Armstrong is a 1 mil cap hit, those guys will be 4-5 mil cap hits on multi(3-5) year deals. Plus those guys won't sign here to play 4th line. That's like saying let's get Doug Murray to replace Desharnais. Apples to oranges.
Micheal Ryder : To sign or not to sign?
- Thread starter WatchfulElm
- Start date
Armstrong is a 1 mil cap hit, those guys will be 4-5 mil cap hits on multi(3-5) year deals. Plus those guys won't sign here to play 4th line. That's like saying let's get Doug Murray to replace Desharnais. Apples to oranges.
poetryinmotion
Registered User
- Jul 12, 2011
- 5,876
- 159
Fine Gionta then.
ikr
Ask Boston fans how much they regret letting him go.
InglewoodJack
Registered User
I can go either way. I had confidence that Bergevin will either sign him or find a better replacement.
I think for sure he gets 3 years, maybe 4, and at $4.5M given the lack of UFA talent. Im waffling on him. Guess what he does in the play-offs will be important. So far, the guys that have been the most effective and dangerous are the guys willing to attack and hang in the slot of the Ottawa net, namely Bourque and Gallagher. Play-off hockey right, you aren't going to score from the top of the face-off circle and beyond unless goalie is screened or on a deflection. Ryders game is his uncanny ability to find the open spot from the bottom face-off circle in to snap it in. If he can do it in the play-offs that's another weapon,from medium to short range. This is actually a huge decision because his is the only realistic opening on the top 9, if you set aside the trade Gio talk. His spot will not be left open for a rookie, rookies will fill in for injured guys.
To sign him, MB will need to be convinced that Ryder will keep it up for the next 3 years as Im sure he views that as the opening of our window and he wants quality pieces for this time, no getting guys you think will be good for a year or two but sign them for a couple more just to sign them. Thing is, I could see Ryder holding out for 4 years , and that's getting too long for me.
To sign him, MB will need to be convinced that Ryder will keep it up for the next 3 years as Im sure he views that as the opening of our window and he wants quality pieces for this time, no getting guys you think will be good for a year or two but sign them for a couple more just to sign them. Thing is, I could see Ryder holding out for 4 years , and that's getting too long for me.
Ha ha... right! Let's sign Galchenyuk on a short term deal for the next 8 years! I also heard Jagr may sign a huge, extra-long term one year extension with the Bruins!
What kind of logic is this?
Short term: 1-2 years
Middle of the road: 3 years
Long term: 5+ years
Older players (35+) don't sign 'long term' deals for 2-3 years. They just sign short terms deals and that's it.
We could argue about it, but there's no way Ryder, at 33, considers a 3 years deal 'long term' and thus suited to lower AAV. It's short/middle term and show me the money.
So don't bother offering 3.5 for 3 years (10.5M total). He will very easily get the same amount for 2 years (@5.25M/y) on the UFA market.
No wonder why people are usually disappointed when we sign players.
Do you have a clue how to read? Because your response makes no sense at all.
If you're talking a 33 yaer old 3-4 years IS long term. For a 23 year old, long term is 6-7-8 years. It's about perspective.
I think the Habs(MB) would like to extend Ryder for 2 years, but Ryder will want to go to UFA because he'll want 3-4 years and stability going forward coming off 2 very good years.
I'm sure Ryder will get more as a UFA but maybe he likes it here(close to home, familiarity, great fans and closer to home) and is willing to take 250-500 k less per year to stay.
TheGoalJudge
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2007
- 3,470
- 361
Cut Desharnais and Gionta and you have tons of money for Ryder and other players.
A 30 goal scorer who doesn't suck defensively is valuable.
A 30 goal scorer who doesn't suck defensively is valuable.
Habs
We should have drafted Michkov
- Feb 28, 2002
- 21,270
- 14,818
If there is no one better in the market this summer and Bergevin doesn't want to trade, I'd say sign him for 2seasons.
No More Subban
GHG
- Apr 28, 2010
- 17,642
- 6,810
Sign Ryder please. Or else.. Boston will pick him up again.
Do you guys want that? I don't.
3-4 years.
Do you guys want that? I don't.
3-4 years.
Price My Man Crush
Registered User
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
Teams need scorers in the top-9.
Anyway... MB and MT are in the best position to assess is true worth to the team.
Anyway... MB and MT are in the best position to assess is true worth to the team.
Intangiblezz
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2012
- 2,736
- 1
The Nightman
Plateaued User
- Aug 13, 2006
- 11,427
- 4,348
Ryder is 33, signing him more than 2 years would be pretty risky especially considering it would be at 4.5-5 mil. The other part that would worry me is that Ryder has one 30 goal campaign in his last six seasons and two, 25+ goals season in his last six, three if you count this one based on a pro rated 82 game schedule.
Its really tough to tell which Ryder you would get from season to season, the 30-40 point player or the 50-60 point player. Some players I would say its worth the risk but if Ryder isn't scoring, he is extremely useless on the ice and rarely makes his teamates better.
I'd sign him for a season or two but if he wants more, let him walk. Much rather spend money on trying to get Clarkson.
Its really tough to tell which Ryder you would get from season to season, the 30-40 point player or the 50-60 point player. Some players I would say its worth the risk but if Ryder isn't scoring, he is extremely useless on the ice and rarely makes his teamates better.
I'd sign him for a season or two but if he wants more, let him walk. Much rather spend money on trying to get Clarkson.
montreal
Go Habs Go
i'd be very suprised to see him back, he should be able to get a good amount of money in July so i would be surprised to see him give up that chance as it could be his last big contract depending on how good his agent is and how desperate some teams will get this summer.
As I wrote: 'long term' or 'short term' is the same for everyone, not age-based. 'Older' players (i.e. past UFA age) tend to sign short term deals with higher AAV. That's it.
Ryder at 33 will not accept a lower AAV on a 'long-term' 3 years deal. At his age, it's short/middle term and show me the money. He's coming off two very good seasons. No way he signs for 3 years at 3.5.
If you want him at 3.5, it has to be for 4-5 years or more, which I agree is a bad idea.
2 years is fine. But another GM will likely offer 5-5.5 for 2 years. So you have to match that.
OK, fine, offer him 2 years at 4.75-5M. He may accept the deal (which I seriously doubt). But as I wrote: no way he takes a similar total amount (i.e. 10.5M) on 3 years.
At 3 years 3.5/y you're basically asking him to work an extra year for free. You know, at the ripe age of 33, it's a lot to ask for!
That's the thing about perspective. I works both ways. You're going with a cheap-a$$ management perspective. I'm showing you the player's perspective.
Ryder has much better options than 3 years at 3.5M. You have to account for that in your assessment.
If habs want him for short term, it's going to be 2 years / 10 mills and even that would be a discount (accepting short term). This may be his last chance for a big contract, so no way he's going to stick with peanuts. I wouldn't like a 3-4 year contract, because even though he's been great for the last two years, I don't think he'd be worth it through the contract.
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
Either sign him or sign a player that can score 30 goals in a season. His contributions on offense were very important this season and I'm not sure we can expect guys like Gionta and Markov to maintain a consistent offensive presence, or bank on the development from the younger players, and expect to stay in the position we were this season.
