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
11-20-2006, 03:46 PM
  #76
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
I was just stating the fact that even a less productive Higgins( right now perezhogin) is more usefull than someone converting his game into something that it wasnt meant to be. There was a lot of that in the Corson era if you remember. You seem to be a big advocate of changing Ryder into a carbo style player, for some reasons I dont believe too much into these player transformation, it just end up undermining the value of your assets at the end.
? 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.
Quote:
For sure, we have a good start, but we wont be a playoff stanley cup winning team without a real first line center. Thats a fai accompli. Staal-Brin D'amour, Lecavalier - Richards, last 2 stanley cup champions. Koivu-"Still searching for 2nd" is our current status.
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.
Quote:
I bet the Sharks are in complete reconstruction too, I think we are in that position to make a move that will give us what we want without crippling the team.
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.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 03:52 PM
  #77
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
I'm sick and tired of hearing that "30-goals-scorer" argument. It's not like he was a Brad Richards, Shane Doan, Ryan Smith or Chris Drury kind of 30 goals scorer. Ryder is a very expandable player, who can only score when he's got a perfect pass from is centerman. He can't pass the puck and therefore breaks a lot of play in the offensive zone. He's to much of a up and down guy who's not only invisible in the offensive zone during is "down period" but extremely dangerous in the defensive end (he's at least getting better at that). Not only is he very "tradable" but, when you look at other options there all better.

Higgins (no argument to be made here or so I think),

Lats (He's a much better passer, stronger along the boards, a tank in front of the net, good finisher...really impresses me)

Kovalev (no argument, even if he's playing like sh** right now, he's got better numbers)

Perezho (Not sure if he'll flourish into a definite top six winger, but anyway brings much more energy and diversity to his game)

Samsonov (As good as Ryder right now, which is not a compliment coming from me, 3,5mil is harder to trade...and looks kind of bad to trade him after he sign as a UFA...maybe this summer, if he doesn't get back to Boston form?)

Kostitsyn (Could definitely blossom into a top six winger, cheaper option that needs time to develop, better shot, faster and seems to be a future game breaker)

So when you look at it, if there's some interest and a possibility to get a good (if not a great) centerman for Kovalev, he should be the first traded.

MTL-rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 04:11 PM
  #78
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
Old
11-20-2006, 07:03 PM
  #79
Marchy79
Registered User
 
Marchy79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
No we should not trade Ryder.

He has a lot more clout than many on this board thinks he does... He is a very positive member of the dressing room, and is a favourite of many in there... Why trade away a popular player, that everybody seems to like, on a team that has had dressing room problems for as long as I can remember... To be BRUTALLY honest, this is the first team that I have heard of from Montreal that has not been divided in the dressing room for quite some time (seriously)... The last thing I am thinking of is trade right now... Now it is time to see where our players grow...

Ryder is NOT a liability people...

Marchy79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 07:50 PM
  #80
habgab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
I'm sick and tired of hearing that "30-goals-scorer" argument. It's not like he was a Brad Richards, Shane Doan, Ryan Smith or Chris Drury kind of 30 goals scorer. Ryder is a very expandable player, who can only score when he's got a perfect pass from is centerman. He can't pass the puck and therefore breaks a lot of play in the offensive zone. He's to much of a up and down guy who's not only invisible in the offensive zone during is "down period" but extremely dangerous in the defensive end (he's at least getting better at that). Not only is he very "tradable" but, when you look at other options there all better.

Higgins (no argument to be made here or so I think),

Lats (He's a much better passer, stronger along the boards, a tank in front of the net, good finisher...really impresses me)

Kovalev (no argument, even if he's playing like sh** right now, he's got better numbers)

Perezho (Not sure if he'll flourish into a definite top six winger, but anyway brings much more energy and diversity to his game)

Samsonov (As good as Ryder right now, which is not a compliment coming from me, 3,5mil is harder to trade...and looks kind of bad to trade him after he sign as a UFA...maybe this summer, if he doesn't get back to Boston form?)

