"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[Hunter Gathers]

I had no problem understanding what you meant in the first place, PK, despite the ambiguity of the post. But maybe I just put a little too much faith in people's intelligence and assumed you couldn't possibly be saying all of those players were top-6 guys. "Nobody is that dumb." And it turns out you weren't. Also is the reason I think people are taking it the wrong way by design.

Why are we bickering about Blue Jackets players who aren't even former Rangers anyway?

That's the difference between us. I don't put faith in anyone's intelligence and would rather pay attention to the actual and real wording. Different philosophies, different results.

 

[Tawnos]

Also, regarding the Pittsburgh comment earlier, there top 6 hasn't been established until the past year or so. There was tons of room for him to seize an oppurtunity to play on the top 2 wings there.

Ask any pitt fan and they'll tell you the top 6 wings were quite the problem. They seem to have solidified it pretty well with the acquisition of Neal and the emergence of Kunitz.

Letestu was traded because he was a center on a team with Crosby, Malkin, and Staal ahead of him on the depth charts, and rightfully so. According to my brother-in-law, a diehard Penguins fan, they never even tried him on the wing before dealing him. I pretty clearly remember hearing complaints about that when he was moved.

 

[Tawnos]

That's the difference between us. I don't put faith in anyone's intelligence and would rather pay attention to the actual and real wording. Different philosophies, different results.

More people using mine would've saved us all time and energy.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

I had no problem understanding what you meant in the first place, PK, despite the ambiguity of the post. But maybe I just put a little too much faith in people's intelligence and assumed you couldn't possibly be saying all of those players were top-6 guys. "Nobody is that dumb." And it turns out you weren't. Also is the reason I think people are taking it the wrong way by design.

Why are we bickering about Blue Jackets players who aren't even former Rangers anyway?

People are bickering because of statements like this, where you clearly allude to myself and Jonathan being "stupid" since we didn't comprehend what he "meant" to post.

Maybe you and PK chat on a regular basis, but we were having a discusion about top 6 forwards and he brought up Letestu. It isn't very hard to see why we assumed he that he considers him as a Top 6 or borderline top 6 forward.

There's no need for these kinds of things to blow up. It's a common trait of the human race to sometimes say things, or in this case post, that they don't mean.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

More people using mine would've saved us all time and energy.

On a message board, we usually have to go by the writing, it's not like i can "sense" a tone. This isn't an interview or an in person discussion.

All we have to go off of is the written word and how we were taught to interpret those words from our education.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Tawnos and I have virtually never talked before.

Letestu also is now wearing an A in Columbus. I have no desire to actually have this conversation at all with you, however. The point was, and remains, that Rangers fans have chosen to belittle the impact and value of Dubinsky since his departure because he left after a down season. Aside from that season, he has had, or been on pace for (lockout last year) more points every single season of his career and is a valuable two-way, gritty center who is CLEARLY top-six material. He also has more points in his career than Callahan, who is more productive player, somehow. The end.

 

[Tawnos]

People are bickering because of statements like this, where you clearly allude to myself and Jonathan being "stupid" since we didn't comprehend what he "meant" to post.

Maybe you and PK chat on a regular basis, but we were having a discusion about top 6 forwards and he brought up Letestu. It isn't very hard to see why we assumed he that he considers him as a Top 6 or borderline top 6 forward.

There's no need for these kinds of things to blow up. It's a common trait of the human race to sometimes say things, or in this case post, that they don't mean.

Huh? All I've been saying is that you guys actually do understand what he said and are arguing anyway. I've said it over and over. Now I think you're too stupid? I think it's the opposite, my friend.

There's a sentence in that post where it's pretty clear that wasn't what he was saying. It's the last one. But really, since he cleared it up, what does it matter?

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Huh? All I've been saying is that you guys actually do understand what he said and are arguing anyway. I've said it over and over. Now I think you're too stupid? I think it's the opposite, my friend.

There's a sentence in that post where it's pretty clear that wasn't what he was saying. It's the last one. But really, since he cleared it up, what does it matter?

Even after I cleared it up, I was told repeatedly that I should have clarified and even apologize. I'm done with this thread.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Tawnos and I have virtually never talked before.

Letestu also is now wearing an A in Columbus. I have no desire to actually have this conversation at all with you, however. The point was, and remains, that Rangers fans have chosen to belittle the impact and value of Dubinsky since his departure because he left after a down season. Aside from that season, he has had, or been on pace for (lockout last year) more points every single season of his career and is a valuable two-way, gritty center who is CLEARLY top-six material. He also has more points in his career than Callahan, who is more productive player, somehow. The end.

