Sidney Crosby vs Rick Nash

[Genghis Keon]

Would you pass on Wayne Gretzky because Mike Bossy is more proven?

You take Crosby, for sure.

If you take Crosby, and it backfired, well nobody can really blame you.

If you take Nash and Crosby become the next one, you're fired.

Yeah. If I had Crosby, I wouldn't trade him for Nash because if he does live up to his potential, you don't want to be known as the guy who traded Crosby. Plus, centres are more valuable than wingers in my opinion (in general, I'd rather build around a Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman etc. than a Shanahan, Neely, etc.).

However, if I had Nash, I wouldn't trade him straight up for Crosby because you know what you have in Nash right now and it's pretty friggen amazing in its own right. Even if Crosby should become better or more valuable than Nash (and I think odds are that he will be), there is always the chance that he won't be, and I would rather err on the side of caution and just keep the stud I already have; no matter what, Nash isn't a bad consolation prize.

If I just had to choose one or the other, it would depend on the team I had, but I'd most likely take Crosby because of his potential (and likeliness of tapping into at least some of this potential) and because he is a centre.

 

[Kaizer]

We're forgetting the original question here.

"If both players reach their full "hype/potential", who will be better?"

If Crosby reaches his full potential and lives up to all the hype, he'll be better than Gretzky - and that's according to Wayne himself.

But there were another questions : "If you had a pick, which player would you take" . Author of this thread asked to compare based on proven/unproven :"If Nash was eligible for this draft, would you take a proven young player like Nash over Crosby" and "i want to see how many people would take Nash because he is proven and Crosby is not"

I remember seeing this same thread, switch Crosby w/Ovechkin and almost everyone took Nash. Something about potential meaning nothing next to actual success.

Go figure.

Yeah. Now it seems really interesting. I tired to count how many times was posted about Nash's 41 goals
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=143216&page=1&pp=20

BTW, there was another thread "Kovalchuk/Heatley vs. Crosby/Ovechkin"
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=148100
I've counted 10-5 in honor of Heatley and Kovalchuk. Almost all of the opinions was based on fact that Kovalchuk and Heatley are proven. Nash did the same as Kovalchuk but he was year younger and without Savard, Slava Kozlov and Heatley around. Yes, Heatley and Ovechkin are the different story, but comparison was based on "proven/unproven". Now, in this thread "proven/unproven" means nothing.

 

[ktownhockey]

Holy .. Ive read most of the posts in this thread and Im almost excited to make a post now

First off in regards to potential it goes like this IMO :
1) Crosby 45-60 Goals 120-150 PTS per season
2) Ovechkin 40-50 Goals 90-120 PTS perseason
3) Nash 40-55 Goals 75-100 PTS per season

All of this is based on potential however. Right now you have to like Nash and Ovechkin because what they've proven against men.... BUTTTTTTT on the other hand you can say no one since Lemieux has dominated Junior hockey like Crosby did. All things being equal I think Sidney Crosby would have done well if he had the chance to play in the world championships this year on a line with guys like Heatley and Nash on his wing. I think people use the comment that "he's only dominated against boys and not against men" argument. People also say that he will be hte next Daigle. Alexandre Daigle did not have a skill set that even compares to Crosby. Daigle was a little bit faster version of Simon Gagne without as much heart maybe a little better hands.

If you ask me who i'd take It has to be Crosby, I know Nash scored 41 goals last year but I don't really see him doing that every year. I hope he does because he is one of my favorite players but I time will tell.

Crosby has that potential that teams cannot pass up. say that he hasn't played in the league yet or not but If im a GM and I have a choice between the two I take Crosby

Nash is a big guy who can put the puck in the net
Crosby is an electrifying player who can do a little bit of everything and add some people to the seats I think this factors in.

anyways this is kind of a stupid argument due to the fact that Nash has put up the numbers already but when Crosbys Nash's age I'd love to see the numbers he's gonna put up I say in his second NHL season if he plays a full schedule he'll be around 35 Goals 65 Assists. One of the top point getters in the league.

