Thread: Michael Ryder
View Single Post
11-21-2006, 07:19 AM
Registered User
mcphee's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
I think that a big mistake teams can make these days is to structure around potential. Replacing goals sounds easy when you have a group of well thought of young players, but it doesn't always work that way.

Mtl-rules, I don't agree with your premise that the 30 goal arguemnet isn't a good one. Putting the puck in the net is the bottom line. If our old friend Dagenais was producing, he wouldn't have been run out of town. Sadly,his overall play was so bad that he had to score and if he was inconsistent, he couldn't play.

If Gainey felt that Ryder's goals could 'easily' be replaced, he would have saved the cap room and gone with #46. I think that in playing armchair GM we too easily dismiss Ryder. We play the 'next one will be better' game and I think it's dangerous.

Solr mentionned Corson in making his arguement. Corson,imo, is a good example but for a different reason. They traded for Corson, becuase they wanted 'the idea' of Corson rather than the actual guy. They wanted a tough scoring forward who would compliment what they had. They made the mistake of trading talent for the 'idea' of the player if that makes any sense. We envison a big C complimenting Kovalev, vaulting us into a long playoff run. In truth, so do I.

I'm not sure the guy exists though. I would be careful dealing an asset for a vision. Arnott's an example imo. Dallas maintained that the player who we pictured wasn't the player we drooled over.

So, as far as trading Ryder, if a deal comes along, and it makes you better, go for it. I don't see the circumstances right now though.

My belief is that C will be adressed, maybe around February. A team like Phoenix may be sellers. Doan's played C, pick any of their C's as a rental. That type of team isn't looking for an impending ufa though, they're looking for someone to grow into their team and give at 3-4 years service.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote