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

Michael Ryder


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

To me it's really dependent on what he wants. Ryder has a skillset I'd argue we need more than size and defensive forwards, he's really our only legit finisher right now and we have had a serious lack of that kind of skill since Cammalleri and Kostitsyn got traded. There needs to be a mix and we will need a sniper next year, and there's nobody in the system that can replace Ryder in that role as of now (unless Kristo comes up and is really impressive or Galchenyuk has a breakout year). Without Ryder we don't have a big threat up front for a shot, Pacioretty can shoot but nobody can replace that sniping ability Ryder has. However, he's not good enough to throw more than 3 years at him. I'd argue that if Bourque can come back like he did at the start of the year, Cole's physicality has been replaced and I don't think we're lacking two way forwards. On a line with Plekanec and Gionta Ryder's defensive skills are nearly irrelevant IMO.

Size and a physical presence was a real issue after Prust went down. You're right, he's our only finisher right now. He's in a contract year and putting up the points. If we can't find anyone else, I'd give him a year or 2 max, put the ball in his court.

i had the same concerns when we picked up cammy, never doubted his skillset, but wondered why 2 teams let him go after putting up the points. We finally realized why the flames and kings let him, he has a bit of an attitude and can refuse to play if he isn't happy. Ryder was a similar type player his first time around.

In Ryder's defense, he's older and hopefully wiser. After being let go by the 3rd team he's ever played with, maybe it's starting to sink in. You can put up the points, but if there are locker room issues, teams aren't going to keep you. Really wonder why the stars would let him go when he was so hot, specially for a guy who's struggling (Cole). Can argue Dallas wanted something in return instead of letting him walk at the end of the season. Still, they could've waited until the deadline to try and start a bidding war with other teams.

Can't complain about him this season, one of the best trades of the season and he's putting up the points.

Let's ride this wave as long as we can.

Btw, Ryder doesn't really have defensive skills, he's an offensive player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Size and a physical presence was a real issue after Prust went down. You're right, he's our only finisher right now. He's in a contract year and putting up the points. If we can't find anyone else, I'd give him a year or 2 max, put the ball in his court.

i had the same concerns when we picked up cammy, never doubted his skillset, but wondered why 2 teams let him go after putting up the points. We finally realized why the flames and kings let him, he has a bit of an attitude and can refuse to play if he isn't happy. Ryder was a similar type player his first time around.

In Ryder's defense, he's older and hopefully wiser. After being let go by the 3rd team he's ever played with, maybe it's starting to sink in. You can put up the points, but if there are locker room issues, teams aren't going to keep you. Really wonder why the stars would let him go when he was so hot, specially for a guy who's struggling (Cole). Can argue Dallas wanted something in return instead of letting him walk at the end of the season. Still, they could've waited until the deadline to try and start a bidding war with other teams.

Can't complain about him this season, one of the best trades of the season and he's putting up the points.

Let's ride this wave as long as we can.

Btw, Ryder doesn't really have defensive skills, he's an offensive player.

I agree that phyicality was an issue without Prust, but that was hard to foresee and I don't think it was bad enough that we had a ton of trouble (after all we won 5 of 8 games when Prust was out), but an extended absence of both Prust and Bourque is a problem. I think there'll be something done in the off season to add some more physicality to the top 9, but I think it's a fine line and I think we're at the point where adding players strictly for physicality is a bad idea.

I think the thing with Ryder's multiple teams is he's just been caught in some bad situations, we all know about how his last year here went, and in Boston it was just a numbers game. Lucic needed a new deal, Horton was brought in to be the saviour, Seguin has a pretty big cap hit, there just wasn't any way for Boston to compete with what other teams could offer as a UFA. As for Dallas, I think the biggest thing is that they didn't have many forwards signed after this year and I think Niewendyk was looking to avoid a shopping spree this summer like we had with Gomez-Gio-Cammalleri-Spacek, etc etc. That, and Cole was added to bring some physicality to a Dallas team that was sorely lacking it. I don't necessarily see anything that's happened as being an issue with his game or him in the locker room, just the realities of the salary cap NHL for non-core players. Guys like Ryder aren't who you build around, they're great complimentary pieces, but when the Bruins are choosing between extending core guys and Ryder, Ryder's the odd man out.

