Rick Nash!

Welcome to New York, Rick Nash! We trust that unlike Shea Weber, you'll enjoy living in the city.

Though the official trade call hasn't been made to the league yet, all sources seem to point to the trade being Dubinsky, Anisimov, Erixon, and a 1st-rounder to Columbus, in exchange for Rick Nash, some yet-unnamed AHL defenseman, and a conditional 3rd-rounder. Let's be clear: this trade is a steal for the Rangers, on all fronts.

NHL-ready value: Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov vs. Rick Nash. Clearly, this is where the Rangers win big; there's not a lot of cause to explain this. Player-for-player, you'd rather have a Nash than a Dubi and an Anisimov. Sad to see those guys go, as neither is bad at all, but come on.

Prospects: Of course, this is where Columbus makes up a little ground. But as it turns out, it's not much. We swap a 1st-rounder for a 3rd-rounder, which is of course giving the edge to the Blue Jackets, but we're discussing completely unknown players; neither of those picks is gonna be a top-5 overall. And we swap Tim Erixon for a defensive AHL-er named Steve Delisle, who probably isn't as good as Tim Erixon. Erixon probably has a decent upside, but it's all unproven. You'll never hear me complain about giving up someone who has the potential to be great for someone who is already very good.

Incidentally, the condition on the 3rd-rounder is that we give it back if we make it to the Cup Finals. If Nash pushes us to the Cup Finals, do you think anyone's gonna be complaining about a lost pick?

Price: Cry cry cry, Rick Nash costs a cap hit of $7.8 million, blah blah blah. Check out what happens when you use a little math before you complain about math, though. Dubinsky's cap hit is $4.2 million. Anisimov's is $1.875 million. Erixon's is $1.75 million. Mr. Calculator just called and told me that adds up to $7.825 million. So, assuming Erixon plays in the league next season either way, the Rangers actually save money under the cap next year.

(And Nash is only 34 when this contract ends - we're not exactly talking Brad Richards-length, here. At 28, Nash is in his prime, not on his way out of it.)

So I'm just not interested in hearing Ranger fans complain because they think every contract given to anyone over the age of 25 is Scott Gomez.

All in all, the Rangers' third and fourth lines got worse this off-season, and their first and second lines got better. I'm sad to see all those great character middle-of-the-pack guys go (Dubinsky, Mitchell, Prust, Fedotenko, Anisimov). But let's look at who's left, even assuming the Rangers make no further moves (sorry that I've flipped some wingers, it made organization easy):

Gaborik - Richards - Nash
Hagelin - Stepan - Callahan
Pyatt - Boyle - Kreider
Rupp - Halpern - Asham

All of last season, we talked about how the Rangers were a team full of 2nd- and 3rd-liners, and about how the coach didn't trust his bottom 6 enough. We all assumed the solution was that he had to learn to coach differently. Maybe instead, the solution was to give him a team that suits him better. When I look at this lineup, I'm inclined to give ice time the way Torts does, too. Maybe this is the team Torts needs, to take them to the next level.

And now, imagine if the Rangers can still land Shane Doan (there's plenty of cap space, by the way). This could be a lot worse, is all I'm saying.

The only problem now is that there's gonna be a work stoppage, and we won't actually get any hockey.

Assorted Thoughts on Last Night's Loss

Thought number one: bleugh! So, we lost 3-2 to the team closest to a playoff berth's doorstep. A bad night for us in the standings all around, as we sat in 7th place and gained 0 points, while the teams in 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th (each of which has at least one game-in-hand over us) each gained 2. Boo, additionally hiss.

Let's see. The game was at home, we lost in regulation by one goal, and we played almost the entire third period in the opponent's zone, getting chance after chance and not finding the back of the net. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like the game we lost Sunday afternoon in Tampa, huh?

A quick word on the officials. I think maybe Torts was out of line in blaming the officials for deciding the Tampa game, if only because I thought their incompetence also led to Prust's goal counting when it shouldn't have. But that doesn't mean the officiating wasn't awful, and last night's was even worse. From completely unjustifiable calls against the Rangers in the first two periods to blatant ignorance of no-brainer calls missed in the third, I'm not going to say that referees Brad Meier and Dean Morton did intentionally screw over the Rangers because of Torts's comments on Sunday...but there's certainly enough evidence there to corroborate anyone who would make such an implication.

Anyway.

The two forwards I've been complaining about recently are Artem Anisimov and Erik Christensen. Let's talk about it. For a while, I've been on this kick that all Anisimov is good for is a spinorama now and again. I'm disappointed in the way he fails to actually play physically, and I'm fairly convinced that much of his success this season is due to centering Brandon Dubinsky and Ryan Callahan. I'd probably rack up a handful of assists and have a badly below-average faceoff percentage pivoting those two also. I mean, for the three shifts I got in before my heart gave out. But, I honestly thought he looked pretty good last night. Better than usual, anyway. If the rest of the guys can teach him to hit people, and he can spend the summer bulking up, I'm willing to keep giving him a chance. Good show.

