HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rick Nash+S.Delisle+cond. 3rd to NYR for Dubinsky+Anisimov+Erixon+2013 1st (Part III)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 10:10 PM
  #376
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih8theislanders View Post
And nothing to show for it.
Sure they did. They won division championships and were pretty much a model franchise for consistency.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 10:11 PM
  #377
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Sure they did. They won division championships and were pretty much a model franchise for consistency.
You don't get remembered for being a model franchise for consistency unless you win Cups.

See Detroit and New Jersey. No one talks about St. Louis.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 10:17 PM
  #378
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,229
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Sure they did. They won division championships and were pretty much a model franchise for consistency.
lol no one cares. No Cup, No Care.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:03 AM
  #379
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
You don't get remembered for being a model franchise for consistency unless you win Cups.

See Detroit and New Jersey. No one talks about St. Louis.
They are probably the most underrated team of all time. 25 yrs straight in the playoffs has never happened in NA sports I believe.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 01:19 AM
  #380
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Advanced hockey statistics mean something if you take the time to understand them. I thought the same thing too last yr, but after going in depth with the stats, they tell a lot of how players were sheltered and how they were shot/outshot in their minutes relative to competition.

You want to know how a rookie like Nugent-Hopkins was scoring at a torrid pace through his first 30 games? (4th in NHL scoring) He was sheltered a lot by Tom Renney. Hemsky, Horcoff and Hall were the players that received the toughest minutes on the Oilers, hence their decrease in production compared to Nuge and Eberle. They got easier zone starts, were placed against easy competition and were put in a position of success.

Look at our very own Brad Richards. You want to know why his point totals took a hit since joining the Rangers? No, he didn't have a rough season, he was simply put against the best competition on the Rangers. In Dallas, Ribeiro/Eriksson/Morrow played the tougher minutes while Richards got prime time PP minutes, offensive zone starts and played against 2nd pairing d-man and 3rd line players.

Same case with Gaborik. He had an exceptional season, but he got to face easier competition since Callahan's line was doing most of the weightlifting against top competition. This is determined by the stats QUALCOMP.

It's not stupid. You have to use it with context though. I agree that you can't judge a player primary on advanced statistics, but it tells a big story too.
I'm only going to reply to this once because I don't need to get into a back in forth with you:

Advanced hockey stats are meaningless. They have no proof of causation. None. You can't start back tracking and talking about context after your continuous pathetic attempts to slag off Nash. All you talk about with him is 59 points, 59 points, 59 points, as if what he did on that moribund team has anything to do with what he can do on the Rangers. Are you seriously so lacking in imagination that you can't envision how moving from the not just bad, but historically bad rosters of Columbus to the Rangers will affect his game? Go back and look at Inferno's post on their all time roster outside of Nash. There's abysmal and then there's Columbus. It doesn't take much to figure out that Richards and Nash will elevate each others games.

Nash is capable of generating offense on a level that not enough of our forwards could last year. I'll point again to you talking about 08-09 like it proves Nash isn't really that good. Putting up career numbers on the "strongest" roster he's ever had playing for a coach who runs a very similar system to Tortorella is a bad thing? It's proof that he can thrive with a modicum of actual quality surrounding play.

You keep talking about asset management and being smart and Nash's cap hit. This front office has been the essence of intelligent asset management since Gorton and Clark got here. This is a clear upgrade to give us shots at multiple cups. You wanna ***** about the $7.8 million hit? That's what Parise and Suter got, except for a lot more years. For a player of Nash's caliber, you're not going to see lower than a $7 million hit without a cap circumventing contract anyway.

And for all your talk about asset management and Nash's cap hit, you have the gall to turn around and talk about what we gave up making this deal a loss. Dubinsky is a 2nd/3rd line tweener with a $4.2 million cap hit. Anisimov is a 2nd/3rd line tweener about to get a raise. Those contracts don't hurt our cap at all when we're going to have to re-sign Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, and Sauer next year? The biggest thing we gave up was Erixon, who was a lefty stuck behind Staal, McDonagh, and Del Zotto (with Skjei coming up behind him). First-line players in their prime don't become available often. We got one without giving up our top young assets. That's a win for the Rangers any way you look at it.

The bottom line is that you can take your stupid numbers and try to tell any story you want. They don't prove that Nash is overrated, just like they don't prove that Richards' problems last year were matchup-based. Richards struggled early primarily because he was adjusting to a more defensively oriented team and less talented linemates. His game just was not there until late in the season and that's clear to anyone who watched him.

All in all, your advanced stat rantings on Nash carry about as much weight as the opinions of someone who would say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I wish I was a Flyers fan.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...164487&page=36


Zil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 01:44 AM
  #381
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 45,660
vCash: 50
25 straight playoff appearances with 0 cups means just about nothing in the long run.

__________________
"New day, new hope. Richards Buyout 2014". -Ail
Bob Richards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 02:40 AM
  #382
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I don't think Erixon has to be a superstar to win this deal for the Jackets. If he becomes a NHL regular top 4-dman, while Anisimov/Dubi retain their scoring rate from 10-11, this deal is ridiculously lopsided for the Jackets.
At the same time, if that happens CBJ is looking to pay these guys 15m per in the pretty near future. So it would be Nash and 8m of cap space vs Dubi, AA and Erixon. If it doesn't happend, its still probably Nash and 4-5m of cap space vs Dubi, AA and Erixon. You can get a pretty good UFA for 8m per too, or for 4-5m per too...

Also, diffrent teams and diffrent needs.

Erixon vs our depth on LD of McD, Staal and MDZ (Skeji)

Dubi vs our depth at LW of Nash, Hagelin, Kreider and Rupp

Anisimov vs our depth at center of Richards, Stepan, JT Miller and Boyle, or at RW of Gabby, Cally and Pyatt.

On top of that, we have organizational depth. I can almost guarantee this: JT Miller will play in the NHL and besides him, in 3-4 years, our farm will have produced atleast one D (Skeji/McI) and one forward (Thomas, Bourque, Fasth, Nieves, Hrivik, Yogan, MSC and co).

Look, I was really loosing it at the trade rumor board reading soooo many posters comparing trade packages with AA, Dubi and Erixon and co with the typical "TML-trade prosposal". I too think its a heck of a deal for CBJ. I see where you are coming from. We gave up alot. Many here has also almost written off Erixon due to Torts comments, which I think is pretty absurd. But to say that we lost the deal, nah, I definitely think that's far fetched because we definitely got the best player, and probably by a very wide margin, and a 3(.3) deal for one player, heads and shoulders better than the guys going the other way, is exactly what we needed to do.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 05:18 AM
  #383
Jim Ramsay
Registered User
 
Jim Ramsay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Warwick, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Sure they did. They won division championships and were pretty much a model franchise for consistency.
anddddd no one cares or remembers teams for being 'division champs'. I'd love to see a poll and see if fans would rather see their team be division champs 25 times or a STANLEY CUP CHAMPION

Jim Ramsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 08:43 AM
  #384
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
The Blues had a dominant stretch of making the playoffs for 25 straight seasons. That's unreal.
Not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
They are probably the most underrated team of all time. 25 yrs straight in the playoffs has never happened in NA sports I believe.
It's been done. And by other teams in the NHL.

The Bruins made the playoffs for 29 straight seasons (1967-68 to 1995-96) Oh, and they won two Cups in that streak.

The Blackhawks made the playoffs 28 straight seasons (1969-70 to 1996-97). They like the Blues, didn't win a Cup in that stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
They won division championships and were pretty much a model franchise for consistency.
The Blues won 4 division championships during their streak (1980-81, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1999-200). They never won back-to-back division championships. In fact they averaged a division title every six seasons. That's impressive and being the model of consistency?

__________________

Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 08-22-2012 at 09:01 AM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 09:04 AM
  #385
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
The Blues had a dominant stretch of making the playoffs for 25 straight seasons. That's unreal.
Im well aware.

0 Stanley Cups in those 25 seasons too. You'd be satisfied with that?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:33 PM
  #386
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
I'm only going to reply to this once because I don't need to get into a back in forth with you:

Advanced hockey stats are meaningless. They have no proof of causation. None. You can't start back tracking and talking about context after your continuous pathetic attempts to slag off Nash. All you talk about with him is 59 points, 59 points, 59 points, as if what he did on that moribund team has anything to do with what he can do on the Rangers. Are you seriously so lacking in imagination that you can't envision how moving from the not just bad, but historically bad rosters of Columbus to the Rangers will affect his game? Go back and look at Inferno's post on their all time roster outside of Nash. There's abysmal and then there's Columbus. It doesn't take much to figure out that Richards and Nash will elevate each others games.
Nash wasn't just bad because of the roster around him. The team underperformed because Nash underperformed this past season. He was part of the problem. Vinny Prospal, Nikita Nikitin and Fedor Tyutin all stepped up their games this season when you compare it to years past. Nash has been dwindling down for 3 straight seasons and it isn't just because of an abysmal roster. With the way he was hyped, you'd expect great numbers from him, even on bad teams. Look at Kovalchuk, Gaborik, those guys scored on relative low-scoring teams. As mentioned in my previous post, Nash only dominated 1 season against top tier competition, the rest of the way, he's either struggled against top defenders league wide or he did well in a sheltered role. In my opinion, to be considered 'elite' you have to play the best against the best. Elite skillset? Absolutely. Elite player? Nope. And yes, there is a chance Nash's career turns around playing with Richards and that's pretty much all we can bank on.

Quote:
Nash is capable of generating offense on a level that not enough of our forwards could last year. I'll point again to you talking about 08-09 like it proves Nash isn't really that good. Putting up career numbers on the "strongest" roster he's ever had playing for a coach who runs a very similar system to Tortorella is a bad thing? It's proof that he can thrive with a modicum of actual quality surrounding play.
Rick Nash has had countless opportunities to be put in a position of strength by his coaching staff. Hell, Scott Howson even overpaid for a 1st line center in Jeff Carter and they were awful together. I don't think you can use 08-09 as a barometer on what he'll average with the Rangers since that was a career high. Just like you can't use this past season with 59pts as a barometer on what he'll get with the Rangers since that was one of his career-lows. He'll be somewhere in between that's for sure. Just hope that it's closer to his higher point than the lower end.

Quote:
You keep talking about asset management and being smart and Nash's cap hit. This front office has been the essence of intelligent asset management since Gorton and Clark got here. This is a clear upgrade to give us shots at multiple cups. You wanna ***** about the $7.8 million hit? That's what Parise and Suter got, except for a lot more years. For a player of Nash's caliber, you're not going to see lower than a $7 million hit without a cap circumventing contract anyway.
Nash isn't as good as Parise or Suter though and is coming off of a miserable season. And this is why I was first opposed to getting Nash. You already take a detriment on your team by adding the 6th highest cap hit in the league for a guy who isn't close to that.

Quote:
And for all your talk about asset management and Nash's cap hit, you have the gall to turn around and talk about what we gave up making this deal a loss. Dubinsky is a 2nd/3rd line tweener with a $4.2 million cap hit. Anisimov is a 2nd/3rd line tweener about to get a raise. Those contracts don't hurt our cap at all when we're going to have to re-sign Stepan, McDonagh, Hagelin, and Sauer next year? The biggest thing we gave up was Erixon, who was a lefty stuck behind Staal, McDonagh, and Del Zotto (with Skjei coming up behind him). First-line players in their prime don't become available often. We got one without giving up our top young assets. That's a win for the Rangers any way you look at it.
I think Dubi at 4.2 last yr wasn't a good deal. I think we needed to move on from him, but at the same time, he's still a good player. He'll play 1000 or so NHL games in his career as one of the better 2-way forwards in the game. Anisimov is a complete wild card. Either he's a tweener type or he raises his game to the next level and breaks out like Kesler did at age 25. He's also pretty young and perhaps with a scoring role, he'll break out. He's always had the talent, and has proved it on NA ice with his dominant AHL season at age 20. Erixon as mentioned before, IMO is a safe bet to become a top pair d-man. Torts just didn't like the guy and flat out admitted it when the trade occurred. The reality was that there was no room for a soft, first year NA player trying to get his feet wet on a contending team that plays a strict grinding system. Perhaps the coaches let him open up his game in Columbus and hopefully he'll get more playing time. When you think at the potential of these 3 players, I think if they live up to their billing and stay consistent NHL players, the trade isn't a 'steal'.

