Rick Nash to the Rangers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Rick Nash to the Rangers

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=401276

    No details on what's going the other way... NYR are gonna be seriously dangerous next year. If Philly holds onto Weber, the Penguins get Doan.... the Bruins simply must answer.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from juniorfalcon19. Show juniorfalcon19's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Brad Richards Marian Gaborik Rick Nash Henrik Lundqvist Pretty good 4 players to have in the same line up. Not one of them is a defenseman, but one of them is a top tier goalie and this is on a team that blocks a ton of shots. Going to be a good team, especially when Gaborik comes back.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]

    problem is, they're lacking a big time, number one d man. A lot of guys could however become that. I was really high on Staal pre concussion. I think the Rangers have two seasons before they need to make some serious changes. Lots of contracts will be up. 
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    I wonder if Nash will drop down an block shots. I doubt it!  The trade is a salary dump period.    Howson?  Unbelievable incompetence, unless the owners banter at the CBA negoitations is a bit more serious for the small market teams.  Columbus to Quebec talk should start up soon.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tom857. Show Tom857's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    Nash is a great player, but as a few people have suggested, the price the Rangers paid (while not enough from the CBJ perspective) and the injury to Gaborik means they will have some difficulty with being top heavy. If you shut down that top line, you're in pretty good shape.

    NASH-RICHARDS-CALLAHAN
    HAGELIN-KREIDER-????

    I mean, the off-season isn't over yet, but if Chara and Seidenberg can shut down that top line, then this team is going to start the season being even more pop-gun than last year... the question being if their defense will be as good. Without Dubinsky, I'd say it'll still be really good, but not AS good. When Gaborik comes back and bumps Callahan down we'll see how good of a 2nd line they have. With that said Pittsburgh and Philly should be better than the Rangers... luckily they all play in the same division.

    If Horton's healthy, then the Bruins are pretty close to that pack. If they can make a move for Ryan, than they're right back in it.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Columbus to Quebec talk should start up soon.
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]

    yeah, that's what I'm guessing will happen. CBJ is going to be even more horrendous this season than they were last season. The only way this story ends is with them winning the #1 overall pick and moving this pathetic franchise up north.

    If I'm a fan, after being dragged through all those ridiculous Rick Nash for Dougie & Tyler pipe dreams... having to settle for dubinsky and anisimov isn't an option... I can't take this organization seriously with its horrible/historically bad track record of scouting/drafting/trading.

    They're gonna be giving away tickets this season.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:[QUOTE]Brutal return for Howson on this one. Hard to understand how this is better than standing pat and just keeping Nash for the BJ's. Hard to understand how Howson couldn't extract Kreider, Stepan or Hagelin in this deal.  Boo Howson and bad for the B's.  Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    Great statements and stats to back it up.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Nash is a great player, but as a few people have suggested, the price the Rangers paid (while not enough from the CBJ perspective) and the injury to Gaborik means they will have some difficulty with being top heavy. If you shut down that top line, you're in pretty good shape. NASH-RICHARDS-CALLAHAN HAGELIN-KREIDER-???? I mean, the off-season isn't over yet, but if Chara and Seidenberg can shut down that top line, then this team is going to start the season being even more pop-gun than last year... the question being if their defense will be as good. Without Dubinsky, I'd say it'll still be really good, but not AS good. When Gaborik comes back and bumps Callahan down we'll see how good of a 2nd line they have. With that said Pittsburgh and Philly should be better than the Rangers... luckily they all play in the same division. If Horton's healthy, then the Bruins are pretty close to that pack. If they can make a move for Ryan, than they're right back in it.
    Posted by Tom857[/QUOTE]

