NomarFachix Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 McD and DelZ are gawwwwwgeous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Don't get me wrong that is a ton to give up, and honestly if I am the Rangers (or any team) I stay away until the price significantly drops. But, compared to some of the other rumors I have heard, that seems a bit light. I guess that's why they are just rumors... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunkinDerozan Posted February 25, 2012 Report Share Posted February 25, 2012 Nash-Richards-Gaborik would be automatically the best line in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Nash-Richards-Gaborik would be automatically the best line in the league. How about, no? There's three lines that would certainly be better, and that's just off the top of my head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 How about, no? There's three lines that would certainly be better, and that's just off the top of my head. The Bruins top 3 lines? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 The Bruins top 3 lines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) The Bruins top 3 lines? First off, Richards is not that good, and is vastly overpaid. Anyways, teams with a better first line without thinking twice: -Chicago-Vancouver-Anaheim I could easily add Pittsburgh with Malkin+Neal which is probably a better line alone than some of the teams I listed above. I could also easily add Stamkos+ St. Louis and Washington's top line if Ovechkin would step it up. Nash is a 70 point player, and is not worth near what he is paid. I hope the Rangers give up a shit load for him. Edited February 26, 2012 by BeeBeeSee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Also, are we just going to sit here and act like I'm not a wizard when I told you Malkin>Crosby? What Malkin is doing now is more impressive than what Crosby did last year in multiple ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universe Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 Also, are we just going to sit here and act like I'm not a wizard when I told you Malkin>Crosby? What Malkin is doing now is more impressive than what Crosby did last year in multiple ways.Don't really know about that and it's not like you predicted a third round pick to be better than Crosby. Second overall picks aren't chosen behind number one because they are pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 I honestly think Malkin is without a doubt the best player in the NHL, even with Crosby healthy. Malkin's been stuck with garbage for most of his career until he got Neal on his line this year, and he's been tearing shit up. He hasn't had Letang all season this year as well, in addition to many luxuries that Crosby has had during his career. He's too damn good, and he can singlehandedly win the Penguins as Stanley Cup this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunkinDerozan Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 First off, Richards is not that good, and is vastly overpaid. Anyways, teams with a better first line without thinking twice: -Chicago-Vancouver-Anaheim I could easily add Pittsburgh with Malkin+Neal which is probably a better line alone than some of the teams I listed above. I could also easily add Stamkos+ St. Louis and Washington's top line if Ovechkin would step it up. Nash is a 70 point player, and is not worth near what he is paid. I hope the Rangers give up a shit load for him. Nash is a 70 point player playing with guys that are lucky to be 50 point players. Playing with a 90+ point player and an 80+ point player will bring him up a shit load.  And looking at the three team you listed, I see it as: Chicago: Gaborik>Hossa Richards<Toews Kane=Nash Thats being generous to Kane too. Vancouver: Gaborkik=D. Sedin Richards<H. Sedin Kane>BurrowsYou definitely have the argument that that line has WAY better chemistry, but individual skill level hjas got to go to NYR Anahiem: Gaborik>>>>>>Blake Richards<Getzlaf Nash=PerryMaybe if Anahiem had Bobby Ryan on their first line it would be closer.   All the other ones you said are just two really good players on a line with some other throw in for the most part. This Ranger line would have three of the leagues ELITE players all on the same line. All of which are right around their prime. Not young players who are unproven, or old geasers who are showing declines in their game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Nash is a 70 point player playing with guys that are lucky to be 50 point players. Playing with a 90+ point player and an 80+ point player will bring him up a shit load.  And looking at the three team you listed, I see it as: Chicago: Gaborik>Hossa Richards<Toews Kane=Nash Thats being generous to Kane too. Vancouver: Gaborkik=D. Sedin Richards<H. Sedin Kane>BurrowsYou definitely have the argument that that line has WAY better chemistry, but individual skill level hjas got to go to NYR Anahiem: Gaborik>>>>>>Blake Richards<Getzlaf Nash=PerryMaybe if Anahiem had Bobby Ryan on their first line it would be closer.   