HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Michael Ryder

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2006, 11:36 AM
  #26
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 52,618
vCash: 725
And then the same people will say after scoring his 2 goals tonight, that maybe we shouldn't.....or then the same people will blame Gainey for trading our 30-goal scorer elsewhere, where he became a 40-goal scorer.....

It is always depending on who you receive, but I would even take a chance as far as Ryder is concerned.

Ribeiro (I know, I'm in the past...) had a nice chemistry with Kovy but Gainey and Co didn't think it was that important. They traded him thinking Pleks could do it and now that Kovy himself could do it. You don't repair a mistake with another one. They have to live with that decision, especially when the return you got is #8 maybe #9 in your depth chart as far as d-men are concerned.......

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:43 AM
  #27
kostitsyn1489
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louiseville, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,447
vCash: 500
Cheechoo isnt doing very good this season and he's injured now so what about trading Ryder vs Marleau? Not one on one I know but just to start a trade. There's a lot of rumor on marleau for like 2 years so.. maybe Gainey really like him. He's great at the point on the PP and he's a really good shooter and we need this kind of guy with kovalev and samsonov.

kostitsyn1489 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:49 AM
  #28
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,552
vCash: 500
I think we're a couple years away from having the "luxury" of being able to realistically consider trading a player like Ryder. As the only player on our roster who can reasonably be expected to challenge for 30 goals (well, depending on how many games Higgins plays maybe) I think it would be foolish in the extreme to deal him. Oh sure, anybody can come back with the argument that ANY player can be traded if the right deal comes along... but that's not what we're looking at here, is it? Sounds like a more active shopping exercise is being proposed.

Samsonov has played roughly 50% of his possible games over the past few seasons, and Kovalev has a gimpy knee. We are all smitten I'm sure with the potential of our kids like Latendresse, Perezhogin, and Kostitsyn to one day challenge to become 30 goal scorers. But I'll be pleasantly surprised if any of them get 10 this year. This is not a situation which suggests to me that dealing Ryder would be moving from a position of strength. We are actually horribly weak in the area of goal-scoring. You move him for what, a Craig Conroy type? What exactly are we talking about here? Somebody who may or may not be able to solve our problem, and most likely somebody who is a bit older and isn't going to figure productively in our longterm picture to the extent that Ryder could. It's a fool's dream, IMO.

Trading for this mystical heroic 2nd line center is no more likely to solve any problems than continuing to experiment from within would, so why do it at the cost of our best goal scorer? Explore the internal options first. Then pause and remember we're on pace for a 105 point season so far despite this tragic 2nd line center problem. Give your head a shake. And then if you still find yourself wanting to trade Ryder... well, look upstairs at Mr. Bob Gainey's unsmiling face and realize that he traded one already for the humble Janne Niinimaa, clearly indicating just how seriously he views the problem and how unlikely it is that your foolish dreams are ever likely to be realized.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:51 AM
  #29
ECWHSWI
Spartan mic'
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freaky Habs Fan View Post
Because the X team will need a wnger while we need a center...

And for those who are saying "why trading our only 30 goal scorer", well with a good second line center, maybe Kovalev would score 30 and Samsonov 25...

Also, Higgins is for real...sure he's injured right now, but he might come back in 3 weeks.
While it might make sense in theory, assuming the team in question also have too many centers, how about this : you have a center that can score but need a winger ? play your god damn center on the wing...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:55 AM
  #30
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-Saku Koivu MTL View Post
Then we have a problem.

But we could always get a solid back up in the deal. Just like the Garon trade.
um Danis is a pretty good backup.

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:56 AM
  #31
Blades 0f Steel
Registered User
 
Blades 0f Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Tibet
Posts: 11,523
vCash: 500
Why not just keep him, demote him to the second line when Higgins comes back and get some serious lineup shuffling going? This team has a lot of talented wingers.


Last edited by Blades 0f Steel: 11-18-2006 at 12:03 PM.
Blades 0f Steel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 11:58 AM
  #32
Blades 0f Steel
Registered User
 
Blades 0f Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Tibet
Posts: 11,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
um Danis is a pretty good backup.
Says which stats? He's not NHL material right now going by his last 30 or so games.

Blades 0f Steel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 12:01 PM
  #33
Pascal
Registered User
 
Pascal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,467
vCash: 500
His stint in the NHL was convincing. And he's better than a lot of backups in the league ATM.

Pascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 12:04 PM
  #34
GSK*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Uzbekistan
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
The issue about Ryder is he can't do **** on the PP this year...


Last year, he was finishin' the year with 18 power play goal, wich I really doubt he will do this year, be cause the foward always pass back to the point for Souray lethal weapon shot.

GSK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 12:07 PM
  #35
Blades 0f Steel
Registered User
 
Blades 0f Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Tibet
Posts: 11,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
His stint in the NHL was convincing. And he's better than a lot of backups in the league ATM.
Because he had a good game in the NHL? Do you really want me to list off goalies who's careers plumetted after having great performances?

You need to catch a Bulldogs game this season to catch up on how Danis is doing.

Blades 0f Steel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 12:30 PM
  #36
Turbo
Registered User
 
Turbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Greys section 325
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I think we're a couple years away from having the "luxury" of being able to realistically consider trading a player like Ryder. As the only player on our roster who can reasonably be expected to challenge for 30 goals (well, depending on how many games Higgins plays maybe) I think it would be foolish in the extreme to deal him. Oh sure, anybody can come back with the argument that ANY player can be traded if the right deal comes along... but that's not what we're looking at here, is it? Sounds like a more active shopping exercise is being proposed.

Samsonov has played roughly 50% of his possible games over the past few seasons, and Kovalev has a gimpy knee. We are all smitten I'm sure with the potential of our kids like Latendresse, Perezhogin, and Kostitsyn to one day challenge to become 30 goal scorers. But I'll be pleasantly surprised if any of them get 10 this year. This is not a situation which suggests to me that dealing Ryder would be moving from a position of strength. We are actually horribly weak in the area of goal-scoring. You move him for what, a Craig Conroy type? What exactly are we talking about here? Somebody who may or may not be able to solve our problem, and most likely somebody who is a bit older and isn't going to figure productively in our longterm picture to the extent that Ryder could. It's a fool's dream, IMO.

Trading for this mystical heroic 2nd line center is no more likely to solve any problems than continuing to experiment from within would, so why do it at the cost of our best goal scorer? Explore the internal options first. Then pause and remember we're on pace for a 105 point season so far despite this tragic 2nd line center problem. Give your head a shake. And then if you still find yourself wanting to trade Ryder... well, look upstairs at Mr. Bob Gainey's unsmiling face and realize that he traded one already for the humble Janne Niinimaa, clearly indicating just how seriously he views the problem and how unlikely it is that your foolish dreams are ever likely to be realized.
Nice post BG. Anybody notice these are the same initials as the Habs' GM?

Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 01:26 PM
  #37
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Trading Ryder would be silly, we'd just end up having to make another trade to get a goal scorer.
I disagree. The name is Andrei Kostitsyn. We dont need a uni-dimensional scorer like Ryder who we will have to pay 4m next year for what he gives. Ryder to me is the last on Gainey's list in the deadwood category, he was borderline usefull, but now with the young guns being ready to replace him, he can go. If Lats tank, Kost can do it, if Kost tank we still have some ressources in the minors(Grabovski).

I have said for the entire summer that a Johnson-Bonk-Ryder 3rd line would be great.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 01:36 PM
  #38
KaptainKourage*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St-Georges de Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
I disagree. The name is Andrei Kostitsyn. We dont need a uni-dimensional scorer like Ryder who we will have to pay 4m next year for what he gives. Ryder to me is the last on Gainey's list in the deadwood category, he was borderline usefull, but now with the young guns being ready to replace him, he can go. If Lats tank, Kost can do it, if Kost tank we still have some ressources in the minors(Grabovski).

I have said for the entire summer that a Johnson-Bonk-Ryder 3rd line would be great.
Well, uni-dimensional... Ryder is a now a PK beast

Honestly, I hope that Carbo, will Murray in tonight, will replace Ryder by Murray or Kovalev on the PK.

Koivu - Kovalev could be intersting on the PK !!

KaptainKourage* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 01:45 PM
  #39
Souffle
A soupçon of nutmeg
 
Souffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Le Creuset
Country: France
Posts: 3,490
vCash: 500
I agree with Blind Gardien. None of Perezhogin, Latendresse and Kostitsyn have shown that they'd be able this year to match Ryder's production, despite all his flaws. And he's still not that expensive.