Christensen, on the other hand, really pisses me off. Whenever I finally start complaining about him out loud to other fans, he turns around and produces a bunch of points. He never actually improves his play, though, is the thing! He gets more ice time because he gets more points, and that's fine I guess? Maybe I just don't understand hockey, but I feel like Christensen just keeps being in the right place at the right time and sometimes not doing the incredibly stupid thing. I guess there's value in that, but it pisses me off that he keeps getting points, while other forwards put forth a much more solid effort and don't get rewards.

To name names, here are a couple: Vinny Prospal and Sean Avery. First of all, I need to come to Prospal's defense here. Yes, he made a dumb play that led directly to the Jochen Hecht's ultimately game-winning goal. But it was exactly the kind of dumb play I like! The puck is out at the point, on a Sabre's stick, and Vinny dives to make the steal. It's an error of a couple of inches, but if he grabs the puck, he's got a hundred-foot breakaway in front of him. He misses, and takes a second to get back, and by then it's too late, but I'm really not convinced I hate that. I sure don't know that I bench him for it, and I certainly don't use "but you're down 2-1 in the third" as an excuse to play differently. I like to see risks like that, and Prospal being 36 instead of 24 don't change that none.

And now it is time for my regular rant on Sean Avery's inexplicably depleted ice time. Sunday afternoon, in a game in which we were just that one elusive spark away from tying it, Avery was given a whopping 4:14 of ice time, including 36 seconds in the 2nd and 18 seconds in the 3rd. Last night, in a game in which we were just that one elusive spark away from tying it, Avery was given a much improved 9:10, all even strength, admittedly better distributed. More than Prust and Newbury, less than any other forward.

I know he's not putting up numbers these days, even when he is getting ice time. But I look at the way he protects the puck with 3 guys on him and the way he eventually gets it out to some Ranger's stick every time, and I'm inclined to not care that his shot is awful; I'd rather have him out there in a pinch than a lot of the other guys that Torts seems to go to first, and I just can't wrap my head around why. It doesn't seem like Torts actively dislikes Avery, more like he default "I don't know what to do now" answer is "stick Avery on the 4th line for a while," and Sean has done nothing to deserve that but play good hockey. I just wonder if a couple of these one-goal losses might not have gone differently if Avery had been given a real chance to be a difference-maker? It's meaningless postulating, I know, but what else are blogs for?

Defense! First of all, small sample sizes notwithstanding (we're 0-2-0 with him in the lineup), I like Bryan McCabe so far. He hasn't yet done anything worthy of scorn as a defenseman, and he's been a presence on the power play so far. Cautious approval. The down side, as Scotty Hockey points out (that's more or less what he does), is that the Rangers already seem to be trying to make McCabe the guy that does the shooting, the trap we sometimes fall into with Gabby. A couple of times last night, Zuccarello should have taken a shot and instead passed it to McCabe for a much worse chance, because McCabe is the guy that does the shooting. Anyway, that's not his fault. Maybe it'll wear off. And he does have a pretty good, quick shot from the point, something we could use.

Meanwhile, I'm going to do the unthinkable here: I'm going to criticize Michael Sauer a little. Not just for being out of position twice in a row to lead to the Sabres' second goal, but I think he's been looking a step behind for a little while now. I'm not saying we cut the kid, I'm not even really saying we should do anything different with his ice time. All I'm saying is he hasn't been the surprisingly solid player over the last few games that he was a couple of months ago. That's okay. Do with it what you will.

Finally, a quick round of applause to Ryan Miller. Not that we couldn't have maybe won the game on our own anyway, but damn if that guy doesn't make it hard to come back from behind. He is good at hockey, from a goaltending perspective.

Onwards and ideally upwards, I guess? It's getting awful hard to look at all these one-goal losses where we worked really hard at the end as one-offs, as the bigger picture tells us we're 2-4-0 in our last 6, 4-8-0 in our last 12, and 7-12-1 dating back to January 13, when we played our most solid 2-way home game of the season and beat the Canucks 1-0. Since then, we have won only three games without the aid of the much-maligned shootout, though we have played 20.

You heard me: four shootout victories notwithstanding, we have won three hockey games decided by actual hockey out of our last 20. Gone are the very brief days when we were referred to as a "possible Eastern Conference contender." We've got the Wild Thursday night, the Senators the following night, and the Flyers again on Sunday afternoon. If we don't start consistently coming away from these games with 2 points, we're gonna find ourselves trying to scrape our way into eighth again come April. Anyone else feel like it's time to stop playing every game from behind?