HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

"Aww, that's Nash-ty." Nash Rumors Part V: McKenzie says down to Rangers/Sharks

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2012, 01:43 PM
  #776
elliot878
Registered User
 
elliot878's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 42
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexton11 View Post
My thoughts exactly. Im thinking this has been Sathers plan all along with this. Let Howson "talk you into" including Erixon so he thinks hes the one driving the negotiations.
If that doesnt do it, so be it.
Id be comfortable losing Erixon in a deal if it means keeping Kreider and JTM. Wonder why a gm of a team in a market like Columbus would want Erixon though. Yea, he projects to be a good player, but with the stuff he pulled in Calgary you're taking him on knowing that his bags are packed and ready to book it in a few years when he hits the UFA market.

elliot878 is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:44 PM
  #777
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,746
vCash: 500
Part of me wants to want Rick Nash, but I just can't shake the gut feeling that we will regret a trade for him in the long run. Say what you will about this team, but they win games. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

__________________

RANGERS =
we want cup is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:45 PM
  #778
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliot878 View Post
Id be comfortable losing Erixon in a deal if it means keeping Kreider and JTM. Wonder why a gm of a team in a market like Columbus would want Erixon though. Yea, he projects to be a good player, but with the stuff he pulled in Calgary you're taking him on knowing that his bags are packed and ready to book it in a few years when he hits the UFA market.

You'd still have him under control for the next five or so years. He also has value as a trade asset at some point.

jas is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:46 PM
  #779
NYR1967
Registered User
 
NYR1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York, N.Y.
Country: United States
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
It's actually not that much of a stretch.

Typical Rick Nash season:
35 G, 32A 67P

Typical Brandon Dubinsky season:
17 G, 28A, 45P

Net offensive increase: 22 goals. add 22 goals prorated over our current amt of games played to our current season total and youre looking at the 6th best offense, a stone throw from the 3rd best offense, not including any appreciable increase in offense by moving an offensive force to play with a guy like Richards, or the effects of moving a solid player like Hagelin down a line to help the 3rd line out.

Its not a simple 1:1 mathematical number, but it's not a stretch at ALL to say that adding Nash to this club and only subtracting Dubinsky will have a significant increase in our goal total.

Let's also not forget that that increase in goal total probably leads to ~5-6 more points in the standings, if not more.
I think you mean 22 points.

NYR1967 is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:46 PM
  #780
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York RKY View Post
Of course they do.
Odd Brooksie left him out of the article.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:47 PM
  #781
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith View Post
Apparently there's no room for improvement.

Complacency is the worst mindset.

Adding Nash vastly improves this team's offense--- and personally, I wouldn't stop there. I want to add a bottom-6 faceoff guy and a vet dman, too. Look at what the 94 team did trade wise. They were the best team in the league, and they could still improve; who woulda thunk it?

Personally, Nash/Ott/Allen would be a perfect deadline.
The 94 team didn't have a salary cap to worry about. And if they didn't win the cup that year, those trades would have amounted to nothing but a spectacular failure, since the team didn't really contend for the cup again after that. We had that run in 97, but we were an underdog, not a frontrunner.

I don't want a team that is geared up to take one really good shot at the cup. I want a team that has a chance at the cup every year.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:48 PM
  #782
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR1967 View Post
I think you mean 22 points.
22 goals scored. Assists are recorded when a goal is scored. Nash's presence should increase the overall offense just by driving the net/putting pressure on the D/releiving pressure from other players, etc.

When you add 100 point player to your team that scores 10 goals and 90 assists, are you adding 10 goals to your team? No. You're adding 100 goals.

Of course if you are subtracting a guy who scores 50 goals and puts up 10 assists, you are subtracting 60 goals, not 50.

Inferno is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:49 PM
  #783
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
This rangers team really is not "so damn good"

what it is, is SPECTACULAR defensively, SPECTACULAR between the pipes, and borderline AWFUL in the offensive zone. the top 10 in goals scored is really more of a reflection of how good we are defensively and how well we pressure the puck...also our shooting percentage has got to be abnormally high...i can't seem to find the stats, but considering how low we are in shots per game and how high we are in goals per game, that S% must be very high compared to most other teams. which means we've either got a very skilled team, which anyone who has watched this team knows we don't, or we have a very lucky team. i think it's more that that anything else.

The teams with the best chances to win the cup usually have all 3 things going for them. High G/G, Low GA/G and a high SV%

Rangers need some more offense.

Also, getting Nash helps this team become far more balanced than ppl give them credit for. if you wanted you could put a superstar on each of our top 3 lines and just dare the opposition to shut them down, OR you could stack the hell out of one line and play them for 30 mins a night. Gives you so many options. When the other team puts their 4th line out for a defensive zone draw, you put Nash-Richards-Gaborik and watch them poop their pants.

When the other team loads up on a shut down line to stop your stars, you split them up and force them to try to shut down 3 strong lines.

