals... The Sharks have had no problem making the playoffs. You acquire Nash because he won't be as easy to shutdown, or out, in the playoffs.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:03 PM
  #80
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug61 View Post
Your flat out wrong, so there really isn't anything you can say. Pretty easy for a player to put up comfortable numbers getting to hide behind some of the best offensive players in the game.
Good lord man. Let me show you something that you clearly don't get:

2011-2012 Corsi QoC SJ Sharks
Martin Havlat - 1.786 (this is skewed because of his low number of games played)
Joe Pavelski - 1.150
Patrick Marleau - 1.040
Joe Thornton - .977
Daniel Winnik - .907


Joe Pavelski saw the top competition every night. When the other teams best players were on the ice, the Sharks put Joe Pavelski on the ice. He wasn't sheltered in the slightest.

Whatever details you feel like bickering about, the only thing that matters is value. The value of Joe Pavelski is greater than that of Rick Nash if for no other reason than their contracts. Rick Nash is not $3.8m > Joe Pavelski, not even close.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:06 PM
  #81
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoTrades View Post
I expect Burke to put in some calls but really to me it's Rangers trade to be had.

If they want him they can offer a better package than anyone else..

but if they win it all they may shy away from that contract as they have depth scoring and Kreider appears to be a future stud on the wing
that depends IMO if the rangers make the final or win the cup I don't think they push as hard for nash as they will have proven they don't need him to put them over the top and thus there is no reason to sell the farm espically with Parise and Semin in UFA.

If However they lose to the devils I believe you are right they will go all in for nash.

It all depends on this series

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:06 PM
  #82
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
You wouldn't be acquiring Nash for the regular season point totals... The Sharks have had no problem making the playoffs. You acquire Nash because he won't be as easy to shutdown, or out, in the playoffs.
Pavelski is one of our best playoff performers, he was playing seriously injured this season and that is why he, uncharacteristically was ineffective (small sample size too, only 5 games).

Rich Nash hasn't played enough playoff games in his career to even be able to make a claim that he produces in the playoffs.

He had a sprained MCL and ligament damage to his thumb btw, if your curious.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:07 PM
  #83
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Good lord man. Let me show you something that you clearly don't get:

2011-2012 Corsi QoC SJ Sharks
Martin Havlat - 1.786 (this is skewed because of his low number of games played)
Joe Pavelski - 1.150
Patrick Marleau - 1.040
Joe Thornton - .977
Daniel Winnik - .907


Joe Pavelski saw the top competition every night. When the other teams best players were on the ice, the Sharks put Joe Pavelski on the ice. He wasn't sheltered in the slightest.

Whatever details you feel like bickering about, the only thing that matters is value. The value of Joe Pavelski is greater than that of Rick Nash if for no other reason than their contracts. Rick Nash is not $3.8m > Joe Pavelski, not even close.
Before getting too far ahead of ourselves let's clarify that Corsi is a measure of the shot differential when a player is on the ice. Let's say Thornton played against a teams shutdown line and defense pair. You'd expect his QoC to be lower, based on the fact that those shutdown lines tend to not generate much offense themselves.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:13 PM
  #84
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
Before getting too far ahead of ourselves let's clarify that Corsi is a measure of the shot differential when a player is on the ice. Let's say Thornton played against a teams shutdown line and defense pair. You'd expect his QoC to be lower, based on the fact that those shutdown lines tend to not generate much offense themselves.
Pavelski was on the ice when the other teams best offensive players were on the ice, that is what that shows. If you want to say that other teams were putting their best defensive players against Pavelski (which is hard to show, regular qualcomp would be closest and it's flawed) then isn't that even more of a testament to Pavelski's ability?

Regardless, again, whichever side you are on I think it's pretty clear the gap between the two players is not worth $3.8m a season.

Joe Pavelski also led the Sharks in +-QoC as well, for what its worth.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:24 PM
  #85
TorontoTrades
Registered User
 
TorontoTrades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFANFORLIFE23 View Post
that depends IMO if the rangers make the final or win the cup I don't think they push as hard for nash as they will have proven they don't need him to put them over the top and thus there is no reason to sell the farm espically with Parise and Semin in UFA.

If However they lose to the devils I believe you are right they will go all in for nash.

It all depends on this series

ya thats what i meant with them shying away... if they win it all I dont think they make a big splash like and give up futures (likely Krieder) and use 7.8 mill on Nash.

personally I chose LA and NYR... don't know who wins but I think Rangers win this series and go to the SCF

TorontoTrades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:27 PM
  #86
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Pavelski was on the ice when the other teams best offensive players were on the ice, that is what that shows. If you want to say that other teams were putting their best defensive players against Pavelski (which is hard to show, regular qualcomp would be closest and it's flawed) then isn't that even more of a testament to Pavelski's ability?

