Sunday, Larry Brooks wrote the following: "I’m here to tell you that a trade is not happening. (Rick) Nash has a no-move clause in his contract in force through the end of this season that management has no intention of asking him to waive and No. 61 has no intention of volunteering to forfeit. The Rangers are not asking Nash to leave town after two seasons on Broadway in which he led the team in goal-scoring both times, and No. 61 is not asking for an exit from New York after recording a sum of four goals in 37 playoff games. The concept is not on the table for either party."
Here's the question, was anyone shocked at this? Granted, as Brooks wrote and others have stated, many seem to think that dealing is the panacea for all the Rangers ills. How he is/was the one that cost them the Cup last year and will cost them this season. Now, while you could argue his playoff slumps, especially this year, played a large role in the team's failure to beat the Kings, does trading him really make sense?
The Rangers have holes following the departures of Brad Richards, Benoit Pouliot, Brian Boyle and Derek Dorsett (Stralman not included as replaced by Dan Boyle). If you want to argue that the team would be better off making a Marian Gaborik-esque deal, where they get three players for one, I could see it to a point, but one key part is missing. When Gaborik was dealt, the Rangers had Nash to assume some of the scoring burden, who is replacing the 26 goals he scored last season in 65 games as well as placement on the top line?
Sure, it's easy to say deal Nash, free up some cap room and move on. But to me, that's a shortsighted view. If you want to argue that Nash didn't go hard enough to the dirty areas and may have been impacted by the concussion he suffered in the third game of the season that cost him 17 games, that I can buy. However, that also ignores the hot streak he went on from January 6-26 when he scored 11 of his 25 goals in 11 games, where he showed that he can still be a dominant force. Personally, I think he never recovered from third line duty in the Olympics. I think that made him a more well-rounded player, but he lost that killer instinct, whereby it became too easy to fall back on solid, positional defensive hockey when the offense was lacking rather than jumpstarting his game to find that goal scoring touch.
Evan Sporer wrote this on Blueshirt Banter and it's very true: "Nash even drove possession with a CF% of 54.2, and relative CF% of 2.6. All of this adds up to Nash being a very effective, very dangerous forward. His 5v5 goals/60 are one of the highest rates in the entire league." Granted, advanced stats are only a piece of the puzzle. But for those who claimed Nash disappeared in the regular season, do the aforementioned numbers strike you as someone who disappeared? If you want to use the playoff argument, where he scored just three goals in 25 games, that's mildly valid. However, his career shooting percentage is 12.4%, this year in the playoffs, he scored three goals on 83 shots, for a 3.6%. Now, you could use the argument in 2013, he was invisible. This year in the post-season, he did everything but score, as he checked, was physical, went to the dirty areas, but was snakebit, as seen by Slava Voynov's deflection on Nash's shot with a wide-open net in Game 5.
Glen said it well: "I've said this often but I will say it again: If Marian Gaborik can overcome the playoff bugaboo in one postseason with the Kings, then Nash can do the same here. If he had been loafing throughout the playoffs and wasn't noticeable, I'd be real concerned. But since the hard work was there, the SOG were there, I'm hopeful he has a terrific postseason run in him." Gaborik was run out of town by Torts and it took him going to another team to shine again. Maybe Nash isn't suited to be a leading man. It's possible he needs to be a supporting piece, but Martin St. Louis and Chris Kreider along with Mats Zuccarello should take some pressure off of Nash, so he doesn't feel as if he has to do everything.
The arguments to deal him make sense. Free up some cap, replenish the depth and move on from someone who has struggled in the post-season. In my opinion, at least as of right now, that would be a huge mistake. If he struggles again or NY needs to make a move during the year, I could see revisiting it, but not until then and hopefully, not at all.
John Hoven of Mayor's Manor (http://twitter.com/mayorNHL/status/489239046619553792) reported tonight that the Rangers signed Matthew Lombardi to a two-year deal worth $1.6 million. The 800k cap hit per year is fine, but a bit surprised at the two years. Lombardi, who went from Calgary and put up career best numbers with Phoenix, never seemed to recover from the concussion he got in the second game of the 2010-11 season after joining the Predators that offseason.
After that injury, he struggled after coming back for Nashville, then bounced to Toronto, Anaheim and back to Phoenix. Last season, he played in the Swiss National League for Geneva-Servette. That move appeared to reignite his game, as Lombardi played in 46 games, notching 20 goals and 50 points to lead the Swiss League in scoring. When Lombardi was right, he had good hands, speed and creativity, so you figure at worst, he is more AHL depth or fills a role as the fourth line center that kills penalties. At best, he centers the third line, giving the team some much needed offense and pivot man. Given Sather's recent track record of low risk signings that have panned out, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. With Lombardi in the fold, could NY also be in the mix, as has been speculated, for Peter Mueller, who also played in the Swedish league? As Jimbo said, Lombardi might have been the fall back option after Mike Ribeiro signed with Nashville on Tuesday.