Player Discussion Rick Nash VI

[IwanttomoveoutWest*]

Exactly.

Out of 25 games in 2014, all he needed to do was show up for three.

****ing three games. Couldn't even do that.

Three wins from a ****ing Cup. Blows my mind. With almost nothing from Nash.

That team had great depth, and depth is what got us (and passenger Rick Nash) to the within three wins. But now countless other guys and especially Hank look like playoff busts because he couldn't score a few goals to help us win the three most important games in 20 years.

 

[Chaels Arms]

Sounds exactly like someone else here...

Maybe the theme is that you need more than one superstar to help carry the load?

I liked Gaborik as a Ranger. I really did. But just like Dubinsky, it's funny how people paint a different picture once the player is gone. Ranger fans almost ran Gaborik out of town after 10-11 where he had an injury riddled season and potted half his goals against the 3 worst teams in the league. He was also a complete non factor in 10-11 playoffs. People gave him **** in 11-12 too until they found out he was hurt in the playoffs. He had a rough season in 12-13.

If you want to be honest, Gaborik and Nash are very similar in how their careers played out in New York. Top dog with no real superstar to play along side them up front during their tenure while having injury problems throughout. Both had similar playoff production but Nash contributed a lot more than Gaborik when he wasn't scoring.

I think Nash's supporting cast is better than Gaborik's was, especially in terms of producing offensively.

 

[NYRFAN218]

I think Nash's supporting cast is better than Gaborik's was, especially in terms of producing offensively.

I don't disagree in general that they were but my point was more that there was no top end threat to go along with him to alleviate the pressure like other teams that have gone on to win the Cup in recent years (Hawks have Kane & Toews, Kings had Kopitar & Gaborik & Carter, Pens have Malkin & Crosby, etc).

Gaborik's supporting cast in 2012 wasn't exactly bad either. Richards put up 66 points that year, Callahan finished with 29 goals, Del Zotto had 40+ points from the backend, etc. That teams issue was depth which cost them at the end since they basically ran the team into the ground playing 2 7 game series to starts.

But if we're using injuries as a reason why Gaborik didn't perform then the same has to be said of Nash. He was playing with an injured hand in 2013 and he was clearly not the same player in 13-14 after the concussion minus a 10 game hot streak in January. Nash's 13-14 was similar to Gaborik's 10-11 except the team Nash was on was a lot better and went a lot further than Gaborik's. Past two playoffs Nash has 18 points in 24 games. As a barometer, it's a 61.5 point pace over 82 games. I think a lot of people would sign up for that.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Yes, you need more than 1 star on offense. But we decided to pay 8.5m to have a .002 better SV%

Nope, we decided to pay $8.5m to ensure we reach the playoffs regardless of the circus roster in front of him.

Lundqvist on a good team wins Vezinas. That he has only won one Vezina in New York speaks lengths about what joke rosters he has played behind.

 

[IwanttomoveoutWest*]

I don't disagree in general that they were but my point was more that there was no top end threat to go along with him to alleviate the pressure like other teams that have gone on to win the Cup in recent years (Hawks have Kane & Toews, Kings had Kopitar & Gaborik & Carter, Pens have Malkin & Crosby, etc).

Gaborik's supporting cast in 2012 wasn't exactly bad either. Richards put up 66 points that year, Callahan finished with 29 goals, Del Zotto had 40+ points from the backend, etc. That teams issue was depth which cost them at the end since they basically ran the team into the ground playing 2 7 game series to starts.

But if we're using injuries as a reason why Gaborik didn't perform then the same has to be said of Nash. He was playing with an injured hand in 2013 and he was clearly not the same player in 13-14 after the concussion minus a 10 game hot streak in January. Nash's 13-14 was similar to Gaborik's 10-11 except the team Nash was on was a lot better and went a lot further than Gaborik's. Past two playoffs Nash has 18 points in 24 games. As a barometer, it's a 61.5 point pace over 82 games. I think a lot of people would sign up for that.

