Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pitzer04. Show pitzer04's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    In Response to Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash:
    [QUOTE]Enough of this "hands down" "not even close" nonsense Bobby Ryan is better than Rick Nash, is 3 years younger and comes 3 million dollars a year cheaper If the Bruins were going to give up the package it would take to get Nash; which would most likely be their 1st round pick, Dougie Hamilton and one of either Lucic, Krecji or Marchand; I would much rather they gave it up for Ryan
    Posted by Swearengen[/QUOTE]

    I don't know if Ryan is better than Nash, Ryan does get to play with far better linemates, but I don't think Nash is 3 million a year better than Ryan, either.  I'm far more into Krejci, Boychuck, Knight/Spooner and a #1 for Ryan than these other deals.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    I didn't break down your argument piece by piece because I didn't see the point.  You don't like the fact that I use facts - that is, the evidence of actual performance - to back up my points; I don't give much weight to speculation based on things that may not have any relevance, like Nash starting the Olympic tournament on the first line (until he was demoted to more of an energy role, but you don't mention that). 

    You've clearly decided that Nash is just super and you've gone into mudslinging mode, so I have no real interest in debating this with you.  But hey, just because you like the "you didn't read what I wrote" line, I'll work a few things out for you. 

    I didn't say Nash was an equivalent player to Michael Ryder.  I wrote that Michael Ryder has outproduced him this year.  In fact, the point I was making about Vanek and Pominville wasn't that they are better or more talented players than Rick Nash but that they play on a team that isn't much better than Columbus and they are still managing to do their jobs and put up points - even though they aren't as talented as Rick Nash. 

    As for how Lucic would do without Krejci, he played some of his best games this year with Kelly as his centre, including recently with Kelly and Peverley.  I had previously addressed the point about a goaltender and solid D by saying that great players may not be able to get a team wins on their own, but they do tend to get their jobs done, meaning scoring points ('you ignored it').  I don't consider the distinction between wing and centre germane to the argument because we're talking about great players, right?  Not complimentary snipers like a Glen Murray or Jonathan Cheechoo who look like world beaters when all they have to do is find room between the circles and let a talented player feed them for one-timers? (I notice that you had a little drama fit about my bringing up Pominville and Ryder, but you ignored Tavares who is also a former #1 on a brutal team that has drafted brutally - go figure.) OatesCam gave you a great example of a winger who is having a career year with an AHL calibre centre - Phil Kessel.  Oh, and while we're at it - Nash has played centre for stretches in Columbus.  Didn't work.  But what do I know, I'm a stats jockey who doesn't watch the games or know anything about hockey.

    Here's the irony in all of this: all I've been doing on this thread is looking at the obvious assumption - that Rick Nash, who is a huge talent, would perform like a superstar on the Bruins and make the team significantly better - to see how well the speculation holds up to scrutiny.  And I don't find it very convincing to say he was a #1 overall, or that his lack of production the last two years is the fault of the players around him or the team's drafting, or that he must be good because he was on the Olympic team.  The issue isn't whether or not Rick Nash is a talented player.  It's whether or not he would be so significantly better for the Bruins than he is for the Jackets that the Bruins could justify a trade involving key pieces of their Cup-winning lineup.  If they get Rick Nash and it makes them that much better, I'll be happy.  But I don't see it as a sure thing.