And not everyone agrees that he is so clearly top 6 material.

However, you seem to think that since you state it, it is fact.

You don't have to take things so personally when someone disagrees with you. That's what these boards are for. If everyone was happy all the time and wanted to hold hands, then there would be no reason for discussion.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

More people using mine would've saved us all time and energy.

Normally it's the opposite.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Even after I cleared it up, I was told repeatedly that I should have clarified and even apologize. I'm done with this thread.

Because you refused to and never did. What's so difficult to understand about that? You now have three people saying your post was ambiguous (at best). We aren't posting on here to be mean to you. Enough with trying to be a martyr.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Can someone run down to me what the stage of events was that lead to this please?

 

[Tawnos]

Tawnos and I have virtually never talked before.

Letestu also is now wearing an A in Columbus. I have no desire to actually have this conversation at all with you, however. The point was, and remains, that Rangers fans have chosen to belittle the impact and value of Dubinsky since his departure because he left after a down season. Aside from that season, he has had, or been on pace for (lockout last year) more points every single season of his career and is a valuable two-way, gritty center who is CLEARLY top-six material. He also has more points in his career than Callahan, who is more productive player, somehow. The end.

Callahan has put up 46.4 points per 82. Dubinsky has put up 45.4. Technically, yes Dubinsky is less productive. In the real world, I would say they're the same. The difference is more dramatic, though, over the last 2 seasons, but one of them is short, so is it really?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Whichever mod deleted my post and left this one has got to be kidding me. The entire point of my post was that I took this post, copied it's form and cherry picked my own statistics to show how easily the other argument could be made. Letting this post stay here is simply allowing biased, misinformation to be disseminated. I didn't flame the poster; I showed how easily I could write an almost identical post claiming the opposite by only portraying certain statistics and twisting it to fit a description of a player that isn't really accurate.


Everything I wrote was completely relevant. He cherry picked stats to prove a point. I cherry picked other stats to show how easily you could make the inverse argument. And you could. They're nearly identical players with different strengths (playmaker vs finisher). They have nearly identical career best seasons, the same number of 40 point seasons, nearly identical points in their career (Dubi has more, and is younger). They're both known to by physical forces. Cally hits more and Dubi is bigger and still hits a lot (few players anywhere hit more than Cally). They both play almost identical minutes on the PK, but Cally gets significantly more PP time. And yet, they still put up similar points. Dubinsky had ONE bad season and became a glorified third liner. Callahan has almost identical EVERYTHING except for being a better goal scorer versus playmaker, and he is a legitimate top line winger. Dubinsky is also a superb faceoff man and a very strong leader, as evidence by quickly being given the A in Columbus (people talked about him receiving the C here, the year before Cally got it, most expected him to at least get an A).

And I wasn't even the only poster to point this out or disagree with this post. I didn't "copy" the form of the post to 'troll' the poster; I wanted to prove a point about how easy it is to twist information to serve your own agenda and more accurately compare the two players by providing the "other" side of the stats that were chosen and showing that, when you look at the complete picture, they're remarkably similar.

I read your post and it used stats that were way more...unsupportive than the ones he used. Add to that you admitted crafting a terrible argument on purpose and I actually get why it was removed.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

And not everyone agrees that he is so clearly top 6 material.

However, you seem to think that since you state it, it is fact.

You don't have to take things so personally when someone disagrees with you. That's what these boards are for. If everyone was happy all the time and wanted to hold hands, then there would be no reason for discussion.

No, the entire point is that people who don't think he is a top-six forward either have a skewed (NHL 14) view of what makes a top-six forward or don't realize how good he's been every year but that ONE SEASON and how virtually identical his numbers are to Callahan's, with the only difference being that one is a passer and one is a shooter. Callahan is a legitimate top-line option to most but Dubinsky is a "border line" second liner. You don't see the discrepancy? Well, Cally brings physicality though. Oh, Dubi too. Well, Cally is a leader. Oh, Dubi too. Well Cally is defensively responsible. Oh, Dubi too. Top PK guy for his team. Oh, Dubi too. In fact, despite Dubi having MORE points and either better production or identical production EVERY year but the one down year, Dubi gets LESS power play time. Which means his points come either 5v5 or SH. Now, do I think Callahan is a better player? YES!!!! But I don't see how any logical human who looks at the FACTS without bias can claim that Callahan is a great top-six player and Dubinsky is a third liner.

