HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

FINAL: Where does Nash end up?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2012, 11:14 PM
  #251
Southlake
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 90
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
As the playoffs are drawing to a close, and teams are better assessing where exactly they stand and keeping an eye on CBA chatter, the market has the potential to get very interesting. There are probably 29 teams bidding to some extent, rather than 5. And talking openly about who asked for what was probably a lot more calculated than most people think...if it didn't burn that bridge, then it forces "the list" to be expanded.



None of us dislike Pavelski. I don't think saying that Nash is a better player is anything against Pavelski...heck, in my case, I've got a Waterloo Blackhawks jersey that I'm just waiting to get customized with his name and number.
Fair enough re: bridge burning and list expansion.

And no, saying Nash is a better player isn't anything against Pavelski. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but I don't feel any need to beat down on Nash as a result. The conversation gets overly tedious whenever Nash fans want to argue that Pavelski is the equivalent of a third line pylon. (Likewise, when Sharks fans try to argue that Nash is some kind of inept player that somehow stumbled on to Team Canada)

Southlake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 12:11 AM
  #252
gooilgo
Fehr is a reptile
 
gooilgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Area 51
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by O4GM View Post
TML-Nash
CLB-Macarthur,Frattin,Franson,5th overall pick

TML-1st overall
EDM-Schenn,Kadri,2013 1st, & 3rd

Draft-

TML-Yakupov
CLB-Galchenyuk
MTL-Grigorenko
NYI-Murray
CLB-Forseberg
Humor me. Tell me why Edmonton would even consider that for a millisecond.

gooilgo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 12:13 AM
  #253
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
My god. Nash is in the top 5 goals scored in the past few years playing with absolutely no one while Marleau is with Joe Thornton. Are you honestly just disregarding this huge factor? Nash would score 45+ next to Joe. Im not going to debate this bc truly its beyond laughable. Not to mention Nash is younger...
Just like Heatley right? That argument is thoroughly disproved, it almost never happens. Plus, Marleau had his most productive season not paired with Thornton, just like Pavelski, yet that stupid argument persists. It's made by people who flat out don't know what they are talking about.

EVEN if Nash scored 45 how is 1 goal, and decidedly weaker defense worth an extra $1m per season?

God that argument annoys the crap out of me, it is such falicy. Veteran players do not go to new teams and miraculously increase production, no matter how many times this is said people just keep spewing this garbage.

More often than not players continue to produce at essentially the same rate regardless of the quality of their team. There are rare exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
None of us dislike Pavelski. I don't think saying that Nash is a better player is anything against Pavelski...heck, in my case, I've got a Waterloo Blackhawks jersey that I'm just waiting to get customized with his name and number.
Nash is a better talent, but he has not been a better player for several years now. Pavelski works harder, is more versatile, and half the price. He produces at the same rate (even on our 3rd line, without Thornton), is far better defensively, leads the league in face-offs, blocks more shots, at half the price.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 02:10 AM
  #254
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southlake View Post
Fair enough re: bridge burning and list expansion.

And no, saying Nash is a better player isn't anything against Pavelski. I don't necessarily agree on all points, but I don't feel any need to beat down on Nash as a result. The conversation gets overly tedious whenever Nash fans want to argue that Pavelski is the equivalent of a third line pylon. (Likewise, when Sharks fans try to argue that Nash is some kind of inept player that somehow stumbled on to Team Canada)
Just like the post quoted below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Just like Heatley right? That argument is thoroughly disproved, it almost never happens. Plus, Marleau had his most productive season not paired with Thornton, just like Pavelski, yet that stupid argument persists. It's made by people who flat out don't know what they are talking about.

EVEN if Nash scored 45 how is 1 goal, and decidedly weaker defense worth an extra $1m per season?

God that argument annoys the crap out of me, it is such falicy. Veteran players do not go to new teams and miraculously increase production, no matter how many times this is said people just keep spewing this garbage.

More often than not players continue to produce at essentially the same rate regardless of the quality of their team. There are rare exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.
Hold on a sec. Marleau's 86-point season came in the first year after the lockout (with Cheechoo's 56 goals), and he's hit 40 goals (44) the one time. Putting a possible 45 goals by Nash against Marleau as "one better" is quite a twist of logic, since that 44-goal season was three years ago.

Quote:
Nash is a better talent, but he has not been a better player for several years now. Pavelski works harder, is more versatile, and half the price. He produces at the same rate (even on our 3rd line, without Thornton), is far better defensively, leads the league in face-offs, blocks more shots, at half the price.
- Works harder: that's debatable. Neither you nor I is in the locker room, and neither one of us has been in the locker room of both teams. Andrew Murray and Manny Malhotra are the only two who have. Pavelski being 5'11" and looking like he's always moving doesn't mean he's going any harder or fast than a guy who's 6'4" and takes long strides.

