Player Discussion Rick Nash

[Jauffre]

Nash, can you play with a shorter stick and practice getting your shot off quicker?..

At this point he still works hard and does everything right, gets multiple scoring chances a game but can't finish at a high level anymore.

 

[LeetchisGod]

Nash, can you play with a shorter stick and practice getting your shot off quicker?..

At this point he still works hard and does everything right, gets multiple scoring chances a game but can't finish at a high level anymore.

I don't even get excited when he gets a scoring chance. I know that it's highly unlikely that he'll score.

 

[silverfish]

Can't believe this dude has been a Ranger for 6 years. Still feels like yesterday we made that deal. Sometimes I'll watch him play, see him do some crazy shit on the ice and barely miss scoring a GotY candidate and think to myself: "wow, people actually dislike him?"

Y'all crazy.

But for real, he needs to be taken off the PK so he can play more 5v5.

 

[Leonardo87]

Can't believe this dude has been a Ranger for 6 years. Still feels like yesterday we made that deal. Sometimes I'll watch him play, see him do some crazy **** on the ice and barely miss scoring a GotY candidate and think to myself: "wow, people actually dislike him?"

Y'all crazy.

But for real, he needs to be taken off the PK so he can play more 5v5.

I think Nash has been very good. But little to show for it in points. Again, people look at a cap hit and expect certain numbers. If there was no cap then people would not care as long as he does not suck on the ice and he doesn't.

 

[silverfish]

I think Nash has been very good. But little to show for it in points. Again, people look at a cap hit and expect certain numbers. If there was no cap then people would not care as long as he does not suck on the ice and he doesn't.

Well, this is the interesting part.

If you're Columbus, and you're locking down Nash on a 8 year, $7.8m AAV contract, do you think that you're getting a $7.8m AAV player in the 7th or 8th year of that deal when he's 33/34? I think you know that you're not.

Were you getting a $7.8m AAV player for every year besides the last two, or possibly three? Unequivocally.

So yeah, I get that people have beef with the Nash AAV, but I don't. You got the returns in the part of the deal where you paid the market value for that player, and now we're at the end of the deal where the returns are more or less uneven. This dreamland that the spec thread likes to live in where we don't have any players over 30 years old, or don't sign players to more than 4 year term deals doesn't exist.

The question is, when you are inevitably overpaying for a player's "twilight" years (relative to their contract value), how much negative return are you actually getting for your money. When it comes to Nash? I think the Rangers are in OK territory.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Good post Silverfish. Nash was absolutely worth his contract for us the first 3 years, and I would make that trade again. In his prime he was awesome, just wish he scored a bit more in 13-14 playoffs.

 

[True Blue]

Good post Silverfish. Nash was absolutely worth his contract for us the first 3 years, and I would make that trade again. In his prime he was awesome, just wish he scored a bit more in 13-14 playoffs.

Again, as far as Nash goes his "worth" for contract and to Rangers is also predicated on how he performed in the playoffs. Yes, I realize one needs to score goals in the regular season, but he was brought here to score big goals in the big spots in the playoffs. Sather brought him in after another year of dearth of scoring in playoffs.

 

[Leonardo87]

Well, this is the interesting part.

If you're Columbus, and you're locking down Nash on a 8 year, $7.8m AAV contract, do you think that you're getting a $7.8m AAV player in the 7th or 8th year of that deal when he's 33/34? I think you know that you're not.

Were you getting a $7.8m AAV player for every year besides the last two, or possibly three? Unequivocally.

So yeah, I get that people have beef with the Nash AAV, but I don't. You got the returns in the part of the deal where you paid the market value for that player, and now we're at the end of the deal where the returns are more or less uneven. This dreamland that the spec thread likes to live in where we don't have any players over 30 years old, or don't sign players to more than 4 year term deals doesn't exist.

The question is, when you are inevitably overpaying for a player's "twilight" years (relative to their contract value), how much negative return are you actually getting for your money. When it comes to Nash? I think the Rangers are in OK territory.

You hit the nail on the head. A team that signs a player takes regress and age into consideration and don't think a team expected him or any player for that matter to put up the same numbers as they did in the beginning of the contract. But in a cap era people see a 7.8 cap hit and want 40 goals or it's a bad contract.

 

[True Blue]

But in a cap era people see a 7.8 cap hit and want 40 goals or it's a bad contract.

That is not why some people think it is a bad contract.

 

[noupf]

You hit the nail on the head. A team that signs a player takes regress and age into consideration and don't think a team expected him or any player for that matter to put up the same numbers as they did in the beginning of the contract. But in a cap era people see a 7.8 cap hit and want 40 goals or it's a bad contract.

Thats because at this point, it is a bad contract. When you pay a forward 8 million dollars a year, they damn well better be scoring 30-40 goals a year and or putting up 50+ Assists a year........not a guy who isnt going to break 40 points in the final 3 years of his contract.

You guys are trying to find ways to justify a guy making $8 million dollars a year who cant even put up 40 points.....

Does he do other things well, sure, but not $8 million dollars worth.

welcome to bizzaro world, lmao

 

[silverfish]

Thats because at this point, it is a bad contract. When you pay a forward 8 million dollars a year, they damn well better be scoring 30-40 goals a year and or putting up 50+ Assists a year........not a guy who isnt going to break 40 points in the final 3 years of his contract.

You guys are trying to find ways to justify a guy making $8 million dollars a year who cant even put up 40 points.....

Does he do other things well, sure, but not $8 million dollars worth.

welcome to bizzaro world, lmao

That's not how this works.

The only reason you lock a guy up to an 8 year deal is so those last years of his contract bring his cap hit down. If Columbus instead signed Nash to a 5 year deal, his AAV wouldn't have been as low as 7.8m, it'd have been closer to 9m or 10m. You need those years in negotiations with players because they know they'll slow down around age 33/34.

When you sign a player like Nash to an 8 year deal when he's 26 that takes him to age 34, there is no chance you think you're going to get 80-90+ points (this is an absurd standard) every single year of that deal. What you want to get is a player > 7.8m in value for years 1-5, and then hopefully not a total albatross in years 6-8.

Bizarro world, lmao, is expecting a player to put up 90 points 8 years in a row.

Since 2010-2011, you know how many 90+ points seasons have been posted? 11

You need to check what you think constitutes a 7.8m AAV player.

 

[True Blue]

You need to check what you think constitutes a 7.8m AAV player.

For a goal scoring forward, I would expect something more than 14 goals in 73 playoff games

 

[silverfish]

For a goal scoring forward, I would expect something more than 14 goals in 73 playoff games

Yes, Nash has not been great in terms of putting the puck in the net in the playoffs for this team.

I carry issue with summing up playoff games across five different years to prove a point, though. Even as JTM hater #1, I take issue when people do it with him.

It's such a small sample to begin with. Adding it up doesn't help, because you're talking about five small samples across five different years. They should be looked at individually, and taken with a grain of salt noting the sample size they exist in.

 

[True Blue]

Yes, Nash has not been great in terms of putting the puck in the net in the playoffs for this team.

I carry issue with summing up playoff games across five different years to prove a point, though. Even as JTM hater #1, I take issue when people do it with him.

It's such a small sample to begin with. Adding it up doesn't help, because you're talking about five small samples across five different years. They should be looked at individually, and taken with a grain of salt noting the sample size they exist in.

I understand what you are saying. That said, I think that the proof is in the pudding. As you say, he has not been great scoring goals in the playoffs. That is my biggest disappointment in him during his tenure.

 

[silverfish]

I understand what you are saying. That said, I think that the proof is in the pudding. As you say, he has not been great scoring goals in the playoffs. That is my biggest disappointment in him during his tenure.

I'd say this is definitely a fair assessment.

 

[Edge]

Right now, depending on the game, Nash is on pace for 20-25 goals and 40-50 points.

Regardless of what he was brought in to be, regardless of his contract, there would be significant value to a team that wants to rent him as a compliment player for the playoffs.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Right now, depending on the game, Nash is on pace for 20-25 goals and 40-50 points.

Regardless of what he brought in to be, regardless of his contract, there would be significant value to a team that wants to rent him as a compliment player for the playoffs.