The defensive skills thing was more about his lack of it. His lack of defensive skills doesn't matter much when he's on a line with Plekanec and Gionta who are about as good as it gets from a top 6 forward (Pleks is as good as you get period).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I want him around next season though. He's a one dimensional player, he's not physical, not defensive, he's strictly a goal scorer. My issue with Ryder isn't his skill, the guy has had a fairly consistent career goal wise. But i have to wonder when he's been released from every team he's ever played for. Some could say it's cap related or the team going in a different dirrection. Despite being a fairly consistent scorer, he left Montreal on bad terms, left boston after winning the cup and the team that picked him up (stars), traded him. First time he's been traded, but has trouble finding one team to settle down with.

I guess I don't see why playing with 3 teams over 10 year career is a bad thing. I think the fact that his popularity fell before he left here, he won a Cup with Boston and they decided he was the odd man out for who they wanted to keep, and the Stars trading him for a forward that will actually have a contract next year is an indication of a player having trouble. Jagr has played with his 6th team, and 3rd in 3 years, but I don't think anyone would argue Jagr has problems. With the cap the way it is, teams really only choose 3 or 4 players that stay for most of their career. Long-term 2nd-line players are becoming a thing of the past, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that we don't see a lot of Ryders defence,but I remember when Timmy went down and Ryder stopped our goal in the net,it was a great save,Ithink it was Cammy that shot it,it was a beauty of a shot TT was on his backside and could never have stopped it but Ryder did.He does seem to have been a little better last couple of games though.

GO RYDER GO :lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole had a super season last year, but this year, he became expendable. Ryder is now in the age bracket where even talented, reliable players start to fall off. If I'm Bergevin, I don't budge on any contract term longer than two years with Ryder. Let's not sign another contract that has a high likelihood of becoming an albatross. Player evaluation shouldn't be driven solely by what the player is doing now, but what you think he'll be likely to do over the life of his next contract. This is why Bergevin got rid of Cole -- as great as Cole was in 2011-12, he wasn't producing this year and was likely to continue declining in the final two years of his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole had a super season last year, but this year, he became expendable. Ryder is now in the age bracket where even talented, reliable players start to fall off. If I'm Bergevin, I don't budge on any contract term longer than two years with Ryder. Let's not sign another contract that has a high likelihood of becoming an albatross. Player evaluation shouldn't be driven solely by what the player is doing now, but what you think he'll be likely to do over the life of his next contract. This is why Bergevin got rid of Cole -- as great as Cole was in 2011-12, he wasn't producing this year and was likely to continue declining in the final two years of his contract.

I agree. Although when I look at Ryder's body of work and the skill set he relies on to produce, I find it likely he'll be able to keep scoring for at least the next 2-3 years and beyond. What I mean by skill set: is he scores most of his goals by having a great shot, good hand eye for deflections and a knack for finding dead ice and sweet spots around the net. He doesn't rely on speed or amazing skating, physicality, power etc. The physical attributes he relies on to score are a lot less likely to deteriorate IMO.

I'd like to see him back either on a 2 year term with fair value dollars (which means a raise), or a 3 year term with discounted dollars. Anything more is getting a little risky for my taste and anything less is a pipe dream IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Although when I look at Ryder's body of work and the skill set he relies on to produce, I find it likely he'll be able to keep scoring for at least the next 2-3 years and beyond. What I mean by skill set: is he scores most of his goals by having a great shot, good hand eye for deflections and a knack for finding dead ice and sweet spots around the net. He doesn't rely on speed or amazing skating, physicality, power etc. The physical attributes he relies on to score are a lot less likely to deteriorate IMO.

I'd like to see him back either on a 2 year term with fair value dollars (which means a raise), or a 3 year term with discounted dollars. Anything more is getting a little risky for my taste and anything less is a pipe dream IMHO.

Good points, Bean (gah, I HATE giving my nemesis credit! :P ). Ryder's skill set has a longer shelf life than a power forward like Cole, though I would still maintain that losing a half-step is an issue for any forward, regardless of whether he's a power forward or a triggerman. You still need to get to those dead ice spots in a timely fashion, and you have to be able to keep up with your linemates on the rush.