- More versatile: also debatable. Hitchcock, Noel, and Richards have all played Nash on the PK because he's good at it, and obviously he gets power play time. Arniel didn't have him on the PK (but did like to have either Kris Russell or Grant Clitsome out there), which is part of the reason why Scott Arniel is not an NHL coach any more.

- Produces at the same rate: come on. Pavelski has exceeded 25 goals once, Nash has done it 8 times (seven 30-goal seasons, two of them 40+). This year is the first time Pavelski has outproduced Nash in anything (by 1 goal and 1 assist), and the extra 1:30 average ice time probably has something to do with that.

- Leads the league in faceoffs: so? Even if it were true (it's not), there's never been a study done that demonstrates a positive correlation between faceoff percentage and...well, anything. Bergeron and Toews, by the way, led the league in faceoff percentage, and both of them took a ton more draws than Pavelski.

- Blocks more shots: so? There are major style differences between the two players. Nash, defensively, plays up high in the zone because it forces the defensemen to stay up high because he's a significant breakaway threat. So a defenseman isn't going to just unload a shot from 60' out; he's going to look to pass or advance the puck in some way. This is also why Nash is an effective PKer; the point men have to play up high out of respect for his offense.

- At half the price: and the same number of Stanley Cup rings.

I'm sure most people would look at this and think I'm criticizing Pavelski. Quite the opposite is true. I'd love to have him in Columbus. But to try to hold him up as an equal player to Rick Nash is absurd. If you want to talk about salary or contract length, be my guest. But the better player? Come on.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 04:40 AM
  #255
SCinSJ
Sith Lord Burns
 
SCinSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Rafael, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
I haven't read this entire thread (the first 3 pages and then the last two), but I agree with you that comparing Pavelski and Nash as equal in value is absurd. Yes Pavs might give you more bang for the buck but Nash is obviously the better player. Arguing that Pavelski is worth more because of his better production per dollar is like saying that Matt Moulson is worth more than Joe Thornton. It is just not the case. Value of players work on a curve. The closer you get to greatness the more your value increases exponentially. It is the same reason that you can never get value in a trade for a true generational talent.

With that said I would say that Marleau and Nash are about equal players in terms of true ability and skill. They both are the best player on a poor to average team and the best complimentary player on a good team. They both were invited to team Canada, put up similiar numbers, underrated defensively, and have not shown that ability to "put a team on their back".

Of course Nash is 5 years younger which raises his value signicantly but has a slightly higher cap hit which diminshes it slightly. I don't think that this variance in value is worth anything close to someone like Pavelski.

Not that I really am interested but if a trade around the two would happen i would think.

Marleau + Demers/Braun
Nash

Marleau + 2nd
Nash

Pavelski + Clowe
Nash

Pavelski + Murray + Ferriero

Nash +2nd

SCinSJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 06:16 AM
  #256
blinkman360
Back to Basics
 
blinkman360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Guido Central
Country: United States
Posts: 8,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
My god. Nash is in the top 5 goals scored in the past few years playing with absolutely no one while Marleau is with Joe Thornton. Are you honestly just disregarding this huge factor? Nash would score 45+ next to Joe. Im not going to debate this bc truly its beyond laughable. Not to mention Nash is younger...
lol, I was actually going to ask you if that is why you feel Marleau over Nash is "laughable." Thank you for clearing that up.

Please explain to me how Nash is in the top-5 of goals scored the "past few years" when Marleau has outscored him the past 3 seasons(tied this year, +5 last year, +11 the year before. Not to mention he's put up almost 30 more points during that time)? But I guess since Marleau has Thornton it doesn't count?

Maybe you are right and Nash will score 45+ each year with a 1st line center, but until that happens the only numbers we have are the numbers he's put up without one. IMO I don't see how those numbers make a Marleau>Nash statement laughable...

blinkman360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 06:50 AM
  #257
OldGoaltender
Registered User
 
OldGoaltender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Triad NC
Country: United States
Posts: 808
vCash: 500
I still think Nash ends up in Toronto. A Schenn/Scrivens/5th overall pick for Nash is fair for both teams.

OldGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:12 AM
  #258
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Just like Heatley right? That argument is thoroughly disproved, it almost never happens. Plus, Marleau had his most productive season not paired with Thornton, just like Pavelski, yet that stupid argument persists. It's made by people who flat out don't know what they are talking about.

EVEN if Nash scored 45 how is 1 goal, and decidedly weaker defense worth an extra $1m per season?

God that argument annoys the crap out of me, it is such falicy. Veteran players do not go to new teams and miraculously increase production, no matter how many times this is said people just keep spewing this garbage.