    The goal scoring was going to be top heavy with or without Rick Nash. we're talking about the exit of several highly mediocre players and the addition of an exceptional offensive talent. I suspect the Rangers will put up very similar numbers to last season with Gaborik out (with him and Nash equalling each other out)
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Nash is a great player, but as a few people have suggested, the price the Rangers paid (while not enough from the CBJ perspective) and the injury to Gaborik means they will have some difficulty with being top heavy. If you shut down that top line, you're in pretty good shape. NASH-RICHARDS-CALLAHAN HAGELIN-KREIDER-???? I mean, the off-season isn't over yet, but if Chara and Seidenberg can shut down that top line, then this team is going to start the season being even more pop-gun than last year... the question being if their defense will be as good. Without Dubinsky, I'd say it'll still be really good, but not AS good. When Gaborik comes back and bumps Callahan down we'll see how good of a 2nd line they have. With that said Pittsburgh and Philly should be better than the Rangers... luckily they all play in the same division. If Horton's healthy, then the Bruins are pretty close to that pack. If they can make a move for Ryan, than they're right back in it.
    Posted by Tom857[/QUOTE]
    Too bad that Chara & Sieds only play together on a regular basis in the play-offs.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]The players' production dropped in large part due to reduced roles with Richards joining the team. They both got pushed down the depth chart a notch, losing 4 minutes a game or so.
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Dubinsky lost four minutes.

    Anisimov lost about 40 seconds.

    More statistical lies from Oate-scam.  Fellas, always check this guy's stats.  They're usually bent to flat out wrong to help his argument.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    So, they lost 4 minutes a game or so?  Also, Dubinsky lost 50 minutes of powerplay time while Anisimov lost 20 minutes season-to-season. In your unending quest to put me down, you continually make yourself look like an idiot. Do you have a poster of Joe Juneau on your wall? Your obsession level is reaching extremes.

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers : Dubinsky lost four minutes. Anisimov lost about 40 seconds. More statistical lies from Oate-scam.  Fellas, always check this guy's stats.  They're usually bent to flat out wrong to help his argument.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]So, they lost 4 minutes a game or so?  Also, Dubinsky lost 50 minutes of powerplay time while Anisimov lost 20 minutes season-to-season. In your unending quest to put me down, you continually make yourself look like an idiot. Do you have a poster of Joe Juneau on your wall? Your obsession level is reaching extremes. In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    "They both got pushed down the depth chart a notch, losing 4 minutes a game or so."

    Anisimov lost 40 seconds.  Is that four minutes?

    For someone who likes to play with stats, you sure do get them wrong often. (Of course, it's only when the incorrect info will support your argument.)
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    "They" = Anisimov and Dubinski. "He" would = Anisimov. Your discussion style is so tiresome. Rather than argue the actual point (i.e. lowered icetime and opportunity is a reason that the Ranger players' points went down) you attempt to attack the person making the point. It's pathetic. I feel like discussions with you are like being in the American presidential campaign. Yes, we could discuss the outflow of wealth to foreign countries or health care or how to address either issue, but no, lets talk about whether I'm a Mormon or whether I support Gay marriage or whether I might be a Muslim terrorist. Soon you'll be saying I solicit male prostitutes in washrooms so therefore drafting goalies in the first round is a bad idea. Bring your discussion up to an intelligent level and lose the discredit/distract technique. Try talking about the actual topic. Your debate technique might work on some, just as kissing babies and saying I love America and implying that an election opponent might have a summer home in Iran might swing simple minded voters in an election, but if you really want to have a discussion with me, please, take it up a notch.

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers : "They both got pushed down the depth chart a notch, losing 4 minutes a game or so." Anisimov lost 40 seconds.  Is that four minutes? For someone who likes to play with stats, you sure do get them wrong often. (Of course, it's only when the incorrect info will support your argument.)
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]"They" = Anisimov  and Dubinski. "He" would = Anisimov. Your discussion style is so tiresome. Rather than argue the actual point (i.e. lowered icetime and opportunity is a reason that the Ranger players' points went down) you attempt to attack the person making the point. It's pathetic. I feel like discussions with you are like being in the American presidential campaign. Yes, we could discuss the outflow of wealth to foreign countries or health care or how to address either issue, but no, lets talk about whether I'm a Mormon or whether I support Gay marriage or whether I might be a Muslim terrorist. Soon you'll be saying I solicit male prostitutes in washrooms so therefore drafting goalies in the first round is a bad idea. Bring your discussion up to an intelligent level and lose the discredit/distract technique. Try talking about the actual topic. Your debate technique might work on some, just as kissing babies and saying I love America and implying that an election opponent might have a summer home in Iran might swing simple minded voters in an election, but if you really want to have a discussion with me, please, take it up a notch. In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    if you dish it out, you gotta be able to take it OC. No offense, but you come across as unnecessarily hostile at times. Mind you, I'm fine with that, I certainly do too, and I've offended a good number of posters on this board, but I try not to pretend I'm Little Red Riding Hood when other people protest my hostilities. Just suck it up and try to make good points about hockey.

    /steps off sanctimonious soap-box.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Nash's numbers will go up from last year (because last year was a bad year for him), but not ridiculously so.  Look at Gaborik - with or without Richards and the Rangers he scores about the same.  Nash will be hard-pressed to score more than the combined 70-90pts the two players the Rangers gave up scored, and will take up more cap space than the two combined. In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Without Richards in 2010-11:  .77 pts per game
    With Richards in 2011-12:  .92 pts per game

    I'd say that two are very different.  Can you help me understand how they are "about the same"?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]"They" = Anisimov  and Dubinski. "He" would = Anisimov. Your discussion style is so tiresome. Rather than argue the actual point (i.e. lowered icetime and opportunity is a reason that the Ranger players' points went down) you attempt to attack the person making the point. It's pathetic. I feel like discussions with you are like being in the American presidential campaign. Yes, we could discuss the outflow of wealth to foreign countries or health care or how to address either issue, but no, lets talk about whether I'm a Mormon or whether I support Gay marriage or whether I might be a Muslim terrorist. Soon you'll be saying I solicit male prostitutes in washrooms so therefore drafting goalies in the first round is a bad idea. Bring your discussion up to an intelligent level and lose the discredit/distract technique. Try talking about the actual topic. Your debate technique might work on some, just as kissing babies and saying I love America and implying that an election opponent might have a summer home in Iran might swing simple minded voters in an election, but if you really want to have a discussion with me, please, take it up a notch. In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Oate-Scam,

    Trying to justify another math error in favor of your argument by reaching for semantics shows the strength of your position.

    As for the rest of it, hey, you're the one who posts the incorrect information often.  Maybe if you'd be more accurate in your posts, you wouldn't get all red faced when you are fact checked and proven wrong.

    I'll continue to post here anyway I choose (obviously).  If you'd like to avoid being embarrassed again and again, stop using false numbers to back weak arguments.

    I don't "really want" to have a discussion with you.  If you are going to take the opposite point of view of me, however, I'm forced to do so.  You continue to make it easy to debunk your points by using false info and wielding paper thin defenses for doing so.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    Olsonic, feel free to call me an jerk or anyting else any time. I enjoy our debates. Nas is following my posts around and not discussing issues but attacking me, and continually failing. It's tiresome.

    The ironic thing his biggest issue he brings up is the goalie draft stats thing, saying I change stats for my agenda. I had no agenda on the issue. Nas, however, posted stats that purposely used different years for successful drafted forwards and goalies in an attempt to make his point that goalies are bad picks. What he accuses me of doing is what he actually did.

    What he's doing is repeating a lie over and over, in the hope it becomes perceived truth. Again, he's acting like a lousy politician.

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers : if you dish it out, you gotta be able to take it OC. No offense, but you come across as unnecessarily hostile at times. Mind you, I'm fine with that, I certainly do too, and I've offended a good number of posters on this board, but I try not to pretend I'm Little Red Riding Hood when other people protest my hostilities. Just suck it up and try to make good points about hockey. /steps off sanctimonious soap-box.
    Posted by Olsonic[/QUOTE]
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    Seriously, why are you keeping this up? You are only making yourself worse and worse. Read the following and you can see how Gaborik was "about the same" with Richards and the Rangers. Actually, he is getting measurably worse playing in New York and playing with Richards, but that's beside the point. The only points are that Richards did not make Gaborik better or more productive, and you should stop following me around trying to make me look like I've made errors I haven't. It makes you look bad. Here you go:

    Gaborik:

    Pre-Rangers with the Wild post-lockout (4 seasons): 1.10 ppg

    With Rangers, but pre-Richards (2 seasons): .97 ppg

    Last season, with Richards and Rangers: .93 ppg

    Are you able to understand now sugar-plum?

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers : Without Richards in 2010-11:  .77 pts per game With Richards in 2011-12:  .92 pts per game I'd say that two are very different.  Can you help me understand how they are "about the same"?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Olsonic, feel free to call me an jerk or anyting else any time. I enjoy our debates. Nas is following my posts around and not discussing issues but attacking me, and continually failing. It's tiresome. The ironic thing his biggest issue he brings up is the goalie draft stats thing, saying I change stats for my agenda. I had no agenda on the issue. Nas, however, posted stats that purposely used different years for successful drafted forwards and goalies in an attempt to make his point that goalies are bad picks. What he accuses me of doing is what he actually did. What he's doing is repeating a lie over and over, in the hope it becomes perceived truth. Again, he's acting like a lousy politician. In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Jeeze Oates,  it's a forum, we're behind keyboards.... don't take it personal, just move on.  Shot will not stop , you keep posting value and we'll keep reading.
    You can always ignore posters using the tool on this site and/or if you're strong enough just skip posts, even if they're in reply to yours.
    Cheers (a la Dez) !


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]Seriously, why are you keeping this up? You are only making yourself worse and worse. Read the following and you can see how Gaborik was "about the same" with Richards and the Rangers. Actually, he is getting measurably worse playing in New York and playing with Richards, but that's beside the point. The only points are that Richards did not make Gaborik better or more productive, and you should stop following me around trying to make me look like I've made errors I haven't. It makes you look bad. Here you go: Gaborik: Pre-Rangers with the Wild post-lockout (4 seasons): 1.10 ppg With Rangers, but pre-Richards (2 seasons): .97 ppg Last season, with Richards and Rangers: .93 ppg Are you able to understand now sugar-plum? In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    One again, skewing the numbers to bolster your flawed statement.

    Equal value numbers:  The year before Richards and the year with Richards.

    His numbers in Minnesota are 100% separate.  Different team, different approach, different division, different...everything.  But, they do help your argument, so let's throw them in.  Why not throw in his 1.79 for Trencin Dukla during the lockout?  That will certainly show that playing with Richards has not helped Gaborik succeed.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers

    As always you deflect. The point you made was not whether the numbers were relevant, or whether Gaborik was better. Your point was that I was lying or skewing numbers. I made the statement that with- or without Richards, and playing with the Rangers or another team, Gaborik has scored at a very similar rate. His career stats completely support this, as I have shown.

    If you want to say it doesn't matter because Rick Nash is a rock star, that's fine. If you think we should only look at one previous year, that's your opinion. But there is no lying or skewing on my part.  There is skewing on your part, of course, as I described pre-Rangers and with Rangers but pre-Richards (which in my statement covers many years) but you chose to use only one year in refuting my claim.

    It doesn't matter though, I'm sure you will continue to do the exact thing of which you are falsely accusing me to satisfy your obsession with OatesCam.

    In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rick Nash to the Rangers : One again, skewing the numbers to bolster your flawed statement. Equal value numbers:  The year before Richards and the year with Richards. His numbers in Minnesota are 100% separate.  Different team, different approach, different division, different...everything.  But, they do help your argument, so let's throw them in.  Why not throw in his 1.79 for Trencin Dukla during the lockout?  That will certainly show that playing with Richards has not helped Gaborik succeed.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     

Share