Player Discussion Rick Nash VI

[Inferno]

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

he is, and i think hes our most tradeable asset for a strong return. i think hes valued a lot more than ppl think.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

he is, and i think hes our most tradeable asset for a strong return. i think hes valued a lot more than ppl think.

I agree. People will be positively surprised with the return.

 

[NYR Viper]

Put me in the group that still thinks he is a 30-35g scorer. My main gripe with him is actually not even with him. It's that he has the best value and is the most teadeable asset because he has 2 years left and is a 30-35g scorer.

 

[FLYLine27*]

Put me in the group that still thinks he is a 30-35g scorer. My main gripe with him is actually not even with him. It's that he has the best value and is the most teadeable asset because he has 2 years left and is a 30-35g scorer.

I hope there is a GM out there who believes that too so we can get a decent return.

 

[Matz03]

Put me in the group that still thinks he is a 30-35g scorer. My main gripe with him is actually not even with him. It's that he has the best value and is the most teadeable asset because he has 2 years left and is a 30-35g scorer.

I couldn't agree more. Nash isn't 36 or 37 to doubt a rebound by him. He'll pot 30 goals again next year if he stays healthy by just shooting his career avg shooting %. The negativity around here about Nash is absurd.

The 7.8 cap is no doubt tough with so many teams up against it, worrying about the cap going down, and potential expansion draft, etc. This is the obvious negative to Nash's contract. Keeping a minimum of $1.5m makes him that much more attractive, and if more $ is kept his return will be damn solid if traded.

I just absolutely hate the idea they are being forced to potentially move Nash, the clear cut best forward on this team while likely doing nothing to address the D issues and the abomination of the Staal and Girardi contracts. I'm all for moving Nash in the right deal to help with the retool, it's the right thing to pursue but I'd hate losing him.

For all the ***** thrown at Nash after a poor season, there's likely a better chance that all of Miller, Brassard and Zucc all regress next year (really high shooting %) in terms of goals scored than Nash not rebound to min 30 goals.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I couldn't agree more. Nash isn't 36 or 37 to doubt a rebound by him. He'll pot 30 goals again next year if he stays healthy by just shooting his career avg shooting %. The negativity around here about Nash is absurd.

The 7.8 cap is no doubt tough with so many teams up against it, worrying about the cap going down, and potential expansion draft, etc. This is the obvious negative to Nash's contract. Keeping a minimum of $1.5m makes him that much more attractive, and if more $ is kept his return will be damn solid if traded.

I just absolutely hate the idea they are being forced to potentially move Nash, the clear cut best forward on this team while likely doing nothing to address the D issues and the abomination of the Staal and Girardi contracts. I'm all for moving Nash in the right deal to help with the retool, it's the right thing to pursue but I'd hate losing him.

For all the ***** thrown at Nash after a poor season, there's likely a better chance that all of Miller, Brassard and Zucc all regress next year (really high shooting %) in terms of goals scored than Nash not rebound to min 30 goals.

miller was really unimpressive besides a single hot streak when he single handed kept us afloat.. i think we see more consistency from him and hayes and add in Buch's offensive instinct i think we can afford to trade nash and try to help the back end

 

[Riche16]

I couldn't agree more. Nash isn't 36 or 37 to doubt a rebound by him. He'll pot 30 goals again next year if he stays healthy by just shooting his career avg shooting %. The negativity around here about Nash is absurd.

The 7.8 cap is no doubt tough with so many teams up against it, worrying about the cap going down, and potential expansion draft, etc. This is the obvious negative to Nash's contract. Keeping a minimum of $1.5m makes him that much more attractive, and if more $ is kept his return will be damn solid if traded.

I just absolutely hate the idea they are being forced to potentially move Nash, the clear cut best forward on this team while likely doing nothing to address the D issues and the abomination of the Staal and Girardi contracts. I'm all for moving Nash in the right deal to help with the retool, it's the right thing to pursue but I'd hate losing him.

For all the ***** thrown at Nash after a poor season, there's likely a better chance that all of Miller, Brassard and Zucc all regress next year (really high shooting %) in terms of goals scored than Nash not rebound to min 30 goals.

