Howie Hodge
Zombie Woof
That is indisputable. Even Frisco couldn't use advanced stats to alter that.
Difference is Ryan's career seems to be on the decline while Silfverberg's seems to be on the rise.
Value of: Jakob Silfverberg
- Thread starter RABBIT
- Start date
That is indisputable. Even Frisco couldn't use advanced stats to alter that.
Difference is Ryan's career seems to be on the decline while Silfverberg's seems to be on the rise.
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
Silfver also plays on a shutdown line + a lot of PK, while Ryan is handed offensive opportunities + a lot of PP.
This is the first year in some time that Ryan hasn't been playing injured. In the playoffs last year he was an absolute beast for us and our best forward. He seems healthy again this year and has started out where he left off. Given his hand issues the elimination of slashing will help him big time.
I'm ok with the trade (loved silf), I don't like Ryan's contract extension but last playoffs and the beginning of this year he is finally living up to it.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 39,644
- 34,358
And that's along the lines of what he would realistically cosAs an Oiler fan I hope the Ducks trade him . I would offer our 1st + K Yamamoto and more . As a hockey fan the cost would hurt so bring the KY
And rightfully so . He plays the game the right way in all 3 zones . As a western conference enemy I hate it
As are the Ducks. Ottawa probably needs the added offense and top line winger in Ryan more than the Ducks while Anaheim needs the 2-way/shutdown play Silf provides and cheaper contracts of Silf/Ritchie as well. Maybe one of those rare trades that both teams/fans feel like they won it?
Silfverberg was still a prospect at the time of the trade and in his first year he was still a nonfactor pretty much but with a potential. Only 23 points in his first year after trade compared to Bobby`s 48 that pretty much makes up all the difference. Silfverberg is a better all around player, no doubt in my mind. But not that Bobby is bad, he was very good in last playoffs.
So yeah no really losers in this one.
Really sad that Noesen got injured so much, he would have been a much better player
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I am not downplaying Silfverberg's contributions, but Ryan had great playoffs too. Actually no, he had MONSTER playoffs. Sens don't win any round without him.
My opinion is that both teams got a great player. Ducks had to wait a bit that Silf NHL game matures like it is usually the case for the team getting the younger player.
Definitely. I saw it like that from the beginning. IIRC Ducks had to lower their salary and dealing Ryan before he was too expensive was probably the right move. The Sens could afford a guy with a salary that was going to become higher but had to get a recognizable name to re-assure the fanbase after the Alfie debacle.
Basic quality for quantity deal. Silfverberg was already a good 2-way forward with a bit of untapped offensive potential. So it was not super risky. Noesen was some kind of reclamation project because of injuries and Ducks got lucky because Sens finished lower than expected but at the same time, the 2014 draft was bad.
Well, I have no idea from where this comes from... I PVR every Sens game and Ryan has been very impactful when healthy. Problem is he hasn't been healthy all the time but 70-80% of the time he played great, like in the last playoffs, absolutely dominant.
Ryan on the decline has been a thing on HF for a while but it is just a misconception. You just need to look at his PPG pace, he has the same the exact same 0.69 PPG in his first 3 seasons with Ottawa as he did in his last 2 in Anaheim. He had a hard time last season but it wasn't due to decline, but more because of constant hand injuries (his biggest asset) and off ice adversity. And also adjusting to a new complex defensive system (Boucher)
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/ryanbo01.html
Well, it's debatable. Personally I like both but for different reasons. Trades are far more complicated than just a winner and a loser because teams usually deal from a position of strength to fill a position of need, but there is also all the financial factors involved, etc. I really don't think the average fan is qualified to really evaluate a trade. Anyway, like you said, no loser in this one.
Note : Noesen was already damaged goods when the trade occurred but glad to see he is able to collect some NHL money.
Last edited:
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
I really don't think there's any argument. The small advantage to Ryan in the offense department gets easily trumped by the fact the Silf is elite on the defensive side. The Ducks got the better player who costs much less, plus another young top 9 forward. I can't think of a team in the league who would rather have Ryan than Silf +Ritchie.
I'm glad that Ryan has worked out well for Ottawa, but the Ducks clearly have enjoyed better value out of that transaction, based on Silfverberg vs Ryan alone.
Howie Hodge
Zombie Woof
Not sure we see what you see in Ryan as far as production, but as long as you're happy we're happy for you! 
He is plus nine so far this season though!
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
He is plus nine so far this season though!
| 2007-2008 | ANA | 23 | 5 | 5 | 10 | -1 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 13.5 | 100 |
| 2008-2009 | ANA | 64 | 31 | 26 | 57 | 13 | 33 | 12 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 174 | 17.8 | 46.15 |
| 2009-2010 | ANA | 81 | 35 | 29 | 64 | 9 | 81 | 11 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 258 | 13.6 | 44.09 |
| 2010-2011 | ANA | 82 | 34 | 37 | 71 | 15 | 61 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 270 | 12.6 | 39.73 |
| 2011-2012 | ANA | 82 | 31 | 26 | 57 | 1 | 53 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 204 | 15.2 | 28.99 |
| 2012-2013 | ANA | 46 | 11 | 19 | 30 | 3 | 17 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 101 | 10.9 | 30.86 |
| 2013-2014 | OTT | 70 | 23 | 25 | 48 | 7 | 45 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 190 | 12.1 | 61.54 |
| 2014-2015 | OTT | 78 | 18 | 36 | 54 | 5 | 24 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 221 | 8.1 | 36.36 |
| 2015-2016 | OTT | 81 | 22 | 34 | 56 | -9 | 28 | 6 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 183 | 12 | 27.27 |
| 2016-2017 | OTT | 62 | 13 | 12 | 25 | -3 | 24 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 111 | 11.7 | 66.67 |
| 2017-2018 | OTT | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 28.57 |
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
You're comparing 2 roster spots vs 1 roster spot. The same mistake most make. Instead of having Ritchie, Sens have Ryan Dzingel at the spot Ritchie would play. Perfectly fine with that.
Silf makes less but will eventually make a lot more than now. Ryan was paid 5.1 on his last deal, but that was based on him being a prolific offensive player all his career.
Again, not sure why you are defending the Ducks here as I have said all the way that it was trade that worked for both teams.
Not sure we see what you see in Ryan as far as production, but as long as you're happy we're happy for you!
He is plus nine so far this season though!
Ok I'll help you out, not everyone is "natural" on the internet.
Open the link below :
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/ryanbo01.html
Look at the table "NHL Miscellaneous", column "Per Game", look at PTS
| 2011-12 | 24 | ANA | NHL | 82 | 24 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.70 | 0.29 | 0.65 | 2.49 | 35 | 28 | 63 | 27 | 73 | 15 | 62 | 5 | 1 | 5.7 | 1.8 | 7.5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-13 | 25 | ANA | NHL | 46 | 11 | 0.24 | 0.41 | 0.65 | 0.24 | 0.37 | 2.20 | 21 | 35 | 56 | 21 | 46 | 14 | 29 | 0 | 3 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 3.3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 40.0 | |
| 2013-14 | 26 | OTT | NHL | 70 | 19 | 0.33 | 0.36 | 0.69 | 0.28 | 0.64 | 2.71 | 26 | 27 | 53 | 22 | 7 | 4.8 | 1.3 | 6.1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.0 | |||||
| 2014-15 | 27 | OTT | NHL | 78 | 20 | 0.23 | 0.46 | 0.69 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 2.83 | 20 | 39 | 59 | 22 | 77 | 23 | 51 | 2 | 5 | 4.4 | 1.5 | 6.0 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 36.4 | |
| 2015-16 | 28 | OTT | NHL | 81 | 22 | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 2.26 | 25 | 38 | 63 | 24 | 78 | 22 | 65 | 0 | -9 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 6.0 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 54.5 | |
| 2016-17 | 29 | OTT | NHL | 62 | 10 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 1.79 | 14 | 13 | 27 | 11 | 51 | 16 | 38 | 0 | -3 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 37.5 |
Hoping I was helpful enough.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
I fail to see how Ryan replicating the disappointing numbers of his later Anaheim days that ended up getting him traded is a success. Ottawa didn't pay a price reflecting 50-55 point expecations, neither in acquiring nor in re-signing him to a $7M+ contract, with the latest season falling significantly short of even that. I understand the desire to write this down as a "win/win"-trade, but realistically, this just isn't that.
In regard to the "we have Dzingle in Ritchie's spot, so adding him in the evaluation is a mistake"-argument: there's also a Tom Pyatt in the line-up, there was a high price paid for an Alex Burrows, and as it seems, Dorion still sees a need to add a forward. Yeah, I really don't think one can reasonably say that having a free additional Nick Ritchie (had you decided to draft him) on top of Silfverberg wouldn't be of very significant value to you.
In regard to the "we have Dzingle in Ritchie's spot, so adding him in the evaluation is a mistake"-argument: there's also a Tom Pyatt in the line-up, there was a high price paid for an Alex Burrows, and as it seems, Dorion still sees a need to add a forward. Yeah, I really don't think one can reasonably say that having a free additional Nick Ritchie (had you decided to draft him) on top of Silfverberg wouldn't be of very significant value to you.
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
Probably not, based on Carlson being an impending UFA that we realistically can't afford to re-sign. We'll probably be moving a guy like Vatanen next summer for that reason, to begin with, and are most likely looking to add some forward talent that way, without having to give up an important player like Silfverberg in the process. It's pretty good vacuum-value, though.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
You have to quote the post if you want a reply... I saw this by chance. There's a lot to address in your post. I'll try to go point form.
- Bobby Ryan has had a 0.69 PPG in his his first 3 years with Ottawa, that's not "50-55 pts" but a pace of 57 pts per 82 games.
- Bobby Ryan has been 57th in forwards scoring (so easily 1st line production) between 2013-14 and 2015-16. He was making $5,562,500 in salary the first 2 years and $5,562,500 the 3rd year. That was pretty good "bang for your buck" production.
- Everybody recognizes that Ryan is overpaid and should be more in the 6.0 range. However, you have very high income taxes here so that is something that has to be considered for Canadian teams. Also, Ottawa had to overpay to keep him or he would have tested the free market (or being forced to trade him wouldn't have been ideal)
- I can't find my old posts in the previous HF version, but I had posts where I had the numbers for each of Ryan beginning of the season. In his first ~45-55 games each year, he was producing at a ~0.8 PPG pace, which is a ~70 points season. Unfortunately he couldn't keep up because of injury and endurance issues. Injuries is not in the control of anybody, same for his 2016-17 season and same for Silfverberg 2013-14's season.
On HF I understand how the team getting the younger player is automatically the "winner", but in the NHL (real world), I doubt it is as simplistic, based on listening and talking to a lot of active and ex NHL players, coaches, medias, etc. Both teams got a good player. Ryan has more offensive talent while Silfverberg is a great 2-way player (Ryan is excellent defensively now too), which in the end makes them equally as valuable for a hockey team, depending on your needs. The need for a player (and a recognizable name) like Ryan was much more important at that time for Ottawa, as they also signed Clarke MacArthur which is what the Sens could hope Silfverberg to become (while not as quick/fast)
This trade is basically a 1 for 1 in the end. Noesen was basically a throw-in, an injured-plagued reclamation project who ended up being waived (glad he's able to collect NHL checks now). The 2014 draft was weak and while the Sens didn't expect to give up a 10th OA pick, Nick Ritchie is far from a world beater, Sens have several better forwards coming up through the ranks. That's the bonus the Ducks got for giving up the proven player and taking a risk in Silfverberg, who was not a sure thing to develop more offense at the NHL level. Glad he finally got a season over 40 pts.
lol I never said that, reading comprehension failure on your part. If the Ducks need Ritchie, good for them, Ottawa don't and won't. I was not talking about what it does for the Ducks, but what it does for the Sens. It's so easy to compare 2 players vs 1 player, but people are omitting the value of the "roster spot" available.
I "fail to see" why Pyatt has anything to do with the current subject? He is a 4th liner and a great defensive/energy player, just relentless along the boards. Same for Burrows (I disliked what Dorion gave up to get him, even though I like Alex and played against him long time ago), what does it have to do here?
