Blue Jackets offseason (aka Rick Nash trade thread)

• queencitybuckeye

  You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.
• End of Line

  

  queencitybuckeye;1232646 wrote:You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.

  How am I delusional? Almost all of those players either A. Score more points B. Play strong 2 way games and have been considered for the Selke C. Lets see your list on who isn't as good as the "Elite" Rick Nash.
• gorocks99

  

  Heyyy, the Blue Jackets signed Murray to an entry-level contract:
  
  https://twitter.com/Aportzline/status/227834656907722753
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  queencitybuckeye;1232646 wrote:You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.

  Who isn't just as good if not better?
• End of Line

  

  What happened to qcb?
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  The_Crosby_Show;1233692 wrote:What happened to qcb?

  I think he realized Nash is a Top 6 forward not a top 6 player...
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233739 wrote:I think he realized Nash is a Top 6 forward not a top 6 player...

  He's neither. He's just a very, very good player, as the 75+ points he'll score next year will attest. (Which will put him above 60-75% of the forwards Crosby mentioned).
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  queencitybuckeye;1233742 wrote:He's neither. He's just a very, very good player, as the 75+ points he'll score next year will attest. (Which will put him above 60-75% of the forwards Crosby mentioned).

  "Top 6 forward" means he'd be on the first or second line of any team he played for.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Also - points aren't everything, his +/- is terrible. In his career he's had 3 seasons in the positive and his highest was +5. And one other thing...he's scored over 70 points once in his career. Now he's in one of the biggest markets in a country with the spot light on him...we'll see how he holds up.
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233758 wrote:"Top 6 forward" means he'd be on the first or second line of any team he played for.

  Sorry, misunderstood your meaning.
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233763 wrote:Also - points aren't everything, his +/- is terrible. In his career he's had 3 seasons in the positive and his highest was +5. And one other thing...he's scored over 70 points once in his career. Now he's in one of the biggest markets in a country with the spot light on him...we'll see how he holds up.

  All true but average players on otherwise good teams will often have good +/- numbers.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  queencitybuckeye;1233772 wrote:All true but average players on otherwise good teams will often have good +/- numbers.

  True - but a guy like Patrice Bergeron who puts up around 60 points a year with a +37 is a lot more valuable than a guy like Nash.
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233818 wrote:True - but a guy like Patrice Bergeron who puts up around 60 points a year with a +37 is a lot more valuable than a guy like Nash.

  Maybe, but not for +/- alone, unless you also want to say Chris Kelly at +33 is more valuable than Nash.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  queencitybuckeye;1233824 wrote:Maybe, but not for +/- alone, unless you also want to say Chris Kelly at +33 is more valuable than Nash.

  40 points and +33 - yes he's more valuable. Nash had 59 points and a -19...
  
  If you go by the numbers, Kelly is more valuable. Not as talented, but more valuable. He was on the ice for 52 more goals than Nash, that's 1/4 of Columbus' goal total for the season.
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233857 wrote:40 points and +33 - yes he's more valuable. Nash had 59 points and a -19...
  
  If you go by the numbers, Kelly is more valuable.

  Which shows why numbers without context are dangerous. Hell, if Nash's output didn't improve next year, he'd go from -19 to somewhere around breakeven anyway.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  queencitybuckeye;1233873 wrote:Which shows why numbers without context are dangerous. Hell, if Nash's output didn't improve next year, he'd go from -19 to somewhere around breakeven anyway.

  If he's in the negatives this year he's got some serious problems. Tortorella is a D first guy and if Nash doesn't start playing two way hockey you won't see much of him. He benches guy for not blocking shots
• queencitybuckeye

  Raw Dawgin' it;1233877 wrote:If he's in the negatives this year he's got some serious problems. Tortorella is a D first guy and if Nash doesn't start playing two way hockey you won't see much of him. He benches guy for not blocking shots

  I'd use "resume" instead of "start". Up until this past season, no one doubted the effort in his own zone. Ability-wise, he's at least adequate defensively, probably a bit better than that.
• TedSheckler

  

  queencitybuckeye;1233742 wrote:He's neither.

  Oof!
• End of Line

  

  QCB, you never answered my question. Out those players, which ones would you take Nash over just curious.