Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Michael Ryder


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do recall reading Gainey did offer a contract of similar size and length as the Leafs' dito.

Really? :ph34r: Statement withdrawn.

Correct. Of the cohort of UFA's that year, Gainey offered contracts to two players: Komisarek and Kovalev, the latter of which was quickly withdrawn after we signed Brian Gionta instead. In the case of Komisarek, Gainey reportedly offered him about 4M a season (compared to 4.5M per season from the Leafs) on a deal of similar term. Not quite as bad as the Leafs, but pretty close. In Gainey's defence, I think just about everyone I know and everyone in the media wanted to retain Komisarek AT THAT TIME, myself included. On the one hand, it was clearly a good thing we didn't end up signing him, but that is a fact that only became apparent later on. Komisarek may not have been worth a multi-million dollar deal, but he still had value at that time and was playing on our first pairing. On the other hand, no one knows whether Komisarek would have maintained his degree of success had he stayed here and continued playing with Markov instead of heading down the 401.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Of the cohort of UFA's that year, Gainey offered contracts to two players: Komisarek and Kovalev, the latter of which was quickly withdrawn after we signed Brian Gionta instead. In the case of Komisarek, Gainey reportedly offered him about 4M a season (compared to 4.5M per season from the Leafs) on a deal of similar term. Not quite as bad as the Leafs, but pretty close. In Gainey's defence, I think just about everyone I know and everyone in the media wanted to retain Komisarek AT THAT TIME, myself included. On the one hand, it was clearly a good thing we didn't end up signing him, but that is a fact that only became apparent later on. Komisarek may not have been worth a multi-million dollar deal, but he still had value at that time and was playing on our first pairing. On the other hand, no one knows whether Komisarek would have maintained his degree of success had he stayed here and continued playing with Markov instead of heading down the 401.

He would have been exposed because the Habs did not have Markov. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Of the cohort of UFA's that year, Gainey offered contracts to two players: Komisarek and Kovalev, the latter of which was quickly withdrawn after we signed Brian Gionta instead. In the case of Komisarek, Gainey reportedly offered him about 4M a season (compared to 4.5M per season from the Leafs) on a deal of similar term. Not quite as bad as the Leafs, but pretty close. In Gainey's defence, I think just about everyone I know and everyone in the media wanted to retain Komisarek AT THAT TIME, myself included. On the one hand, it was clearly a good thing we didn't end up signing him, but that is a fact that only became apparent later on. Komisarek may not have been worth a multi-million dollar deal, but he still had value at that time and was playing on our first pairing. On the other hand, no one knows whether Komisarek would have maintained his degree of success had he stayed here and continued playing with Markov instead of heading down the 401.

Well, as HHN pointed out, he'd have been exposed, because we ourselves didn't have Markov for most of the last three years. But yes, I too wanted to re-sign Komisarek then. That's one contract I'm very glad Gainey walked away from.

As for Ryder, I think we have to see how this season shakes out before we talk about re-signing him. He's not a core piece; no need to rush into a contract when our needs could change based on trades Bergevin makes this summer. The term would have to be quite short for me to feel good about bringing Ryder back, frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think the biggest thing about Ryder is that the UFA crop seems to be getting pretty thin, so I think we'll probably get outbid on Ryder unless we're willing to go 3+ years (which I really don't want to do). Ideally Kristo can step in and play in the top 9, we've already got Gionta and Gallagher as top 9 RWers and if Kristo can play on the 3rd line we're set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any team that wants Ryder for three or more years can have him TBH.

Bingo. Great if we can get him on a reasonable deal to try and get 1-2 years out of him the way we did with Cole. On a longer-term deal, you have to weigh out whatever he gives you in the next 2 years against what could easily be very unproductive seasons from a player who's already not very fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo. Great if we can get him on a reasonable deal to try and get 1-2 years out of him the way we did with Cole. On a longer-term deal, you have to weigh out whatever he gives you in the next 2 years against what could easily be very unproductive seasons from a player who's already not very fast.

It's hard to imagine that will be possible. He's having an excellent year (which follows up an incredible season last year), and the way things are shaping up he'll be one of if not the premier offensive UFA available, especially now that Perry and most recently Semin have been extended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to imagine that will be possible. He's having an excellent year (which follows up an incredible season last year), and the way things are shaping up he'll be one of if not the premier offensive UFA available, especially now that Perry and most recently Semin have been extended.

I agree, I've queried the same thing myself in the past. Someone somewhere is going to offer Ryder 3 years or 4 years or maybe a tad more. And if all we come at him with is 2 years, then the chances are that at his age, he'll take the contract that guarantees him the money he may not get if he signs short-term deals only. That's one of the problems with the current CBA: if teams want to sign a UFA for their 28-32 peak years, often times they have to pay out for the years they don't want afterwards. And so long as contracts are guaranteed and players can no longer be cut or taken off the cap by demoting them, it doesn't make a ton of sense to invest in mediocre players on long-term deals. If teams want to be successful, they need to draft well and they need to lock up their star players early on because it's the best chances you have of getting guys on reasonable long-term deals through their peak years. It's a reason I would advocate signing Subban and Pacman and Price and Eller and Emelin long-term now and why I'd pass on a guy like Ryder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I've queried the same thing myself in the past. Someone somewhere is going to offer Ryder 3 years or 4 years or maybe a tad more. And if all we come at him with is 2 years, then the chances are that at his age, he'll take the contract that guarantees him the money he may not get if he signs short-term deals only. That's one of the problems with the current CBA: if teams want to sign a UFA for their 28-32 peak years, often times they have to pay out for the years they don't want afterwards. And so long as contracts are guaranteed and players can no longer be cut or taken off the cap by demoting them, it doesn't make a ton of sense to invest in mediocre players on long-term deals. If teams want to be successful, they need to draft well and they need to lock up their star players early on because it's the best chances you have of getting guys on reasonable long-term deals through their peak years. It's a reason I would advocate signing Subban and Pacman and Price and Eller and Emelin long-term now and why I'd pass on a guy like Ryder.

I'm not so sure Ted,,,,,,IMO,,,,I would like to see him signed for 2 years at a "slight" increase ($250,000 to $500,000). i don't think he will decline for 2 years. He "is" good at his position. and compliments his linemates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure Ted,,,,,,IMO,,,,I would like to see him signed for 2 years at a "slight" increase ($250,000 to $500,000). i don't think he will decline for 2 years. He "is" good at his position. and compliments his linemates.

But again, if you're Ryder and you are offered 3.8M per season for 2 years to play in Montreal or 3.8M per season for 4 years to play elsewhere, which would you pick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I've queried the same thing myself in the past. Someone somewhere is going to offer Ryder 3 years or 4 years or maybe a tad more. And if all we come at him with is 2 years, then the chances are that at his age, he'll take the contract that guarantees him the money he may not get if he signs short-term deals only.

Agreed. Only way I can see Ryder back here next year is if we somehow pull a rabbit out of our hat & win the cup this year & he wants to resign for a 2 year deal with that history. I am almost certain someone will offer him 3 - 4 years and: a ) I don't think he's worth locking up that long and b ) I don't think he's a good long-term fit for this team (with several young players who will be needing his ice time in 1 - 2 years.

It was still a great move to get out from under cole's contract, but as well as he's played for us, I suspect its for a limited time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Only way I can see Ryder back here next year is if we somehow pull a rabbit out of our hat & win the cup this year & he wants to resign for a 2 year deal with that history. I am almost certain someone will offer him 3 - 4 years and: a ) I don't think he's worth locking up that long and b ) I don't think he's a good long-term fit for this team (with several young players who will be needing his ice time in 1 - 2 years.

It was still a great move to get out from under cole's contract, but as well as he's played for us, I suspect its for a limited time.

Great points jed and everyone above also talking about Ryder's UFA situation next year.

Was a great trade with Dallas, and Ryder has and probably will continue to play above his expected abilty, but at 33 years of age in just six days, at what price? Probably not a realistic price for Montreal, and rightfully so. Money should be saved for cap space and towards the thought of staying younger.

At 1 year , 3.2 million maybe it is a realistic possibility but some other team desperate for scoring will probably offer more. Michael will probably want to try and finish his career on a 3-4 year contract term somewhere to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But again, if you're Ryder and you are offered 3.8M per season for 2 years to play in Montreal or 3.8M per season for 4 years to play elsewhere, which would you pick?

i posted this shortly after you posted your reply,,,,,,but I see it's gone now (surprise,,,,surprise :rolleyes: ). so here it is. Boards screwing up again,, <_<

"Good point, Ted."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd try to re-sign him, maybe 2 years at 4M or 4.25 million. We have no one in the system capable of replacing him next year and the UFA forward group looks pretty poor after Getzlaf, Perry and Semin re-upped with their current teams. Horton is very interesting but you have to wonder if his concussion is still affecting him, he doesn't seem to be the same after the Rome hit. Clowe is another interesting option but he has never cracked the 25-goal mark in his entire career and he'll certainly command about the same UFA money as Ryder. Aside from those three, there really isn't much out there in terms of UFA forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd try to re-sign him, maybe 2 years at 4M or 4.25 million. We have no one in the system capable of replacing him next year and the UFA forward group looks pretty poor after Getzlaf, Perry and Semin re-upped with their current teams. Horton is very interesting but you have to wonder if his concussion is still affecting him, he doesn't seem to be the same after the Rome hit. Clowe is another interesting option but he has never cracked the 25-goal mark in his entire career and he'll certainly command about the same UFA money as Ryder. Aside from those three, there really isn't much out there in terms of UFA forwards.

It's a good point, and while I originally wanted to wait until July 1st to see what else was available, given the elite talent has already been re-signed I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to try to extend him for 2 years now. It might be possible. If he gets to July 1, that isn't going to happen IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play devil's advocate here, at this time last year, we probably would have agreed that we had no one in the system capable of doing what Gallagher is doing right now. ;)

Also, don't forget that Bergevin can make trades, as well as sign UFAs, this summer. In fact, the very trade that put Ryder back on our roster was one that not many of us saw coming.

I'm really not one for signing players because the UFA market is weak. I'd go two years max on Ryder if the cap hit is reasonable. If he wants more term or dollar, I thank him for his services and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play devil's advocate here, at this time last year, we probably would have agreed that we had no one in the system capable of doing what Gallagher is doing right now. ;)

Also, don't forget that Bergevin can make trades, as well as sign UFAs, this summer. In fact, the very trade that put Ryder back on our roster was one that not many of us saw coming.

I'm really not one for signing players because the UFA market is weak. I'd go two years max on Ryder if the cap hit is reasonable. If he wants more term or dollar, I thank him for his services and move on.

I absolutely agree with you in terms of the deal itself: I wouldn't sign him to a long deal and I wouldn't sign him to an unreasonably large amount of money. I do see some wisdom, though, in making that deal now (if Ryder was interested) rather than waiting for the free agency period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with you in terms of the deal itself: I wouldn't sign him to a long deal and I wouldn't sign him to an unreasonably large amount of money. I do see some wisdom, though, in making that deal now (if Ryder was interested) rather than waiting for the free agency period.

I'm kind of torn, though. I can see your point, in terms of making a deal before the potential free agent has time to think about the absolute top dollar he could command on the UFA market. On the other hand, is Ryder worth it? To me, not really. He's a useful secondary scoring piece, but at his age and his skill set, he's not someone you'd be devastated to lose, even if you offered him a contract in the summer and he turned it down. To me, you lock up core pieces during a season: your Prices, Paciorettys, Subbans, Plekanecs, etc. You don't do that with non-core pieces unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. our question marks at center which may have prompted Bergevin to re-up Desharnais now rather than later). Right now, we have four top-six wingers ahead of Ryder on the depth chart: Gallagher, Gionta, Pacioretty, and (health issues notwithstanding) Bourque. Why would we be in such a mad rush to re-sign a third-line 30-something PP specalist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of torn, though. I can see your point, in terms of making a deal before the potential free agent has time to think about the absolute top dollar he could command on the UFA market. On the other hand, is Ryder worth it? To me, not really. He's a useful secondary scoring piece, but at his age and his skill set, he's not someone you'd be devastated to lose, even if you offered him a contract in the summer and he turned it down. To me, you lock up core pieces during a season: your Prices, Paciorettys, Subbans, Plekanecs, etc. You don't do that with non-core pieces unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. our question marks at center which may have prompted Bergevin to re-up Desharnais now rather than later). Right now, we have four top-six wingers ahead of Ryder on the depth chart: Gallagher, Gionta, Pacioretty, and (health issues notwithstanding) Bourque. Why would we be in such a mad rush to re-sign a third-line 30-something PP specalist?

I agee in principal with most of what you said, but I don't know that's it quite as cut and dry as you make it sound, particularly in that bolded paragraph. Before going any further, I'm going to pull out Patches from what I'm about to say below. He is better than Ryder in pretty much every way and will be for the rest of his career. He's proven that IMO and I don't think there's anyone who is going to dispute that. Now, moving on:

Of the remaining 3 players 'ahead' of 32 year old Ryder on the depth chart one is a rookie (albeit one of my favourites), another is a 34 year old entering the final year of his contract, and the last one is a 31 year old who we all wanted to buy out before this season and who is out with a concussion with no sign of returning. And Ryder has out-produced all three offensively, both this year and last year.