Can't wait to see it unfold.

 

[pei fan]

I've been living on planet Earth.

Didn't hear anyone mention that they wouldn't trade any player for Crosby. Maybe you did, I'm not going to call you a liar. But it can't have been more than 1 or 2 people. Right off the bat, I think it's ludicrous that you pretend to know what every GM thinks on this issue.

Then this comment "especially not Rick Nash" makes me think you just plain don't know what you are talking about. I really there are few players you can make a case are more valuable assets than him at this point in time.

So finally, when you put the usual crack "what are you smoking", I just lump you in the big pile of people who, over the years, have told me things were simple, asked me what I smoked, and a year later shut the hell up when they realized they were ****ing buffoons.

Good for you if you believe Crosby is the better asset at this point. I can respect that, even if I disagree. I just don't like the way you go about it.

I reread your original post and I probably shouldn't have chosen yours to
quote but your phrase "it's just not that simple" stuck out at me. So my post
was really aimed generally to a number of the posters("are you guys...")among them one who made the Daigle comment yet again and so my sharper remarks
were directed more there.

Almost 2 years ago my Crosby opinions were based on what I saw and there
was also the Gretzky quote.Then, the hockey people I know were saying the same thing to me,confirming my opinions. Now the Crosby comments are coming from
everywhere ,if you haven't noticed he is the biggest thing in hockey.
Brad Richards just held a celeberity charity golf tourney here with St.Louis, Lecavellier,Bertuzzi and Crosby playing amongst others and all the talk was
about who was going to get to play with Sidney.When it was announced
(they do it by draw)it was like those guys won the 649 lottery.
There is rarely a story about the lockout without it mentioning "the
Crosby lottery draft".Of the hundreds of comments from articles and news clips
the only one that I have seen that questions Crosby is from Bob Mackenzie
and he says he sees Crosby being more Sakic/Yzerman caliber than Gretzky/
Lemiuex.So my comments "are you guys paying attention " and "it's that simple"
is based on it seems like the rest of the world "gets it" but not when I go on hf boards.

When the Quotes about Sidney are: "best prospect I've seen since Mario;
"I was gobsmacked"(Mario after skating with him) ;"a sure thing"(that he
will be the next superstar),then I think we can translate that into they
wouldn't trade him for any other player.

My comment "especially Nash" was probably not neccessary but I was just
thinking I would rank others ahead of him.

As far as me being "black and white" and "the way I go about it" isn't that like "pot"/ "kettle"?

Would you be willing to bet that if within 2 years if Crosby is clearly better than
Nash you will change your user name to" ****ing Buffoon" and I will do so vice versa?

 

[espo*]

I really like Nash,i agree with posters that say a guy like him does'nt come around too often because they really don't.Huge kid with great hands,knows where to go to use them and is only going to get better.How can anyone pass on a 19 year old Rocket Richard winner for an unproven junior?

Well,Crosby is not your average unproven junior.His accomplishments in that league are mostly unparralelled,that's how someone does it.It's not like he's some overager with good skills and thus dominates the league but may or may not be a great pro.The scouts know a kid like this has'nt come around in quite some time..................you won't hear them talk about Daigle in the same sentence as this kid. I think with a player with his potential you gulp hard and take him over Nash,it's tough but you go for it because sometimes you have to do that to hit tape measure home runs and that's what you may get with this kid.If it does'nt work out you brush yourself off and go forward but you do take that risk...................you just have to.....................he has the type of potential to be a player that you can build a perrenial stanley cup team around,put fannies in the seats and sell your team.It's just too much to pass up,you have to take the chance i think.

 

[Genghis Keon]

Of the hundreds of comments from articles and news clips the only one that I have seen that questions Crosby is from Bob Mackenzie and he says he sees Crosby being more Sakic/Yzerman caliber than Gretzky/Lemiuex.