Re: your two contract options, I'd definitely go with market value on annual dollars and shorter term. I don't mind paying more against the cap in the short term if it gives us greater flexibility against the cap after two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Bean (gah, I HATE giving my nemesis credit! :P ). Ryder's skill set has a longer shelf life than a power forward like Cole, though I would still maintain that losing a half-step is an issue for any forward, regardless of whether he's a power forward or a triggerman. You still need to get to those dead ice spots in a timely fashion, and you have to be able to keep up with your linemates on the rush.

Re: your two contract options, I'd definitely go with market value on annual dollars and shorter term. I don't mind paying more against the cap in the short term if it gives us greater flexibility against the cap after two years.

That would be my preference as well. Hard to know if either option will even be on the table though. A lot will depend on if Ryder decides he is willing to take less to stay here. Realistically, we're talking about a guy who scored 35 goals last year and is playing at a 35 goal place this year. The free agent market is pretty barren, he should be able to write his ticket and I wouldn't blame him in the slightest if he took a nice long-term deal from the highest bidder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be my preference as well. Hard to know if either option will even be on the table though. A lot will depend on if Ryder decides he is willing to take less to stay here. Realistically, we're talking about a guy who scored 35 goals last year and is playing at a 35 goal place this year. The free agent market is pretty barren, he should be able to write his ticket and I wouldn't blame him in the slightest if he took a nice long-term deal from the highest bidder.

Wouldn't blame him either, but if he wants the most money and longest term, we shouldn't be giving it to him IMO. We've got four top-six forwards under contract for multiple years (Bourque, Plekanec, Pacioretty, Desharnais) and guys like Gallagher, Galchenyuk, and even Eller who will eventually need permanent top-six spots. If we don't have Bourque and his three years remaining, I'm probably a lot more inclined to re-sign Ryder, but given that we're stuck with Bourque's contract (since Kaberle is almost certainly compliance buyout fodder), we have to keep some roster spots open and be careful about our cap dollars, particularly sine we'll have to shell out big-time for Subban's next contract, starting in 2014-15 and it would be great to have money to spend on boosting our D with an impact player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing Subban's contract, do keep in mind Markov and Gionta's contracts are up during the same summer. I almost think we'll re sign both players at a lower cap hit, but that's a potential 10.75M that can be put towards PK. I think loking for a two year deal is probably the right thing here, I'd be willing to go into a bidding war and give him a decent payday for 2 years, but getting locked into a 3-4 year deal is not in our best interest (who knows how much we'll need to pay Gallagher and Galchenyuk in 2 years). If we can somehow trade away Kaberle and maybe save abuyout for Bourque in summer 2014, I could go longer term for lower cap hit, but I'd be wary of anything longer than 3 years.

Tough situation, there's a real team need that Ryder fills, but we're a bit hamstrung with some existing contracts and the 10 ton gorilla to our cap that is Subban's next contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When discussing Subban's contract, do keep in mind Markov and Gionta's contracts are up during the same summer. I almost think we'll re sign both players at a lower cap hit, but that's a potential 10.75M that can be put towards PK. I think loking for a two year deal is probably the right thing here, I'd be willing to go into a bidding war and give him a decent payday for 2 years, but getting locked into a 3-4 year deal is not in our best interest (who knows how much we'll need to pay Gallagher and Galchenyuk in 2 years). If we can somehow trade away Kaberle and maybe save abuyout for Bourque in summer 2014, I could go longer term for lower cap hit, but I'd be wary of anything longer than 3 years.

Tough situation, there's a real team need that Ryder fills, but we're a bit hamstrung with some existing contracts and the 10 ton gorilla to our cap that is Subban's next contract.

That's true, but you also have to assume that Bergevin will be using the available cap in the way any GM would -- signing UFAs, making trades, etc. We can't just assume that the cap we clear from Markov and Gionta will be available to us to spend on Ryder without it costing us the opportunity to make the team better in another way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough call concerning the cap, could be one of the reasons MB decided to give PK a bridge contract.

We all know the cap is going down next season, but have no idea where it'll be in a few years. Chances are it'll go back up again, but it could also stay the same.