Regardless, again, whichever side you are on I think it's pretty clear the gap between the two players is not worth $3.8m a season.

Joe Pavelski also led the Sharks in +-QoC as well, for what its worth.
I think it is worth 3.8 million a season if he can take you further in the playoffs. The window is closing in San Jose, and they need to find the answer soon. Relying on the so-valued stats shows that Pavelski was not part of the solution this year. 0 points in 5 games and a -3.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:31 PM
  #87
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
I think it is worth 3.8 million a season if he can take you further in the playoffs. The window is closing in San Jose, and they need to find the answer soon. Relying on the so-valued stats shows that Pavelski was not part of the solution this year. 0 points in 5 games and a -3.
As I said, sprained MCL and hand, he probably should not have been on the ice, but the Sharks didn't have much choice (no top-6 depth).

The Sharks need to get less top-heavy, not more top-heavy. They should spend this off-season getting younger and faster and with better forward depth. I'm not concerned about a cup run next season, the Sharks are facing a full rebuild, and an ugly one, in a season or two if they don't start restocking right now.

There is nothing to show that Nash would be any better that Pavelski in the playoffs, that is purely a guess.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:35 PM
  #88
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
As I said, sprained MCL and hand, he probably should not have been on the ice, but the Sharks didn't have much choice (no top-6 depth).

The Sharks need to get less top-heavy, not more top-heavy. They should spend this off-season getting younger and faster and with better forward depth. I'm not concerned about a cup run next season, the Sharks are facing a full rebuild, and an ugly one, in a season or two if they don't start restocking right now.

There is nothing to show that Nash would be any better that Pavelski in the playoffs, that is purely a guess.
I don't agree. If I were the Sharks, I'd kick Marleau out of town. If I could trade Pavelski+ for Nash I'd do that, and then see if I could pick up a guy like McClement in free agency.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:37 PM
  #89
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
I don't agree. If I were the Sharks, I'd kick Marleau out of town. If I could trade Pavelski+ for Nash I'd do that, and then see if I could pick up a guy like McClement in free agency.
Pavelski+ now?

I think we are done now... good lord.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:38 PM
  #90
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Pavelski+ now?

I think we are done now... good lord.
It always was Pavelski+. That's why I asked how you knew Pavelski wasn't already in the pot... Thought that was pretty clear.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:40 PM
  #91
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoTrades View Post
ya thats what i meant with them shying away... if they win it all I dont think they make a big splash like and give up futures (likely Krieder) and use 7.8 mill on Nash.

personally I chose LA and NYR... don't know who wins but I think Rangers win this series and go to the SCF
I think the Nash to NYR ship has already sailed. Sather clearly wasn't happy with the way the negotiations went with Howson. And I think making the ECF will be enough to convince him that Nash isn't needed, especially at the price Howson was asking. There's no doubt that we could use some more help on offense, but there's no reason it needs to be Nash, particularly with the new CBA coming up.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:42 PM
  #92
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
I think the Nash to NYR ship has already sailed. Sather clearly wasn't happy with the way the negotiations went with Howson. And I think making the ECF will be enough to convince him that Nash isn't needed, especially at the price Howson was asking. There's no doubt that we could use some more help on offense, but there's no reason it needs to be Nash, particularly with the new CBA coming up.
I agree. What rush is there? It's not as if NYR has any integral parts that are aging. In fact, most of their talent is still maturing. I'd be pretty surprised if they made a bigger offer for Nash this summer.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 01:44 PM
  #93
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
It always was Pavelski+. That's why I asked how you knew Pavelski wasn't already in the pot... Thought that was pretty clear.
Let's just say if that that happened we as Sharks fans would pretty unanimously run Wilson out of town.

Nash isn't worth Pavelski, let alone adding to Pavelski. I'm not saying the Sharks won't do it, DW does some really stupid stuff on a fairly regular basis, but I personally guarantee you the Sharks will be worse for it if he does.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #94
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Let's just say if that that happened we as Sharks fans would pretty unanimously run Wilson out of town.

Nash isn't worth Pavelski, let alone adding to Pavelski. I'm not saying the Sharks won't do it, DW does some really stupid stuff on a fairly regular basis, but I personally guarantee you the Sharks will be worse for it if he does.
Your personal guarantee means nothing because you make comments about how it doesn't matter that Pavelski plays on a team with far better offensive players than Nash does.

Nash is worth far more than Pavelski is and the fact that Pavelski puts up comparable numbers and is allegedly far better defensively doesn't change that fact.

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:17 PM
  #95
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Except you can't back that up because in the last two years Pavelski has better numbers than Nash. I'm sorry, the 'better team' argument does not hold a lot of weight with defensive numbers either. I can see an argument (though I disagree) about offensive numbers, but even so you have to admit the absolute best we could expect from Nash is to return to his career best offensive numbers of 40 goals and 79 points.