More often than not players continue to produce at essentially the same rate regardless of the quality of their team. There are rare exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.
Since you like to pick different pieces of a post and attack them I'll do the same. Are you forgetting Nash has made the playoffs ONE time while the Sharks were in the playoffs the last 5-6 years? The fact that Nash put up those numbers by himself on a team that hasnt picked in the top 10 one time is the amazing part. But you have a man crush, I understand. Oh and btw, comparing Nash and Heatley is hilarious mostly due to their completely different attitudes.

Gagnefan924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:23 AM
  #259
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkman360 View Post
lol, I was actually going to ask you if that is why you feel Marleau over Nash is "laughable." Thank you for clearing that up.

Please explain to me how Nash is in the top-5 of goals scored the "past few years" when Marleau has outscored him the past 3 seasons(tied this year, +5 last year, +11 the year before. Not to mention he's put up almost 30 more points during that time)? But I guess since Marleau has Thornton it doesn't count?

Maybe you are right and Nash will score 45+ each year with a 1st line center, but until that happens the only numbers we have are the numbers he's put up without one. IMO I don't see how those numbers make a Marleau>Nash statement laughable...
I forgot the stat but Nash and Carter had the most goals scored since the lockout, that was the stat I believe. I'm not "maybe" right about Nash dominating with Jumbo Joe, he already did it with Team Canada against the best players in the world. I highly doubt Marleau puts up the same numbers if he was with Columbus. Considering Columbus has been so awful all of Nash's career except one season, I can only see those numbers going up. But this whole Nash v Marleau is irrelevant due to Howson wanting Pavelski +. Might aswell talk about that.

Gagnefan924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:23 AM
  #260
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGoaltender View Post
I still think Nash ends up in Toronto. A Schenn/Scrivens/5th overall pick for Nash is fair for both teams.
Swap in Kulemin or Colborne for Scrivens?

I think you're on the right track with Schenn and the 5th overall + something.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:38 AM
  #261
Fro
Yes Cbus has hockey
 
Fro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drinking With Carts
Country: United States
Posts: 14,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
Swap in Kulemin or Colborne for Scrivens?

I think you're on the right track with Schenn and the 5th overall + something.
yeah, i really think this ends up being the deal...Schenn, 5th, + Colbourne or Kulemin/Kadri

Fro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 08:48 AM
  #262
Chandrashekhar Limit
ORANJE 4 LYFE
 
Chandrashekhar Limit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waterloo, ON
Country: Bangladesh
Posts: 15,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGoaltender View Post
I still think Nash ends up in Toronto. A Schenn/Scrivens/5th overall pick for Nash is fair for both teams.
As a Leafs fan, I would do this deal. I might do Colborne instead of Scrivens, but no way I would do Kadri/Kulemin on top of that.

Chandrashekhar Limit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:23 AM
  #263
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
I forgot the stat but Nash and Carter had the most goals scored since the lockout, that was the stat I believe. I'm not "maybe" right about Nash dominating with Jumbo Joe, he already did it with Team Canada against the best players in the world. I highly doubt Marleau puts up the same numbers if he was with Columbus. Considering Columbus has been so awful all of Nash's career except one season, I can only see those numbers going up. But this whole Nash v Marleau is irrelevant due to Howson wanting Pavelski +. Might aswell talk about that.
Olympics do not have the best players in the world.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:24 AM
  #264
KrisBeKreame
Registered User
 
KrisBeKreame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,352
vCash: 500
I keep thinking back to this proposal from the NYI - Columbus thread from last week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 54roughing View Post
would the Isles consider this

Id offer Nash and #2 to the Isles for Nino, Nelson and Poulin, and #4 ? three young players I think we could grow with and gain cap space

just an idea, what do Isles fans think? my fellow Blue Jacket fans might hang me but i think its a deal that would help us
Now Columbus fans said it was likely not enough. Islander fans and some neutral fans thought it was overpayment. I thnk it is a starting point that could be massaged into a workable deal for both sides. However we need to make an assumption that the islanders/Blue Jackets could convince Nash to move his NMC to play with Tavares.

Now For my fellow Islander fans who say that Wang will never take on a 7.8M dollar player. It was said that the Islanders have floated big money at players before. We do need to accept that if the Cap continues to go up we will HAVE to spend money by the rules of the CBA, even with our "arener" situation.

To the Columbus fans, I think the deal could be tweaked a bit. I would go as far as Nino, Strome, Poulin, the rights to PAP and the #4.

Now for those who say this is like the Yashin trade. Yes it is. For those who say shouldnt we have learned something from the Yashin trade. My answer is yes, However Yashin helped us gain relevancey, got us into the playoffs. It wasnt untill the looker room schism that things started to slide out of control. For those who remember we also traded for Peca that season in a similar deal that worked out well for us untill Darcy Tucker cheapshotted Peca, whom would never be the same. ALso remember the Pat Lafontaine trade that sent us Turgeon and Houge, which set up our '93 run.