I also really don't think that he's deadwood, and in general, I don't think the Habs are looking to dump veterans. There's so many proposals involving Souray, Bonk and others because they're impending UFA, but if anything, the Habs will be adding guys like that this year if they continue on a playoff pace.

The blockbuster trade for a primo C might be a possibility, and it would have to involve roster players like Ryder for cap space. But Gainey, if he makes a move to address the C problem, will go for a veteran rental. Miller Time mentioned Nieuwendyk in the Trade Forum, and all things considered, I can't think of a better possibility. I'm officially on board with that idea.

Souffle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 02:21 PM
  #40
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by davedave View Post
I agree with Blind Gardien. None of Perezhogin, Latendresse and Kostitsyn have shown that they'd be able this year to match Ryder's production, despite all his flaws. And he's still not that expensive
Nobody said that trading Ryder is not a gamble...it is...but I think it's a gamble worth taking.

I think Blind Gardien mentioned he'd be surprised if either of Perezhogin, Latendresse or Kostitsyn scored 10 goals. I would be surprised too, as long as none of the three get any action on the top two lines!

To say none of them are able to match Ryder's production is as foolish as saying all three are capable of matching his production. The question to ask is this: if either of Perezhogin, Latendresse or Kostitsyn got the same amount of playing time as Ryder gets (i.e. playing on the 1st line and 1st PP unit), is it possible that one could be able to match his production. I think the answer is yes, it's quite possible.

I know it's a small sample size, but look at what Latendresse has done playing with Koivu so far: 4 goals in like 4-5 games. Ryder has 4 goals all season, by the by.

As an organization, if you don't take these kinds of calculated gambles from time to time, you might be stunting your team's potential growth.

Imagine if last year, instead of letting Higgins play with Koivu to see what he can do, we kept Zednik on that spot all year because Higgins had not yet "shown that he'd be able to match Zednik's production, despite all his flaws. And he's (Zednik) still not that expensive".

Does that reasoning ring a bell? If we had kept Zednik on the first line all year, would Higgins have scored over 20 goals?

You can't move forward until you take a risk and promote a youngster who has shown the potential to succeed in a more important role. Latendresse is showing that he has the potential to be better than Ryder. Is he better than Ryder? Maybe not yet, but at least we can rest assured there is a possibility that he is.

However, we have the luxury of having 3 such wingers with the potential to be better than Ryder. Have they proven themselves? Obviously not, they have to be given a chance for that to happen!

Solution: Wait another 10 games to see if Lats can keep up his production (i.e. score at a regular Ryder-like 30 G/season pace). If he can, you can trade Ryder. If he can't, give Perezhogin that chance. Repeat the cycle. If Perezhogin fails, try Kostitsyn. Once one of the three has shown himself to be capable of scoring as much or more than Ryder when given the same minutes/linemates as Ryder, it's safe to trade.

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 02:35 PM
  #41
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
NGR, I respect the thought you've put into it, but I'm on it would be silly to trade him side. I think that we'd find ourselves in a Corson/Turgeon situation in time. I believe that we're reacting to some obvious issues. The #2 C, or a certain style of C is lacking. Is the team really paying a price because we feel there's gap in the lineup ? Enough to deal Ryder ? Enough to deal him, hoping someone else will step up ? I relly don't see Ryder as a waekness on the team. He's in a funk right now, I think he's having to play a bit differently in Higgins absence. He was the 'find an opening' guy on the line but Lats is doing that forcing Ryder to handle the puck more down low. I like the fact that he's working hard though.

I think that the C position will be adressed, or hope it is,but it'll happen later in the season. Gainey can feel out a few players about extensions by then, have a better picture of next year.

More and more I think we fall in love with the idea of certain players and assume they're better than they are. Plus, the young studs like Horton, just aren't going anywhere.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 02:56 PM
  #42
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
NGR, I respect the thought you've put into it, but I'm on it would be silly to trade him side. I think that we'd find ourselves in a Corson/Turgeon situation in time. I believe that we're reacting to some obvious issues. The #2 C, or a certain style of C is lacking. Is the team really paying a price because we feel there's gap in the lineup ? Enough to deal Ryder ? Enough to deal him, hoping someone else will step up ? I relly don't see Ryder as a waekness on the team. He's in a funk right now, I think he's having to play a bit differently in Higgins absence. He was the 'find an opening' guy on the line but Lats is doing that forcing Ryder to handle the puck more down low. I like the fact that he's working hard though.

I think that the C position will be adressed, or hope it is,but it'll happen later in the season. Gainey can feel out a few players about extensions by then, have a better picture of next year.

More and more I think we fall in love with the idea of certain players and assume they're better than they are. Plus, the young studs like Horton, just aren't going anywhere.
This isn't an overreaction from my side. I've thought Ryder is a unidimensional player since his 1st game with the Habs. If the right deal came along, I would have traded him last season without hesitation. And now that we have some youngsters ready to step up, I'd feel more comfortable trading him. But hey, that's just me.

My opinion is that Ryder is greatly overrated by many fans. I could be wrong, but again, I've been thinking this way for 2-3 years now. I'm worried that the Ryder situation ends up like the Theo situation (i.e. holding on to an overrated player so long that his market value eventually goes down to where the actual value is). I actually wanted Theo traded 2-3 years before he actually was traded. I thought that even in his Vezina winning season, he was overrated (ppl think he was amazing in the 2002 playoffs...the fact of the matter is he was far good. He was horrible the first 4 games against the Bruins in that 2002 series. He only played well for two games those playoffs). Anyway, that's neither here nor there...this isn't about Theo...this is about Ryder. I'm just making a parallel to what could happen if we keep Ryder until he has no more value (that's my premonition of what will happen...I had the same premonition for Theo, and I was right that time...I could be completely wrong this time, and believe me, I'd love to be wrong).

Right now, Ryder's market value is still high, higher than his actual value in my opinion. If you wait too long, maybe Ryder's market value becomes equal to that of a Richard Zednik (i.e. a unidimensional guy who can pot 30 goals when given 1st line and 1st PP unit minutes, but brings not much else).

However, I respect your opinion, and all other opinions on this board, I genuinely do. If you think it's foolish to trade Ryder, that's cool. I just want to be put on the record as a guy who's saying it would be foolish to keep him long-term. I'm ready to live with the consequences of that call. I made that same call with Theo even though my friends thought I was crazy, and eventually, I was vindicated ). I rubbed it in their faces. And I hope that people rub it in my face if Ryder stays with the Habs and scores 30 or more goals for 3-4 more seasons with us!

And believe me, I thought about a possible repeat of the Corson/Turgeon scenario. Except that I truly believe that this time around, Ryder is the Corson, not the Turgeon.

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 03:17 PM
  #43
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG87 View Post
Nobody said that trading Ryder is not a gamble...it is...but I think it's a gamble worth taking.
Before even trying Higgins as the 2nd line center, say?
Quote:
I think Blind Gardien mentioned he'd be surprised if either of Perezhogin, Latendresse or Kostitsyn scored 10 goals. I would be surprised too, as long as none of the three get any action on the top two lines!

To say none of them are able to match Ryder's production is as foolish as saying all three are capable of matching his production. The question to ask is this: if either of Perezhogin, Latendresse or Kostitsyn got the same amount of playing time as Ryder gets (i.e. playing on the 1st line and 1st PP unit), is it possible that one could be able to match his production. I think the answer is yes, it's quite possible.
Well, I'd say it's "not impossible"... but it would basically shock the heck out of me if any of them could come anywhere near matching Ryder's goal totals, given the same opportunity. Ryder is the kind of player who might go 10 games with nada to show, then pop 9 goals in his next 10, etc. The next streak is probably imminent, so it just seems a bit too short-sighted to me to start thinking of dealing him now.

And one thing I'm happy to see is how well Ryder has rebounded from his unidimensional season last year. He's playing harder all over the ice skating better than ever, and - even though I sometimes cringe to see the experimentation - I think Carbo is showing with his PK choice that he's ready to work with Ryder to make him a better all-round player for the long term. Good signs.

I'm all for calculated gambles... but I think we've already maxed out our quota on that score, and I wouldn't push my luck on the Ryder front.

And the other presumption I don't like in all this is that we somehow only need 2 scoring lines, or only 4 scoring wingers. I look at a Buffalo team or Carolina in the playoffs last year, I can see plenty of reason to aim for having 3 lines that can score and feature as many 20+ goal players as possible. Ryder is by no means expendable in that sense, even *if* you max out your projections on Lats, Kost, and Perez. There are simply other ways to handle the 2nd line center mini-problem, if you really think it's a problem (which I don't, of course).

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 03:23 PM
  #44
The Rocket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Digby, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ipousse Lapuck View Post
Ryder, Aebischer, Souray, 1st rounder (if Souray) for Bouwneester and Horton
It can look like a stupid proposal but it would give the Habs a real #1 defenceman for a long time and a true big right handed center who has the #1 center potential.
Do you think it's okay valuewise?
I like this one!!!

The Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 03:26 PM
  #45
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG87 View Post
Well, I know 30-goal scorers don't grow on trees, but I think the time is right to trade Ryder. You have to trade valuable assets to get valuable assets in return. This team has to trade from its position of strength (wingers) to shore up its deficiencies (scoring centers is the pressing need right now; we'll possibly need more D as well if we lose some to free agency).

I'm going to admit I'm biased, since I've never been too fond of Ryder. When he keeps things very simple (i.e. simply puts himself in an open position in the slot waiting to unload his shot and very rarely ever skate with the puck), then I appreciate his game...I really do.

Unfortunately, too often he tries to carry the puck, resulting in careless turnovers. He's not skilled enough to hold on to the puck for more than 3 seconds, and it's quite evident, so it boggles my mind to see him doing it over and over again. He doesn't have very good vision either, and is below average for a top-six forward in terms of making use of his teammates, passing, and speed (I was excited to see that he looked very fast early on this season, but it seems his speed is back to where it was in the past).

Currently, our NHL depth at C (true centers) is Koivu, Bonk, Plekanec, Begin (although he's better as a winger). Bonk might leave after this season, leaving us with Koivu and Plekanec as centers capable of playing on the top 3 lines. Clearly, we're lacking at C...I see three options: we can either make a trade, try to sign a UFA (which is hard because Montreal isn't high on the list of top destinations unfortunately) or convert Higgins into a center (I actually think this could be the solution, but as of right now, let's assume he's staying at LW). I have my doubts that Chipchura could be our 3rd center as of next year...in any case, I'm not sure we want Koivu and Plekanec as our top two centers next season.

But why trade Ryder and not Kovalev for example?

We need 8 wingers on the team (2 wingers per line). I think we can all agree Ryder doesn't belong on a 4th line, which leaves 6 winger spots.

Ryder will command over 2M/year at the end of the season. Right now, there are three wingers on the team clearly outplaying him: Higgins (injured), Johnson, Perezhogin. There is one winger outplaying him but is unproven: Latendresse. We have two wingers underachieving relative to Ryder: Samsonov and Kovalev. That's already six top-3 line wingers including Ryder. If you assume Kostitsyn is ready to play on a top-3 line, then you can say we have more top-3 line wingers than needed (i.e. a position of strength).

You have to assess each winger's value on the trade market versus actual value to the team.

Higgins is an untouchable. Johnson is worth more to us than he is on the market, so let's say he's not an option either.

Basically, there are 5 wingers that we can trade: Kovalev, Samsonov, Perezhogin, Kostitsyn, Ryder.

- Kovalev is worth more to us than he is on the trade market. He's getting old, he's inconsistent and if traded, probably wouldn't yield a scoring center of note. But he's very valuable to us because we have no other elite level talent on the team. When he's on his game, he's arguably one of the top 10 players in the league. Come playoff time, he'll bring it. Before we consider trading him, we owe it to ourselves to let him play with a talented center (either Koivu or a center obtained via the trade market).

- Samsonov: I won't get into details on my reasoning, but it's safe to assume he's worth nothing on the trade market.

- Perezhogin and Kostitsyn: Both have good potential, and are cheaper options than Ryder (cap room will be crucial as we try to sign our UFA D-men at the end of this season). One or both might yield a scoring center of note. It's a gamble: do we think one of the two (or both) has a chance at replacing the 30 goals lost? I think it's a gamble worth taking.

Let's start with Kostitsyn. Assuming he can replace Ryder is a big gamble. He appears to have the tools to do it. He's similar to Ryder, except I think he might have a better arsenal of shots, is slightly faster, and makes better use of his linemates. His major drawbacks: he's inconsistent and unproven at the NHL level. As of right now, I'd be leaning towards keeping Ryder.

Let's now look at Perezhogin. Perezhogin might not have the same scoring ability as Ryder, but I believes he brings much more to a team, and he'll create more scoring chances for his teammates.

Hypotethetical situation: say Perezhogin plays with Koivu, instead of Ryder. Let's assume Ryder will score at a rate of 30 goals/season. Let's assume Perezhogin can only score at a rate of 20 goals/season (for argument's sake). Is it far-fetched to assume that, because of Perezhogin's speed and better usage of teammates, Perez is able to create more scoring chances, and helps Koivu score 2 more goals a season, and Higgins score 3 more goals, than they would have scored playing with Ryder? Is it far-fetched to assume that the line would have allowed 5 less goals over a season with Perezhogin instead of Ryder because his speed allows him to be more effective defensively?

Even if you think it is far-fetched to make these assumptions, in light of the fact that you have two wingers who are cheaper and potentially capable of replacing Ryder, it's a gamble you have to make for the sake of improving the team.

CONCLUSION:

We desperately need another scoring centerman this season. If Higgins isn't that man, then trading Ryder seems like the next best option.

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 03:29 PM
  #46
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Before even trying Higgins as the 2nd line center, say?Well, I'd say it's "not impossible"... but it would basically shock the heck out of me if any of them could come anywhere near matching Ryder's goal totals, given the same opportunity. Ryder is the kind of player who might go 10 games with nada to show, then pop 9 goals in his next 10, etc. The next streak is probably imminent, so it just seems a bit too short-sighted to me to start thinking of dealing him now.

And one thing I'm happy to see is how well Ryder has rebounded from his unidimensional season last year. He's playing harder all over the ice skating better than ever, and - even though I sometimes cringe to see the experimentation - I think Carbo is showing with his PK choice that he's ready to work with Ryder to make him a better all-round player for the long term. Good signs.

I'm all for calculated gambles... but I think we've already maxed out our quota on that score, and I wouldn't push my luck on the Ryder front.

And the other presumption I don't like in all this is that we somehow only need 2 scoring lines, or only 4 scoring wingers. I look at a Buffalo team or Carolina in the playoffs last year, I can see plenty of reason to aim for having 3 lines that can score and feature as many 20+ goal players as possible. Ryder is by no means expendable in that sense, even *if* you max out your projections on Lats, Kost, and Perez. There are simply other ways to handle the 2nd line center mini-problem, if you really think it's a problem (which I don't, of course).
1) I said Higgins at C is my first option. (as per my first post in the thread)
2) Maxed out our quota? Could you please elaborate on that? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance.
3) You are mistaken about me presuming we need 4 scoring wingers. I'm using 6 in my analysis (as per my first post in the thread)

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 03:57 PM
  #47
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG87 View Post
1) I said Higgins at C is my first option. (as per my first post in the thread)
3) You are mistaken about me presuming we need 4 scoring wingers. I'm using 6 in my analysis (as per my first post in the thread)
In that case, I fail to see why we're even talking about this?
Quote:
2) Maxed out our quota? Could you please elaborate on that? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks in advance.
We have a number of young players in the lineup. We have given some pretty good money recently to some unproven players or at least rewarded players above and beyond what might have been absolutely called for (Huet, Bouillon, Dandenault), and we've taken pretty big gambles even on paying some of our more proven players (Samsonov, Kovalev, and even Koivu with his injury history)... plus we are certainly due to lose some players next summer as free agents (Bonk, Johnson, Aebischer, maybe a D) which will automatically create more openings for young players right there. I don't see Gainey being in a hurry to either (a) push the timetable ahead even further with our young guys, or (b) trade a known-commodity productive player whose rights we will have as an RFA for perhaps another impending-UFA or other risk-associated or overpaid player (which tend to be the types available by trade).

In the old days, this would be a hat-eating or keyboard-eating level of certainty for me: Bob Gainey will not trade Michael Ryder this year. Period. It just doesn't fit with the way I see him seeing the team. It's short-sighted, and would essentially just be patching one hole at the expense of making others, which doesn't seem to me to be the way he does business.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 04:26 PM
  #48
Slew Foots
Haters gonna hate
 
Slew Foots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
In that case, I fail to see why we're even talking about this?
Well, part of it is due to the fact that I have an admittedly unhealthy tendency to argue simply for the sake of arguing. It's all in good fun though, I mean no harm...maybe I secretly wish I was one of those TV lawyers. I guess I got slightly sidetracked from my initial point in the process of defending one of the claims from my initial post to other people. In my initial post, I stated that I thought we should trade Ryder should Higgins not be able to fill the void at center. The subsequent posts pertain to me defending my reasoning for picking Ryder as opposed to somebody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
We have a number of young players in the lineup. We have given some pretty good money recently to some unproven players or at least rewarded players above and beyond what might have been absolutely called for (Huet, Bouillon, Dandenault), and we've taken pretty big gambles even on paying some of our more proven players (Samsonov, Kovalev, and even Koivu with his injury history)... plus we are certainly due to lose some players next summer as free agents (Bonk, Johnson, Aebischer, maybe a D) which will automatically create more openings for young players right there. I don't see Gainey being in a hurry to either (a) push the timetable ahead even further with our young guys, or (b) trade a known-commodity productive player whose rights we will have as an RFA for perhaps another impending-UFA or other risk-associated or overpaid player (which tend to be the types available by trade).

In the old days, this would be a hat-eating or keyboard-eating level of certainty for me: Bob Gainey will not trade Michael Ryder this year. Period. It just doesn't fit with the way I see him seeing the team. It's short-sighted, and would essentially just be patching one hole at the expense of making others, which doesn't seem to me to be the way he does business.
Using your interpretation of "gamble", almost every roster move is a gamble hehe...so what difference will another gamble make?

Seriously though, I see your point, but ultimately, it depends on what you think of Ryder. If you think highly of him, then to you, the chances that one of the kids can replace him is small. If you don't think highly of him, then to you, the chances that one of the kids can replace him is good.

You assume that Ryder's in Gainey's long-term plans, but it's possible that he isn't. If he isn't, then I don't think Ryder will be a Hab to start the 2007/2008 season.

Anyway, there's no point in continuing the discussion really, as we'll start seeing the same arguments being recycled. I acknowledge you make a well-reasoned case. You don't think it's a gamble worth taking, while I do. That's all there is to it.

Slew Foots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 04:33 PM
  #49
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NRG87 View Post
Using your interpretation of "gamble", almost every roster move is a gamble hehe...so what difference will another gamble make?
Why do we need to gamble further when what we have "ain't broke", basically? So far, it could be argued that all those other roster move gambles are paying off (or at least, not hurting significantly). Why push our luck when we're already on pace for a 105-pt season? The summer is a good time for gambling. Mid-season isn't, unless we're in a desperate situation. Which we simply are not.
Quote:
Seriously though, I see your point, but ultimately, it depends on what you think of Ryder. If you think highly of him, then to you, the chances that one of the kids can replace him is small. If you don't think highly of him, then to you, the chances that one of the kids can replace him is good.
I think you know by now where I stand on those two spectra.
Quote:
You assume that Ryder's in Gainey's long-term plans, but it's possible that he isn't. If he isn't, then I don't think Ryder will be a Hab to start the 2007/2008 season.
I doubt Gainey's longterm plans are immutable in any event. If Ryder plays well this season, he's in. If he doesn't, he can be out. His RFA status and past scoring exploits suggest that he deserves to be at least "pencilled in" to the long-term plans, but anything can change. Again, however, I don't see any compelling reason yet to either bring out the eraser or the ballpoint pen with regards to his "pencilled in" status.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2006, 06:13 PM
  #50
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,999
vCash: 500
count me as in favor of moving Ryder if it helps us land a productive centre....

I think the big issue is that we have 8 wingers capable of playing in the top 3 lines... Kots/perez/higgins/kovy/sammy/ryder/johnson/lats

i don't think trading Ryder will hurt us as much as some people here do.
Yes he scored 30 last season, but 18 were PP goals, and with the different PP (and thus far more effective) the habs run this season, he won't duplicate those #'s.

12 regular strength goals isn't exactly all-star material, and considering that goal scoring is by far his biggest asset, I question how valuable he really is. Watching him vanish in the playoffs last year when Koivu went down (yes, higgins did to, but he's showing great improvement this year, something ryder isn't) makes me think that he's expendable if he can be used to fill a bigger hole.

Do people really think that none of Kots/Lats/Perez could produce 15-20 goals playing next to Koivu all year?

Anyhow, the habs would be foolish to keep all 8 wingers on the roster next season, and of the 8, Ryder would give us the best "return vs loss"...

my two cents.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.