All the other ones you said are just two really good players on a line with some other throw in for the most part. This Ranger line would have three of the leagues ELITE players all on the same line. All of which are right around their prime. Not young players who are unproven, or old geasers who are showing declines in their game. First off, Hossa>Gaborik, and to say Nash is better than Kane is flat out laughable. I hate the Canucks, but D. Sedin>Gaborik. Oh, and I know you meant Nash>Burrows, and if he it, it's minimally. I'm putting Ryan on the first line. That's why it's called the RPG line, and position by position, the Ducks beat the Rangers line in every way. And, those "other" line with "two really good players" put with another player are still better. Malkin and Stamkos are so much better than any player on the Rangers 1st line that they make up the difference themselves. I like Gaborik a lot, so I may take that comment back, but Richards and Nash are not "elite", period. Oh, and your biggest mistake and is calling a player that has reached 70 points one time in his career "elite". . Elite players produce no matter who their line mates are, and certainly hit 70 points more than once in their career. Nash is not that good, period. He is a first line winger, but he is FARRRRR from elite. Edited February 26, 2012 by BeeBeeSee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phightins Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Sorry to interrupt the pissing match, but lets stop ignoring the real issue. Regardless of how the top line matches up with others, the Rangers are scarier with Nash (pending what they give up). Not something that us Flyers/Bruins/Leafs fans should be excited about, considering that the Rangers look primed to steamroll through the Eastern Conference playoffs with or without him. Edited February 26, 2012 by Phightins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) I honestly think Malkin is without a doubt the best player in the NHL, even with Crosby healthy. Malkin's been stuck with garbage for most of his career until he got Neal on his line this year, and he's been tearing shit up. He hasn't had Letang all season this year as well, in addition to many luxuries that Crosby has had during his career. He's too damn good, and he can singlehandedly win the Penguins as Stanley Cup this year. LOL. Yeah Crosby has played with absolute gold such as Kunitz and Dupuis. Malkin might be more talented, might, but Crosby is without a doubt the better, more effective of the two players. It isn't even up for debate. Malkin is having an amazing year, but Crosby last year was easily better, and he didn't even get to play with someone like Neal. Please, enlighten me as to what Crosby's luxuries were last year? Hell, the kid came back after a YEAR off, with a potentially fractured spine, and put up 12 points in only 8 games. It's not even a debate, even if you try to make it one. Edited February 26, 2012 by Check my Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) LOL. Yeah Crosby has played with absolute gold such as Kunitz and Dupuis. Malkin might be more talented, might, but Crosby is without a doubt the better, more effective of the two players. It isn't even up for debate. Malkin is having an amazing year, but Crosby last year was easily better, and he didn't even get to play with someone like Neal. Please, enlighten me as to what Crosby's luxuries were last year? Hell, the kid came back after a YEAR off, with a potentially fractured spine, and put up 12 points in only 8 games. It's not even a debate, even if you try to make it one.   Malkin's been given far worse line mates than Crosby his entire career while being played out of position often times as well. He finally has Neal, who is 5050505050 times better than Steve [expletive]ing Sullivan. Malkin hasn't had the luxury of having Letang on the blue-line the entire season and a much better transition game like Crosby has had the luxury of his entire career. Malkin's had to come back from injuries more times than Crosby, and still has an excellent ppg. Hell, if he wasn't injured as often as he has been, his ppg would certainly be much closer to Crosby's, if not better. Watch them play because you obviously don't if you claim there's no augment. Malkin is much stronger on the puck and can take over a game in ways Crosby can't do, and that's nothing against Crosby. It's nice that Crosby had to ride Malkin's coat-tails in the Penguins last Stanley Cup run. It was awesome that Crosby beat up on the Senators in earlier rounds, or his points would not be that impressive during that playoff run. Malkin will finish his career with more Hart's, Art Ross's, and Conn Smythe's than Crosby will. Honestly, you're just a biased Canadian. Any Russian star will be less than any Canadian star in most Canadian's eyes, especially when you say Crosby is better and that there's "no argument". Please go. Edited February 26, 2012 by BeeBeeSee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) A biased Canadian  Let's see if Malkin is the playoff MVP if he isn't being shadowed by Datsyuk and Zetterberg every shift. They have both had bad linemates as far as I am concerned, so that point is pretty moot. You'd have an argument if Crosby had been playing with all-stars on his lines through his career, which he hasn't. They had Marion Hossa for 30 games, other than that absolutely nothing spectacular. If you think Kunitz and Dupuis (Crosby's most frequent wingers I believe) are something special then we have bigger issues in this thread than Malkin vs Crosby.  