As far as aquireing Nash and the #2. Nash would play quite well with Tavares providing two star quality players to bring us back to relevancy. Something we need for league and local support. Nash is what we would love for Nino to turn into. with the #2 we could easily pick the defenceman we want or Galchenyuk to replace Strome as our future 2nd line center. Nilsson would internally replace Poulin as the next in line future #1. His outstanding play in his first year in NA makes Poulin's loss a bit less. As Far as PAP he had a great season putting up points. Nash would however replace him.

KrisBeKreame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:26 AM
  #265
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Hold on a sec. Marleau's 86-point season came in the first year after the lockout (with Cheechoo's 56 goals), and he's hit 40 goals (44) the one time. Putting a possible 45 goals by Nash against Marleau as "one better" is quite a twist of logic, since that 44-goal season was three years ago.
My point simply being people like to point to Nash's 45 goal season was years ago, so was Marleau's. Neither is doing that now and you need to look at what they are both doing today, not what they did years ago. However, even if you take the 'best season' logic, Marleau is still basically equal.

Quote:
- Works harder: that's debatable. Neither you nor I is in the locker room, and neither one of us has been in the locker room of both teams. Andrew Murray and Manny Malhotra are the only two who have. Pavelski being 5'11" and looking like he's always moving doesn't mean he's going any harder or fast than a guy who's 6'4" and takes long strides.
Nash is a notorious floater, I've heard CBJ fans say so themselves numerous times. Pavelski would never be described as a floater.

Quote:
- More versatile: also debatable. Hitchcock, Noel, and Richards have all played Nash on the PK because he's good at it, and obviously he gets power play time. Arniel didn't have him on the PK (but did like to have either Kris Russell or Grant Clitsome out there), which is part of the reason why Scott Arniel is not an NHL coach any more.
That is pretty weak logic. Pavelski was #1 in PK ice time, #3 for PP ice time, #1 for defensive zone starts. No coach would 'choose' not to put Pavelski on the PK because he's excellent at it, that tells you something right there. I'm not saying Nash is bad defensively, but he's not in Pavelski's league.

Quote:
- Produces at the same rate: come on. Pavelski has exceeded 25 goals once, Nash has done it 8 times (seven 30-goal seasons, two of them 40+). This year is the first time Pavelski has outproduced Nash in anything (by 1 goal and 1 assist), and the extra 1:30 average ice time probably has something to do with that.
Again, that's in the past. Right now Pavelski is producing at the same rate as Nash and I find no reason to believe Nash would miracously produce at a greater rate on the Sharks. That simply isn't supported by history. Pavelski also technically out-produced him last season because he had the same points in less games. Pavelski gets more ice time than Nash mainly because of his PK time. Even so, Pavelski saw slightly more ES TOI than Nash, on such a 'vastly superior' team why is Pavelski seeing so much ice time? Why would Nash get MORE ice time in San Jose? He wouldn't, he has to share the ice with better players, and share the puck with better players, and those things tend to even out. Even if Nash did have some amazing season in San Jose it would likely be cannibalizing points from someone else and the net total would be about the same for the team. The system has a bigger effect on total team scoring (especially on an already high talent team) than another big star player does.

Quote:
- Leads the league in faceoffs: so? Even if it were true (it's not), there's never been a study done that demonstrates a positive correlation between faceoff percentage and...well, anything. Bergeron and Toews, by the way, led the league in faceoff percentage, and both of them took a ton more draws than Pavelski.
Face-offs lead to possession, possession leads to wins. Are you implying you don't care if your team wins a defensive zone face off with 30 seconds left with a 1 goal lead? Of course you want them to win, because Face-offs are huge. That's why teams go out and bring in guys like Malhotra. Now, yes, you are correct, apparently Pavelski dropped out of 1st at some point near the end of the season, I wasn't aware of that, he was in 1st for the majority of the season, I didn't realize Toews and Bergeron passed him barely.

Quote:
- Blocks more shots: so? There are major style differences between the two players. Nash, defensively, plays up high in the zone because it forces the defensemen to stay up high because he's a significant breakaway threat. So a defenseman isn't going to just unload a shot from 60' out; he's going to look to pass or advance the puck in some way. This is also why Nash is an effective PKer; the point men have to play up high out of respect for his offense.
Just pointing out something Pavelski does better. Nash hits better for instance, which people love to point out.

Quote:
- At half the price: and the same number of Stanley Cup rings.
You are better than that sir, that's a terrible justification I won't even waste my time responding to further.

Quote:
I'm sure most people would look at this and think I'm criticizing Pavelski. Quite the opposite is true. I'd love to have him in Columbus. But to try to hold him up as an equal player to Rick Nash is absurd. If you want to talk about salary or contract length, be my guest. But the better player? Come on.
I have seen no argument that proves Nash is a better player right now. I don't care about 3-5 years ago, I care about right now. Pavelski is getting better every season, Nash has seemingly plateaued. Maybe he'd come to San Jose and prove his superiority, but history would say that's not likely, players just don't do that. Plus, as I said, even if he did, it would likely be at the expense of other players point totals. We are not talking about Joe Pavelski vs Clause Giroux, or Sidney Crosby, or Stamkos, we are talking about vs Rick Nash and the argument is a lot closer than the 'absurd' people like to point out. When you look at the hard numbers for both players coupled with no provable evidence that the quality of a team effects the production of a player (I do agree, it seems like that would be the case, but it simply is not), Pavelski is a vastly superior value and in my opinion a better player.

The real point being here, I would not trade Pavelski straight up for Nash because it would make the Sharks a worse team, and a more cap constrained team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCinSJ View Post
I haven't read this entire thread (the first 3 pages and then the last two), but I agree with you that comparing Pavelski and Nash as equal in value is absurd. Yes Pavs might give you more bang for the buck but Nash is obviously the better player. Arguing that Pavelski is worth more because of his better production per dollar is like saying that Matt Moulson is worth more than Joe Thornton. It is just not the case. Value of players work on a curve. The closer you get to greatness the more your value increases exponentially. It is the same reason that you can never get value in a trade for a true generational talent.

With that said I would say that Marleau and Nash are about equal players in terms of true ability and skill. They both are the best player on a poor to average team and the best complimentary player on a good team. They both were invited to team Canada, put up similiar numbers, underrated defensively, and have not shown that ability to "put a team on their back".

Of course Nash is 5 years younger which raises his value signicantly but has a slightly higher cap hit which diminshes it slightly. I don't think that this variance in value is worth anything close to someone like Pavelski.

Not that I really am interested but if a trade around the two would happen i would think.

Marleau + Demers/Braun
Nash

Marleau + 2nd
Nash

Pavelski + Clowe
Nash

Pavelski + Murray + Ferriero

Nash +2nd
That is not at all the argument I made, maybe you should read the thread.

Pavelski produces at almost exactly the same rate right now and you don't base trade value on 'could be', you base it on reality. There is little to no evidence to support the claim that the quality of a team significantly effects the production of a player, as illogical as that may seem, its the truth. Why would you pay twice as much for the same points and less defense?

All your trades the Sharks are a worse team after. Marleau is a clearly superior player, Pavelski is arguably superior, why would we be adding to those people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Since you like to pick different pieces of a post and attack them I'll do the same. Are you forgetting Nash has made the playoffs ONE time while the Sharks were in the playoffs the last 5-6 years? The fact that Nash put up those numbers by himself on a team that hasnt picked in the top 10 one time is the amazing part. But you have a man crush, I understand. Oh and btw, comparing Nash and Heatley is hilarious mostly due to their completely different attitudes.
What the heck do playoffs have to do with regular season numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
I forgot the stat but Nash and Carter had the most goals scored since the lockout, that was the stat I believe. I'm not "maybe" right about Nash dominating with Jumbo Joe, he already did it with Team Canada against the best players in the world. I highly doubt Marleau puts up the same numbers if he was with Columbus. Considering Columbus has been so awful all of Nash's career except one season, I can only see those numbers going up. But this whole Nash v Marleau is irrelevant due to Howson wanting Pavelski +. Might aswell talk about that.
Thornton and Nash didn't play together in the Olympics (they left Marleau/Heatley on his wings) and even when they were on the ice at the same time there certainly was no 'domination' going on. They did play together in the Swiss league, but that was a long time ago against weaker competition.

"I can only see those numbers going up". You are guessing, you are making an irrational judgment based on no evidence. Players do not increase their point totals significantly on better teams, please fine more than 1 or 2 examples post lockout of that occurring. I've heard one decent example, and even that was flawed (James Neal). I can list many counter examples (Gaborik, Heatley, Richards (Both)...)

Post lockout, Marleau: 234 goals
Post lockout, Nash: 231 goals

Took me 1 minute to look up.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:48 AM
  #266
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post



What the heck do playoffs have to do with regular season numbers?



Thornton and Nash didn't play together in the Olympics (they left Marleau/Heatley on his wings) and even when they were on the ice at the same time there certainly was no 'domination' going on. They did play together in the Swiss league, but that was a long time ago against weaker competition.

"I can only see those numbers going up". You are guessing, you are making an irrational judgment based on no evidence. Players do not increase their point totals significantly on better teams, please fine more than 1 or 2 examples post lockout of that occurring. I've heard one decent example, and even that was flawed (James Neal). I can list many counter examples (Gaborik, Heatley, Richards (Both)...)