So Pavelski's best point total ever is: 31g, 66 points.

So you think we should take an enormous risk in trading a for Rick Nash just to gain the potential of him scoring 9 more goals and 13 more points than Pavelski, for DOUBLE the pay?

9 goals and 13 points is not worth $4m in salary and the defensive difference between he two players, especially when he hasn't put up those numbers in 4 seasons.
Here's a question hockeyball.

Do you think Pavelski would have averaged 63.5 points per season the last 2 years if he was in Columbus in place of Nash?

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:23 PM
  #96
Crisp Breakout
Registered User
 
Crisp Breakout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 4,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Let's just say if that that happened we as Sharks fans would pretty unanimously run Wilson out of town.

Nash isn't worth Pavelski, let alone adding to Pavelski. I'm not saying the Sharks won't do it, DW does some really stupid stuff on a fairly regular basis, but I personally guarantee you the Sharks will be worse for it if he does.
That's fine, I mean you're certainly entitled to hold that opinion. I think, and no I don't have any proof of this, that pairing Nash with Thornton would make the Sharks a better playoff team. I'd love the chance to watch it on the NHL stage and to see Nash finally get the recognition he deserves.

Crisp Breakout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:29 PM
  #97
Broomout
Registered User
 
Broomout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: North Carolina
Country: United States
Posts: 1,213
vCash: 50
Wouldn't mind trading for Nash however, it seems unlikely. I love watch Pavelski play and really hope he doesn't get traded. Doug Wilson already said no to trading Couture and outside of Pavelski and Couture San Jose doesn't have much to top an offer like the rumored one from the Rangers. That being said if the Rangers don't win the cup he will probably end up there.

Broomout is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:37 PM
  #98
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniverStalinGraduate View Post
Here's a question hockeyball.

Do you think Pavelski would have averaged 63.5 points per season the last 2 years if he was in Columbus in place of Nash?
Yes, because players do not historically change their production significantly when they move from a good team to a poor team or vise versa. Seriously, find an example of it, it's rare. More often than not, baring injury, or the occasional discontented player, it simply isn't the case. You are assuming, in a vacuum, that because a player is on a poor team he is automatically going to produce less points, but that does not take into account a lot of factors like:

Ice time
Sheltering
Coaching
Compatible system
Chemistry (with line mates)

Those things tend to have a bigger impact on an individual players production than simply the quality of the team. Nash might come here and have terrible chemistry with Thornton and his line mates, we have no real way of knowing that (Thornton is a much different player now than we he played with Nash in Sweden). He might struggle with our system (which is terrible and why most every shark had a down season offensively, besides Pavelski/Couture).

Pavelski produces for himself. He produced career point totals playing on the 3rd line with Wellwood and Mitchell much of the time. He played with Thornton this season, and had more goals, but slightly less points. So yes, Absolutely, I think Pavelski would have produced (within a reasonable margin) essentially the same point totals. Same with Nash if he was in San Jose.

The point is, you don't take stupid gambles like that with reliable players like Pavelski.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisp Breakout View Post
That's fine, I mean you're certainly entitled to hold that opinion. I think, and no I don't have any proof of this, that pairing Nash with Thornton would make the Sharks a better playoff team. I'd love the chance to watch it on the NHL stage and to see Nash finally get the recognition he deserves.
So your opinion is based on the fact that you guess Nash and Thornton would have chemistry? The same thing was assumed about a lot of players and it hasn't worked out that way (Heatley, Michalek, Bell, Setoguchi, Couture, Clowe...) the only players that have really excelled with Thornton are Cheechoo, and arguably Pavelski (he only saw a small increase in production, and he's been getting better every season anyway). So if I'm the GM I wouldn't be taking that kind of risk again.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:43 PM
  #99
UniverStalinGraduate*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,253
vCash: 500
Okay then hockeyball. Guess that's the beauty of opinions hey?

I'm quite confident that if Pavelski went from a team playing with the likes of Thornton, Marleau, Pavelski, Clowe, Couture and Boyle to a team playing with the likes of Umberger, Tyutin, Johansen and Brassard his numbers would go down.

But to each their own. I'm sure Pavelski is the main reason they were consistently one of the top 5 scoring teams in the league outside of the season. He's the catalyst that makes the team go... LoL

UniverStalinGraduate* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2012, 02:50 PM
  #100
DesertDawg
Registered User
 
DesertDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Superstition Mts
Posts: 4,173
vCash: 500
Expect the Rangers to try
something like
Dubinsky, Stepan, McIlrath, JT Miller, and their #1 pick
for
Nash, Atkinson, and their #2 pick

ok, maybe switch out Stepan for Anisimov
and if the cap is a concern, switch out the 1st and McIlrath fot Girardi


Last edited by DesertDawg: 05-16-2012 at 02:58 PM.
DesertDawg is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.