Ryder is a skilled player, no doubt about that. 2 things kind of bother me about him, he's on the wrong side of 30 (early to mid 30's) and what type of guy is he in the locker room? Despite putting up consistent numbers, he has trouble sticking with one team.

If i were MB, I'd give him a maximum of 2 years and take it from there. We have a few excitting young kids coming up or on the team as rookies. The 2 gally's are maturing, Chuck could break out anytime in the next few seasons and Gallagher could slump next season, totally normal for a youngin. Keeping Ryder around could help if Gallagher has the dreaded sophomore curse.

As impressive as he's been for us, I wouldn't be sad if they let ryder walk this summer and brought in another player via trade or FA in the offseason.

As for Gio, not sure we'll see him around for a contract extension. Markov, if they can work out a fair contract for both sides, I can see him sticking around for a while yet. His defensie game has obviously changed, has some shaky moments in his own end. Offensively though, PP he looks like the old Markov and that's worth some consideration. I don't see MB giving him his 5.75 again, not for a guy who will have reduced minutes (especially with PK breaking out) and playing most of time on the PP (I'm talking after his contract is up).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough call concerning the cap, could be one of the reasons MB decided to give PK a bridge contract.

We all know the cap is going down next season, but have no idea where it'll be in a few years. Chances are it'll go back up again, but it could also stay the same.

Ryder is a skilled player, no doubt about that. 2 things kind of bother me about him, he's on the wrong side of 30 (early to mid 30's) and what type of guy is he in the locker room? Despite putting up consistent numbers, he has trouble sticking with one team.

If i were MB, I'd give him a maximum of 2 years and take it from there. We have a few excitting young kids coming up or on the team as rookies. The 2 gally's are maturing, Chuck could break out anytime in the next few seasons and Gallagher could slump next season, totally normal for a youngin. Keeping Ryder around could help if Gallagher has the dreaded sophomore curse.

As impressive as he's been for us, I wouldn't be sad if they let ryder walk this summer and brought in another player via trade or FA in the offseason.

As for Gio, not sure we'll see him around for a contract extension. Markov, if they can work out a fair contract for both sides, I can see him sticking around for a while yet. His defensie game has obviously changed, has some shaky moments in his own end. Offensively though, PP he looks like the old Markov and that's worth some consideration. I don't see MB giving him his 5.75 again, not for a guy who will have reduced minutes (especially with PK breaking out) and playing most of time on the PP (I'm talking after his contract is up).

It wouldn't surprise me either. Then again, if we're going to bring in a similar player via trade or free agency, it kind of begs the question why not just re-sign the bird in the hand? Not saying we should re-sign him, it's just a very interesting/tricky situation. I can see pros and cons of retaining him or letting him walk.

I think my ideal scenario sees us bring him back on a 2 year deal and I can potentially live with a 3 year deal depending on the $$, but it's hard to imagine him not wanting to test free agency.

Clarkson should be pretty heavily overpaid, and there's really nothing after that I'd want over Ryder. It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. Seeing if Bourque can pick up where he left off may also influence the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on the Ryder trade during the CBC intermission. Main reason for trade seen as Cole having issues with PK and so Ryder was obtained. Clearly shows MB is committed to PK and sends PK a message to get his act together. If he can learn to be a little more humble a la Carey I think PK will be locked up for a long time. As for Ryder he may be playing some of his best hockey in his career and MB will probably sign him if he wants to stay. I like Ryder's skill set as he can play on any of the top three lines and produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on the Ryder trade during the CBC intermission. Main reason for trade seen as Cole having issues with PK and so Ryder was obtained. Clearly shows MB is committed to PK and sends PK a message to get his act together. If he can learn to be a little more humble a la Carey I think PK will be locked up for a long time. As for Ryder he may be playing some of his best hockey in his career and MB will probably sign him if he wants to stay. I like Ryder's skill set as he can play on any of the top three lines and produce.

Frankly, I don't believe any of that. Cole's an aging physical forward who had 6 points this year, was a bit redundant with the addition of Prust and Bourque having a resurgence, and was locked into a 4.5M deal for 2 more years after this one, so we traded him for a PPG sniper (a team need) who is UFA at the end of the season. Don't think there needs to be more speculation than that, and I find it hard to believe that they traded Cole away to appease PK, and I don't really know if I'd agree that PK needed to "get his act together".