Post lockout, Marleau: 234 goals
Post lockout, Nash: 231 goals

Took me 1 minute to look up.
A lot, it shows that the team is good enough to actually compete to be able to put up those numbers easier. As for your goal totals its 3 goals and even that is still impressive from Nash considering they suck in the regular season and Marleau plays with Thornton. You have your opinion, I have mine. Quite frankly I dont care enough to go look up players who have improved their goal totals after going to a new team. Nash may not score as many but the Sharks will be a better team due to teams having to key on him which allows other players to improve.

Gagnefan924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:55 AM
  #267
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
A lot, it shows that the team is good enough to actually compete to be able to put up those numbers easier. As for your goal totals its 3 goals and even that is still impressive from Nash considering they suck in the regular season and Marleau plays with Thornton. You have your opinion, I have mine. Quite frankly I dont care enough to go look up players who have improved their goal totals after going to a new team. Nash may not score as many but the Sharks will be a better team due to teams having to key on him which allows other players to improve.
The difference between Nash and Marleau won't likely be production. It would be playing style and when those goals are scored.

If the Sharks were to acquire Nash, they would be doing so with the hope that he can turn it on in big games.

Regular season point totals aren't a huge area of concern for the Sharks, they do fine as is. What they would be looking for is someone who scores at crucial times like in the postseason. Nash is a fairly unknown quantity in that regards so if Sharks management is told by their pro scouts Nash would be key... I can see them going hard after him. If they say he is too risky with that contract, then they won't.

I think they are also likely looking to shakeup the locker room.


Last edited by Crede777: 05-23-2012 at 10:02 AM.
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 09:57 AM
  #268
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,331
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Nash may not score as many but the Sharks will be a better team due to teams having to key on him which allows other players to improve.
For free? Sure. Giving up Pavelski or Couture? No, they wouldn't be a better team unless the extra $4-5M isn't used at all.

Arrch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 10:44 AM
  #269
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
A lot, it shows that the team is good enough to actually compete to be able to put up those numbers easier. As for your goal totals its 3 goals and even that is still impressive from Nash considering they suck in the regular season and Marleau plays with Thornton. You have your opinion, I have mine. Quite frankly I dont care enough to go look up players who have improved their goal totals after going to a new team. Nash may not score as many but the Sharks will be a better team due to teams having to key on him which allows other players to improve.
You are not willing to do the work, but I have, and posted it (somewhere in one of these threads...) it just doesn't happen. The rare cases it does happen are generally either because either the player was injured his previous season with his old team (Gaborik) and if you take that players previous healthy season you show basically no significant change, or a young player who is still improving where some of that improvement might be attributable to simple growth as a player (James Neal).

I like Rick Nash, I do, and I wouldn't even mind having him on the Sharks (except for that contract) but not at the expense of a player that is already doing what he is doing for less money. Now if you want to add to Nash for one of those guys, I'm willing to discusss that, but I'm not trading a $4m player who is still improving, providing the same production, and better in every other area of the ice, for an $8m player. That doesn't make any sense. IF I could find some concrete evidence that players of Nash's caliber regularly go from bad teams to good teams and instantly become better producers (and not at the expense of other players) sure, but I can't find any, aside from a few isolated incidents.

I will humor you and lets say Nash came to San Jose for Pavelski and put up 40 goals and 70 points (being generous). Is 9 goals even worth $4m and the loss of everything else Pavelski provides? Best case scenario he puts up 45g and 80p, then MAYBE it's worth it, but you are basically saying unless Nash provides the best case scenario, the Sharks are worse off. You are betting on the guy putting up 15 more goals and 20 more points. That's just not a smart bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
The difference between Nash and Marleau won't likely be production. It would be playing style and when those goals are scored.

If the Sharks were to acquire Nash, they would be doing so with the hope that he can turn it on in big games.

Regular season point totals aren't a huge area of concern for the Sharks, they do fine as is. What they would be looking for is someone who scores at crucial times like in the postseason. Nash is a fairly unknown quantity in that regards so if Sharks management is told by their pro scouts Nash would be key... I can see them going hard after him. If they say he is too risky with that contract, then they won't.

I think they are also likely looking to shakeup the locker room.
We have NO idea if Nash is clutch in the post season. He's had such a small sample size that you are purely guessing. We know Marleau is good in the post-season, normally (small sample size this year).

You are basically arguing Nash has 'intangibles' over Marleau, and I just don't see that. Marleau is more versitile (plays center too, excellent defensively, proven playoff record).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrch View Post
For free? Sure. Giving up Pavelski or Couture? No, they wouldn't be a better team unless the extra $4-5M isn't used at all.
Exactly, being more top-heavy does not make us 'better', especially at the cost of high value players.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 11:36 AM
  #270
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,311
vCash: 500
I am not saying Nash is good in the postseason or has intangibles over Marleau. I am saying if Murray trades for Nash that would likely be HIS thinking behind it and he would have to heavily relu upon his pro scouts due to Nash having such a small postseason sample size.