I think that because Dubi left after a down season, everyone's opinion and memory is tainted and Dubinsky is seriously downplayed by our fan base.

 

[smoneil]

You reference that you includ his down year, but you also include his up year.....fact is, he has produced a 45+ point season just ONCE in his career. Just because you extrapolate his overall points, doesn't make him a consistent 45 point player.

You could possibly have an argument about the dangers of extrapolation last year, as he only played about a third of a season due to injury, but you could also disregard EVERYBODY's season for last year, because of the length. Disputing his 09/10 season is just ridiculous though. He missed 13 games and put up 44 points. His biggest point drought that season was four games (and that only happened once). If he had played even half of those missing games, he surely would have scored that elusive 45th point.

So if you want to discount last season, fine. He's been a 45-55 point player 2 of the last 3 seasons. Frankly, if his minutes hadn't been slashed (again, by about 4 minutes a game, including almost all of his PP time), he may well have put up 45 in his worst professional season.

I absolutely never said that and you're putting words in my mouth. I never said the team sucked. I simply said, i think they played above their heads. It was clearly a very good team since over the course of the season they came in 1st in the conference. But a lot of things went their way that year.

I 100% never said they sucked. Nor do i think that....

You are right about this, and I apologize. I had it in my head that you were the thread starter, when you were not.

So you make a serious assumption that Nash was the guy. If anything, the only rumors were of LUndqvist saying he wanted Torts out. It's so ridiculous to assume that Nash was the guy. With him only having been here for what equated to half a season, I don't see him going to an complaining about the head coach. It was pretty clear that every time i heard him speak he felt blessed to be in NYC instead of Columbus.

The Lundqvist rumors were based on nothing but speculation. He DID seem frustrated, but he also seemed perfectly willing to speak out about his frustration. I just have a hard time believing that he would go behind Torts' back and complain to management. He's never been that kind of player. Nash, on the other hand, has done just that on more than one occasion, including a coach that had an MO just like Torts (taskmaster, etc). There's no proof either way, but if you're a betting man, the smart money is always going to be on the guy with the track record.

You clearly missed my point. People are always going to complain when offensive specialists don't get dirty. But if that's what you want out of Nash then you're never going to be happy. Same goes for Gaborik, Sedin twins, etc. They are not that type of player. Every one and their mother would like a player that has the offensive talent of Nash along with the nastiness of a Cally or Dubi, but those guys are generational talents.

No, I understood your point (I understood PK's point about Columbus' forward depth too, for the record ). I don't want Nash to be Callahan. I want Nash to NOT be Wolski. If you can put up points without getting your hands dirty in the postseason, by all means, do so. Crosby can do that. Gretzky could do that. Most people can't. If Nash can't score in the higher intensity game that is post-season hockey, then what was the point of getting him? We were making the postseason without him, and guys like Dubi and AA were actually contributing (on and off the scoresheet). If Nash refuses to do what he needs to do, they how does he benefit us when it counts?

Again, only time will tell. At the end of the day, our opinion's are rooted on wanting this team to be successful.

Agreed. But I'm still right and you're still wrong. sarcasm: Just kidding--it's been a fun discussion that has done an admirable job of helping me procrastinate on all the papers I have yet to grade).

 

[16 To Stanley*]

I think this is better suited in a poll about Callahan and Dubinsky.

I don't see how the trade had anything to do with Callahan. It was always Dubinsky. Callahan would have been a non-starter.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

No, the entire point is that people who don't think he is a top-six forward either have a skewed (NHL 14) view of what makes a top-six forward or don't realize how good he's been every year but that ONE SEASON and how virtually identical his numbers are to Callahan's, with the only difference being that one is a passer and one is a shooter. Callahan is a legitimate top-line option to most but Dubinsky is a "border line" second liner. You don't see the discrepancy? Well, Cally brings physicality though. Oh, Dubi too. Well, Cally is a leader. Oh, Dubi too. Well Cally is defensively responsible. Oh, Dubi too. Top PK guy for his team. Oh, Dubi too. In fact, despite Dubi having MORE points and either better production or identical production EVERY year but the one down year, Dubi gets LESS power play time. Which means his points come either 5v5 or SH. Now, do I think Callahan is a better player? YES!!!! But I don't see how any logical human who looks at the FACTS without bias can claim that Callahan is a great top-six player and Dubinsky is a third liner.

Who is claiming Callahan is a great top 6 player. He's a good one, a great one would be Crosby.

And I think the major difference is that Callahan has seemingly continued to develop over the past two seasons, while Dubinsky has regressed.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Callahan has put up 46.4 points per 82. Dubinsky has put up 45.4. Technically, yes Dubinsky is less productive. In the real world, I would say they're the same. The difference is more dramatic, though, over the last 2 seasons, but one of them is short, so is it really?

Well, last season Dubi was on a slightly higher pace than Callahan, actually, so it's only the ONE season that makes them anything but dead even. Which is virtually EXACTLY what my first post in this thread said. That they're nearly identical players with one being a passer and one being a finisher.

 

[Tawnos]

I think this is better suited in a poll about Callahan and Dubinsky.

I don't see how the trade had anything to do with Callahan. It was always Dubinsky. Callahan would have been a non-starter.

The idea is that, if Callahan is a top-6 player, than so is Dubinsky. Of course, Callahan's even-strength points aren't out of this world. In some ways, he really isn't a top-6 player either, but rather one of these tweeners we talk about. Even in Dubinsky's down year, Cally only put up 6 more points at even strength than Dubi did.

Both of them are "elite-level third liners" (a contradiction? yeah) who have something a little extra that makes them useful in the top-6.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Questioned by two people, who are both being accused of intentionally misrepresenting what other people post. I'm getting nasty because you know DAMN well I meant all along (that or you can insult your own intelligence and tell me you GENUINELY thought I listed every CBJ forward as a top-six forward) and it's a HABIT on this forum from NYR fans who essentially run counter to any argument that gains support, because it seems to make you look "educated" to go against what all the regular peon fans are thinking.

In fairness to you I thought your first giant dubs post was very well presented and this board IS infested with people who are either unintelligent or they are purposely misrepresenting what they do understand to create semantics arguments. I don't fault you for getting enraged by it. But I do figure a bit of this anger is bc you felt his post with the stats was every bit as bad as yours so you feel it's unfair for it to have been deleted but I honestly think yours was a bit worse and his was actually not that horrible

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Who is claiming Callahan is a great top 6 player. He's a good one, a great one would be Crosby.

And I think the major difference is that Callahan has seemingly continued to develop over the past two seasons, while Dubinsky has regressed.

Crosby is an elite player. No one would refer to Crosby as a "great top-six player". He's an elite first line talent. Is anyone specifically saying "Callahan is a great top six player"? No. But no one thinks he's a fringe second liner; everyone is perfectly comfortable with him on the first or second line. In fact, last year when it was suggested maybe slotting him on the third line, people got offended. Dubinsky didn't regress last year. He was on pace for his career high in points. He has had ONE bad season in his career. You still dodged the point. The thesis of my first post in this thread was "Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Callahan". Their stats, style of play, etc. is almost identical. Dubi is a passer. Cally a finisher. One had a bad season two years ago, the other didn't. Only difference. They have identical career high seasons. Nearly identical career point totals. Both gritty, two way, leader types who PK the most on their team.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

You reference that you includ his down year, but you also include his up year.....fact is, he has produced a 45+ point season just ONCE in his career. Just because you extrapolate his overall points, doesn't make him a consistent 45 point player.

You could possibly have an argument about the dangers of extrapolation last year, as he only played about a third of a season due to injury, but you could also disregard EVERYBODY's season for last year, because of the length. Disputing his 09/10 season is just ridiculous though. He missed 13 games and put up 44 points. His biggest point drought that season was four games (and that only happened once). If he had played even half of those missing games, he surely would have scored that elusive 45th point.

Meh, you never know....kidding. 2 seasons with 45 points. Fair assessment. And for the record, I actually wouldn't mind dismissing all stats from last season. Not even due to the shortened schedule, but more so due to the way it was developed, with no training camp, games nearly every other day, more back to backs then ever before, etc. It was an odd season and i think we saw a lot of players have trouble and certain ones shine due to the specific circumstances.

I know you can't discount the stats, but i just don't think it's an accurate reflection on most players.

So if you want to discount last season, fine. He's been a 45-55 point player 2 of the last 3 seasons. Frankly, if his minutes hadn't been slashed (again, by about 4 minutes a game, including almost all of his PP time), he may well have put up 45 in his worst professional season.

Fair

You are right about this, and I apologize. I had it in my head that you were the thread starter, when you were not.