Seriously, look at this roster, hypothetically, next year:

First line: Rick Nash - Brad Richards - Ryan Callahan
First line: Artem Anisimov - Derek Stepan - Marian Gaborik
Second line: Chris Kreider - JT Miller - Carl Hagelin
Third/Fourth Line: Rupp - Boyle - Prust


There is no team in the league that can put out that combination of size, speed, skill, defensive awareness, etc on a night in and night out basis. Could we lose? Of course. But, it becomes a lot harder.

Whats wrong with turning a Great team, to an even Greater team? I don't get the problem.
Great post. I think you're overrating the D somewhat and underrating the offense somewhat. But the shot % argument is a good point. I don't think the Rangers will become garbage like some posters on the main board due, because it'll regress to the mean, but I wonder if it does regress to them what happens then. It did during January and our D and goaltending was good enough to give us a pretty good month despite a 2-3 stretch at one point. However, what if our shot % goes down for a long stretch and Lundqvist regresses to human form? Our D has been leaky lately. That's also why talk of next year is BS, what if next year we have a lower shot %?

SnowblindNYR is online now  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:49 PM
  #784
Gabotrick
Registered User
 
Gabotrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 125
vCash: 500
There is honestly nothing more to talk about right now, were just posting out of anxiety because we are stuck playing the waiting game. We no sather won't make a stupid move were just waiting for when nash is dealt to us the sharks or not at all. So there is honestly nothing to argue over.

Gabotrick is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:49 PM
  #785
sexton11
Registered User
 
sexton11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by elliot878 View Post
Id be comfortable losing Erixon in a deal if it means keeping Kreider and JTM. Wonder why a gm of a team in a market like Columbus would want Erixon though. Yea, he projects to be a good player, but with the stuff he pulled in Calgary you're taking him on knowing that his bags are packed and ready to book it in a few years when he hits the UFA market.
At this point, Id have to figure most of their own prospects feel the same way, and will continue to until they turn it around. They are banking on when their ELC's run out there will be reason for the new set of prospects to want to stay.

sexton11 is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:50 PM
  #786
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I doubt that 30/30 is going to be a problem for Nash.

What I meant is that he's not coming in here to carry the Rangers franchise.

Playing with players like Richards and Gaborik and Callahan and Stepan, I absolutely expect 35+ and 35+ from Nash. Which is a little more than what has been averaging on a piss poor columbus team.

I expect that Nash will increase his point production anywhere between 15%-25% which equates to 12-15 mor epoints a year.
I see that as being on the low end of expectations for him.

I make no secret that I am not a fan of this deal if it happens. That being said, I'm not going to make it a daily mission to crucify this guy if a deal happens.

Dubinsky's role, importance and future potential are being massively down graded here. It's a mistake to trade him, IMO.

Nash's cap hit will make signing other key people in the near future problematic at minimum.

Pizza is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:50 PM
  #787
New York RKY
Moderator
Let's Go Rangers!
 
New York RKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dirty Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 12,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
Odd Brooksie left him out of the article.
My guess is it's either a given that he's not in he deal or it simply slipped his mind.

__________________
New York RKY is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:50 PM
  #788
elliot878
Registered User
 
elliot878's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 42
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexton11 View Post
Yeah that has to be a misprint, Stepan would definatly be more untouchable than Miller (among others) I'd think.
I'd venture a guess that Howson wasnt dumb enough to bother asking lol. In all seriousness though, Stepan hasn't really been linked to this the way Del Zotto and McDonagh have. His name hasnt really popped up, even casually, (in anything I've read at least) so Brooks probably felt because of that we'd just assume Stepans not in play.

elliot878 is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:52 PM
  #789
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The 94 team didn't have a salary cap to worry about. And if they didn't win the cup that year, those trades would have amounted to nothing but a spectacular failure, since the team didn't really contend for the cup again after that. We had that run in 97, but we were an underdog, not a frontrunner.

I don't want a team that is geared up to take one really good shot at the cup. I want a team that has a chance at the cup every year.
Not to mention the fact that the 94 team traded for role players and battle-tested playoff veterans. None of the guys they traded for had never won a playoff game.

we want cup is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:52 PM
  #790
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabotrick View Post
There is honestly nothing more to talk about right now, were just posting out of anxiety because we are stuck playing the waiting game. We no sather won't make a stupid move were just waiting for when nash is dealt to us the sharks or not at all. So there is honestly nothing to argue over.
Could not agree more.

I really hope this does not happen, but for now I gotta get away from it.

Out.

Pizza is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:52 PM
  #791
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The 94 team didn't have a salary cap to worry about. And if they didn't win the cup that year, those trades would have amounted to nothing but a spectacular failure, since the team didn't really contend for the cup again after that. We had that run in 97, but we were an underdog, not a frontrunner.

I don't want a team that is geared up to take one really good shot at the cup. I want a team that has a chance at the cup every year.
I think getting Nash doesn't just give this team one really good shot to win the Cup, but, makes them a solid Cup contender for the next three years.

jas is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:53 PM
  #792
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by we want cup View Post
Part of me wants to want Rick Nash, but I just can't shake the gut feeling that we will regret a trade for him in the long run. Say what you will about this team, but they win games. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As what Zenith said, complacency doesn't win cups. Someone had a stat that going back to like 95-96 every year except 2 the cup winner made a move.