Nash has not been what this franchise needed or expected... That cannot be denied. I've been hard on him but when we got him we needed scoring and outside of the reg season in 14-15 he didn't provide that. Not nearly enough. Especially in the post season

As far as Zucc and Brass... I would certainly be trading one or both right now precisely because we WOULD be selling high. I'm not saying they will regress or not, but those two especially could get a handsome return and could spark the re-tool... Even accelerate it.

 

[Matz03]

Nash has not been what this franchise needed or expected... That cannot be denied. I've been hard on him but when we got him we needed scoring and outside of the reg season in 14-15 he didn't provide that. Not nearly enough. Especially in the post season

What does this even mean? Not what the franchise needed or expected? He was a 40 goal scorer when healthy. 35+ goals pace in all of the other years except that past year. You only had to look at what he did in Columbus to know he's a complimentary player, if you had different expectations than that's your fault for ignoring that fact.

 

[TheTakedown]

Put me in the group that still thinks he is a 30-35g scorer. My main gripe with him is actually not even with him. It's that he has the best value and is the most teadeable asset because he has 2 years left and is a 30-35g scorer.

Precisely.

I'd also add that he's not the 30-35 goal scorer we need... Not a threat on the power play, high cap hit, low playoff production. If he could actually use his slap shot more, and hustle harder, AND do all this on the power play, he'd probably be a perennial 40-45 goal scorer.

He's a complimentary star player. He reminds me of Kessel in the way where Kessel looks so great on Pittsburgh because he's on their THIRD LINE. Nash is a similar player (actually, Kessel is better), and he's on the 1st line.

This isn't to say Nash isn't a top line forward--he is. It's just that on this team, his production leaves much to be desired within the top 6.

 

[Riche16]

What does this even mean? Not what the franchise needed or expected? He was a 40 goal scorer when healthy. 35+ goals pace in all of the other years except that past year. You only had to look at what he did in Columbus to know he's a complimentary player, if you had different expectations than that's your fault for ignoring that fact.

Right. MY expectations were that he was a 30-40 POWER FORWARD who wouldn't disappear in the play-offs.

I guess the organization had the correct expectations for him which is why they traded Dubi (a 20-25 goal power forward) Ani (15-20 goal two way center) and a young defenseman for him (the math doesn't add up), they then traded Gaborik because their expectations were that Nash would carry the load and we needed depth...

The NYR are now actively shopping him with the concept in mind being they will RETAIN salary on him.

But MY expectations were off.

The NYR are going to pay HIM to score goals against us for 2 years because they're moving on. BUT MY EXPECTATIONS WERE WRONG... just mine.

The NYR are fine with what they acquired.

 

[silverfish]

they then traded Gaborik because their expectations were that Nash would carry the load and we needed depth...

One of the best examples of revisionist history I've seen on HFNYR. Bravo

 

[Inferno]

they traded gabby because he fell out of favor of Torts AND because he wasnt playing well. Gabby wasnt the same after that shoulder injury...at least not for us.

 

[Edge]

they traded gabby because he fell out of favor of Torts AND because he wasnt playing well. Gabby wasnt the same after that shoulder injury...at least not for us.

Truthfully, he wasn't the same player for anyone.

He hasn't played more than 69 games in a season since 2012. He had a solid support season for L.A. in 2015 in which he scored 27 of the 53 goals he's scored in the 3.5 seasons since he last played for us.

 

[NYRFAN218]

they traded gabby because he fell out of favor of Torts AND because he wasnt playing well. Gabby wasnt the same after that shoulder injury...at least not for us.

Not to mention they had to replenish the depth they lost in the past year. That trade did it in a big way by getting us a top 6 center in Brassard, a promising NHL ready dman in John Moore, and a 4th liner who did his job well in Dorsett.

Could you imagine where that team would be without those guys? They had Halpern and Powe making up the 4th line for a while. Even after that, it was still pretty bad.

 

[Matz03]

Right. MY expectations were that he was a 30-40 POWER FORWARD who wouldn't disappear in the play-offs.

I guess the organization had the correct expectations for him which is why they traded Dubi (a 20-25 goal power forward) Ani (15-20 goal two way center) and a young defenseman for him (the math doesn't add up), they then traded Gaborik because their expectations were that Nash would carry the load and we needed depth...