Point being Gaborik with a lesser supporting cast and one shoulder still outperformed Nash in the goal department in the playoffs, scoring significant goals for us. He then goes on to really prove himself with 14 goals in LA two years later, beating us in the process. He had a better supporting cast in LA and he was a major part of that run himself. Simply put, you can't swing it any other way other than pure biased fandom.

Does Nash score 14 for LA in the 2014 playoffs? Doubt it. Gaborik is simply a much more clutch player. Still hate that we replaced him with an overrated Nash.

 

[aufheben]

Gaborik scored 6 playoff goals as a Ranger...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Gaborik didn't do much in the playoffs and did the Rick Nash disappearing act every other season too. But at least Nash tried defensively and on the PK when he wasn't scoring, Gaborik was completely useless. The hate Nash gets and how much Gaborik gets glorified is ridiculous. BTW, last year Nash's playoff scoring was better than anything Gaborik did as a Ranger.

 

[IwanttomoveoutWest*]

Gaborik scored .24 GPG with one shoulder and a worse team.

Nash scored .18 GPG with 40 more games and a better team.

Seriously?

Nash has five more goals than Gaborik in 40 more games. Nash is the ****ing superstar here?

Good ****ing riddance Rick! Maybe you'll score 14 and win a Cup on your next team like someone else.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I believe Nash can bring back up to three pieces, with or without salary retained.

At the same time he's a player like Hags, in the sense that, once he's gone it'll take us week to see what we've lost, but we will have lost it. Hags => speed, Nash an under-the-radar guy with stellar defensive plays. Our back-check will hurt badly, if we don't fill the hole, we will have opened, once we trade him.

 

[KingWantsCup]

Exactly.

Out of 25 games in 2014, all he needed to do was show up for three.

****ing three games. Couldn't even do that.

Three wins from a ****ing Cup. Blows my mind. With almost nothing from Nash.

That team had great depth, and depth is what got us (and passenger Rick Nash) to the within three wins. But now countless other guys and especially Hank look like playoff busts because he couldn't score a few goals to help us win the three most important games in 20 years.

Yep. Nailed it. Watch out though, I can hear the Nash apologists coming for you.

 

[IwanttomoveoutWest*]

Doesn't matter anyway. We're moving on from him finally. Nash's highlight is the 42 goals he scored that one year here, that's it.

Fans don't want you. Management doesn't want you. Good riddance.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Nash is not nearly as bad as some paint him to be nor nearly as good as some paint him to be. He has been somewhere in the middle but its probably time to try another avenue.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Doesn't matter anyway. We're moving on from him finally. Nash's highlight is the 42 goals he scored that one year here, that's it.

Fans don't want you. Management doesn't want you. Good riddance.

Dude, youre acting like he personally did you wrong. He was a good soldier who clearly tried, he just couldnt translate his goal scoring here into the playoffs. And guess what, we don't make it as far we did in 2014 and 2015 without. I like the dude, but, yeah, it's time to move on. In the end, we got some good years out of him, and likely some good assets.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The Nash-hate by some is ridiculous. If he was drafted by the Rangers, people would defend him to no end.

 

[SA16]

"Nash's highlight is the 42 goals he scored that one year here, that's it."

Lol. "That's it." You say it like that's not an accomplishment or anything and is something to just be waved away. Do you know how many players have scored 42+ goals in the last 3 years?

Ovechkin 3 times
Perry 1 time
Stamkos 1 time
Kane 1 time.

I guess 42 goals isn't a good achievement though.

 

[FLYLine27*]

I seriously can't wait till he's traded so these silly debates can end and start with another player.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I seriously can't wait till he's traded so these silly debates can end and start with another player.

I can't wait until his shooting% regresses back to the mean and people still ***** and complain about Nash.

Gonna miss him if/when he's gone, but let's hope the assets yielded from moving him help bring some excitement to this team for the upcoming years

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Dude, youre acting like he personally did you wrong. He was a good soldier who clearly tried, he just couldnt translate his goal scoring here into the playoffs. And guess what, we don't make it as far we did in 2014 and 2015 without. I like the dude, but, yeah, it's time to move on. In the end, we got some good years out of him, and likely some good assets.

Basically this. Time to move on. Not as bad as most make him out to have been. Not as good as some have tried to paint him. Had some good times in a Rangers jersey but probably never truly was the fit for that we originally thought we were buying. For me, personally, I never "liked" him as a Ranger but I don't dislike or have ill will towards him individually. He just wasn't one of my favorites. I am ready for the next era.

 

[BB58]

Nash is not nearly as bad as some paint him to be nor nearly as good as some paint him to be. He has been somewhere in the middle but its probably time to try another avenue.

Agreed with this. I think we've been spoiled by Jagr.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Agreed with this. I think we've been spoiled by Jagr.

I think some of it is his playing style. When he was younger he seemed to skate faster and make some really nice moves. I remember his breakaways on Columbus. Now he takes a lot of wrist shots that are not the kind of quick release blasts that other guys shoot. Plus when he was younger he was a more physical player at times.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I think some of it is his playing style. When he was younger he seemed to skate faster and make some really nice moves. I remember his breakaways on Columbus. Now he takes a lot of wrist shots that are not the kind of quick release blasts that other guys shoot. Plus when he was younger he was a more physical player at times.

Players evolve and mature. I don't MIND that his game changed, when he's able to still produce, but the most simple identifiable difference is that he absolutely used to drive the net aggressively and now he does so rarely. It's less frustrating when he's producing. When he goes cold or has a poor season and refuses to take the puck to the paint, it's infuriating knowing the success he used to have doing so and the size he possesses. It's not something that has to be a big part of his game if he can live without it; I don't mind players getting smarter and more mature and changing the way they approach the game as long as they still put the points up. There's no question he was a more satisfying and exciting player when he attacked the net aggressively though.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Players evolve and mature. I don't MIND that his game changed, when he's able to still produce, but the most simple identifiable difference is that he absolutely used to drive the net aggressively and now he does so rarely. It's less frustrating when he's producing. When he goes cold or has a poor season and refuses to take the puck to the paint, it's infuriating knowing the success he used to have doing so and the size he possesses. It's not something that has to be a big part of his game if he can live without it; I don't mind players getting smarter and more mature and changing the way they approach the game as long as they still put the points up. There's no question he was a more satisfying and exciting player when he attacked the net aggressively though.

When he was younger he was a more physical player in general. He even used to hit guys. I think a head injury may have changed that aspect of his game which is understandable.

 

[alkurtz]

When he was younger he was a more physical player in general. He even used to hit guys. I think a head injury may have changed that aspect of his game which is understandable.

I don't think there is any way to underestimate how important his head injuries have been in changing the way he plays. And who can blame him?

Nash's a-game was in bringing the puck directly to the net. Now, he is more (much more) of a perimeter player.

Combined with some possible loss of quickness due to aging, we are seeing a totally different player than he was earlier in his career. He was a "force" on the ice who could dominate games. Now, he often seems like a bystander.

I have no beef with his work ethic, commitment, or desire. He has tried to compensate for his changed game (and certainly, he has deliberately changed his game to protect his health) by becoming a more complete forward and committing himself to the defensive side of the game. At that, he has been successful. He is one of our more defensively responsible forwards. I'm not sure what the analytics show, but according to my eye test, he probably less guilty at losing containment and positioning on his opposite forward in the defensive end, than any other top six forward on the team.

I have always been a Nash fan. But if we can get a good return for him by retaining salary or exchanging him for another larger contract and still (and this is the important part) bringing back a #1 pick or a top prospect, I'm all in for moving him.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Nash is still our best forward. People will realize once he is gone

 

[The Gloaming]

Nash is not nearly as bad as some paint him to be nor nearly as good as some paint him to be. He has been somewhere in the middle but its probably time to try another avenue.

My thoughts exactly. I like Nash as a player and wish him the best moving forward, but it's time to move on.