Thread: Michael Ryder
View Single Post
11-20-2006, 05:11 PM
Registered User
SOLR's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
? Changing Ryder by making him more responsible defensively shouldn't be considered a negative, IMHO. It's not like they're going to turn him into a Selke candidate. They're just going to take advantage of his newfound speed and physicality to upgrade him from "liability" to "adequate" at the defensive side... all without impacting his offense at all, in theory.
Bold for you, the same was said with Corson.

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Koivu-Higgins, Koivu-Kovalev, the jury may still be out. And as mentioned somewhere else, there may be deadline rentals eventually (Koivu-Forsberg? Koivu-Gomez?) who won't necessitate any grand restructuring of our current team such as the trading of our leading goalscorer from last year.
I think we need someone that will still be here in 2008-2009. Gomez is an option, Forsberg isnt. Ryder: leading goal scorer or leading opportunity given?

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
The Sharks, in contrast to us, actually had the cap room to add a $7M player without flinching... and in fact, they *still* have enough cap room to eat up Malakhov's contract and sit laughing. Kudos to them. Alas for us, if you bring in a $7M player, you're going to shake up our roster severely, and that includes decimating our defense during next summer's UFA period.
1) To obtain a first quality player you have to give first quality players, they also cost money. Money should be a secondary problem to any decision. It's part of the picture, yes, but everyone is affected by it.
2) Sourray is not an all-star, we can loose him.(Or trade him)

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote