Player Discussion Nick Ritchie Appreciation Thread

[Ducks DVM]

Uhh, why? Ritchie does not fix the team or add anything THAT important that a few bad games doesn't make him an immediate need. Murray has no reason to budge from whatever he's offering.

Terry isn’t ready, Steel isn’t ready, Comtois may fall off, Rakell looks like a scrub, and Sherwood is a grinder. Another 15 goals and 30 points starts to look pretty attractive. Literally the only reason that we aren’t 0-4 is Gibson playing Vezina level hockey.

 

[Dirk316]

Uhh, why? Ritchie does not fix the team or add anything THAT important that a few bad games doesn't make him an immediate need. Murray has no reason to budge from whatever he's offering.

Not only are you against enforcers, agitators, player who throw hits now power forwards?

 

[Dirk316]

Terry isn’t ready, Steel isn’t ready, Comtois may fall off, Rakell looks like a scrub, and Sherwood is a grinder. Another 15 goals and 30 points starts to look pretty attractive. Literally the only reason that we aren’t 0-4 is Gibson playing Vezina level hockey.

You can add Gibbons AND Street as well

 

[dracom]

Terry isn’t ready, Steel isn’t ready, Comtois may fall off, Rakell looks like a scrub, and Sherwood is a grinder. Another 15 goals and 30 points starts to look pretty attractive. Literally the only reason that we aren’t 0-4 is Gibson playing Vezina level hockey.

You really think Murray is going to completely budge and give into whatever Ritchie is asking because two rookies are what we expected them to be (good but not ready for the NHL), one who has been great but may fall off, Rakell have a lame bad stretch (this is becoming over-exaggerated at this point. people act like he's not even an NHL caliber player now). I wouldn't call Sheerwood a grinder, but he's been good enough to be in our bottom 6. Murray didn't budge for Rakell or Lindholm, don't see why he budges for Ritchie. Ritchie doesn't fix any issues the team is having right now; so just wait for him to budge so you don't screw up the cap with a higher than necessary AAV and just wait for the injured players to come back.

Not only are you against enforcers, agitators, player who throw hits now power forwards?

Christ, again with this....Stop putting words in my mouth. Have I said anywhere that I hate Ritchie? No. Would I be ok with Ritchie on the roster? Yes, the Ritchie-Rico-Kase line was a great line last season. Just stop with this nonsense already.

You can add Gibbons AND Street as well

Gibbons has played 2 regular season games with us, he is fine, same with Street. You're impossible to have any reasonable hockey discussion with.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You really think Murray is going to completely budge and give into whatever Ritchie is asking because two rookies are what we expected them to be (good but not ready for the NHL), one who has been great but may fall off, Rakell have a lame bad stretch (this is becoming over-exaggerated at this point. people act like he's not even an NHL caliber player now). I wouldn't call Sheerwood a grinder, but he's been good enough to be in our bottom 6. Murray didn't budge for Rakell or Lindholm, don't see why he budges for Ritchie. Ritchie doesn't fix any issues the team is having right now; so just wait for him to budge so you don't screw up the cap with a higher than necessary AAV and just wait for the injured players to come back.


Christ, again with this....Stop putting words in my mouth. Have I said anywhere that I hate Ritchie? No. Would I be ok with Ritchie on the roster? Yes, the Ritchie-Rico-Kase line was a great line last season. Just stop with this nonsense already.


Gibbons has played 2 regular season games with us, he is fine, same with Street. You're impossible to have any reasonable hockey discussion with.

This isn’t a binary equation. It’s not BM wins OR Ritchie wins. Maybe Ritchie gets a little more for 3 years, maybe BM comes down from 3 years to 2. Maybe both.

I do know that if I was Ritchie that there’d be no way in hell that I agreed to almost the same contract as Rowney got.

 

[dracom]

This isn’t a binary equation. It’s not BM wins OR Ritchie wins. Maybe Ritchie gets a little more for 3 years, maybe BM comes down from 3 years to 2. Maybe both.

I do know that if I was Ritchie that there’d be no way in hell that I agreed to almost the same contract as Rowney got.

Fair point; the Rowney deal is still the biggest WTF from the offseason and I'm sure it's one of the reasons for the holdup. But back to the post I originally responded to, the OP said the more bad games we have means Murray is going to be in a big hurry to bring Ritchie back, but I don't see why. Unless Ritchie has completely changed and can be a consistent top 6 PWF player, he isn't going to make the team better. I rather wait things out with him and get him signed to whatever deal Murray wants than to prematurely bring him in on a lame contract. We can survive without Ritchie for awhile.

 

[22Brad Park]

I read today Bruins and multiple others inquired on this guy.What is the asking price for him you figure?

 

[WhatTheDuck]

I read today Bruins and multiple others inquired on this guy.What is the asking price for him you figure?

I really don't know what we would ask for to be honest, other than a similar young power forward. We could really use a player like him in the lineup right now (our forward group is missing a lot of it's brawn), a lot more than picks/prospects or whatever else team's woud likely offer.

