Again, as I posted on the main board, the last two seasons:
Ryan: .39 gpg, .78 ppg
Stafford: .36 gpg, .72 ppg
I don't think this can be overstated enough. The difference in player is not that great, and if you give Stafford a full season on the wing with Ennis, Stafford could easily blow Ryan out of the water in production this year. These Stafford+++ proposals are insane if you step back and look at them.
Yes, I think so. I'm sure there will be fluctuations in his production depending on who he's playing with, how lucky he gets, and how much ice time he gets, but I'd say his game is his game. Again, defense can take longer -- there could be more room for growth there, but mostly he is the player he is.
I agree. He might have some peak years, maybe he gets a little better defensively, maybe works out some consistency issues, but for the most part he's a finished product. You know what you're going to get from him. If he can smooth things out and be more consistent, though, I'm not going to argue with a 25-35 goals, 25-35 assist guy. 70 at the top, 50 at the bottom (last year was a down year really and he still put up 50), but ~60ish on average. He's pretty much there.
Again, as I posted on the main board, the last two seasons:
Ryan: .39 gpg, .78 ppg
Stafford: .36 gpg, .72 ppg
I don't think this can be overstated enough. The difference in player is not that great, and if you give Stafford a full season on the wing with Ennis, Stafford could easily blow Ryan out of the water in production this year. These Stafford+++ proposals are insane if you step back and look at them.
I'd rather do a different deal personally ... but you don't turn down a player of Ryans ability on account of hoping Hodgson turns into something. Hodgson can be replaced easily.
I'd rather do a different deal personally ... but you don't turn down a player of Ryans ability on account of hoping Hodgson turns into something. Hodgson can be replaced easily.
So we lose Ryan lite in stafford + our best defenseman and top center? We'll have one center who has only played like 20 games as a center. Ryan isnt good enough to take that hit. I wouldnt move that package.
So we lose Ryan lite in stafford + our best defenseman and top center? We'll have one center who has only played like 20 games as a center. Ryan isnt good enough to take that hit. I wouldnt move that package.
Stafford isn't in the same league as Ryan ....nothing lite about it. Hodgson isnt a "top center" .. and i already said i'd look to change the Sekera piece ... I dn't think Anaheim has a need for Sekera anyways.
Personally I'd do something like Hodgson, Adam, 1st, 3rd and Leino (to get them closer to cap floor if they'd agree =) )
i bet if stafford and ryan were reversed... you wouldnt have the same opinion.
Actually I would.
And now that I think about it , Stafford and Adam > Ryan.
Last year combined they scored 70 points compared to Ryans 57. So that makes them better and more productive ( completely joking but just using a comparison that you made Jame last week saying Anisimov and Dubinsky were better and more productive then Vanek since those 2 scored 70 points combined against Vaneks 61... But I'm sure now you'll say it doesn't count since that stance goes against your guy )
There's no denying Ryan is better then Stafford but he isn't THAT much better. Stafford also gets 1:30 less a game the last 2 years compared to Ryan and you know, the whole line mate thing.
I'm not a Stafford fan but I wouldn't trade him for Bobby Ryan straight up
Why? Because of his chemistry with Ennis? There's no doubt that one for one, Ryan is the better player. It's just that the difference between the two isn't great enough that I'd be willing to add several other pieces with decent-good value to Stafford for the sake of getting him.
I'm not a Stafford fan but I wouldn't trade him for Bobby Ryan straight up
You are one of the very few people on here who wouldn't, IMHO. Ryan's going to get you at least as many goals as stafford did when he played with Foligno, Ennis, Vanek, Hodgson, and whoever else he was with during the year. plus ryan plays more physically and he only costs about $1.5 mil more. We have some cap room to play with.
Top 2 lines with B. Ryan
Vanek-Hodgson-Pominville
Foligno-Ennis-Ryan
that 2nd line is a devastating mix of physicality, speed/creativity/playmaking, and goal scoring.
I think the difference between them is a bit wider than some on here believe, but not enough to add throw in a ton of pieces with Stafford to make a deal for ryan
I'm not a Stafford fan but I wouldn't trade him for Bobby Ryan straight up
That's one of the craziest things I've seen on these boards...and I've seen a lot of crazy things. So you'd rather have a one-time 30 goal scorer than a 4-time 30 goal scorer? And that's to say nothing of the physical differences between the two.
I understand the three-piece nature of a possible deal -- established player, solid prospect, high draft pick. It's adding in a fourth piece that strains the deal to the point of unworkability. And it's not like they can toss Sekera in and know that they can get McNabb to handle those minutes, and certainly will lose something situationally this coming season. Sekera isn't replaceable in UFA, not at the the economy of his contract at the very least so the risk is on a youngster stepping up OR a vet re-establishing value (Weber or Pardy namely).
And then there is the risk, at a 4 piece deal, that the weakening of the roster in other areas will pop that high draft pick (namely the first round) into top 12 territory akin to this year. Given the supposed depth and pre-draft hype of this coming draft class, can they take the hit on the blueline AND loss that sort of future asset? The risk is fairly high... as a four-piece.
Simplifying it down, there should be the bones of a deal in terms of value.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
You are one of the very few people on here who wouldn't, IMHO. Ryan's going to get you at least as many goals as stafford did when he played with Foligno, Ennis, Vanek, Hodgson, and whoever else he was with during the year. plus ryan plays more physically and he only costs about $1.5 mil more. We have some cap room to play with.
Top 2 lines with B. Ryan
Vanek-Hodgson-Pominville
Foligno-Ennis-Ryan
that 2nd line is a devastating mix of physicality, speed/creativity/playmaking, and goal scoring.
I think the difference between them is a bit wider than some on here believe, but not enough to add throw in a ton of pieces with Stafford to make a deal for ryan
I'm not a Stafford fan but I wouldn't trade him for Bobby Ryan straight up
I'm not sure I would either. If Stafford is here this year, and he and Ennis are both healthy, I'd bet he outscores Ryan this year, maybe by a lot. You know you have the chemistry here, with Ryan it's a question mark. Plus he's cheaper. And I have to say, Ryan's physical play is being overstated.
( completely joking but just using a comparison that you made Jame last week saying Anisimov and Dubinsky were better and more productive then Vanek since those 2 scored 70 points combined against Vaneks 61... But I'm sure now you'll say it doesn't count since that stance goes against your guy ) 