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

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    You don't know what a power forward is, so I will refer you to Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_forward_(ice_hockey) The only thing ridiculous about comparing Kessel and Nash is that Kessel is having a good year while Nash's career has been trending down. They are both fast, one-dimensional goal scorers. I brought up Malkin as an example of a true dominant forward, most of those are centers. There is no argument that Nash is a good player. The question is whether he is worth giving up a whole bunch of talent to get, and worth paying $8mil. Nothing he has done and nothing anyone has said has made that argument true. There are no stats to back it up. All anyone can say is that he is awesome and has no good team mates and played for team Canada. He wasn't especially good for Canada because he doesn't think the game fast enough to keep up with Crosby- they had to take him off his line. Saying some is big and hulking it anything else does not mean they are successful at hockey, more specifically MORE successful than other similar players in the league. You say that anyone who has played hockey knows that the better players you play with the more you will score. I haven't found that. I have found I and others score more with more icetime or better icetime. There is all kinds of stats to back that up. Oh please name iginla's all star center. Other than savard, who played with kovalchuck and Hossa? How many goals did Ovechin score before backstrom played with him? Just curious. In response to "Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash": [QUOTE]Bookboy, you would have more of a point if Rick Nash was a center, but he's a wing. A big, hulking, and ridiculously skilled wing (OatesCam, a power forward is more about body position and physical presence than it is about penalty minutes and fights, saying lucic is a better power forward than Nash is a complete joke, just as calling him a 30 goal scorer is when he pots 6 empty netters). Just imagine if Milan Lucic didn't have Krejci/savard/Horton with him... just imagine in fact, if Lucic not only didn't have Krejci or Horton, but didn't have the bergeron line behind them, didn't have the defense to keep the puck out of the defensive zone, and didn't have the goaltender to keep the puck out of the net. What you would get is a player that was easy to shut down because his style of play relies on other players to make up for his shortcomings (quickness and passing). One player can't do it all, and that's a fact. Anyone who has played the game of hockey knows that they will have more opporunities for goals when they play with better players, and when you aren't forced to play defense or from behind all the time. It's the same reason why Seguin didn't make sense on the 4th line, you put talent with talent. Your argument about him not being a top 5 player in the league is reasonable; certainly if I were building a team I would start with a center iceman the likes of Toews, Malkin, Datsyuk, Sedin, Kesler, Crosby, etc. Centers are more important because they touch the puck more. When they have the skill to go with the added responsibility, they tend to score more points. But the top wings in the league almost always  are paired with a top center and top talent. Ovechkin has Backstrom, Sedin has Evil Sedin, St. Louis has Stamkos, Hossa has Toews or Sharp, Perry has Getzlaf etc. Only a few players have really bucked this trend as far as I'm concerned, igninla in calgary, and one season of Kovalchuk in ATL. However, you've merged onto silly street by comparing Rick Nash to Jason Pominville, Michael Ryder, or Vanek just as OatesKam has with the Phil Kessel comparison. These comparisons are disgraceful.. Exactly why has Rick Nash been a beast in international competition? Why is he consistently placed on Canada's top lines even when Team Canada is as stacked as they are? The reason is, when you put him with good players, his style of play can really thrive. This has been obvious to Team Canada, just as Phil Kessel's horrific dimuntive selfish style is enough to keep him on the bench for Team USA. When teams can simply load up on one line (like they have been doing for years in columbus) it's a miracle that he can even score goals as consistently as he has. I keep re-reading your points trying to find something reasonable, but it's almost like you don't understand the difference between a center and a wing. OatesKam is talking about Malkin... clearly a different kind of player, and a center.... The truth is, Rick Nash could be the most productive player the bruins, and take Seguins game as a center to the next level. The best part about this potential trade is, we actually have the supporting talent around Nash for this guy to really thrive.  He's young, in his prime, we have the cap space, and we wouldn't have to subtract anything that would compromise our depth (except at goaltender... yet only 1 can play at a time) Another frusterating thing is you all either didn't read my post about how horrendous CBJ has drafted, or apparently didn't think it's significant. I mean, how can you defend their draft record and say it hasn't had an effect on Rick Nash's production??? How can you seriously say that??? Posted by Olsonic[/QUOTE]
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    Nash would be the B's best forward!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    I could care less about "slinging mud" in your direction.  Just like the rest of these fantasy-hockey guru's here, I just can't wait until this guy goes to another team at the prime of his career so you can eat an , "I have no idea what I'm talking about" humble pie. (as if being top 10 since 2003 is something that needs to be proved wrong... another well glossed over point).

    I also love how you back off your claim that Ryder is better than Nash by saying, "oh, i just noticed Ryder has more points this year, but I in no way meant that was about saying he is better!" THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT IN SAYING RYDER HAD MORE POINTS?!?!? that's called "being wrong" and "being a coward" and pretending I didn't get your drift. 

    LOL@Nash as a backup role, you obv didn't watch the games...kinda funny when you criticize N-A-S for not watching then blatantly lie about seeing them play. 5 shots on net in the gold-medal game as a "backup". I can't find time-on ice figures, but I'm looking for it. Rick Nash was one of the best players on the ice in the gold medal game. Nash, Crosby, Kesler imo.. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    In Response to Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash:
    [QUOTE]Oh please name iginla's all star center. Other than savard, who played with kovalchuck and Hossa? How many goals did Ovechin score before backstrom played with him? Just curious. In response to "Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash":
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]


    l2 read bro.... L2 read. I'm not gonna type a long argument and then repeat myself.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    In Response to Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash:
    [QUOTE]You don't know what a power forward is, so I will refer you to Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_forward_(ice_hockey) The only thing ridiculous about comparing Kessel and Nash is that Kessel is having a good year while Nash's career has been trending down. They are both fast, one-dimensional goal scorers. I brought up Malkin as an example of a true dominant forward, most of those are centers. There is no argument that Nash is a good player. The question is whether he is worth giving up a whole bunch of talent to get, and worth paying $8mil. Nothing he has done and nothing anyone has said has made that argument true. There are no stats to back it up. All anyone can say is that he is awesome and has no good team mates and played for team Canada. He wasn't especially good for Canada because he doesn't think the game fast enough to keep up with Crosby- they had to take him off his line. Saying some is big and hulking it anything else does not mean they are successful at hockey, more specifically MORE successful than other similar players in the league. You say that anyone who has played hockey knows that the better players you play with the more you will score. I haven't found that. I have found I and others score more with more icetime or better icetime. There is all kinds of stats to back that up. Oh please name iginla's all star center. Other than savard, who played with kovalchuck and Hossa? How many goals did Ovechin score before backstrom played with him? Just curious. In response to "Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash":
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    When it comes to ovechkin, I think the better question is this.

    How many goals did he score before his doctor was caught with PED's?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash

    In Response to Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Vegas: Bruins are 2nd most likely spot for Nash : When it comes to ovechkin, I think the better question is this. How many goals did he score before his doctor was caught with PED's?
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]
    It really makes you wonder doesn't it?
     

Share