Kostitsyn (Could definitely blossom into a top six winger, cheaper option that needs time to develop, better shot, faster and seems to be a future game breaker)

So when you look at it, if there's some interest and a possibility to get a good (if not a great) centerman for Kovalev, he should be the first traded.
What is an expandable player, pray tell? Do you mean expendible? If you do, I think you are wrong - he is more than a thirty goal scorer, he brings other things as well....why not trade Kovalev - he has nowhere near as many hits, is turning into another cancer on the team, gets a huge salary, is a defensive liability (two major giveaways in the last game alone) and requires that a whole team revolve around him. Give Ryder a break - at least he shows up to most of the games while Kovalev may as well sit half of them out in a sauna somewhere.

habgab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 08:18 PM
  #81
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habgab View Post
What is an expandable player, pray tell? Do you mean expendible? If you do, I think you are wrong - he is more than a thirty goal scorer, he brings other things as well....why not trade Kovalev - he has nowhere near as many hits, is turning into another cancer on the team, gets a huge salary, is a defensive liability (two major giveaways in the last game alone) and requires that a whole team revolve around him. Give Ryder a break - at least he shows up to most of the games while Kovalev may as well sit half of them out in a sauna somewhere.
Sorry for that spelling mistake (I'ld like to see how well you write in french)...

Reason: Talent

Like you could see, I'm far from happy how Kovalev plays, but when his game is on, no guy on this team is better...I made my point with Ryder and no I won't give the guy a break because he plays (relatively) hard. I'm far from happy with his overall play and contribution and I believe he could be easily replace from within.

MTL-rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2006, 08:32 PM
  #82
habgab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
Sorry for that spelling mistake (I'ld like to see how well you write in french)...

Reason: Talent

Like you could see, I'm far from happy how Kovalev plays, but when his game is on, no guy on this team is better...I made my point with Ryder and no I won't give the guy a break because he plays (relatively) hard. I'm far from happy with his overall play and contribution and I believe he could be easily replace from within.
sorry, I confess that I could not write anything in French.

Kovalev's game has not been on for some time, and it is not for want of talent. If Kovalev gave half the effort of Ryder (and Ryder floats a bit too), he would be knocking the mesh out of nets. What do you expect from Ryder that he is not giving? He shoots, scores and hits....that is more dimensional than lots of other players on the team. He is likely good in the dressing room, as someone said above. Last year people criticized him for too many garbage goals, so he does not only have to wait for a perfect pass from a centreman - that might help, but it rarely happens. If Ryder is as useless as you think, why then do you believe he will draw a good (if not great) centreman for Kovalev (who, regardless of who he is, will not "fix" Kovalev and will only then be blamed like everyone else for Kovalev's own issues)?

habgab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2006, 07:19 AM
  #83
mcphee
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
Old
11-22-2006, 02:42 AM
  #84
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
Ryder is NOT a liability people...
I doubt anyone here consider Ryder a liability, I least I dont. No player is perfect beside a very rare elite. I think the point here is: What do you we need to reach the next level and what do we have to offer for it.

For how many years have we searched for a dominant center?
Why our current asset position could not possibly give us the chance to finally fill that void?
What players could we invest in that goal?

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 02:59 AM
  #85
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
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.
This is another facet where Ryder and Corson are very much alike. Difference here is that the idea is already in the team. We love Ryder when he plays like he did against the thrashers, we hate him in 5 others games, hes a concept more than a true "ace" in our assets.

Complimenting Kovalev is the last of my personal worries to be perfectly honest. Yes it would be great in the short run, fair enough, but, I'm thinking about someone young enough to give us 5-7 years. This team will become Komi-Higgins-Fischer-Price team very soon. Make a bid for Jordan Staal? Maybe. Pittsburgh needs wingers and we need a centerman. It could be a very Lindros-ish trade is size and cost, but in the end, thats probably what we need as a team to go over that "avg team-good" tag. Would you trade a package made of Ryder - Emelin - Chipchura for Staal? I know I would think about it, on both sides.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 07:21 AM
  #86
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
This is another facet where Ryder and Corson are very much alike. Difference here is that the idea is already in the team. We love Ryder when he plays like he did against the thrashers, we hate him in 5 others games, hes a concept more than a true "ace" in our assets.

Complimenting Kovalev is the last of my personal worries to be perfectly honest. Yes it would be great in the short run, fair enough, but, I'm thinking about someone young enough to give us 5-7 years. This team will become Komi-Higgins-Fischer-Price team very soon. Make a bid for Jordan Staal? Maybe. Pittsburgh needs wingers and we need a centerman. It could be a very Lindros-ish trade is size and cost, but in the end, thats probably what we need as a team to go over that "avg team-good" tag. Would you trade a package made of Ryder - Emelin - Chipchura for Staal? I know I would think about it, on both sides.
Again, I think we're talking about the idea of the player ? From what I've seen and read of Staal #3, he's a solid 2 way player, remarkably sound for a kid that age, but I don't know if he's projected to be 'the guy'. He's playing the wing, I believe right now. Is that where it's thought that he'll stay ? Pittsburgh will ride out the development of these guys though.

I believe that if the team can maintain a pace that should put them with 95-100 points if you a factor in a slump or 2, they won't do anything that may lessen this year's chances. At a point, knowing what Ryder is, is more important than hoping what Perez/Kostitsyn can do.
I still don't really buy into a Ryder/Corson comparison in truth. Corson was just a deal based on grit being valued over skill, and thinking he had enough skill to make it worthwhile. Ryder's a winger with good hands, has improved parts of his game, added some quickness, and has made himself valuable. He'll never be Bob Gainey in his own zone but he's not a problem in his own end. He doesn't play well off the rush and is best looking for openings off the forecheck. That's a weird role right now,because Latendresse looks to do the same thing, forcing Ryder into handling the puck more which isn't his game. I don't see any projection in evaluating his game, he's a decent scoring winger, he helps the team. I wouldn't be looking to move him unless something crazy came along.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 08:44 AM
  #87
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Again, I think we're talking about the idea of the player ? From what I've seen and read of Staal #3, he's a solid 2 way player, remarkably sound for a kid that age, but I don't know if he's projected to be 'the guy'. He's playing the wing, I believe right now. Is that where it's thought that he'll stay ? Pittsburgh will ride out the development of these guys though.
Staal is a natural center. Pittsburgh is a little crowded in first quality centers He is projected to be "that" guy at a level close to his oldest brother. Most probably the 2nd best Staal. Of course we could talk about a bid for Malkin or Crosby but that would dreaming, because that basically what every team in this league is looking for, a 1-2 punch. The presence of Malkin and Crosby make Staal available for a package, I'm sure Shero received many offers already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I believe that if the team can maintain a pace that should put them with 95-100 points if you a factor in a slump or 2, they won't do anything that may lessen this year's chances. At a point, knowing what Ryder is, is more important than hoping what Perez/Kostitsyn can do.
I dont think its black or white like that. Kost could fill that spot, bur ur not limited to him and already we have other options like Grabovski. Perez however seems to be well on his way to a very good season. I was proposing Staal, but that was basically a choice only for 2009 and not the perfect example. Think about a Gomez who can come in and increase the production of everyone on the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I still don't really buy into a Ryder/Corson comparison in truth. Corson was just a deal based on grit being valued over skill, and thinking he had enough skill to make it worthwhile. Ryder's a winger with good hands, has improved parts of his game, added some quickness, and has made himself valuable. He'll never be Bob Gainey in his own zone but he's not a problem in his own end. He doesn't play well off the rush and is best looking for openings off the forecheck. That's a weird role right now,because Latendresse looks to do the same thing, forcing Ryder into handling the puck more which isn't his game. I don't see any projection in evaluating his game, he's a decent scoring winger, he helps the team. I wouldn't be looking to move him unless something crazy came along.
We dont disagree here about Corson, but we are not talking about the same thing. There was in Corson's early years a lot of mumblings about transforming him, improving his overall game etc. When Blind was talking about "improving Ryder into a more defensively responsible player", there was a lot of that into Corson first days with the habs. Comparison doesnt stop there between those 2, 30 goal potential, seem more gritty than they really are etc.

As for the trading part, to me a first quality center comes in front of nearly everyone on this team. It's simple, a 1-2 punch in the middle is required to win championships. Gainey stated is goal was 2009, thats where imo Staal make sense, but he could also spend assets to win in the very short term I guess.(Even if I'm not convinced its the right choice with our new core still not completely established.) Swallow 2007 as a transition year and move from there if you go for 2009 or you take a bid on Lecavalier, Gomez etc if the situation present itself.


Last edited by SOLR: 11-22-2006 at 08:56 AM.
SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 08:53 AM
  #88
Capitano
Registered User
 
Capitano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,286
vCash: 500
Some good comments in this thread...

Let me start by saying that I haven't liked the way Ryder has handled his contract situations each time he's been RFA. Being a GM entails looking after the current state of the team, as well as the future state of the team. In my opinion, Ryder will not be around after this season because of his contract situation. If you ask me, Ryder is probably the MOST babied player on this team. He never loses his spot on the first line no matter how he plays.

It has become more and more evident that Saku is the ultimate key on this team. We folded so quickly when we lost him last year. ANYBODY can produce with Saku on their line, that much is clear, but why does Ryder get to stay there so long? Personally if I was Carbo, I would put Kovalev with Saku to get him going. And I think Ryder has some very good trade value because he's still inexpensive this year. I like Ryder as a person, he seems like a likeable guy, but I think we cater to him way too much.

Cap

Capitano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 09:28 AM
  #89
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habgab View Post
sorry, I confess that I could not write anything in French.

Kovalev's game has not been on for some time, and it is not for want of talent. If Kovalev gave half the effort of Ryder (and Ryder floats a bit too), he would be knocking the mesh out of nets. What do you expect from Ryder that he is not giving? He shoots, scores and hits....that is more dimensional than lots of other players on the team. He is likely good in the dressing room, as someone said above. Last year people criticized him for too many garbage goals, so he does not only have to wait for a perfect pass from a centreman - that might help, but it rarely happens. If Ryder is as useless as you think, why then do you believe he will draw a good (if not great) centreman for Kovalev (who, regardless of who he is, will not "fix" Kovalev and will only then be blamed like everyone else for Kovalev's own issues)?
I'n not saying is useless, but that he is relatively easy to replace by one of the young kids. We got plenty of players like him on the team and in the system (Perez, Kost, Grab, D'agos, Aubin, Lats etc.)

I said earlier that I believe he breaks to much plays by shooting instead of passing to is linemates or back to the point (He's not as bad as Dagenais was, someone I always dislike contrary to some, but the parallel was good because people were saying that he was a goal scorer and that you can't get rid of that...17goals in 50 games...looks a lot like a "30-goals-scorer"). He still has to many "brain cramps" in his zone, but I admit that he has become a much better defensive player this year (better than Lats), but he was so bad last year that we can't say it has become a strenght.

Basically, I really don't believe is useless (Murray is), but that, because he's going to get a raise next year, that is style of play isn't the best available, that we got plenty of young players that need time to develop who could replace him correctly and that, I believe, he has good value on the market, he should be traded if the opportunity is there...of course, when I said a good or great centerman, I meant in a package deal involving him...

MTL-rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 10:01 AM
  #90
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
I'n not saying is useless, but that he is relatively easy to replace by one of the young kids. We got plenty of players like him on the team and in the system (Perez, Kost, Grab, D'agos, Aubin, Lats etc.)

.
I still believ that's the fundamental error that armchair analysts [like myself] make when evaluating talent/need. Goals are the most important thing, and they aren't easy to replace. Ryder has done it, the others are speculation.


Solr, I agree and I've posted before that the team has done a good job of accumulating young talent over the last 5 years. We see who contributes,who doesn't etc. I've always maintained that the team at some point needs a better 'best' player. My preference is a C, like yours, but I'm not willing to be less competitive this year or next to get there. We've been in this mode long enough. If a ufa opportunity presents itself, if a team looking to re-build wants to walk away from a contract and we're in a position to take it on, fine. I don't see sacrificing a year in any way though. They're farther along than that.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 10:37 AM
  #91
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I still believ that's the fundamental error that armchair analysts [like myself] make when evaluating talent/need. Goals are the most important thing, and they aren't easy to replace. Ryder has done it, the others are speculation.
I think it's obvious that we won't be able to reach a consensus and that's fine as long as we keep respect for each other...

I'll just say that I believe that scoring goals is the most important thing as a team, but individualy, I believe that a player who creates more scoring chances (either by scoring goals or setting them up) is more important to a team...would you say that Ryder is a better player than Koivu, of course not, is Cheechoo better than Forsberg...It's sure that it's preferable to have a complete player who can score, pass, hit, perform under pressure, etc. but to say that a passer is less important than a scorer, I have to disagree.

MTL-rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 11:47 AM
  #92
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
I think it's obvious that we won't be able to reach a consensus and that's fine as long as we keep respect for each other...

I'll just say that I believe that scoring goals is the most important thing as a team, but individualy, I believe that a player who creates more scoring chances (either by scoring goals or setting them up) is more important to a team...would you say that Ryder is a better player than Koivu, of course not, is Cheechoo better than Forsberg...It's sure that it's preferable to have a complete player who can score, pass, hit, perform under pressure, etc. but to say that a passer is less important than a scorer, I have to disagree.
No, I agree with you. One of the many reasons I keep posting is that the makeup of teams is interesting to me. You need a lot of different qualities and few players posess all of them. Serge Savard spoke about teams and roles quite well last Satyrday I thought.

If I'm drafting, I take Koivu before Ryder, Thornton before Cheechoo and down the line if you look at setup man/shooter. I'm not sure it means I like the playmaker more, but it seems that the more complete players play C. I believe the team needs more players that don't have a 'but' after their scouting report, a complete package. I'm not sure which way to get 'the guy' is best, that's all.

Discussing Ryder as an asset is valid, that's what we're doing. Posters must respect the player if they feel he can get a good return. Dismissing him as just a guy who can shoot but doesn't really do much gets tiresome . Note that we're having a civil exchange on something that we disagree on, nice for a change isn't it ?

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 12:03 PM
  #93
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
Solr, I agree and I've posted before that the team has done a good job of accumulating young talent over the last 5 years. We see who contributes,who doesn't etc. I've always maintained that the team at some point needs a better 'best' player. My preference is a C, like yours, but I'm not willing to be less competitive this year or next to get there. We've been in this mode long enough. If a ufa opportunity presents itself, if a team looking to re-build wants to walk away from a contract and we're in a position to take it on, fine. I don't see sacrificing a year in any way though. They're farther along than that.
More than fair enough. Ive just been searching for an actual "solution-player" across the league and it's of course either a bit too young or a bit too pricey, in my opinion it would be preferable to go young and let that center fit in with the rest of our new(american I might add) core that will be the habs of 2009+

I want to win now as well, but, that being said, I prefer being a realist and taking one extra step back to make 10 steps forward after. We have been "trying" this core for like 3-4 years now, and honestly they didnt show anything special.

The reasons are multiples:

1) An over-reliance on injury prone players
2) An over-reliance on streaky players
3) In the past: a lack of unity in the dressing room.(FIXED! OMG)

Of course conspiracy theorist are already having a lot of fun guessing about the famous Crosby free agency in 5-6 years.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 12:06 PM
  #94
Dynasty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
...He still has to many "brain cramps" in his zone, but I admit that he has become a much better defensive player this year (better than Lats), but he was so bad last year that we can't say it has become a strenght....
Why are you still stuck in the past when it comes to Ryder?? Ryder's deficient defensive play last year has been more than adequately explained by his injury which nagged him all last year. Alot of players would never have even played. But Ryder chose to play through all the pain and suffering and consequently play a very important role in getting his team in the playoffs, by scoring 30 goals. Why do you choose to selectively ignore this? Why can't you see the positives instead? For example, his positive never say die attitude, his work ethic, and his commitment and dedication to the team. Apparently none of these things mean anything to you. why do you think he's so well liked in the dressing? Because his team mates are aware of these things, as well as, his many hockey talents which he brings to the table.

Dynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 12:16 PM
  #95
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
The reasons are multiples:

1) An over-reliance on injury prone players
2) An over-reliance on streaky players
3) In the past: a lack of unity in the dressing room.(FIXED! OMG)

Of course conspiracy theorist are already having a lot of fun guessing about the famous Crosby free agency in 5-6 years.
One thing to keep in mind and we never really say it out loud is that the key things about the team's 2 offensive investments, the 2 K's, said yes to the $. No one else has said yes. Overpaid a touch, ok, yeah, but at least they're here.

I believe Gainey wants the big guy too, if the Bertuzzi rumours last year are to be believed. Right now, I just don't see a good fit for a name player in terms of reciprocal needs. Might just be my lack of imagination, but sometimes on a team there's something to be said for continuity.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 04:43 PM
  #96
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty View Post
Why are you still stuck in the past when it comes to Ryder?? Ryder's deficient defensive play last year has been more than adequately explained by his injury which nagged him all last year. Alot of players would never have even played. But Ryder chose to play through all the pain and suffering and consequently play a very important role in getting his team in the playoffs, by scoring 30 goals. Why do you choose to selectively ignore this? Why can't you see the positives instead? For example, his positive never say die attitude, his work ethic, and his commitment and dedication to the team. Apparently none of these things mean anything to you. why do you think he's so well liked in the dressing? Because his team mates are aware of these things, as well as, his many hockey talents which he brings to the table.
I'm not "stuck in the past" with Ryder, it was just a way to say that he did improve (I think that proves, I'm fair with the guy) but was far from being a good defensive forward.

All the qualities you named could be said of Perezhogin, Plekanec and Latendresse. Actually most of the young players I named earlier except maybe for Kostitsyn. So as I said, and will still say, it's not too much because is not a good player, but because he's not good enough to be a keeper. He's surely not as bad as Dagenais but he makes me think of Brian Savage who was a "goal scorer" but after he was traded, people kind of realize he was maybe not as good as they thought.

And no I'm not Jacques Demers, mr. positive attitude, I do agree he has talent but, younger, cheaper and as good if not better options are available.