In regards to Letang, he was never above 33 points until last year, so I'm not sure how Crosby can be some sort of a product of him as you seem to be suggesting. Also, didn't Malkin play with Sykora? Who was Pitt's 4th leading scorer a couple years ago. Also I could be wrong, but didn't Malkin also get Guerin on his wing, the 5th leading scorer a couple years ago? (going purely off memory here, so I could be completely wrong, not sure) Crosby has a higher hockey IQ, and brings intangibles to the game that Malkin simply doesn't. He is a smarter, more effective player. I admitted Malkin is probably the more talented of the two, in fact he is probably the most talented player in the league. I just choose to take the empirical evidence that Crosby's production is superior opposed to your opinion. Any Russian star is less in my eyes? No. Players like Datsyuk, Malkin, etc are amazing, cream of the crop. Players like Ovechkin, Semin, Kovalev, those are what give Russians a bad name, not me. If every Russian had a quarter of the heart that someone like Datsyuk does, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. Both are absolutely amazing, and Malkin has closed the gap more than anyone ever has (even Ovechkin a few years ago wasn't this good imo). It really is hard to say who is definitively better because Crosby before he got hurt last year was brilliant, better than Malkin right now production-wise, and the team was winning. Hopefully Crosby can get back to full health so that instead of talking about ifs, we can talk about what is actually happening. Crosby vs Malkin isn't really worth arguing over, because the gap isn't that big anymore. All I am saying is that for you to act like Crosby's superior production is a result of linemates/conditions, then your argument is hugely flawed, because Crosby has played with equally mediocre players. For the record, I watch Pittburgh all the time, because believe it or not, I love watching Malkin play. He is amazing, Crosby is just better. Edited February 26, 2012 by Check my Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 A biased Canadian  Let's see if Malkin is the playoff MVP if he isn't being shadowed by Datsyuk and Zetterberg every shift. They have both had bad linemates as far as I am concerned, so that point is pretty moot. You'd have an argument if Crosby had been playing with all-stars on his lines through his career, which he hasn't. They had Marion Hossa for 30 games, other than that absolutely nothing spectacular. If you think Kunitz and Dupuis (Crosby's most frequent wingers I believe) are something special then we have bigger issues in this thread than Malkin vs Crosby.  In regards to Letang, he was never above 33 points until last year, so I'm not sure how Crosby can be some sort of a product of him as you seem to be suggesting. Also, didn't Malkin play with Sykora? Who was Pitt's 4th leading scorer a couple years ago. Also I could be wrong, but didn't Malkin also get Guerin on his wing, the 5th leading scorer a couple years ago? (going purely off memory here, so I could be completely wrong, not sure) Crosby has a higher hockey IQ, and brings intangibles to the game that Malkin simply doesn't. He is a smarter, more effective player. I admitted Malkin is probably the more talented of the two, in fact he is probably the most talented player in the league. I just choose to take the empirical evidence that Crosby's production is superior opposed to your opinion. Any Russian star is less in my eyes? No. Players like Datsyuk, Malkin, etc are amazing, cream of the crop. Players like Ovechkin, Semin, Kovalev, those are what give Russians a bad name, not me. If every Russian had a quarter of the heart that someone like Datsyuk does, then this wouldn't even be a discussion. Both are absolutely amazing, and Malkin has closed the gap more than anyone ever has (even Ovechkin a few years ago wasn't this good imo). It really is hard to say who is definitively better because Crosby before he got hurt last year was brilliant, better than Malkin right now production-wise, and the team was winning. Hopefully Crosby can get back to full health so that instead of talking about ifs, we can talk about what is actually happening. Crosby vs Malkin isn't really worth arguing over, because the gap isn't that big anymore. All I am saying is that for you to act like Crosby's superior production is a result of linemates/conditions, then your argument is hugely flawed, because Crosby has played with equally mediocre players. For the record, I watch Pittburgh all the time, because believe it or not, I love watching Malkin play. He is amazing, Crosby is just better. You're the one that said it wasn't close between the players. Those are your words, not mine. I have said it for a long time that I believe Malkin is better, and I believe he is showing why these past few months. Crosby may have the better ppg, but watching the games, it becomes apparent that Malkin can take over a game better than anyone in the NHL. If you think Crosby is better that is fine, but to say it's not as close as I want to make it seem, is flat out laughable. After this season, Malkin will have more important NHL hardware than Crosby as well. He'll most likely get his second Art Ross Trophy, and will probably