SnowblindNYR is online now  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:53 PM
  #793
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
The 94 team didn't have a salary cap to worry about. And if they didn't win the cup that year, those trades would have amounted to nothing but a spectacular failure, since the team didn't really contend for the cup again after that. We had that run in 97, but we were an underdog, not a frontrunner.

I don't want a team that is geared up to take one really good shot at the cup. I want a team that has a chance at the cup every year.
and Nash is going to stop that how exactly?

right now the Rangers have almost 6 million dollars tied up in players who won't sniff a game, can't play because they are injured, or are just depth.

Someone want to do the exact calculation of cap space spent by having Avery, Woywitka, Sauer, MZA, Wolski, Christensen, and Stralman on the team but not actually playing in games? Id bet its a fairly significant number. Not to mention youd have to guess that Drurys cap hit will be off the books if the cap does go down, and if it isnt, will be gone the year after as his buyout is complete.

a top line player won't effect how this team is constructed.

If we have to get rid of Boyle to fit in Nash, then I'm ok with that, there is MORE than enough organizational depth to cover for that.

Maybe instead of carrying 634 extra forwards/defenseman, we only carry 1 or 2 ultra low payroll guys.

Maybe we have to deal a guy like Rupp to make some room.

the 3rd and 4th lines dont concern me nearly as much as the top 6 does.

If sather isnt worried about the cap implications with his whole team of capologists, neither should you.

Inferno is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:54 PM
  #794
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
As what Zenith said, complacency doesn't win cups. Someone had a stat that going back to like 95-96 every year except 2 the cup winner made a move.
I'm not saying not to make any moves. I'd like to tweak the team, not fix it. Get a veteran forward who has playoff experience and a tough defenseman to solidify the 3rd pair. Nothing that's going to shake things up.

we want cup is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:56 PM
  #795
MSG the place to be*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
22 goals scored. Assists are recorded when a goal is scored. Nash's presence should increase the overall offense just by driving the net/putting pressure on the D/releiving pressure from other players, etc.

When you add 100 point player to your team that scores 10 goals and 90 assists, are you adding 10 goals to your team? No. You're adding 100 goals.

Of course if you are subtracting a guy who scores 50 goals and puts up 10 assists, you are subtracting 60 goals, not 50.
Your a good kid inferno but using this math system of yours can you explain how we have 157 goals and 421 total points on our roster if 1 point = 1 goal

MSG the place to be* is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:57 PM
  #796
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
you'd have about 20 cents
so of all the players we signed or traded for .2 of them failed to live up to expectations? that's sure some fuzzy math.

broadwayblue is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:57 PM
  #797
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
It's actually not that much of a stretch.

Typical Rick Nash season:
35 G, 32A 67P

Typical Brandon Dubinsky season:
17 G, 28A, 45P

Net offensive increase: 22 goals. add 22 goals prorated over our current amt of games played to our current season total and youre looking at the 6th best offense, a stone throw from the 3rd best offense, not including any appreciable increase in offense by moving an offensive force to play with a guy like Richards, or the effects of moving a solid player like Hagelin down a line to help the 3rd line out.

Its not a simple 1:1 mathematical number, but it's not a stretch at ALL to say that adding Nash to this club and only subtracting Dubinsky will have a significant increase in our goal total.

Let's also not forget that that increase in goal total probably leads to ~5-6 more points in the standings, if not more.
That is not how it works.

You don't just plug in a player and add the points to determine the impact they have on the team. Adding a player like Nash changes things. Even if it's just replacing Dubinsky. Will he fit? Is he a given to click with Gaborik?

This year we are 15th in total goals scored.

Last year we were 16th.

A one jump difference so far adding a Richards and pretty much another, since Gaborik returned to being his usual self. And with also our other players improving.

This is a TEAM game. This is not the NBA. Unless you're add a talent like a Malkin or Crosby or even an offensive juggernaut in Stamkos, you aren't just suddenly going to go from a borderline top 10 offensive team to suddenly one of the best in the game. Sorry, im not buying that.

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 01:59 PM
  #798
Jackpot
Registered Abuser
 
Jackpot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henriks Broadway Hat View Post
Flyers are a skill team we do really well against

Negative, the Flyers come on the ice with the sole intention of trying to pound the Rangers into the ice, it completely works against them and throws them off their game...and yes, we've made them pay for it..

Jackpot is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 02:02 PM
  #799
z1co80
The Incredible Hank
 
z1co80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by we want cup View Post
Part of me wants to want Rick Nash, but I just can't shake the gut feeling that we will regret a trade for him in the long run. Say what you will about this team, but they win games. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This is kinda how i feel, The deal scares me but if i am honest the goal is the cup so i coudn't fault Sather for bringing in a player who could potentially be the final piece of the puzzle.

z1co80 is offline  
Old
02-23-2012, 02:02 PM
  #800
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Just curious if anyone's had the courage wade over to the Trade Rumors to see what kind of mess the Brooks' article today has made of things.

jas is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:59 AM.

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.