The NYR are now actively shopping him with the concept in mind being they will RETAIN salary on him.

But MY expectations were off.

The NYR are going to pay HIM to score goals against us for 2 years because they're moving on. BUT MY EXPECTATIONS WERE WRONG... just mine.

The NYR are fine with what they acquired.

All you had to do was watch what Nash was in the Columbus, he wasn't a power forward there, he wasn't going to be one here. He had a bad playoffs in terms of production in the cup run so why not just blame him for the offensive issue, why not just blame Hank too for not stealing the series, you probably already do.

They traded Gaborik because he was having a bad year and the team was quickly falling in the standings, you should remember that trade energized the team and allowed them to make the playoffs.

If they trade Nash and keep $ back it's because of the cap, solely because of the cap and the other bad contracts they added to the books like Staal, Girardi. Do you think if the cap was $80m, where it was heading 3-4 years ago, would they be needing to move him or consider keeping some the $ cap hit? They need to hit a reset button and the know the cap crunch they are in, and Nash has the most value and a moveable contract (no ntc nmc).

 

[Made Dan]

Not to mention they had to replenish the depth they lost in the past year. That trade did it in a big way by getting us a top 6 center in Brassard, a promising NHL ready dman in John Moore, and a 4th liner who did his job well in Dorsett.

Could you imagine where that team would be without those guys? They had Halpern and Powe making up the 4th line for a while. Even after that, it was still pretty bad.

"Darroll Powe can play on my 4th line any day." - Hire Sather

 

[True Blue]

What does this even mean? Not what the franchise needed or expected? He was a 40 goal scorer when healthy. 35+ goals pace in all of the other years except that past year. You only had to look at what he did in Columbus to know he's a complimentary player, if you had different expectations than that's your fault for ignoring that fact.

Nash was obtained to fix the issue of not being able to score in the playoffs. Since the deal, the Rangers have had issues scoring in the playoffs. No, I would say he has not been what was expected.

He had a bad playoffs in terms of production in the cup run so why not just blame him for the offensive issue,

The issues of scoring in the playoffs usually occur when your most important goal scorer becomes allergic to scoring goals.

 

[Riche16]

they traded gabby because he fell out of favor of Torts AND because he wasnt playing well. Gabby wasnt the same after that shoulder injury...at least not for us.

They still traded him for depth, but never replaced the "goal scoring threat" in Gabby.

 

[silverfish]

They still traded him for depth, but never replaced the "goal scoring threat" in Gabby.

Gaborik has outscored Brassard in only one season (14-15) since the trade.

 

[Riche16]

All you had to do was watch what Nash was in the Columbus, he wasn't a power forward there, he wasn't going to be one here. He had a bad playoffs in terms of production in the cup run so why not just blame him for the offensive issue, why not just blame Hank too for not stealing the series, you probably already do.

They traded Gaborik because he was having a bad year and the team was quickly falling in the standings, you should remember that trade energized the team and allowed them to make the playoffs.

If they trade Nash and keep $ back it's because of the cap, solely because of the cap and the other bad contracts they added to the books like Staal, Girardi. Do you think if the cap was $80m, where it was heading 3-4 years ago, would they be needing to move him or consider keeping some the $ cap hit? They need to hit a reset button and the know the cap crunch they are in, and Nash has the most value and a moveable contract (no ntc nmc).

So in one post you said
A) I blame Hank (check my post history... Pretty sure u won't see anything RESEMBLING that)
B) say they're trading Nash and retaining salary because the NYR are in a cap crunch.

How is that possible?!?!

They're retaining salary because they are ready to move on from him and want to max the return.

If they were tracing him because of cap why would they retain salary?!?!

Wow

 

[Matz03]

So in one post you said
A) I blame Hank (check my post history... Pretty sure u won't see anything RESEMBLING that)
B) say they're trading Nash and retaining salary because the NYR are in a cap crunch.

How is that possible?!?!

They're retaining salary because they are ready to move on from him and want to max the return.

If they were tracing him because of cap why would they retain salary?!?!

Wow

If you're not bashing Hank, that's fine. Some of the Nash haters around here bring up Hank too so bad assumption on my end.