get the Hart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Also, I just noticed you were seemingly questioning Malkin's heart. I love the Russian stereotypes that Russian players have no heart, or fold easily. If a Canadian star isn't producing, it's a "slump", but if a Russian is struggling, it's called a "lack of heart". It's truly funny. Oh, and Malkin's perceived "lack of heart" (you generalized the Russians, like I did Canadians) is another way of saying "battling through injuries". And, by no means do I dislike Crosby or think he's overrated. I think he is an amazing player, but I just like what Malkin brings to the table a little more. Edited February 27, 2012 by BeeBeeSee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Crosby> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunkinDerozan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) First off, Hossa>Gaborik, and to say Nash is better than Kane is flat out laughable. I hate the Canucks, but D. Sedin>Gaborik. Oh, and I know you meant Nash>Burrows, and if he it, it's minimally. I'm putting Ryan on the first line. That's why it's called the RPG line, and position by position, the Ducks beat the Rangers line in every way. And, those "other" line with "two really good players" put with another player are still better. Malkin and Stamkos are so much better than any player on the Rangers 1st line that they make up the difference themselves. I like Gaborik a lot, so I may take that comment back, but Richards and Nash are not "elite", period. Oh, and your biggest mistake and is calling a player that has reached 70 points one time in his career "elite". . Elite players produce no matter who their line mates are, and certainly hit 70 points more than once in their career. Nash is not that good, period. He is a first line winger, but he is FARRRRR from elite. How can you call Rick Nash far from elite? He's only one of, if not the best power forwards in the game today. He's one of the only guys in the league that can add a unique level of pure skill to a big powerful body. So to say Nash>Kane, is not far off at all. Kane may have better hands and speed, but Nash adds more in his full game then just skill, which he does not lack much of at all. To say that Nash is only marginally better then Burrows is whats really laughable. The only one on that line that is arguably not elite is Brad Richards. Edited February 27, 2012 by DemarDerozanDunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Irrelevant anyways, Rangers are out on Nash. Sather wouldn't cave on increasing demands on the youngsters.. good for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) How can you call Rick Nash far from elite? He's only one of, if not the best power forwards in the game today. He's one of the only guys in the league that can add a unique level of pure skill to a big powerful body. So to say Nash>Kane, is not far off at all. Kane may have better hands and speed, but Nash adds more in his full game then just skill, which he does not lack much of at all. To say that Nash is only marginally better then Burrows is whats really laughable. The only one on that line that is arguably not elite is Brad Richards. Please, do tell me what Nash adds that Kane does not add. It's nothing.  Nash is not elite. I know you're a Leafs fans ad probably wouldn't know an elite player if they were right in front of you, but Rick Nash is not elite. Patrice Bergeron has more 70 point seasons than him, and had piss poor line mates when he entered the league. Rick Nash's point differential between him and his next few top scoring teammates is not that of an elite player. Rick Nash is not elite, nor is he close to an elite player. He's not a top 30 player, and not even close to a top 20 forward without a doubt. Edited February 27, 2012 by BeeBeeSee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Also, I just noticed you were seemingly questioning Malkin's heart. I love the Russian stereotypes that Russian players have no heart, or fold easily. If a Canadian star isn't producing, it's a "slump", but if a Russian is struggling, it's called a "lack of heart". It's truly funny. 1. I wasn't 2. I just call it how I see it. You're telling me Ovie, Semin and Kovalev were/are just in slumps? I would question anyone who demonstrated a lack of heart or determination to win (hell I have had to witness two of the biggest my entire life in Chris Bosh and Vince Carter). Russians are supremely talented typically, it just SEEMS like a lot of them don't care. Obviously none of us can say definitively, so I just go off what I see, just like you. I will question Phil Kessel's desire to win or heart (has come a long way but still so soft) just as fast as I would someone like Alex Kovalev. Edited February 27, 2012 by Check my Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Why are you guys wasting your words on Rick Nash? I hope for their own sake Columbus is gonna have a real franchise player in Yakupov this summer. Teams should be trying to get Dustin Brown, not Rick Nash. Edited February 27, 2012 by Check my Stats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Teams should be trying to get Dustin Brown, not Rick Nash.That little hat trick last night raised his price a bit I'd reckon lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.