Especially at 3.9M for a team that lacks cap space

 

[True Blue]

Right now, depending on the game, Nash is on pace for 20-25 goals and 40-50 points.

Regardless of what he brought in to be, regardless of his contract, there would be significant value to a team that wants to rent him as a compliment player for the playoffs.

As I believe that the Rangers are more pretenders than contenders, trading him makes so much sense.

 

[wafflepadsave]

As I believe that the Rangers are more pretenders than contenders, trading him makes so much sense.

These next few games against the more physical teams will be a litmus test whether the rangers can compete this season.

 

[eco's bones]

Some players get a pass and others don't. For instance we listened to Girardi get crapped on for his not being worthy of his contract and then we get to listen to---'well you know anyone who thought Nash would be worth $7.8 at the end of his contract when he's 33/34 had to know it wasn't happening'. And the truth it out of his 6 regular season years with us Rick has only had what I would call two good years just in terms of expected production--his first year and his third year.

The point isn't to crap all over him--he is still a 'good' player in many respects but he's not really the Rangers offensive leader and he certainly hasn't been that for the last 3 years. He's been able to modify his role to help the team in defensive situations and that's nice but he's in no way worth his contract. For the past 3 years he's been worth about half of it but it matters that he's making more than he's worth just the same as it matters that Girardi and Staal were/are making more than they were worth. The point of bringing him to NYC was to get that guy who lead our offense and score big goals when the team needed them not only in the regular season but in the playoffs and the truth is because these things didn't happen and the Rangers didn't win a Cup because in part they didn't happen because for one thing the year they went to the finals his goal scoring was notably missing makes me look at the trade that brought him here as a failure. In any case when you have players--multiple players making more cap $'s than they're worth it limits other options.

He does get a lot of great chances still--he doesn't finish nearly enough of them and that's been a trend that's been going on for some time. The MSG announcers shill for him all the time--they tell you how snakebit he is--how pretty soon he's going to go on a big tear, etc. etc. I think that confuses some people.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Some players get a pass and others don't. For instance we listened to Girardi get crapped on for his not being worthy of his contract and then we get to listen to---'well you know anyone who thought Nash would be worth $7.8 at the end of his contract when he's 33/34 had to know it wasn't happening'. And the truth it out of his 6 regular season years with us Rick has only had what I would call two good years just in terms of expected production--his first year and his third year.

The point isn't to crap all over him--he is still a 'good' player in many respects but he's not really the Rangers offensive leader and he certainly hasn't been that for the last 3 years. He's been able to modify his role to help the team in defensive situations and that's nice but he's in no way worth his contract. For the past 3 years he's been worth about half of it but it matters that he's making more than he's worth just the same as it matters that Girardi and Staal were/are making more than they were worth. The point of bringing him to NYC was to get that guy who lead our offense and score big goals when the team needed them not only in the regular season but in the playoffs and the truth is because these things didn't happen and the Rangers didn't win a Cup because in part they didn't happen because for one thing the year they went to the finals his goal scoring was notably missing makes me look at the trade that brought him here as a failure. In any case when you have players--multiple players making more cap $'s than they're worth it limits other options.

He does get a lot of great chances still--he doesn't finish nearly enough of them and that's been a trend that's been going on for some time. The MSG announcers shill for him all the time--they tell you how snakebit he is--how pretty soon he's going to go on a big tear, etc. etc. I think that confuses some people.

Girardi sucked since signing his contract. He was underachieving since day 1.

Nash had a 40-goal season in the 5th year of his current contract.

The two contracts are really not similar in any way, compared to performance. And that's just looking at production from Nash.

 

[eco's bones]

Girardi sucked since signing his contract. He was underachieving since day 1.

Nash had a 40-goal season in the 5th year of his current contract.

The two contracts are really not similar in any way, compared to performance. And that's just looking at production from Nash.