I don't think McKenzie questions Crosby at all. He wrote:

"Perhaps only that there should be a cease and desist order on referencing Crosby in the same sentence as Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux. Crosby has not shown he's in that stratosphere -- then again, who has? -- so we should be content with projecting him as Peter Forsberg or Marcel Dionne. If he puts up Yzerman- or Sakic-like numbers over his career, he will indeed be a special player and if he should happen to exceed that level, great, but it's still a long way up to Wayne and Mario and having the ability to transcend the game."

The key word, imo, is "projecting." He's not saying that Crosby has the upside to be a Forsberg or a Dionne, he's saying that Crosby projects to be a Forsberg or a Dionne. That's crazy. Forsberg and Dionne are both two of the top players in the past three decades and Crosby "projects" to my amongst them. McKenzie doesn't write that Crosby has the upside to be a Forsberg or a Dionne, he writes that Crosby projects to be a Forsberg or a Dionne. I know I'm being redundant, but that's nuts: pretty much everyone else is said to have the "potential" to be a Forsberg or whoever, but who else has been "projected" to be such a high level player in recent memory? McKenzie doesn't mention potential at all. Can anyone, other than Stocktrader/wizard whatever, say or has anyone said that Crosby "projects" to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux? Not that I'm aware of. A lot of people talk about his potential being right up there, but I don't think any sane person can actually project it.

IMO, McKenzie has actually raised the bar (or at least maintained it) with Crosby, but has made it seem like he has lowered it ("see, McKenzie says that Crosby isn't in Gretzky or Lemieux's league"). When actual scouts, not armchair GMs or sports editorialists, project you to be one of the top players of your generation, I just fail to see how that is questionning you.

 

[Renholder]

That's irrelevant if you consider most scouts/people feel that Ovechkin's talent and overall potential is higher than Rick Nash's.

I may have a bias against ovechkin but i don't believe he has a higher ceiling than Nash. And this is by a longshot. I also believe Kovalchuk is better than him by a longshot and the guy will only keep getting better.

Ok I don't want to go offtopic but I read somerwhere here where people say You wouldn't trade Gretzky for Bossy or something. Nash isn't bossy and Crosby is certainly not Gretzky. They aren't even the same type of players, especially gretz and Crosby.

Crosby reminds me of Forsberg. That's no slouch. I share the same opinion as Mr Mackenzie in that respect. Although, he doesn't have the power of jagr , he does play like him too. He's sort of a mixture of Forsberg and Jagr for me. That's no gretzky but it's going to be awesome if he ever manages to live up to the unreachable expectations some people place on the kid. In fact, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

 

[EroCaps]

I may have a bias against ovechkin but i don't believe he has a higher ceiling than Nash. And this is by a longshot. I also believe Kovalchuk is better than him by a longshot and the guy will only keep getting better.

Ok I don't want to go offtopic but I read somerwhere here where people say You wouldn't trade Gretzky for Bossy or something. Nash isn't bossy and Crosby is certainly not Gretzky. They aren't even the same type of players, especially gretz and Crosby.

Crosby reminds me of Forsberg. That's no slouch. I share the same opinion as Mr Mackenzie in that respect. Although, he doesn't have the power of jagr , he does play like him too. He's sort of a mixture of Forsberg and Jagr for me. That's no gretzky but it's going to be awesome if he ever manages to live up to the unreachable expectations some people place on the kid. In fact, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now.

The longshot comments are unfounded IMO. Ovechkin outscored and outplayed Kovalchuck not too long ago playing for the same squad. Of course it's all debatable but if you measure a player's potential based on their success at the highest levels it's hard to argue against a top 5 that runs down-

Kovalchuck
Nash
Ovechkin
Malkin
Crosby

I want to see SC succeed, but wake me up when he lights it up against NHL'ers. I'm not sure I'd take Gretzky's remarks seriously either. Crosby could break some of his records? A number of prospects could! When was the last time Wayne scouted a legit superstar? I'm guessing the jury is still way out on Blake Wheeler.

