Thread: Michael Ryder
View Single Post
11-20-2006, 03:29 PM
Registered User
SOLR's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,983
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
? Not sure what this all means. I don't think there's any element of Higgins vs. Ryder anywhere. Why can't we have both? And why should everybody on the team live up to the "winner" status of Higgins? Would Kost/Perez/Lats live up to it any better than Ryder?
I was just stating the fact that even a less productive Higgins( right now perezhogin) is more usefull than someone converting his game into something that it wasnt meant to be. There was a lot of that in the Corson era if you remember. You seem to be a big advocate of changing Ryder into a carbo style player, for some reasons I dont believe too much into these player transformation, it just end up undermining the value of your assets at the end.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Nor does he have to be a Hall-of-Fame metronomic scorer like Mike Gartner. What standard is that to apply to anybody? (Although Ryder has in fact given no indication whatsoever that he can't consistently chip in 25-30 goals, and 55-63 points, given that he's only 2 years into his career).
What about Higgins and Kovalev?
1) At least 7-8 years like a solid first line career. Something I see Higgins doing and Kost-Lats as the potential to reach, however I'm unwilling to invest too much into Ryder.
2) Kovalev is playing hurt, but yes he should give more. I never said I agreed on spending that much on the enigmatic russian in the first place.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
"potential"... I doubt Gainey is as willing to rely on "potential" as you are... this year means something too, and Ryder figures as much into this year as into the potential future, which is a much riskier proposition for all of these other wingers...
To unleash wingers potential you need good centers, with Ryder or without we are lacking. But we have more depth down the wing by a wide margin. Is freeing 1 spot on the roster that big of a risk even for this year? I dont think so. And if we find a center that gives us more we are gonna end up inflating the wingers chance to reach their potential as well. You also cannot look at the situation on a strick, line by line basis, since a real first line center would change the dynamic of the team completely.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
... yet we seem to be chugging along at a 100+ point pace, despite a quarter-season quasi-slump from our second line... I don't think it's fait accompli that such a team couldn't win a championship, nor that the remaining 3/4 of the season will necessarily see Kovalev and Samsonov's slumps continue...
For sure, we have a good start, but we wont be a playoff stanley cup winning team without a real first line center. Thats a fai accompli. Staal-Brin D'amour, Lecavalier - Richards, last 2 stanley cup champions. Koivu-"Still searching for 2nd" is our current status.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
And as icing on the cake, I cannot remotely see how we're going to get a first line center better than Koivu. At least, not without absolutely gutting our team and rebuilding. Seems awfully pointless to me...
I bet the Sharks are in complete reconstruction too, I think we are in that position to make a move that will give us what we want without crippling the team.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
There's "bold" and then there's "reckless"...
Of course, I'm not for a stupid move, but im for the bold move. Theres some risks needed to be taken when you are a GM. Mr. Burke knows it all. Anyway, I'm elaborating on what we need and what we have, I'm not saying I would make any move.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote