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.