Now I'm not saying I really want the guy back or anything, especially if we're talking long-term and big dollars, and most likely the best move will be to let him walk. But I wouldn't outrigth dismiss the idea of re-signing him either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agee in principal with most of what you said, but I don't know that's it quite as cut and dry as you make it sound, particularly in that bolded paragraph. Before going any further, I'm going to pull out Patches from what I'm about to say below. He is better than Ryder in pretty much every way and will be for the rest of his career. He's proven that IMO and I don't think there's anyone who is going to dispute that. Now, moving on:

Of the remaining 3 players 'ahead' of 32 year old Ryder on the depth chart one is a rookie (albeit one of my favourites), another is a 34 year old entering the final year of his contract, and the last one is a 31 year old who we all wanted to buy out before this season and who is out with a concussion with no sign of returning. And Ryder has out-produced all three offensively, both this year and last year.

Now I'm not saying I really want the guy back or anything, especially if we're talking long-term and big dollars, and most likely the best move will be to let him walk. But I wouldn't outrigth dismiss the idea of re-signing him either.

But the goal isn't to assess his absolute value relative to other players: it's to assess his value relative to other players who are already under contract. We've got three more years of Bourque, one more year of Gionta (who's also a better all-around player), and Gallagher on a cheap ELC. Why add another contract for an aging PP specialist who can't skate particularly well and whose main attribute is his shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's also factor in the possibility of Kristo making the team out of camp next year. It's still a huge question mark, but many scouts and media members think he can make the jump directly the way Justin Schultz has. If you can get Kristo on an ELC and don't need to concern yourself with the term on a potential Ryder deal, maybe you take the chance Kristo can perform. At most he'd be asked to play on a third line next year (behind Gionta and Gallagher), and if he doesn't look ready to make the jump, maybe Leblanc is able to play a third-line role or maybe you find a UFA who's willing to sign a 1-year deal to bridge the gap. I still believe there are options other than Ryder. He's an option on a short-term deal, but he's not really a great option on a long-term deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of torn, though. I can see your point, in terms of making a deal before the potential free agent has time to think about the absolute top dollar he could command on the UFA market. On the other hand, is Ryder worth it? To me, not really. He's a useful secondary scoring piece, but at his age and his skill set, he's not someone you'd be devastated to lose, even if you offered him a contract in the summer and he turned it down. To me, you lock up core pieces during a season: your Prices, Paciorettys, Subbans, Plekanecs, etc. You don't do that with non-core pieces unless there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. our question marks at center which may have prompted Bergevin to re-up Desharnais now rather than later). Right now, we have four top-six wingers ahead of Ryder on the depth chart: Gallagher, Gionta, Pacioretty, and (health issues notwithstanding) Bourque. Why would we be in such a mad rush to re-sign a third-line 30-something PP specalist?

I guess the main reason I would lock him up now (again, still assuming that we could get a reasonable contract) is that I think our team really does have a need for a third-line PP specialist. Ryder and Patches are tops on our team in scoring right now with 25 points. That's good for something like 48th in the league. And it's not like we're an offensive bottom-dweller, either - the RDS telecast last night mentioned that we're something like 4th in the league in goals per game.

In a way we are a team that is almost entirely made up of secondary scoring, it's just that we have enough players involved in that secondary scoring that we can get it done by comittee. In some respects that's a good thing - the opposition isn't able to shut down our offense by locking down a few guys. But at the same time the coach doesn't have as much in the way of clear cut 'go-to' offensive guys that he can throw out late in the game if we're down by a goal. Ryder's not going to pull a Kovalev and put the whole team on his back, but he is an offensive-minded guy that you can throw out a lot when you really need a goal. It's great to have balanced players for the most part, but in some situations you really want to have people that can just get it done offensively, balance be damned. Ryder brings that, especially on the PP. I'm not saying we don't have anyone else (Patches comes to mind, maybe Gallagher to a lesser extent) but I don't think you can discount what a shot like Ryder's brings to the team.

Alternatively you can just look at it this way: the guy's been almost a point per game since he got here, and he's had that many chances and more that have just missed (three off the post last night alone). If you can get someone like that for 2 years in the $4M range I don't think you can pass that up, core player or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...