MTL-rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2006, 07:36 PM
  #97
habsfan44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTL-rules View Post
I'm not "stuck in the past" with Ryder, it was just a way to say that he did improve (I think that proves, I'm fair with the guy) but was far from being a good defensive forward.

All the qualities you named could be said of Perezhogin, Plekanec and Latendresse. Actually most of the young players I named earlier except maybe for Kostitsyn. So as I said, and will still say, it's not too much because is not a good player, but because he's not good enough to be a keeper. He's surely not as bad as Dagenais but he makes me think of Brian Savage who was a "goal scorer" but after he was traded, people kind of realize he was maybe not as good as they thought.

And no I'm not Jacques Demers, mr. positive attitude, I do agree he has talent but, younger, cheaper and as good if not better options are available.
the problem with the second line is not ryder , the problem is kovalev , he gets paid the big bucks , he has the size , the strength , the skills and the experience to make this line dangerous , sadly he just doesn't have the heart and desire . bottom line is ; if kovalev came to play every night the way that we know kovalev is capable of playing then there would be no talk of getting a second line center . kovalev should be the guy that makes this line go , trading for a player in the hope that he can be the one to get kovalev going seems to be convoluted thinking and would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction imo .

habsfan44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2006, 02:59 AM
  #98
LesHabsRock
Registered User
 
LesHabsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
No, I agree with you. One of the many reasons I keep posting is that the makeup of teams is interesting to me. You need a lot of different qualities and few players posess all of them. Serge Savard spoke about teams and roles quite well last Satyrday I thought.

If I'm drafting, I take Koivu before Ryder, Thornton before Cheechoo and down the line if you look at setup man/shooter. I'm not sure it means I like the playmaker more, but it seems that the more complete players play C. I believe the team needs more players that don't have a 'but' after their scouting report, a complete package. I'm not sure which way to get 'the guy' is best, that's all.

Discussing Ryder as an asset is valid, that's what we're doing. Posters must respect the player if they feel he can get a good return. Dismissing him as just a guy who can shoot but doesn't really do much gets tiresome . Note that we're having a civil exchange on something that we disagree on, nice for a change isn't it ?

McPhee, I'll have to agree with your assessment on Ryder, in that, he is more valuable to Montreal right now than a player with "potential".

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how Ryder has done it, he is a 30 goal scorer and has proven it. How many players on this team in recent history have done it? Zednik did it once, but Ryder's progress made Zednik expendable. Can Chris Higgins make Ryder expendable? That's the question. Higgins has the potential to be that 30 goal man and then some. Until that happens Ryder is a proven 25-30 goal scorer which Montreal doesn't have right now. Ryder has 5 goals in 20 games. At that pace he'll score 20 goals. Let's say Ryder scores 8 more goals in the next 20 games. Now, you can say he's closer to the 30 goal mark.

To trade Ryder and "hope" that Perezhogin, Kostisyn and the likes can score 25-30 goals is not what we want to do at this time. Ryder is a finisher and when game number 82 passes by I'm certain you'll see Ryder with 25-30 goals once again.

I mentioned in a previous thread that Ryder has shown progress this year in his speed and skating. I also mentioned Carboneau using him on the PK which was unheard of before. You can't teach defense, but you can teach offense. Who better to help Ryder with his defensive game than Carbonneua, Muller and Jarvis. And Ryder isn't that bad in that regard anyways.


Last edited by LesHabsRock: 11-23-2006 at 03:02 PM.
LesHabsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2006, 03:03 AM
  #99
LesHabsRock
Registered User
 
LesHabsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfan44 View Post
the problem with the second line is not ryder , the problem is kovalev , he gets paid the big bucks , he has the size , the strength , the skills and the experience to make this line dangerous , sadly he just doesn't have the heart and desire . bottom line is ; if kovalev came to play every night the way that we know kovalev is capable of playing then there would be no talk of getting a second line center . kovalev should be the guy that makes this line go , trading for a player in the hope that he can be the one to get kovalev going seems to be convoluted thinking and would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction imo .
To be fair to Kovalev he is playing hurt. His knee is really bothering him. You can see it in the way he skates. Kovalev isn't a problem, rather chemistry on that line is. Ryder doesn't play on the second line, so you're right in saying he isn't the problem with the second line

LesHabsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2006, 03:42 AM
  #100
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,231
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, Higgins will be returning, at which point Ryder's production will be replaced.

Fish on The Sand 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 07:18 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.