Also, Dorion "needs to add a forward" is because of the bad news about Clarke MacArthur, the guy that made Jakob expendable in the first place, great defensively but who scores like a top-6 forward. Unfortunately for Mac and the Sens, this ship has sailed since, due to damn concussions.
Right now, in terms of importance (3-5 are pretty close) :
1- Stone
2- Hoffman
3- Turris
4- Ryan
5- Brassard
6- Pageau
7- Smith
8- Dzingel
9- Burrows
10- Pyatt
11- Thompson
12- Brown/Formenton (returned to junior, or about to)
Colin White would be there but he has been injured. Nick Paul was injured too and missed training camp but is now waiting for his chance. Filip Chlapik needs experience but is next on the line. Then you got guys like Brown, Formenton, Batherson, Bowers, Perron, etc not NHL ready this year.
I'd much rather that Colin White slots around 8/9 this season than having Ritchie there, maybe Nick Paul too. But that's just me maybe, never been really high on Ritchie. But moot point anyway, as the Sens would have probably drafted someone else. Impossible to tell if it would have been a missed 1st rounder (Lazar) or not (Chabot)
Vipers31
Advanced Stagnostic
But Ryan isn't really a player you can count on to play 82 games. My number was more for net production. If we were to pro-rate every NHL'ers production to 82 games, the values of 40/50/60/70-players would shift accordingly.
It is. That's why I only referred to the price of his acquisition and the price of his extension as not reflecting the value of a 50-55 (or 57, if one would insist) point forward. His last contract was adequate in its time context.
Fair points. The tax issues obviously put Ottawa in a bad position compared to Florida or Dallas (IIRC), among others. I certainly also agree that they indeed had to overpay to extend him, considering the price they paid. I'd consider that point to only strengthen my case for why it's hard to consider the trade a "win" for them, though. When the initial price paid in the trade makes you so committted that you're almost forced to overpay a guy to a degree that severely diminishes his value (without tools like retention), that's not ideal, either.
One of those seasons, I think a little much has been made of Ryan's mostly rumored injuries (the one that wasn't the hernia). He's just not a consistent player, and hasn't been for a long time. It's a tough sell that a bit of bad luck with injuries is the only thing standing between him and a 70-point-season. I know, you also mentioned the endurance issues, which are realistic, but that obviously isn't really helping his case, unless you'd say they are entirely based on the injuries, which I do not buy. It's been six years since he scored 70, and he did it as a complimentary player on one of the best lines in the game that year.
By all means, Ryan is not "excellent defensively now too". I'd agree that he has improved noticeably, but his additional and less inconsistent defensive effort and gained experience didn't take him from below-average to "excellent"; that label is way too lofty. It isn't just about getting the younger player. It's about getting a player who's about equal in on-ice value (as you correctly said, depending on needs), more valuable in trade value given contracts and age, and another quality young asset and contributor.
Repeating it doesn't make it any more true - it's very clearly not "basically 1-for-1". Noesen at the time was a project, really not quite a throw-in, but considering his continued bad luck with injuries that ended up changing his path, I'm okay with ignoring him for the sake of simplification. You're right, the Sens weren't expected to pick that early. Let's not mix two different levels here - I'm not arguing the trade was a mistake by the Sens at the time it was made; I didn't (and don't) believe it was given their situation. (They were in a spot where it wasn't unrealistic to see them contending in the East, and Ryan had the potential to be a key player to more than offset the loss they had in Alfredsson, and it might have sent an important message, as well.) I'm saying that while they had good reasons to do it, they're not coming out ahead or even in hindsight. Ritchie may not be a world-beater, but we know developmental paths for power forwards tend to take a little longer, and he's on a decent path to become a 20+20 guy with potential for more than that. You really cannot debate that away as a meaningful asset, and whether you have other assets that you regard more highly really doesn't change that, whatsoever.
All of this just clearly shows that the Sens had and most certainly still would have a need for Ritchie. You didn't want to compare "2-vs-1 roster spots", when you have had and still have such additional roster spots occupied by players worse and/or with less potential than Ritchie (Pyatt), and players you acquired for decent assets that you would have had less of a need for if you had him (Burrows). That just makes it obvious that your attempts to artificially remove him from the equasion aren't rooted in reality.
