View Single Post
Old
12-09-2006, 03:19 PM
  #73
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitforming View Post
"firstly", "secondly" - what the hell are you a statesman. Who made you that your pompeous opinion should be godly . . . . acknowledge something for crap sake . . . if you're so much in his corner - start a an appreciation thread for Ryder.

Oh ya you probably don't have the cahonases to do so 'cause it wouldn't be pretty or to you liking . . . . don't you acknowledge to what I'm saying when you say "major slump!" - don't individuals who are in "major slumps" can possibly be . . . . . . in the trading catagory? Man alive . . . look at what you just said . . .
I think you mean the Spanish word for testicles here ? Starting a thread doesn't require huge ones, though I'm sure Baldrick could do that if he chose to.


Ryder is doing what he's told, get the puck in the offensive zone and let fly. If you're an above average shooter and below average passer, you shoot. As he's told by the staff, keep shooting.
I find you're thinking contradictory, if Ryder isn't really that great a player, why trade, you'd have to theink he has low value ? If he is, then why trade him ?

Trading Ryder could be an option in truth because teams need goals, and Ryder's an up and down winger who's been productive in his 2 1/2 years. The thought on this board has been that his contribution can be replaced by a younger player. I don't like the idea unless it makes the team clearly better. I don't want a deal that fills one hoile while creating another.

Burnisde is right, not enough teams have faded yet to establish who the sellers are. Parity means less trading.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote