Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

After reading numerous posts, it appears that people on here do not want to give up much for Nash, but are flirting with the idea of having such a prolific scorer with size.

Three days to go until the final decision. So, yes or no? Do you want Nash to become a Ranger? No time for "only if..." reasons. If the Rangers say that they have a trade in place that Columbus has agreed to, but won't release the details other than Nash becoming a Rangers, and they are awaiting your answer to go with it or not, what would you say?

Vote! Because we love democracy. We love the right to vote. The freedom to vote. That's right..........we......love..........AMERICA. Oooooo Nash can you see...... our red buzzer does not light..... What so un-proudly we hail, is our shitty ass power play.... (anyone care to continue?)

[Charlie]

Tons of ifs, but if we get him without giving up one of Sather's untouchables (listed in another post) I get a raging erection.

[Dr. D]

No. Go out and get a guy like Dustin Brown for a manageable price rather than give up the farm for a guy with a huge cap hit.

[Rocha]

It all depends on what it takes to get him. If we can keep Kreider, McDonagh and Del Z on the team (along with the core of Gaborik, Richards, Lundqvist, Callahan), then cool, I'd be interested. But I'd really like to hang on to Hagelin and Anisimov as well.

[Hockey101]

No shit, i love these ifs myself, but the principle remains as do you take him if he can be had, yes or no?

This situation reminds me of the South Park episode where Chef wants the South Park flag removed and people on the street were asked about it and they gave a "no, but yes" answer.

Do we want this guy on the Rangers? No ifs, no buts (unless you add another 't' in that word and it's Adriana Lima's). So far it's 50/50 with six votes. I concede anonymity. I voted NO.......... just because i am a republican and vote nein all the time!

This post has been edited by Hockey101: Feb 24 2012, 03:08 AM

[Dunc]

It all depends on what it takes to get him. If we can keep Kreider, McDonagh and Del Z on the team (along with the core of Gaborik, Richards, Lundqvist, Callahan), then cool, I'd be interested. But I'd really like to hang on to Hagelin and Anisimov as well.

Does that mean you'd be willing to lose Girardi and/or Staal? And why are you up so late, anyway?

Nash is a special talent and he would definitely fill a need on the team so I wouldn't mind if we lost a guy or two.

Gartner and Amonte were both favorites of mine and they both went for who? Larmer and someone? I liked Jeff Larmer a lot and he scored some big goals that year but Nash should play a much greater role than anyone the Rangers added in '94 - and should continue to contribute meaningfully for years.

[Hockey101]

It all depends on what it takes to get him. If we can keep Kreider, McDonagh and Del Z on the team (along with the core of Gaborik, Richards, Lundqvist, Callahan), then cool, I'd be interested. But I'd really like to hang on to Hagelin and Anisimov as well.

Does that mean you'd be willing to lose Girardi and/or Staal? And why are you up so late, anyway?

He is a stripper, that's his part time job, and is using his break wisely to post on here.

You voted yes, didn't you!?

[Rocha]

No shit, i love these ifs myself, but the principle remains as do you take him if he can be had, yes or no?

This situation reminds me of the South Park episode where Chef wants the South Park flag removed and people on the street were asked about it and they gave a "no, but yes" answer.

Do we want this guy on the Rangers? No ifs, no buts (unless you add another 't' in that word and it's Adriana Lima's). So far it's 50/50 with six votes. I concede anonymity. I voted NO.......... just because i am a republican and vote nein all the time!

Your question makes no sense then.

Do I want Nash? Yes.
Do I want Nash at the expense of Kreider or a handful of other players? No.

He's not coming here for free, so the conditions are important.

Maybe you could phrase your question, "If the Rangers could get Nash while giving up players you don't mind losing, do you still want him?"

[TeamStewie]

Even if we COULD get him I don't want to be cap fucked. We're going to have to pay all these young players soon if we manage to hang onto them.