When you add that his value is at a low point, I really think he'd be worth more to the team right now than he could fetch in a trade. We've heard he's worked hard with Gary Roberts all off season, and he's right around the age when big fellas can start to put it together. I think it would be a mistake to trade him before seeing how he looks in our lineup, especially when we're missing 4 other wingers.

 

[Exit Dose]

I read today Bruins and multiple others inquired on this guy.What is the asking price for him you figure?

If he's moved it will probably be for a talented, young, low-salary forward. It'll be someone with a lower ceiling or more question marks, given the circumstances.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

If he's moved it will probably be for a talented, young, low-salary forward. It'll be someone with a lower ceiling or more question marks, given the circumstances.

I guess in Boston's case, it could be possible that the two teams discussed Ritchie and Heinen (who I believe is rumored to be available). Though I will say from our perspective, although I like Heinen's upside as a playmaker, it seems as though he'd be another guy who plays a style lacking in urgency.

 

[Exit Dose]

I guess in Boston's case, it could be possible that the two teams discussed Ritchie and Heinen (who I believe is rumored to be available). Though I will say from our perspective, although I like Heinen's upside as a playmaker, it seems as though he'd be another guy who plays a style lacking in urgency.

So he's familiar with the system, then?

 

[WhatTheDuck]

So he's familiar with the system, then?

I bet this guy can stand on his wall and not get open with the best of em.

 

[Exit Dose]

I bet this guy can stand on his wall and not get open with the best of em.

We should add Lundestrom to sweeten the deal. He's already messing things up, out there.

 

[MMC]

Maybe instead of signing Sustr we could've added an extra 700k per year to Ritchie's deal. f*** Barstool.

 

[eternalbedhead]

I think the sticking point is on contract term, not AAV.

 

[duckpuck]

Maybe instead of signing Sustr we could've added an extra 700k per year to Ritchie's deal. **** Barstool.

Except if we didn't have Sustr (who is meh), we'd have a different defensemen making NHL minimum of basically the same amount and not save any real money.

The Ritchie negotiation is not just about this year. Its about setting the teams salary structure for many years to come, not to mention Ritchie's salary for the next 2-3 years. Barstool's main strength has been negotiating good contracts with players coming off their rookie deals. Rakell and Lindholm both held out and then signed very good contracts - huge win for BM. And Murray has rewarded players like Kase who have produced (striking comparison to Ritchie).

Ritchie has underachieved and is not deserving of a long term or big $$ deal. Conditioning and work ethic have been an issue and the production hasn't been there. I have no problem with Murray drawing a hard line, particularly when Ritchie has literally no leverage. Ritchie is only hurting himself by not signing - he was supposedly in great shape and now he's lost whatever momentum he might have had by signing early and starting strong.

 

[Kalv]

Situation seems bad and somehow I am preparing myself for the fact that Ritchie might be gone.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Ritchie has underachieved and is not deserving of a long term or big $$ deal. Conditioning and work ethic have been an issue and the production hasn't been there. I have no problem with Murray drawing a hard line, particularly when Ritchie has literally no leverage. Ritchie is only hurting himself by not signing - he was supposedly in great shape and now he's lost whatever momentum he might have had by signing early and starting strong.

I see the "player X has no leverage" comment a lot and it isn't true. His leverage is his absence, the hole it leaves in the lineup, the toll it takes on his trade value, and the distraction it causes. That is a real cost to the team. I think people see the costs of a holdout to the player: money, conditioning (though this is easily mitigated), goodwill, and subtract that from the player's net "power," if you will, but they don't do the corresponding calculation from the team's side, which is simply a bias.

Just because there is a power imbalance doesn't mean the weaker side is powerless. Ritchie is exacting a price from the team just as it is exacting one from him with every moment this drags on. With so many injuries on team, his leverage is actually much higher than it would normally be for a player of his standing. Murray can ignore it while our standings position is favorable, but that could very easily change.

 

[Trojans86]

Ritchie has some leverage but not nearly as much as the Ducks. If he takes the year off that will be devastating for his career, especially with how he has played so far. He really needs these next two years to get better and show he belongs in the league. As he gets older teams wont take chances on him and put him in favorable spots in the lineup because they are trying to develop him.

I'd love for him to improve his game. He is exactly what we need. The sad truth is he hasnt really improved over the last few years and the game is getting faster while he is the slowest guy on the ice.

 

[Magnus the Duck]

When he gets back at least our PIM will increase again. Need to practice that box play.

 

[paine]

 

[Static]

Finally. Sounds like ritchie caved, but we shall see.

 

[MMC]

Awesome

 

[rlstine]

When he gets back at least our PIM will increase again. Need to practice that box play.

I probably like Ritchie more than most but this is a real concern. Those extra penalties add up.

 

[Dirk316]

Interesting to see what line he plays on does he replace Comtois who's been incredible with Henrique or replace Cogs on Keslers line