 

[Renholder]

From what I have seen, Ovechkin shy's away when the going gets tough. I'm only making this assumption from the under junior world championships. I mean he got pushed and shoved and he slowed down. yeah , he got injured but that doesn't really bode well for him since the Nhl is leaps and bounds more physical. I also have the same fear about Crosby too, he's not soft but he's small and he will get hurt Imo.

It could also be that Ovechkin bulks up and gets better in this regard but I don't think he'll ever be as physical as Nash.

Nash has proved that he can play in high traffic games and get the puck from the corner and score. I don't know How Ovechkin will be able to adapt. I'm even more afraid for crosby. Everyone kepes telling me that he has a very strong lower body, etc. So does forsberg.

 

[pei fan]

I don't think McKenzie questions Crosby at all. He wrote:

"Perhaps only that there should be a cease and desist order on referencing Crosby in the same sentence as Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux. Crosby has not shown he's in that stratosphere -- then again, who has? -- so we should be content with projecting him as Peter Forsberg or Marcel Dionne. If he puts up Yzerman- or Sakic-like numbers over his career, he will indeed be a special player and if he should happen to exceed that level, great, but it's still a long way up to Wayne and Mario and having the ability to transcend the game."

The key word, imo, is "projecting." He's not saying that Crosby has the upside to be a Forsberg or a Dionne, he's saying that Crosby projects to be a Forsberg or a Dionne. That's crazy. Forsberg and Dionne are both two of the top players in the past three decades and Crosby "projects" to my amongst them. McKenzie doesn't write that Crosby has the upside to be a Forsberg or a Dionne, he writes that Crosby projects to be a Forsberg or a Dionne. I know I'm being redundant, but that's nuts: pretty much everyone else is said to have the "potential" to be a Forsberg or whoever, but who else has been "projected" to be such a high level player in recent memory? McKenzie doesn't mention potential at all. Can anyone, other than Stocktrader/wizard whatever, say or has anyone said that Crosby "projects" to be the next Gretzky or Lemieux? Not that I'm aware of. A lot of people talk about his potential being right up there, but I don't think any sane person can actually project it.

IMO, McKenzie has actually raised the bar (or at least maintained it) with Crosby, but has made it seem like he has lowered it ("see, McKenzie says that Crosby isn't in Gretzky or Lemieux's league"). When actual scouts, not armchair GMs or sports editorialists, project you to be one of the top players of your generation, I just fail to see how that is questionning you.

At WJC's Mackenzie said he saw his upside potential as Yzerman/Sakic.
Neither player was the dominant player of his generation which most
anyone else I have heard has said Crosby has the potential to be and
quite afew have said he would probably be.
His latest statement is actually a slight upward shift from his WJC
statement and I think now he would want to remove himself from that
original statement.

Several hockey authority's have said that Crosby project's to be the next great hockey superstar.Pat Quinn used the terminology that he would probably (he
didn't say potentially) be the next great player to carry the game like
Howe ,Orr,Beliveau,Lemieux,Gretzky did. Gretzky himself has said it is
probable on several occassions.Several scouts have said it as have media
quoting scouts and others.

Nobody has been able to "rationally/logically" answer my question(not this thread)
"why wouldn't the greatest 16/17 year old junior hockey player of all time
and most likely greatest 14/15 year old player as well( harder to evaluate
because of uncommon battleground but pretty hard to argue against his
record) continue on in the future of his career as he has in the past.

Understanding risk/probability I think I am way better off projecting him to
have a Lemieux/Gretzky type career than Yzerman /Sakic.