Quote:
The bottom line is that you can take your stupid numbers and try to tell any story you want. They don't prove that Nash is overrated, just like they don't prove that Richards' problems last year were matchup-based. Richards struggled early primarily because he was adjusting to a more defensively oriented team and less talented linemates. His game just was not there until late in the season and that's clear to anyone who watched him.
You don't think if Richards was sheltered with 60% offensive zone starts and weak QUALCOMP, he wouldn't put up more points?!?!?! If he was set up to play like he did in Dallas, he'd put up 80-90pts. It was an adjustment period too, I agree. But the tougher matchups will detriment any player's production.

Quote:
All in all, your advanced stat rantings on Nash carry about as much weight as the opinions of someone who would say this:



http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...164487&page=36

That was when they beat the cup faves in 6 games while we lost game 5 to Ottawa I believe. I say stupid things when the Rangers are struggling!

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:38 PM
  #387
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
At the same time, if that happens CBJ is looking to pay these guys 15m per in the pretty near future. So it would be Nash and 8m of cap space vs Dubi, AA and Erixon. If it doesn't happend, its still probably Nash and 4-5m of cap space vs Dubi, AA and Erixon. You can get a pretty good UFA for 8m per too, or for 4-5m per too...

Also, diffrent teams and diffrent needs.

Erixon vs our depth on LD of McD, Staal and MDZ (Skeji)

Dubi vs our depth at LW of Nash, Hagelin, Kreider and Rupp

Anisimov vs our depth at center of Richards, Stepan, JT Miller and Boyle, or at RW of Gabby, Cally and Pyatt.

On top of that, we have organizational depth. I can almost guarantee this: JT Miller will play in the NHL and besides him, in 3-4 years, our farm will have produced atleast one D (Skeji/McI) and one forward (Thomas, Bourque, Fasth, Nieves, Hrivik, Yogan, MSC and co).

Look, I was really loosing it at the trade rumor board reading soooo many posters comparing trade packages with AA, Dubi and Erixon and co with the typical "TML-trade prosposal". I too think its a heck of a deal for CBJ. I see where you are coming from. We gave up alot. Many here has also almost written off Erixon due to Torts comments, which I think is pretty absurd. But to say that we lost the deal, nah, I definitely think that's far fetched because we definitely got the best player, and probably by a very wide margin, and a 3(.3) deal for one player, heads and shoulders better than the guys going the other way, is exactly what we needed to do.
I think you can still lose a deal, even if you get the best player available.

Chris Pronger traded for Joffery Lupul, Jordan Eberle and Ladislav Smid.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:40 PM
  #388
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ramsay View Post
anddddd no one cares or remembers teams for being 'division champs'. I'd love to see a poll and see if fans would rather see their team be division champs 25 times or a STANLEY CUP CHAMPION
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Not really.



It's been done. And by other teams in the NHL.

The Bruins made the playoffs for 29 straight seasons (1967-68 to 1995-96) Oh, and they won two Cups in that streak.

The Blackhawks made the playoffs 28 straight seasons (1969-70 to 1996-97). They like the Blues, didn't win a Cup in that stretch.



The Blues won 4 division championships during their streak (1980-81, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1999-200). They never won back-to-back division championships. In fact they averaged a division title every six seasons. That's impressive and being the model of consistency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im well aware.