[nbmoose]

It all depends on what it takes to get him. If we can keep Kreider, McDonagh and Del Z on the team (along with the core of Gaborik, Richards, Lundqvist, Callahan), then cool, I'd be interested. But I'd really like to hang on to Hagelin and Anisimov as well.

Does that mean you'd be willing to lose Girardi and/or Staal? And why are you up so late, anyway?

Nash is a special talent and he would definitely fill a need on the team so I wouldn't mind if we lost a guy or two.

Gartner and Amonte were both favorites of mine and they both went for who? Larmer and someone? I liked Jeff Larmer a lot and he scored some big goals that year but Nash should play a much greater role than anyone the Rangers added in '94 - and should continue to contribute meaningfully for years.

Seriously!? Who the hell is JEFF Larmer!? C'mon!

And I don't know that you can make the arguement that Nash will make more of a difference than any of those guys... The guys added back in '94 helped sustain the grittiness of that team through a lot of playoff games that year... Remember they didn't go out and win a bunch of 4-0 series'... I hope that if Nash comes here he can help them go deep and not just help them look flashy finishing out a great regular season because the only thing that matters will be how they fare once the regular season is done. These guys have a playoff spot locked up and yeah home-ice would be great and all but at this point I think they need to start conditioning the younger guys for the run and definitely ease up on Lundqvist and I think that those two things would make more of a difference long term.

[Alitaki]

He didn't say Nash WILL make more of a difference. He said that he should play a greater role and he's absolutely correct. If they trade for Nash, they're going to ask a lot more of him than any player they acquired in '94. You said it yourself, the guys brought in then were to help make the team grittier. That's great and important, but this current team is in need of goals. Anyone can provide grit, not everyone can provide goals.

[leedsy99]

No. Go out and get a guy like Dustin Brown for a manageable price rather than give up the farm for a guy with a huge cap hit.

Ugh. I like watching Dustin Brown because he's fast and talented and a fellow upstate New Yorker, but he also gets a top billing on my overrated team. When I was doing my analysis of Nash and how his icetime versus point total was noticeably low, Dustin Brown jumped out at me for actually being worse. That said, I would defend him in the same way that I defend Brandon Dubinsky -- considering the versatility, Dustin Brown is a pretty good player. Unfortunately I can't complete that sentence with "and he would make any team better" because he hasn't made the LA Kings any better during his career. Maybe LA exposes him after their recent deal.

[Dunc]

It all depends on what it takes to get him. If we can keep Kreider, McDonagh and Del Z on the team (along with the core of Gaborik, Richards, Lundqvist, Callahan), then cool, I'd be interested. But I'd really like to hang on to Hagelin and Anisimov as well.

Does that mean you'd be willing to lose Girardi and/or Staal? And why are you up so late, anyway?

Nash is a special talent and he would definitely fill a need on the team so I wouldn't mind if we lost a guy or two.

Gartner and Amonte were both favorites of mine and they both went for who? Larmer and someone? I liked Jeff Larmer a lot and he scored some big goals that year but Nash should play a much greater role than anyone the Rangers added in '94 - and should continue to contribute meaningfully for years.

Seriously!? Who the hell is JEFF Larmer!? C'mon!

And I don't know that you can make the arguement that Nash will make more of a difference than any of those guys... The guys added back in '94 helped sustain the grittiness of that team through a lot of playoff games that year... Remember they didn't go out and win a bunch of 4-0 series'... I hope that if Nash comes here he can help them go deep and not just help them look flashy finishing out a great regular season because the only thing that matters will be how they fare once the regular season is done. These guys have a playoff spot locked up and yeah home-ice would be great and all but at this point I think they need to start conditioning the younger guys for the run and definitely ease up on Lundqvist and I think that those two things would make more of a difference long term.

Actually, I meant Steve Larmer, Jeff's older brother, who scored 35 goals for the Rangers at the end of his career.

And yeah, he will make more of a difference because dime a dozen guys are called dime a dozen for a reason. They may have exceptional moments when they score a cup-winning goal but they aren't the guys coaches devise special schemes and tactics to contain.

btw, I voted a 'conditional' yes.