Girardi was what he was--what he became. I'm sorry but Nash is what he is--what he is becoming. Like Girardi he's not been worth his contract for some time--at least 3 years. Girardi like Nash got his contract because he was a key player for his team at the time and he couldn't live up to it in part because of the way the game was changing away from stay at home D to puck moving D. Nash got his because he was big time goal scorer. He is not and hasn't been a big time goal scorer in a long time and it ain't changing this year. It's debatable whether his or Staal's is the worst contract on the current team--though Smith might be coming up fast. Nash today is a support scorer making $7.8. His role has been eclipsed by good but in no way elite players like Zuccarello, Zibanejad, Miller, Kreider and the potentially elite Buchnevich. Offensively he's somewhat less even than Grabner. If we were to give any of those players a long term $7.8 mil per contract those players would be looked to and expected to do a lot more and it's very likely they wouldn't be able to live up to it and in a few years the majority of posters on this forum would be ragging on them rightfully--hoping to trade or get rid of them by any means necessary. But the chances of those players getting the kind of contract that Nash has is pretty remote even keeping in mind in terms of the % of cap outlay going back 8 years when Nash signed his deal. His production over the past 6 years with the Rangers do not at all justify the remuneration he's gotten. He is not as important to the Rangers as other forwards making much less than he.

 

[Edge]

As I believe that the Rangers are more pretenders than contenders, trading him makes so much sense.

I think they are exactly what they feared they'd be - the dreaded middle.

They're good enough to beat some teams, not good enough to beat the top teams. On a given night, they are just dangerous enough to pull one out against a better team, but not consistent enough to be counted upon to do it.

But this is a team that needs a re-tooling. There's really no way around it.

We can kid ourselves when they're on a hot streak, and the love for Lundqvist makes us want to keep trying to extend the old window at times, but the reality is that this team needs to start putting in the work for the next window. Unfortunately, that also means we are going to have to make some difficult decisions, and we're going to have to take calculated risks.

Everyone is on the table; though the price of some guys is (and should be) set fairly high.

You have to listen to offers every asset - including guys like McD, Zucc, Nash, Graber, Miller, Kreider and even Zibanejad.

Obviously, guys like Nash or Grabner are a little easier to come to terms with internally. But you can't rule anyone out for the right price.

It's also important that we don't just trade players for the sake of generating a "fresh start" for the roster. The moves have to make sense, and they have to be worth the price. Additionally, the Rangers aren't going to get rid of everyone - this isn't the 2004 trade deadline. The juice has to be worth the squeeze.

 

[Riche16]

I think they are exactly what they feared they'd be - the dreaded middle.

They're good enough to beat some teams, not good enough to beat the top teams. On a given night, they are just dangerous enough to pull one out against a better team, but not consistent enough to be counted upon to do it.

But this is a team that needs a re-tooling. There's really no way around it.

We can kid ourselves when they're on a hot streak, and the love for Lundqvist makes us want to keep trying to extend the old window at times, but the reality is that this team needs to start putting in the work for the next window. Unfortunately, that also means we are going to have to make some difficult decisions, and we're going to have to take calculated risks.

Everyone is on the table; though the price of some guys is (and should be) set fairly high.

You have to listen to offers every asset - including guys like McD, Zucc, Nash, Graber, Miller, Kreider and even Zibanejad.

Obviously, guys like Nash or Grabner are a little easier to come to terms with internally. But you can't rule anyone out for the right price.

It's also important that we don't just trade players for the sake of generating a "fresh start" for the roster. The moves have to make sense, and they have to be worth the price. Additionally, the Rangers aren't going to get rid of everyone - this isn't the 2004 trade deadline. The juice has to be worth the squeeze.

Not any more they don’t... Nash and Grabs should be gone... hate to lose Grabs but u get the best price for him.

Nash should’ve been gone w retention a year ago. He won’t bring a 1st so pennies on the dollar is what it is.

Like selling a pool table because u are moving... at some point u take what u can, no matter what it’s worth, because u aren’t taking it with you (real situation I’m in lol)

 

[offdacrossbar]

Right now, depending on the game, Nash is on pace for 20-25 goals and 40-50 points.

Regardless of what he was brought in to be, regardless of his contract, there would be significant value to a team that wants to rent him as a compliment player for the playoffs.

he can help a good team be better but not significantly.

his ability to effect playoff games by scoring goals in severely lacking.

moving rick nash at the deadline is a foregone conclusion. he's a goner. as he should be.

we could have 2 productive players for what he's making and have some left over.