The media loves to build narratives, and there were already a few silly comments taken out of proportion from Cole when PK came back, and they already have a guy who is the newly humbled "arrogant" player in Subban, so they can turn it into a juicy narrative. There may or may not have been conflicts between Cole and PK but I find it hard to believe in the face of all the other primarily business reasons to make the trade that it was a big part of the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, but you also have to assume that Bergevin will be using the available cap in the way any GM would -- signing UFAs, making trades, etc. We can't just assume that the cap we clear from Markov and Gionta will be available to us to spend on Ryder without it costing us the opportunity to make the team better in another way.

Noob616 brought up a good point with the two Gally's though (it could apply more generally though): we need to make sure we have some money free in the summer of 2015, as of now we don't have any big contracts expiring that summer. We have a bunch expiring in 2014, but re-siging or replacing those players will likely involve deals longer than 1 year. We aren't getting quality free-agents on 1 year deals. So we could be in a situation where we have to leave 5 million or whatever unspent for 2014-2015 to make sure we have some free money the next summer.

Basically, I'm not too concerned if Ryder takes away money in the summer of 2014 as long as it expires in the summer of 2015 because we need a couple of contracts that expire at that point anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't believe any of that. Cole's an aging physical forward who had 6 points this year, was a bit redundant with the addition of Prust and Bourque having a resurgence, and was locked into a 4.5M deal for 2 more years after this one, so we traded him for a PPG sniper (a team need) who is UFA at the end of the season. Don't think there needs to be more speculation than that, and I find it hard to believe that they traded Cole away to appease PK, and I don't really know if I'd agree that PK needed to "get his act together".

The media loves to build narratives, and there were already a few silly comments taken out of proportion from Cole when PK came back, and they already have a guy who is the newly humbled "arrogant" player in Subban, so they can turn it into a juicy narrative. There may or may not have been conflicts between Cole and PK but I find it hard to believe in the face of all the other primarily business reasons to make the trade that it was a big part of the decision.

i am happy with the trade but this is something we saw with Camalleri too. Personality problems can affect tthe chemistry The trade is an excellent trade either way and I was not implying it was to appease PK, but there is a message. Disgruntled unproductive players , or players not buying into the program will get moved quickly despite their experience. Cole clearly fit the bill in all areas (whether we include PK or not) as he was complaining about the new CBA from the start of the year and was clearly not producing. We appear to be building excellent chemistry and removing some of the "me" for more of the "we." perspective. I think PK will be with the team for a long time and hope Ryder gets a chance to so as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion on the Ryder trade during the CBC intermission. Main reason for trade seen as Cole having issues with PK and so Ryder was obtained.

I'm pretty sure that came from either Healy or Stock, who are both horribly unreliable in my opinion. Tonight, Ron MacLean basically called out Healy for completely misquoting Mike Gillis. I'll always remember on TSN when Heally basically said that Huet had saved Gainey's job, when logically his job didn't seem to be at risk at that point and I didn't hear anything from anywhere else that Gainey was at any risk of being fired: I really don't trust anything he says.

On the other hand ...

Friedman is exceptionally reliable, well-connected, and researches everything well, so if he says something I trust it.

MacLean unfortunately spends too much time as Cherry's punching bag, because when he actually speaks he knows what he's talking about.

Weekes isn't all that insightful and doesn't seem to have much inside knowledge, but at least he doesn't pretend to. He isn't the most informative panel member, but what he says normally seems to at least be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder may be 30+ but he plays the sort of game that does not diminish with the same haste as those who rely on physicality and speed. Ryder is a pure sniper, he has several good years left IMO.

I'd like to see him signed again, two years preferably. But that's as far as I'd go.

2 years works for me

That might be what MB offers him,,,,but at stage of his carreer, he would be thinking long term, and he would know his value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryder just signed a two year deal for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. So, I feel like there's the potential to sign him to a two year deal this summer. However, after the successes he has had last year and this year I think you would have to improve on the $3.5 million cap hit.

Maybe 4.5 for two years? I think he would take that over a longer term with less dollars, even if it is higher than ideal.

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...