[nbmoose]

He didn't say Nash WILL make more of a difference. He said that he should play a greater role and he's absolutely correct. If they trade for Nash, they're going to ask a lot more of him than any player they acquired in '94. You said it yourself, the guys brought in then were to help make the team grittier. That's great and important, but this current team is in need of goals. Anyone can provide grit, not everyone can provide goals.

And that's great... And I did kind of recognize that to a certain degree but my point was more to the point that this team is heading into playoffs that more than likely will see them playing long grinding series' much like the 94 team did... And that putting all our eggs into the Nash basket may not be the best move for this team going into the playoffs. Just saying that I am not completely sold that the Nash scenario is necessarily the best solution short or long term for this team.

[HDH]

Hey, there's no "yes" option in this poll.


"ENGLISH, MUTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?"

[Tex]

"what?"

[nbmoose]

I didn't say go out and get dime a dozen guys... Would you look back at guys like Glen Anderson and Steve Larmer and think that they were a dime a dozen? Are you suggesting that other than Rick Nash, there is no other player or group of players that could benefit this team in a push for a Stanley Cup? Christ, they went and got Gaborik and Richards... They have arguably the best goalie in the league... And they have at least two defensemen who could play top minutes for any team in the league... But yeah, Rick Nash is definitely the single missing piece! They have the big name pieces already... Would Nash make a difference? Yes... No question. But considering what is going to be given up and what other pieces will still be required does it make sense? Don't think so...

[Leo95]

If we get him, forget about Parise in July, so... no.

[Dr. D]

No. Go out and get a guy like Dustin Brown for a manageable price rather than give up the farm for a guy with a huge cap hit.

Ugh. I like watching Dustin Brown because he's fast and talented and a fellow upstate New Yorker, but he also gets a top billing on my overrated team. When I was doing my analysis of Nash and how his icetime versus point total was noticeably low, Dustin Brown jumped out at me for actually being worse. That said, I would defend him in the same way that I defend Brandon Dubinsky -- considering the versatility, Dustin Brown is a pretty good player. Unfortunately I can't complete that sentence with "and he would make any team better" because he hasn't made the LA Kings any better during his career. Maybe LA exposes him after their recent deal.

He's having a down year on a down Los Angeles team. He's not going to be a first line winger that is going to be a game changer, but he can be a complimentary guy that helps give the Rangers a little more offense and perhaps some help on the power play. That, and he's got a much nicer cap hit (a shade over $3M for the next two seasons). While adding Rick Nash for a package not including any of our best players and prospects would be nice in terms of production, Dustin Brown is probably more of the type of trade the Rangers should make - complimentary guy who won't screw over their salary cap for the next six years. Doesn't necessarily need to be Brown, but someone who could play that role.

[Greatone]

Agreed on Brown. He seems like a natural fit into what Torts looks for(leader, tough, good defensivly and can score). 50% less of a cap hit than Nash.

I would still like to keep Dubinsky though. I mean, why is LA looking to deal their captain for secondary scoring when he is a secondary scorer? This whole situation reeks of rumor mongering. The Kings needed offense so they traded for Carter so then they turn around and trade Dustin Brown?

[Dr. D]

Agreed on Brown. He seems like a natural fit into what Torts looks for(leader, tough, good defensivly and can score). 50% less of a cap hit than Nash.

I would still like to keep Dubinsky though. I mean, why is LA looking to deal their captain for secondary scoring when he is a secondary scorer? This whole situation reeks of rumor mongering. The Kings needed offense so they traded for Carter so then they turn around and trade Dustin Brown?

Puck Daddy has an article up about it. Seems that maybe they want this to be Mike Richards's team, not Brown's.

[Kusand]

If I get no "ifs", then no. I don't want Nash regardless of cost. I'm only OK with him with conditions.

[ak996]

Don't watch much of the Kings, but is it fair to say that Brown is a Brendan Morrow type player?

[ak996]

If we get him, forget about Parise in July, so... no.

The Rangers have zero chance with Parise. Lots of speculation based on his family's comments that he wants to go back to Minnesota.

[Greatone]

Agreed on Brown. He seems like a natural fit into what Torts looks for(leader, tough, good defensivly and can score). 50% less of a cap hit than Nash.

I would still like to keep Dubinsky though. I mean, why is LA looking to deal their captain for secondary scoring when he is a secondary scorer? This whole situation reeks of rumor mongering. The Kings needed offense so they traded for Carter so then they turn around and trade Dustin Brown?

Puck Daddy has an article up about it. Seems that maybe they want this to be Mike Richards's team, not Brown's.

Ah ok. And I enjoy seeing teams like Buffalo and Edmonton being involved. Yeah okay buddy.

[Greatone]

If we get him, forget about Parise in July, so... no.

The Rangers have zero chance with Parise. Lots of speculation based on his family's comments that he wants to go back to Minnesota.

A comparison getting thrown around is Cally.

[Dr. D]

Agreed on Brown. He seems like a natural fit into what Torts looks for(leader, tough, good defensivly and can score). 50% less of a cap hit than Nash.

I would still like to keep Dubinsky though. I mean, why is LA looking to deal their captain for secondary scoring when he is a secondary scorer? This whole situation reeks of rumor mongering. The Kings needed offense so they traded for Carter so then they turn around and trade Dustin Brown?

Puck Daddy has an article up about it. Seems that maybe they want this to be Mike Richards's team, not Brown's.

Ah ok. And I enjoy seeing teams like Buffalo and Edmonton being involved. Yeah okay buddy.

My roommate is a Buffalo fan and wants the organization blown up. They're a mess. Maybe we should take Ville Leino off their hands.

[Hockey101]

No shit, i love these ifs myself, but the principle remains as do you take him if he can be had, yes or no?

This situation reminds me of the South Park episode where Chef wants the South Park flag removed and people on the street were asked about it and they gave a "no, but yes" answer.

Do we want this guy on the Rangers? No ifs, no buts (unless you add another 't' in that word and it's Adriana Lima's). So far it's 50/50 with six votes. I concede anonymity. I voted NO.......... just because i am a republican and vote nein all the time!

Your question makes no sense then.

Do I want Nash? Yes.
Do I want Nash at the expense of Kreider or a handful of other players? No.

He's not coming here for free, so the conditions are important.

Maybe you could phrase your question, "If the Rangers could get Nash while giving up players you don't mind losing, do you still want him?"

But it is obvious that the asking price will take away two players or so that you don't want to give up. The question makes sense in terms of "does Nash put this team over the top to win the Cup?"

[Hockey101]

Even if we COULD get him I don't want to be cap fucked. We're going to have to pay all these young players soon if we manage to hang onto them.

And there is the reason why i voted NO!

You don't just lose assets in the process of the trade, but when it will come down to re-signing a performing prospect, or re-signing Callahan in two years, and others, and the Rangers cannot re-sign them because they are cap tight then the Rangers keep losing players due to that Nash deal.

The only way i would not care about having lost the traded players, or in the future losing players that cannot be re-signed due to cap constraints, is if the Rangers win the Cup in the next two years. It would all have been worth it.

[Kusand]

But it is obvious that the asking price will take away two players or so that you don't want to give up. The question makes sense in terms of "does Nash put this team over the top to win the Cup?"

Maybe that should have been the poll question

[Sed]

But it is obvious that the asking price will take away two players or so that you don't want to give up. The question makes sense in terms of "does Nash put this team over the top to win the Cup?"

Maybe that should have been the poll question

Maybe if Gallup had constructed the poll...

[Hockey101]

But it is obvious that the asking price will take away two players or so that you don't want to give up. The question makes sense in terms of "does Nash put this team over the top to win the Cup?"

Maybe that should have been the poll question

It's implied! If you want him then you obviously think he will put the team over the top! BAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

[Hockey101]

But it is obvious that the asking price will take away two players or so that you don't want to give up. The question makes sense in terms of "does Nash put this team over the top to win the Cup?"