I am more trying to say that, if Nash is attractive to the Sharks, it won't be because of predicted output.

Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 11:38 AM
  #271
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
"I can only see those numbers going up". You are guessing, you are making an irrational judgment based on no evidence. Players do not increase their point totals significantly on better teams, please fine more than 1 or 2 examples post lockout of that occurring. I've heard one decent example, and even that was flawed (James Neal). I can list many counter examples (Gaborik, Heatley, Richards (Both)...)

Post lockout, Marleau: 234 goals
Post lockout, Nash: 231 goals

Took me 1 minute to look up.
It's tough to do something like this post-lockout because it seems that the two years following the lockout actually skewed some of the players numbers. But if you look at the year before and the year after moving Gaborik, Heatley, Richards (when going from TB to DAL) all had more points (or better PPG) in the new destination.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 11:53 AM
  #272
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
My point simply being people like to point to Nash's 45 goal season was years ago, so was Marleau's. Neither is doing that now and you need to look at what they are both doing today, not what they did years ago. However, even if you take the 'best season' logic, Marleau is still basically equal.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Nash is a notorious floater, I've heard CBJ fans say so themselves numerous times. Pavelski would never be described as a floater.
The opinion of the fans doesn't make it true.

Quote:
That is pretty weak logic. Pavelski was #1 in PK ice time, #3 for PP ice time, #1 for defensive zone starts. No coach would 'choose' not to put Pavelski on the PK because he's excellent at it, that tells you something right there. I'm not saying Nash is bad defensively, but he's not in Pavelski's league.
Pavelski has an added bonus because of his faceoff skill; possession in a PK situation is fairly important, so he'll be out there to take the draw. And obviously no coach is going to say, "Win the draw, then come to the bench".

With Nash not taking faceoffs, his PK time is going to more reliant on whether he can do it. Here's an article that discusses Arniel's reluctance to use Nash on the PK:
http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/conte...l-limited.html

Two stats that stand out:
In 2007-08, Nash was 5th in the NHL in shorthanded goals (CBJ were 9th in PK). In 2008-09, he was 2nd (CBJ were 13th). Arniel came in in 2010-11, removed Nash off the PK, and the team dropped to 22nd. After two months of the 2011-12 season, Columbus was not only sitting dead last, but the PK% was something like 68%. And through it all, Arniel still never adjusted; Nash's PK time under Arniel totaled less than 40 minutes in 123 games.

Quote:
Again, that's in the past. Right now Pavelski is producing at the same rate as Nash and I find no reason to believe Nash would miracously produce at a greater rate on the Sharks. That simply isn't supported by history. Pavelski also technically out-produced him last season because he had the same points in less games. Pavelski gets more ice time than Nash mainly because of his PK time. Even so, Pavelski saw slightly more ES TOI than Nash, on such a 'vastly superior' team why is Pavelski seeing so much ice time? Why would Nash get MORE ice time in San Jose? He wouldn't, he has to share the ice with better players, and share the puck with better players, and those things tend to even out. Even if Nash did have some amazing season in San Jose it would likely be cannibalizing points from someone else and the net total would be about the same for the team. The system has a bigger effect on total team scoring (especially on an already high talent team) than another big star player does.
Part of it goes back to Arniel again. In 41 games this year, I think Nash led the forwards in ice time only 9 times. For the sake of comparison, Sammy Pahlsson led the forwards a couple of times, and those were in games where there was almost no PK time. The guy simply had no idea how to put the best or most effective players on the ice. What I mentioned before about Clitsome and Russell getting PK minutes is true, and both of them make Phil Housley look stout in his own end.

Quote:
Face-offs lead to possession, possession leads to wins. Are you implying you don't care if your team wins a defensive zone face off with 30 seconds left with a 1 goal lead? Of course you want them to win, because Face-offs are huge. That's why teams go out and bring in guys like Malhotra. Now, yes, you are correct, apparently Pavelski dropped out of 1st at some point near the end of the season, I wasn't aware of that, he was in 1st for the majority of the season, I didn't realize Toews and Bergeron passed him barely.
I don't remember saying that, or suggesting it. You're bringing up one specific situation and adding weight to it. I'm using a general all-encompassing situation, which is "a faceoff".

The simple reality is that the gap between the best and worst faceoff men in the league isn't that significant. It's not like free throws in the NBA, where there are guys who shoot 50% and guys who shoot 90%. The best faceoff men in the league are around 59%, and the worst are around 45%. Within any given faceoff, neither one of them legitimately has a clear advantage. That's why there's all these bizarre outlier games, where someone might be 20/26 on faceoffs, or 3/15.