 

[EroCaps]

From what I have seen, Ovechkin shy's away when the going gets tough. I'm only making this assumption from the under junior world championships. I mean he got pushed and shoved and he slowed down. yeah , he got injured but that doesn't really bode well for him since the Nhl is leaps and bounds more physical. I also have the same fear about Crosby too, he's not soft but he's small and he will get hurt Imo.

It could also be that Ovechkin bulks up and gets better in this regard but I don't think he'll ever be as physical as Nash.

Nash has proved that he can play in high traffic games and get the puck from the corner and score. I don't know How Ovechkin will be able to adapt. I'm even more afraid for crosby. Everyone kepes telling me that he has a very strong lower body, etc. So does forsberg.

Ovechkin is *renown* for his physicality and playing in traffic. You're basing that off one game. He's already more physical than Nash.

 

[Genghis Keon]

At WJC's Mackenzie said he saw his upside potential as Yzerman/Sakic. Neither player was the dominant player of his generation which most anyone else I have heard has said Crosby has the potential to be and quite afew have said he would probably be. His latest statement is actually a slight upward shift from his WJC statement and I think now he would want to remove himself from that original statement.

I don't remember McKenzie saying that. Not saying that I don't believe you, but I'd just rather hear/read the actual phrasing he used. I just don't recall McKenzie ever mentionning "upside potential" for any prospect. I just hear/read comparisons or projections from him. It's all semantics, but I'd rather be able to see it than just take your word for it, because for journalists, semantics means a hell of a lot and people don't always hear what exactly is said. No disrespect intended, but I just rather see it for myself ("believe half of what you see and none of what you hear," and all that good stuff: here I'd be believing what I heard what someone else heard).

Several hockey authority's have said that Crosby project's to be the next great hockey superstar.Pat Quinn used the terminology that he would probably (he didn't say potentially) be the next great player to carry the game like Howe ,Orr,Beliveau,Lemieux,Gretzky did. Gretzky himself has said it is probable on several occassions.Several scouts have said it as have media quoting scouts and others.

I think Crosby could be the next great hockey superstar and the dominant player of his generation (I expect it actually), but that doesn't mean I would personally class him with Gretzky and Lemieux. I see him potentially one rung down on the ladder, though we'll have to wait and see how things stand in 20 years.

Nobody has been able to "rationally/logically" answer my question(not this thread) "why wouldn't the greatest 16/17 year old junior hockey player of all time and most likely greatest 14/15 year old player as well( harder to evaluate because of uncommon battleground but pretty hard to argue against his record) continue on in the future of his career as he has in the past.

Gretzky was dominant at the WJC at 16 and was just outscored in the OHA by a 19 year old who would go on to score 1000 points in the NHL (I don't think Crosby had any such peers in the Q last year). At 17, he came in third in scoring in the WHA. Taking international play into account, I think Gretzky trumps Crosby at 16/17 (especially at 17). Lemieux improved drastically after his 17 y/o year; will Crosby be able to keep up? I don't know, but I don't expect it: Lemieux's tools and rate of improvement are just too much in my opinion.

Understanding risk/probability I think I am way better of projecting him to have a Lemieux/Gretzky type career than Yzerman /Sakic.

I see him coming somewhere in between: the dominant player (at least offensively) of his generation, but not at a Gretzky/Lemieux level.

You can't forget that Gretzky and Lemieux weren't projected to be as good as they were. It was in their upside, their potential to be as good as they were. So to say that Crosby projects to a Gretzky/Lemieux level means that he has the potential to surpass it, their level, and surpass it by a lot (unless you think Crosby projects to reach almost all his potential upside). This is basically why I don't think you can project Crosby to reach the Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level of transcendence: if that's what he projects to be, if he reaches his full potential, you're saying that he's going to dominate more, potentially much more, than Gretzky ever did. I just can't see that. If he reaches his absolute upside and stays healthy (and has luck on his side), he might be right up there when all is said and done, but I don't think you can actually project that--Crosby being equal with arguably the most dominant player sports, all sports, has ever seen--with a straight face. Hence, I'm thrilled with projections of Forsberg and Dionne (700+ goals, 1700+ points).

We're basically on the same page with what we expect out of Crosby. I just think that being the dominant player of his generation does not automatically put Crosby in Gretzky's and Lemieux's league (assuming Crosby does in fact become the dominant player of his generation) and I don't think that a projection of a hall of fame career undercuts Crosby's potential.

 

[ZombieMatt]

That's irrelevant if you consider most scouts/people feel that Ovechkin's talent and overall potential is higher than Rick Nash's.

It is not irrelevant.

What it indicates is that people don't believe the gap in Ovechkin and Nash's potential is large enough to warrant risking the proven nature of Nash to acquire the potential of Ovechkin.

I think it's quite pertinent and an excellent way to contrast people's perceptions.

 

[kmad]

Gretzky is hardly an unbiased source of analysis and information on this subject. Part of his role is as a hype machine for Hockey Canada, and it's in his own interest that the "next big hyped star" be Canadian.

Then why would he put mounds of pressure on a young kid like that?

 

[Renholder]

Ovechkin is *renown* for his physicality and playing in traffic. You're basing that off one game. He's already more physical than Nash.

I don't buy it, but that's je me though. I haven't seen Ovechkin drag men behind him like nash does. But yeah, that one game did taint my perception of Ovechkin a lot. He didn't look too bad at the world championship. I still don't understand the hype behind him though.

 

[EroCaps]

It is not irrelevant.

What it indicates is that people don't believe the gap in Ovechkin and Nash's potential is large enough to warrant risking the proven nature of Nash to acquire the potential of Ovechkin.

I think it's quite pertinent and an excellent way to contrast people's perceptions.

And people believe the gap in potential between Crosby and Ovechkin/Nash IS large enough to warrant risking the proven nature of Nash? Based on what? His dominance of the "Q" is enough to get the majority vote against a 20 yr old Rocket Richard winner and a 19 yr old who just led his Men's National Team in scoring? I'm bias, sure, but I still don't buy it.

 

[Renholder]

I completely agree on Eurocaps on that. I simply don't understand people who would choose A prospect over an established/budding superstar in the league...oh well. We are at a hockeysFUTURE afterall.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Would you be willing to bet that if within 2 years if Crosby is clearly better than
Nash you will change your user name to" ****ing Buffoon" and I will do so vice versa?

I skipped the rest of your response but I appreciated the detailed comments.

I'll answer your question: If I believed without a doubt that Nash was going to turn into the better guy, I'd take that bet because it's a funny one

However, I'd be really stupid to take the bet when I dob't find the situation simple. I have said in this thread (and another one about Ovechkin/Kovalchuk/Crosby/Nash/Malkin/Crosby) that I would prefer Nash but in many cases, it's close.

If you can find someone who is convinced Nash will be better, go ahead and make the bet. But I am simply not that person. I cannot say which of those two will come out on top.

Really, just my opinion but I think 90% of the ussers on this forum (not just in this topic) have their opinions way too colored by outside sources. All the articles about how special Crosby could be and his potential are nice.

But perhaps the problem in this thread is that Rick Nash has really not been hyped mch as a prospect. He has exceeded every expectations I had for him three years straight.

Perhaps it's just a matter of opinion but nobody is talking about Rick Nash's potential. To me, he's off the chart and a very high end player with impressive potential for growth.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Like Vlad said it's a really tough call and it's definately not a simple choice to make.

On one hand you have a VERY special player in Nash who's accomplished things in the NHL at the age of 20 that only a few have (you can count 20 years old rocket richard winners on one hand). I was convinced after his first season, I was sold after his 2nd and I'm simply awed after the WC. He's one of the physically strongest 20 years old I've ever seen, 2nd only to Lindros in sheer strenght at that age. And what about that wrist and one timer shot ? He's got a truly special package as a goal scorer. Only Kovalchuk and Iginla can rival right now and I suspect that both Kovalchuk and Nash are going to leave Iginla in the dust goal scoring wise in a couple of years barring any serious injuries of course.

And now you have Crosby. I'm not going to write his resume here, everyone knows it but what is not said enough is how much of a winner the kid is. He wins at every level, he just makes the team he plays on that much better. And in this day and age it's very rare that a single player can have such a huge impact on a team even at the junior level.

Because Crosby is a center, because of his work ethic, love of the game, character, potential and because he makes teams that much better I have to go with him. If I had one I'd not trade one for the other though. It's much easier to be known as the guy who didn't make a trade than the guy who made the trade and made the wrong choice.

As for the original question of this thread, if both reach their full potential, I think it's a loaded question. It all depends on what you think the future has in store for both kids. Personally I see Nash maximum full potential as a perenial rocket richard winner 50-60g 35-40a kinda guy and Crosby as a perenial Art Ross and Hart trophy winner 30-35g 80a player. It's likely it'll fall a little below that, probably for both players, but if that's how their max upside is projected and should both reach it, then Crosby would be the obvious answer. But again, not that simple.

 

[Habruti!]

Like Vlad said it's a really tough call and it's definately not a simple choice to make.

On one hand you have a VERY special player in Nash who's accomplished things in the NHL at the age of 20 that only a few have (you can count 20 years old rocket richard winners on one hand). I was convinced after his first season, I was sold after his 2nd and I'm simply awed after the WC. He's one of the physically strongest 20 years old I've ever seen, 2nd only to Lindros in sheer strenght at that age. And what about that wrist and one timer shot ? He's got a truly special package as a goal scorer. Only Kovalchuk and Iginla can rival right now and I suspect that both Kovalchuk and Nash are going to leave Iginla in the dust goal scoring wise in a couple of years barring any serious injuries of course.

And now you have Crosby. I'm not going to write his resume here, everyone knows it but what is not said enough is how much of a winner the kid is. He wins at every level, he just makes the team he plays on that much better. And in this day and age it's very rare that a single player can have such a huge impact on a team even at the junior level.

Because Crosby is a center, because of his work ethic, love of the game, character, potential and because he makes teams that much better I have to go with him. If I had one I'd not trade one for the other though. It's much easier to be known as the guy who didn't make a trade than the guy who made the trade and made the wrong choice.

As for the original question of this thread, if both reach their full potential, I think it's a loaded question. It all depends on what you think the future has in store for both kids. Personally I see Nash maximum full potential as a perenial rocket richard winner 50-60g 35-40a kinda guy and Crosby as a perenial Art Ross and Hart trophy winner 30-35g 80a player. It's likely it'll fall a little below that, probably for both players, but if that's how their max upside is projected and should both reach it, then Crosby would be the obvious answer. But again, not that simple.

I think it is a little more simple then what it looks like. I guess it would depend on the team. What I mean is you will likely get the guy that will complement the talent pool you have at this point ( I would take Nash in MTL but Crosby in Ottawa). The worst thing about this is thread and I am suprised nobdy mentioned it yet is that both of them could end up on the same team..... Nash, Crosby, Zherdev ...OUCH!

 

[ZombieMatt]

And people believe the gap in potential between Crosby and Ovechkin/Nash IS large enough to warrant risking the proven nature of Nash? Based on what? His dominance of the "Q" is enough to get the majority vote against a 20 yr old Rocket Richard winner and a 19 yr old who just led his Men's National Team in scoring? I'm bias, sure, but I still don't buy it.

Apparently they do if this thread is an indication.

It is pretty straight forward. People believe that Crosby's skill set is that much above both of those players to warrant taking the risk of losing one of them to get him. Whether that's right or wrong I'm not addressing, but it is reflected in many of the responses we see here.

Sidney Crosby not only has been dominant at every level he's played at, but has a skill set, that according to every single scout I spoke to this year in my capacity as an an HF writer, unprecedented by any other prospect in this generation of hockey players.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

I think it is a little more simple then what it looks like. I guess it would depend on the team. What I mean is you will likely get the guy that will complement the talent pool you have at this point ( I would take Nash in MTL but Crosby in Ottawa). The worst thing about this is thread and I am suprised nobdy mentioned it yet is that both of them could end up on the same team..... Nash, Crosby, Zherdev ...OUCH!

And I'd bet you everything that Ottawa would rather have Nash. The big goalscoring LW they're lacking.

Nash-Spezza-Alfredsson/Hossa

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

And people believe the gap in potential between Crosby and Ovechkin/Nash IS large enough to warrant risking the proven nature of Nash? Based on what? His dominance of the "Q" is enough to get the majority vote against a 20 yr old Rocket Richard winner and a 19 yr old who just led his Men's National Team in scoring? I'm bias, sure, but I still don't buy it.

And what's to say Nash's career doesn't end next year from injury?

Better yet, the question remains. Crosby has proven as much as Mario lemieux in junior so would you have passed him up for a 41 goal scorer back then? Hell, let's say a 55 goal scorer? You'd look pretty dumb if you did.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Are you telling me an NHL GM wouldnt take Joe Thornton for Crosby right now, given the change?

Heck no. I doubt it very much. That GM would get 2-3 years of big whiny baby who's never ever been able to lead the Bruins past the first round and has been otherwise unspectacular when it's crunch time. A streaky player who's known for not giving a constant effort and feels entitled to hold out for more money than he deserves and won't adress the Boston media before a game 7 against the B's arch-rival ?

(the funny thing is that a slew of Boston fans will probably come to the rescue, but I read all those things on their board many times... )

Nash and Kovalchuk I can understand. But Thornton, no. Not that Thornton doesn't have an all world package of skills, he does, but character and leadership wise, there's something left to be desired.

And consider he'll be an UFA in 2-3 years and the answer is a resounding no. Obviously I'm not a NHL GM and I don't know, but I'd be surprised if more than 2-3 GMs would do that. They would have to feel pretty sure that they need a 1st line center to step up immediately. I don't even know which team would fit that bill and would have the room to add Thornton's salary.

EDIT : The post I quoted was deleted while I was writing this.

 

[ktownhockey]

At WJC's Mackenzie said he saw his upside potential as Yzerman/Sakic.Neither player was the dominant player of his generation which most
anyone else I have heard has said Crosby has the potential to be and
quite afew have said he would probably be.
His latest statement is actually a slight upward shift from his WJC
statement and I think now he would want to remove himself from that
original statement.

Several hockey authority's have said that Crosby project's to be the next great hockey superstar.Pat Quinn used the terminology that he would probably (he
didn't say potentially) be the next great player to carry the game like
Howe ,Orr,Beliveau,Lemieux,Gretzky did. Gretzky himself has said it is
probable on several occassions.Several scouts have said it as have media
quoting scouts and others.

Nobody has been able to "rationally/logically" answer my question(not this thread)
"why wouldn't the greatest 16/17 year old junior hockey player of all time
and most likely greatest 14/15 year old player as well( harder to evaluate
because of uncommon battleground but pretty hard to argue against his
record) continue on in the future of his career as he has in the past.

Understanding risk/probability I think I am way better off projecting him to
have a Lemieux/Gretzky type career than Yzerman /Sakic.

Am I missing something here??? Joe Sakic is probably one of the top 10 hockey players of all-time Look at his accomplishments.. Just because he doesn.'t do it with the flare of some people he IS and WAS a dominant force in a time where the NHL didnt have much chance for guys to strive offensively. Yzerman i'd put in the top 30 of all time as well. That's pretty dominant for me. I think Crosby has better skills to work with than these guys but whether or not they translate remains to be seen. I think they will and he'll be incredible.