Fair

The Lundqvist rumors were based on nothing but speculation. He DID seem frustrated, but he also seemed perfectly willing to speak out about his frustration. I just have a hard time believing that he would go behind Torts' back and complain to management. He's never been that kind of player. Nash, on the other hand, has done just that on more than one occasion, including a coach that had an MO just like Torts (taskmaster, etc). There's no proof either way, but if you're a betting man, the smart money is always going to be on the guy with the track record.

I agree about Lundqvist. I don't think he said anything. But i do think that he knew by saying "i'm not sure if i'll be back" that it would prompt changes.

I really don't believe that Nash is a locker room cancer. I think he was told, prior to signing that long term deal with Columbus, that they would build a team around him. After a year or two (whatever it was) they were going into another rebuild and he got fed up with it. To be quite honest, i don't blame him. He's a star player in his prime. Why would he want to spend all of his productive years on rebuilding teams. Outside of the fluke year where they got swept in the first round, Columbus was constantly rebuilding.

I can almost guarentee if Lundqvist was on a team that made the playoffs once in his career, never won a playoff game, that he would either leave on his own or demand out, especially if he signed a long-term deal under the impression that they were done rebuilding and ready to compete.

No, I understood your point (I understood PK's point about Columbus' forward depth too, for the record ). I don't want Nash to be Callahan. I want Nash to NOT be Wolski. If you can put up points without getting your hands dirty in the postseason, by all means, do so. Crosby can do that. Gretzky could do that. Most people can't. If Nash can't score in the higher intensity game that is post-season hockey, then what was the point of getting him? We were making the postseason without him, and guys like Dubi and AA were actually contributing (on and off the scoresheet). If Nash refuses to do what he needs to do, they how does he benefit us when it counts?

Completely agree. We'll ahve to wait and see, assuming we make the playoffs this year, if Nash has a terrible performance, he will get all the flack he deserves.

Agreed. But I'm still right and you're still wrong. sarcasm: Just kidding--it's been a fun discussion that has done an admirable job of helping me procrastinate on all the papers I have yet to grade).

You've kept me from studying, we are even.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

In fairness to you I thought your first giant dubs post was very well presented and this board IS infested with people who are either unintelligent or they are purposely misrepresenting what they do understand to create semantics arguments. I don't fault you for getting enraged by it. But I do figure a bit of this anger is bc you felt his post with the stats was every bit as bad as yours so you feel it's unfair for it to have been deleted but I honestly think yours was a bit worse and his was actually not that horrible

I'm not that bummed about my post being deleted, I just don't like people continuing to spread these opinions of Dubi WITHOUT acknowledging the other side. Our fan base has a very unfair and biased view against Dubi, because he left us after a very disappointing season. For example, the post I responded to only showed their goal comparison, which favors Callahan, but fails to acknowledge that Dubinsky has more points. It also doesn't factor that Dubi is a playmaker and Cally is a finisher.

 

[smoneil]

I think this is better suited in a poll about Callahan and Dubinsky.

I don't see how the trade had anything to do with Callahan. It was always Dubinsky. Callahan would have been a non-starter.

Callahan comes up because the same people who claim that Dubinsky was worthless or a third liner are generally the ones who claim that Callahan is a first liner. If you have watched them over their careers, you can easily see that they are similar players. They play the game with the same kind of intensity, put up similar point totals, and they always seemed to up their game when they played on the same line.

The general path of discussion (a path that is well-worn on this board) looks like this:

Anti-Dubi Crowd (henceforth, ADC): Dubinsky was nothing more than an overpaid 3rd line scrub who didn't make the jump like Callahan.

Pro-Dubi Crowd (henceforth, PDC): Um, Dubinsky put up more points than Cally in almost every season).

ADC: HE WAS OVERPAID! YOU HATE CALLAHAN! DUBI NEEDED TO SCORE MOAR GOALZ!

PDC: No, we are saying that they are similar players, and that production was similar.

ADC: GOALZ!!!

Three or four weeks go by, and the process repeats itself. I'm still convinced that most of it goes back to Dubinsky's contract hold-out (if you look carefully, you'll see that most of the ADC bring that up at some point in the discussion). That's why I'm worried about how Stepan starts the season. If he struggles in the first few weeks, I can see him getting the same irrational treatment.

Dubinsky had a down year, and he's not a goal-scorer. That combined with his short holdout made him public enemy number one for many on this forum. For those of us that are a tad more rational, we just can't understand how the same people can think Cally is a demi-god and Dubi is trash. They are cookie-cutter players in almost every meaningful way. That's why Cally gets brought up. Not to put him down, but to use him as a comparative to point out the hypocrisy.