Quote:
Just pointing out something Pavelski does better. Nash hits better for instance, which people love to point out.
No one uses that argument, because it's not what either of their game revolves around, and it's barely a "minor" part of either one. It's slightly more important than faceoff skill for defensemen, and slightly less important than shooting percentage while shorthanded.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 11:55 AM
  #273
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Post lockout, Marleau: 234 goals
Post lockout, Nash: 231 goals

Took me 1 minute to look up.
Marleau also played 39 more games than Nash. That's directly attributable to Nash being injured for 1/3 of 2005-06, when some meathead longshot prospect decided to take him out in training camp. Nash's production for that season, projected over 82 games, would have been 47 goals and 82 points. Instead, he ended up with 31 goals and 54 points (in 54 games).

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 12:03 PM
  #274
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
It's tough to do something like this post-lockout because it seems that the two years following the lockout actually skewed some of the players numbers. But if you look at the year before and the year after moving Gaborik, Heatley, Richards (when going from TB to DAL) all had more points (or better PPG) in the new destination.
Remember I said 'significant'.

Gaborik: (injured in 09-09)
2007-2008 = 42g, 41a, 83p
2009-2010 = 42g, 44a, 86p
Net gain = 0g, 3a, 3p

Heatley:
2008-2009 = 39g, 33a, 72p
2009-2010 = 39g, 43a, 82p
net gain = 0g, 10a, 10p

Brad Richards:
2010-2011 = 28g, 49a, 77p
2011-2012 = 25g, 41a, 66p
Net gain = -3g, -8a, -11p

Mike Richards: (why not, i realize it wasn't poor team to good team)
2010-2011 = 23g, 43a, 66p
2011-2012 = 18g, 26a, 44p
net gain= -5g, -17a, -22p

Thats a total net gain for that entire group of: -8g, -12a, -20p. The biggest gain by a player was Heatley with 0g, 10a, which is hardly significant enough to warrant a $3.8m salary increase.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-23-2012, 12:11 PM
  #275
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Fair enough.



The opinion of the fans doesn't make it true.



Pavelski has an added bonus because of his faceoff skill; possession in a PK situation is fairly important, so he'll be out there to take the draw. And obviously no coach is going to say, "Win the draw, then come to the bench".

With Nash not taking faceoffs, his PK time is going to more reliant on whether he can do it. Here's an article that discusses Arniel's reluctance to use Nash on the PK:
http://www.bluejacketsxtra.com/conte...l-limited.html

Two stats that stand out:
In 2007-08, Nash was 5th in the NHL in shorthanded goals (CBJ were 9th in PK). In 2008-09, he was 2nd (CBJ were 13th). Arniel came in in 2010-11, removed Nash off the PK, and the team dropped to 22nd. After two months of the 2011-12 season, Columbus was not only sitting dead last, but the PK% was something like 68%. And through it all, Arniel still never adjusted; Nash's PK time under Arniel totaled less than 40 minutes in 123 games.



Part of it goes back to Arniel again. In 41 games this year, I think Nash led the forwards in ice time only 9 times. For the sake of comparison, Sammy Pahlsson led the forwards a couple of times, and those were in games where there was almost no PK time. The guy simply had no idea how to put the best or most effective players on the ice. What I mentioned before about Clitsome and Russell getting PK minutes is true, and both of them make Phil Housley look stout in his own end.



I don't remember saying that, or suggesting it. You're bringing up one specific situation and adding weight to it. I'm using a general all-encompassing situation, which is "a faceoff".

The simple reality is that the gap between the best and worst faceoff men in the league isn't that significant. It's not like free throws in the NBA, where there are guys who shoot 50% and guys who shoot 90%. The best faceoff men in the league are around 59%, and the worst are around 45%. Within any given faceoff, neither one of them legitimately has a clear advantage. That's why there's all these bizarre outlier games, where someone might be 20/26 on faceoffs, or 3/15.



No one uses that argument, because it's not what either of their game revolves around, and it's barely a "minor" part of either one. It's slightly more important than faceoff skill for defensemen, and slightly less important than shooting percentage while shorthanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Marleau also played 39 more games than Nash. That's directly attributable to Nash being injured for 1/3 of 2005-06, when some meathead longshot prospect decided to take him out in training camp. Nash's production for that season, projected over 82 games, would have been 47 goals and 82 points. Instead, he ended up with 31 goals and 54 points (in 54 games).
I think at this point we are quibbling over details. Whether you agree with me or not that Pavelski is the superior player to Nash at this moment you have to admit it is at least closer than 'absurd' that people like to throw around. These are two guys putting up very similar numbers while one has more talent, the other has more utility. I'm not denying Nash has more talent, that's clear, but I see it as the equivalent of owning a 200mph car that you never take over 65mph. The potential is there, but it's not being used.

Can we both agree that Nash is certainly not worth $3.8m more than Pavelski based on their last few seasons? That's really what matters here.

hockeyball 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 04:19 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.