Maybe that should have been the poll question

Maybe if Gallup had constructed the poll...

The name alone, Gallup, sounds idiotic! Sounds like the word that describes the sound of a pacing horse. Gallup gallup gallup gallup.... a horse is a horse of course of course..... gallup gallup gallup gallup.

[Hockey101]

Agreed on Brown. He seems like a natural fit into what Torts looks for(leader, tough, good defensivly and can score). 50% less of a cap hit than Nash.

I would still like to keep Dubinsky though. I mean, why is LA looking to deal their captain for secondary scoring when he is a secondary scorer? This whole situation reeks of rumor mongering. The Kings needed offense so they traded for Carter so then they turn around and trade Dustin Brown?

Puck Daddy has an article up about it. Seems that maybe they want this to be Mike Richards's team, not Brown's.

Ah ok. And I enjoy seeing teams like Buffalo and Edmonton being involved. Yeah okay buddy.

My roommate is a Buffalo fan and wants the organization blown up. They're a mess. Maybe we should take Ville Leino off their hands.

What are the last two letters of that last name? There's your answer.

Shit i'm on a roll! Who's next?

[Kusand]

Shit i'm on a roll! Who's next?

Should we acquire Victor Shmaybe?

[Dunc]

I see Dustin Brown a lot out here, and the the comparison with Cally is a valid one. Normally I would say he is going to contribute a few less goals but a few more points than Cally but he - like the rest of the LA Kings - is having an off-year offensively. His contract certainly is more cap-friendly than the one Nash has, and he is probably one of the most 'Torts-friendly' guy in the league. He would certainly be a nice addition.

I would think the Kings would want a d-man back as they just lost Johnson who was their number 2 guy behind Doughty. I also doubt Dustin Brown is going anywhere.

[Chris4]

I see Dustin Brown a lot out here, and the the comparison with Cally is a valid one.

Was waitin for you to weigh in with that. Apparently he plays right wing on the Kings, but prefers the left. Peeeerfect.

Nash or Brown, pretty sure I know Tort's preference.

[Greatone]

Lets get both!!!!!!

[Chris4]

If I knew a GM that could swindle some bullshit like that..

[Greatone]

Could you imagine haha Leeds would faint.

[Chris4]

Would be a loss of multiple current roster players and THAT would constitute a mid-season blowup of a first place team.

If you can get Dustin Brown and another vet NHL defenseman without giving up a roster player, I really, really like our chances going forward.

Say Erixon + Thomas + 1st for Brown and 2nd rounder for Depth defensman 'X' is the absolute ideal situation right now for the New York Rangers.

Scratch that:

Brooks just now

Kings seeking NHL-ready defenseman in deal for Brown, doesn't appear to be match with Rangers

This post has been edited by Chris4: Feb 24 2012, 01:19 PM

[Greatone]

Maybe thats why Steve Eminger is scratched!

Steve Eminger, Sean Avery and a 4th for Brown.

[toph]

Jeff Woywitka!

[The Fast Choker]

Jeff Woywitka!

Nah, Wade Redden.

[Hockey101]

Shit i'm on a roll! Who's next?

Should we acquire Victor Shmaybe?

Naa, i think this Latvian is better. Ivan Tmorgolsz

[Hockey101]

DUDE I AM ON FIRRRE!!!!

Linsanity my ass. This is 1AWE1 BABY!!!!

[Rhino]

Isn't si Spanish for if? I thought this was yes or no. You are a contradictory fellow.

[steamroller]

Steve Larmer > Rick Nash

[Greatone]

DUDE I AM ON FIRRRE!!!!

Linsanity my ass. This is 1AWE1 BABY!!!!

What the fuck are you even saying today. Seriously.

[Tex]

DUDE I AM ON FIRRRE!!!!

Linsanity my ass. This is 1AWE1 BABY!!!!

What the fuck are you even saying today. Seriously.

excess grappa present in blood stream