Regarding the second, I don't quite get what you're trying to say but let me break the obvious down for you.

A $7.8 cap hit is tough when you have a bunch of RFA's to sign, a Cap that will likely stay at around $72m and the near impossible task of moving Staal and Girardi, the guys who should obviously be the first to be shown the door. Yes absolutely Nash has the best value now, common sense would say a younger Nash has more value than an even older Nash. Since there aren't GM's lining up for Girardi or Staal, plus their NMC's, Nash is the obvious one next in line. Moving him would also help get some youth or fill D needs.

Do you think they are moving Nash to help get more scoring in the playoffs?!? Or are they being forced to move Nash to help clear $ space and maybe get some picks and prospects back. Do you think trading Nash makes them a better team or a worse team in the interim? You probably will say better but that's besides the point.

 

[Matz03]

Nash was obtained to fix the issue of not being able to score in the playoffs. Since the deal, the Rangers have had issues scoring in the playoffs. No, I would say he has not been what was expected.

The issues of scoring in the playoffs usually occur when your most important goal scorer becomes allergic to scoring goals.

Yes they got Nash to help score in the playoffs, but not just in the playoffs, you have to get to the playoffs first, and yes it didn't work out as planned. But the fact is he's far from being the lone problem. When you're the lone scoring threat it's easier to defend that threat, take a look and the teams making deep runs get scoring by committee not just their top regular season guy.

I'm all for moving Nash now and maximizing the return, but let's not kid ourselves that moving him makes the team better now. It's simply an acknowledgment of need to hit the reset button.

 

[True Blue]

Yes they got Nash to help score in the playoffs, but not just in the playoffs, you have to get to the playoffs first, and yes it didn't work out as planned. But the fact is he's far from being the lone problem. When you're the lone scoring threat it's easier to defend that threat, take a look and the teams making deep runs get scoring by committee not just their top regular season guy.

He is far from the problem, but he is the biggest piece of the pie. When your biggest goal scorer refuses to score goals in the playoffs, that makes things hard. Yes, others have to step up as well, but the others are not counted upon as much as him.

I'm all for moving Nash now and maximizing the return, but let's not kid ourselves that moving him makes the team better now. It's simply an acknowledgment of need to hit the reset button.

I do not think that they need to trade him to make the team better right now. They should trade him to try to recoup assets for a plundered farm system and to obtain cap relief.

 

[Riche16]

If you're not bashing Hank, that's fine. Some of the Nash haters around here bring up Hank too so bad assumption on my end.

Regarding the second, I don't quite get what you're trying to say but let me break the obvious down for you.

A $7.8 cap hit is tough when you have a bunch of RFA's to sign, a Cap that will likely stay at around $72m and the near impossible task of moving Staal and Girardi, the guys who should obviously be the first to be shown the door. Yes absolutely Nash has the best value now, common sense would say a younger Nash has more value than an even older Nash. Since there aren't GM's lining up for Girardi or Staal, plus their NMC's, Nash is the obvious one next in line. Moving him would also help get some youth or fill D needs.

Do you think they are moving Nash to help get more scoring in the playoffs?!? Or are they being forced to move Nash to help clear $ space and maybe get some picks and prospects back. Do you think trading Nash makes them a better team or a worse team in the interim? You probably will say better but that's besides the point.

Nash is NOT a cap dump.

If u think otherwise then I don't know what to tell u.

Nash being traded (w/salary retained) will occur because he is (w salary retention) one of the ways we can RECOUP assets. Not because we want to resign Kreider et all. If Nash were a cap dump we would trade him without salary retention for whatever. Most teams would want us to take a bad contract back... Again, that WOULDNT be a cap dump right? That, along with his 12 team list would severely limit where he goes and what we get back.

 

[Edge]

Not a huge Nash fan at this point, but the Rangers will get a solid return if they move him.

Personally, I don't see a return to 35-40 goals.

I don't think 25 is unreasonable, maybe even 30 IF he's in the right situation (aka Kessel in Pittsburgh).

But I also see a player who over the past 18 months has clearly shown the signs of a player who has begun the downside of his peak production and whose injuries have resulted in a style change that's still impactful at times, but not quite as impactful as it once was.