0 Stanley Cups in those 25 seasons too. You'd be satisfied with that?
I don't think you need to win the cup to be deemed a successful team. 25 yrs of playoffs is consistency at it's finest, even if you don't win. And I'm not sure how the Blues comparison came up in the first place.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:53 PM
  #389
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
I don't think you need to win the cup to be deemed a successful team. 25 yrs of playoffs is consistency at it's finest, even if you don't win. And I'm not sure how the Blues comparison came up in the first place.
When more teams make the playoffs than don't, making the playoffs really doesn't say a lot.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:57 PM
  #390
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
When more teams make the playoffs than don't, making the playoffs really doesn't say a lot.
It's still impressive. I've never flipped 25 heads in a row.

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 12:59 PM
  #391
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,780
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
It's still impressive. I've never flipped 25 heads in a row.
That's not a great analogy. Flipping heads is a 50/50 proposition. The odds are better that a team makes the playoffs than not making them.

So the Rangers 2000-2007 are more impressive!


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 08-22-2012 at 01:53 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 01:10 PM
  #392
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
That's a not a great analogy. Flipping heads is a 50/50 proposition. The odds are better that a team makes the playoffs than not making them.
Still the probability of making the playoffs in all 25 of those years based on the % of teams that got in every year is 0.0045% so I think they deserve some credit.

edit: The probability of missing from 1998-2004 is 0.3% so we should still be proud!

Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 01:47 PM
  #393
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Im well aware.

0 Stanley Cups in those 25 seasons too. You'd be satisfied with that?
I'd be more satisfied with that than with 17 seasons without a Cup that included a 7 season stretch of missing the playoffs. I'm torn on whether or not winning one Cup and sustaining a 7 year playoff drought is better than 25 straight years of playoffs.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 01:50 PM
  #394
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I'd be more satisfied with that than with 17 seasons without a Cup that included a 7 season stretch of missing the playoffs. I'm torn on whether or not winning one Cup and sustaining a 7 year playoff drought is better than 25 straight years of playoffs.
Guess I'm not the only one.

Perhaps it's because I started watching the Rangers in 2002.....

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2012, 02:06 PM
  #395
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Guess I'm not the only one.

Perhaps it's because I started watching the Rangers in 2002.....
I've been watching since the early 90s, at least that I can remember. I'm sure I started watching before that, but I don't remember much hockey from before I was 8. I know it's easier for me to say, since I didn't live through the 54 year drought, but sometimes I wonder if I'd trade the 94 Cup in towards not having to live through the torture of 98-04.

Also, the fact that the Blues were successful in the regular season without winning Cups may be meaningless to us, but we aren't Blues fans. While they have no championships to show for it, they still have a franchise tradition to be proud of.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:47 PM
  #396
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,589
vCash: 500
Nash is the cover boy on THN

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?o=in...52385&prev=sub

You can read the article.

Hitchcock is quoted in the article. He said Nash was a dominate player in 08-09 which is the only year Columbus made the playoffs. He played a complete game. Torts spoke to Ken Campbell. The Rangers will ask Nash to do more than he did in Columbus. Play more. Play hard. Both sides of the puck. Torts is putting Nash on the right side next to Richards. Nash said he played four years for Hitch and loves playing that type of game. Two way game. Offense comes from defense.


RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 04:20 PM
  #397
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Nash will play on the right side?

Why?

Our LW depth is much more of a concern.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 04:24 PM
  #398
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
Nash will play on the right side?

Why?

Our LW depth is much more of a concern.
no marian gaborik....both sides are a concern.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 04:27 PM
  #399
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
no marian gaborik....both sides are a concern.
It would take quite an adjustment period for Nash to shift wing positions during the season, no?

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 04:27 PM
  #400
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Torts spoke to Ken Campbell. The Rangers will ask Nash to do more than he did in Columbus. Play more. Play hard. Both sides of the puck. Torts is putting Nash on the right side next to Richards.
Why would you put Nash on the right side? That leaves Callahan out of the top six when Gaborik's healthy. Presumably the lines would then be:

Hagelin-Richards-Nash
Kreider-Stepan-Gaborik
Pyatt-Boyle-Callahan
Rupp-Halpern-Asham

I guess Hagelin and Kreider could swap places depending on what the coaching staff likes.

Zil is offline   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 04:25 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.