Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Nick Ritchie to Toronto (2x2.5M AAV)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
CDJ said:
Lol ok man, whatever you say. You clearly didn’t watch him enough. Don’t say we didn’t warn you….


Gee do you ever wonder why Anaheim gave up on a top 10 pick? You’re making an argument against yourself in your own rebuttal lol


He’s got decent hands and gets to the front of the net when he feels like it. Those are his two positive qualities. An enforcer/deterrent he is not. The majority of his hits are behind the play due to his skating ability.

like he got traded for the useless Danton Heinen and then both were immediately non-tendered when their deals came up. That should tell you everything
Click to expand...


I watched more than enough of the Bruins to say Ritchie wasn't the poor performer you are trying to make him out to be. He played pretty well, then you guys acquired Hall, which dropped him from the top 6 and he didn't look nearly as effective as a bottom 6 player. If Bruins fans were losing their minds because he was allegedly going to be qualified, it's most for that reason. They didn't want to pay him whatever arbitration award he was going to get to be a bottom 6 player, where he wasn't what you all wanted. Understandable position. That said, you turned around and spent 3.8 million on the ghost of Nick Foligno instead, soooo.

JT isn't the fastest skater, would not be at all shocked if that's where he slots in and does quite well.

Players are not tendered for a ton of reasons. If not for his arbitration rights, the Bruins almost surely qualify Ritchie. It's not exactly Ritchie's fault you guys got Hall for a steal, and yeah, obviously, Hall is going to play top 6 over Ritchie.

Also, reality is the Leafs don't have top 10 pick expectations for Ritchie, which makes our situation completely different from the Ducks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TML Dynasty and LeafSteel
CDJ

CDJ

Registered User
Nov 20, 2006
54,985
43,969
Hell baby
Sypher04 said:
I watched more than enough of the Bruins to say Ritchie wasn't the poor performer you are trying to make him out to be. He played pretty well, then you guys acquired Hall, which dropped him from the top 6 and he didn't look nearly as effective as a bottom 6 player. If Bruins fans were losing their minds because he was allegedly going to be qualified, it's most for that reason. They didn't want to pay him whatever arbitration award he was going to get to be a bottom 6 player, where he wasn't what you all wanted. Understandable position. That said, you turned around and spent 3.8 million on the ghost of Nick Foligno instead, soooo.

JT isn't the fastest skater, would not be at all shocked if that's where he slots in and does quite well.

Players are not tendered for a ton of reasons. If not for his arbitration rights, the Bruins almost surely qualify Ritchie. It's not exactly Ritchie's fault you guys got Hall for a steal, and yeah, obviously, Hall is going to play top 6 over Ritchie.

Also, reality is the Leafs don't have top 10 pick expectations for Ritchie, which makes our situation completely different from the Ducks.
Click to expand...

Ok well myself and everybody else watched every game he played in and this has been the consensus since he was still under contract here. Perhaps it would work with JT but Krejci isn’t all that different stylistically. Not as good of a goal scorer as JT but great vision and the ability to slow the pace down and make others play at their speed
 
Blowfish

Blowfish

Count down ...
Jan 13, 2005
22,891
14,953
Southwestern Ontario
Sypher04 said:
I watched more than enough of the Bruins to say Ritchie wasn't the poor performer you are trying to make him out to be. He played pretty well, then you guys acquired Hall, which dropped him from the top 6 and he didn't look nearly as effective as a bottom 6 player. If Bruins fans were losing their minds because he was allegedly going to be qualified, it's most for that reason. They didn't want to pay him whatever arbitration award he was going to get to be a bottom 6 player, where he wasn't what you all wanted. Understandable position. That said, you turned around and spent 3.8 million on the ghost of Nick Foligno instead, soooo.

JT isn't the fastest skater, would not be at all shocked if that's where he slots in and does quite well.

Players are not tendered for a ton of reasons. If not for his arbitration rights, the Bruins almost surely qualify Ritchie. It's not exactly Ritchie's fault you guys got Hall for a steal, and yeah, obviously, Hall is going to play top 6 over Ritchie.

Also, reality is the Leafs don't have top 10 pick expectations for Ritchie, which makes our situation completely different from the Ducks.
Click to expand...

You clearly have not watched enough of the bruins to say anything...

Enjoy Mr. Lackadaisical Myrtle the Turtle.
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
Blowfish said:
You clearly have not watched enough of the bruins to say anything...

Enjoy Mr. Lackadaisical Myrtle the Turtle.
Click to expand...

thanks but I know what I saw. Of course Ritchie has his flaws, but it’s being exaggerated by people like you.

also reports are he’s spent his entire summer working on his skating, which certainly can’t hurt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coachcorner and ACC1224
hotpaws

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,612
6,202
Sypher04 said:
thanks but I know what I saw. Of course Ritchie has his flaws, but it’s being exaggerated by people like you.

also reports are he’s spent his entire summer working on his skating, which certainly can’t hurt
Click to expand...
so your saying Boston didn't qualify him and let him walk just for shits and giggles ?

and there's reports Robertson spent the off season stretching and he's now 6' 1''
 
  • Like
Reactions: Le Cobra

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
hotpaws said:
so your saying Boston didn't qualify him and let him walk just for shits and giggles ?

and there's reports Robertson spent the off season stretching and he's now 6' 1''
Click to expand...

why do we continue to have to go over this? Nick Ritchie was most likely not qualified because the Bruins didn’t want the uncertainty of his arbitration award. Also with the Hall deal last TDL, he was pushed out of the role he looked by far most effective in as a Bruin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: banks
hotpaws

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,612
6,202
Sypher04 said:
why do we continue to have to go over this? Nick Ritchie was most likely not qualified because the Bruins didn’t want the uncertainty of his arbitration award. Also with the Hall deal last TDL, he was pushed out of the role he looked by far most effective in as a Bruin.
Click to expand...
Ritchie wasn't qualified because the B's had no interest in bringing him back , teams don't let players they want walk for nothing when they have the cap space to re-sign them .
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
hotpaws said:
Ritchie wasn't qualified because the B's had no interest in bringing him back , teams don't let players they want walk for nothing when they have the cap space to re-sign them .
Click to expand...

As usual, you’re wrong. Ritchie had earned, most likely a fairly rich arbitration award, which Boston wasn’t interested in, given they can’t walk away from anything under 4.5m and had just replaced the role he was most effective in with Taylor Hall. They would have needed to get him under contract to trade him for an asset, but arbitration award bars them from trading him for a year. Nick Ritchie doesn’t play a bottom 6 style of game, so it really made little to no sense for the Bruins to qualify him, have him potentially file for arbitration and get handicapped for a player they didn’t have a need or proper role for
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clark4Ever, saltming, banks and 1 other person
hotpaws

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,612
6,202
Sypher04 said:
As usual, you’re wrong. Ritchie had earned, most likely a fairly rich arbitration award, which Boston wasn’t interested in, given they can’t walk away from anything under 4.5m and had just replaced the role he was most effective in with Taylor Hall. They would have needed to get him under contract to trade him for an asset, but arbitration award bars them from trading him for a year. Nick Ritchie doesn’t play a bottom 6 style of game, so it really made little to no sense for the Bruins to qualify him, have him potentially file for arbitration and get handicapped for a player they didn’t have a need or proper role for
Click to expand...
cool story

so Boston let him walk and signed Foligno for more because Ritchie doesn't play a bottom 6 game ? all i've heard since we signed him is how he's a big tough rugged winger with some skill so how doesn't that translate to the 3rd line ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blowfish

17 Clark

Registered User
Mar 22, 2015
701
310
ACC1224 said:
Why do you feel they brought him in then?
Click to expand...
hotpaws said:
cool story

so Boston let him walk and signed Foligno for more because Ritchie doesn't play a bottom 6 game ? all i've heard since we signed him is how he's a big tough rugged winger with some skill so how doesn't that translate to the 3rd line ?
Click to expand...
Boston can have fun with the prima donna. Hurt every second game i’ll take Ritchie any time over foligno
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
hotpaws said:
cool story

so Boston let him walk and signed Foligno for more because Ritchie doesn't play a bottom 6 game ? all i've heard since we signed him is how he's a big tough rugged winger with some skill so how doesn't that translate to the 3rd line ?
Click to expand...

For the third time, he didn’t have success playing bottom 6 for Boston. The role he played well in was given to Hall when they acquired him for a steal. I’m not saying he could never find success on a third line, but he hasn’t thus far. My source: actually watching him play hockey.

1) foligno at 3.8m was a bad signing unless he really refinds his game and stays healthy
2) despite that, he’s better suited to play 3rd line style than Ritchie.
 
hotpaws

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,612
6,202
Sypher04 said:
For the third time, he didn’t have success playing bottom 6 for Boston. The role he played well in was given to Hall when they acquired him for a steal. I’m not saying he could never find success on a third line, but he hasn’t thus far. My source: actually watching him play hockey.

1) foligno at 3.8m was a bad signing unless he really refinds his game and stays healthy
2) despite that, he’s better suited to play 3rd line style than Ritchie.
Click to expand...
it's obvious he didn't play well for Boston and that's why they let him walk but his game suits the 3 rd line best if he actually showed some energy instead of just floating

this discussion seems like the same one people had last year about how poor little Yimmy Vessey wasn't used properly by his old team but would flourish under the masterful guidance of Keefe
 
hotpaws

hotpaws

Registered User
Nov 21, 2009
21,612
6,202
17 Clark said:
Boston can have fun with the prima donna. Hurt every second game i’ll take Ritchie any time over foligno
Click to expand...
of course we'll take Ritchie over that useless Foligno that Dubie paid through his ass for at the t/d
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
11,637
9,912
hotpaws said:
it's obvious he didn't play well for Boston and that's why they let him walk but his game suits the 3 rd line best if he actually showed some energy instead of just floating

this discussion seems like the same one people had last year about how poor little Yimmy Vessey wasn't used properly by his old team but would flourish under the masterful guidance of Keefe
Click to expand...

I never felt strongly about Vesey either way, nor do I feel strong here particularly, but there is undeniable potential for a good fit. We will see what happens.

As for your first paragraph, you go ahead and keep thinking that… or you can join the rest of us in reality
 
  • Like
Reactions: TML Dynasty
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom