Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    Either that or he'd be playing w Krejci and Looch, leaving the Bergy/Seguin/March line still entact.  But in either case, he'd be getting 18 mins / game right now and would be on our top 6.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:[QUOTE]Re-signed? Ryder signed moments after Dallas offered him. It wasn't like the B's had a chance to sign him. Enough about the former B. I'm glad he's doing well with his new team, but he was out the door faster than any player from last year's B's Cup Team.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    And throw in Michael knew he would be getting 1st line minutes reunited with someone he clicks with Riberio. So I'm sure it was a no brainer for him.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]And you miss mine. Not you or anyone else said that Ryder should have been signed last summer for 4 mil, so he shouldn't have been signed. No he is not worth 3 million more to get a handful more goals than Pouliot/Caron/Rolston as the 9th forward. No, he would not be better than Paille, Campbell or Thornton as as 4th line grinder/penalty killer. We've seen it here, he's awful on the fourth line. No it would have been a very bad decision to sign him to a $4mil contract and send him to the minors to fill the MacDermit/Sauve role. I like Ryder. Sure if we could suddenly bring him in right now it would be nice.  But no one in their right mind would have signed him in the summer for 4 mill to get 12 or 13 minutes a game or be a spare forward. Depth wins, but signing players to bloated contracts kills potential dynasties. In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    He wouldnt be a first, second or fourth liner.  He'd be on the third line with Peverley and Kelly.  And it would have been one of the best third lines in hockey.  He'd also be our third shoot-out guy (behind Krejci and Seguin).  And yes, he would replace Marchand on the powerplay.  Not Marchands forte.

    Worth 4 million?  I could go either way.  Worth 3 million?  ABSOLUTELY.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : Jp, the problem is that Ryder was coming off of back to back 18 goal seasons in Boston.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    the 18g were all gravy.  His post season contributions would have been worht 4mil alone.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    Lucic doesn't get 18 minutes here so neither would Ryder. Right now, of course he would get decent minutes and some pp time... the team has 4 or 5 injured forwards.  But he wouldn't when the team is healthy. He would be playing Pouliots role, which is 13 mintues at best, sometimes only 9. Which one of these guys would you take off the pp to put Ryder in there: Seguin, Lucic, Horton or Marchand? If you have any appreciation for what those 4 20-30+ goal scorers bring, I expect you would answer none of the above. And if you did, there is no way Ryder is worth 4 million to be the 12th forward, and he probably wouldn't have signed anyway to get those limited minutes.

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : He would absolutely be on the power play.  And with injuries, he would be getting 18 minutes a game.  Sorry, dont mean to contradict you (I like your posts), but I disagree here. Maybe, when the decision was made to let him test the free-agent market, the thought process was: we cant allocated 4 mil to a third line player who will not be on teh PP.  However, if Ryder was on the Bruins right now, he'd be playing with Bergeron and Marchand, getting 18 mins / game and playing on the PP.
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    My synopsis (and I always liked Ryder): at the time, it wasnt a bad decision to let him walk for 4M, for the reasons that oatescam point out.  However, it wouldnt have been a bad decision to resign him either (because of his elevated post-season play and because we had the cap room).  I wanted to see him back, but when I saw what he signed for, I was like....He's PAR at that pricetag. 

    However, due to unforseen circumstances, we could REALLY use him right now.  Can we use him right now?  And: Was it a mistake to resign him? Are two COMPLETELY different questions.  No one could have predicted this many injuries.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    Ah, well there you go, you're the only person on this thread who answered that question. You would play Ryder ahead of Marchand. At least now I can respect your opinion because it is grounded in reality. I would never make that switch, I like Marchand on the pp, especially since he's a lefty and we only have two of those in our top 6. I don't agree with your opinion, but if you would take some of Marchand's ice time and give it to Ryder, then you can argue he would contribute more than someone like Pouliot. Of course Marchand would then contribute less.

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : He wouldnt be a first, second or fourth liner.  He'd be on the third line with Peverley and Kelly.  And it would have been one of the best third lines in hockey.  He'd also be our third shoot-out guy (behind Krejci and Seguin).  And yes, he would replace Marchand on the powerplay.  Not Marchands forte. Worth 4 million?  I could go either way.  Worth 3 million?  ABSOLUTELY.
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]Lucic doesn't get 18 minutes here so neither would Ryder. Right now, of course he would get decent minutes and some pp time... the team has 4 or 5 injured forwards.  But he wouldn't when the team is healthy. He would be playing Pouliots role, which is 13 mintues at best, sometimes only 9. Which one of these guys would you take off the pp to put Ryder in there: Seguin, Lucic, Horton or Marchand? If you have any appreciation for what those 4 20-30+ goal scorers bring, I expect you would answer none of the above. And if you did, there is no way Ryder is worth 4 million to be the 12th forward, and he probably wouldn't have signed anyway to get those limited minutes. In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    I'd play the hot hand on the power-play.  Seguin and Lucic would always be on my power-play and then I would play two of Marchand, Horton, Ryder (whoever was hottest).  Certain times that would be Ryder.  Also, you cant predict 4 injuries, but you can predict one.  Having a fifth PP winger is a good thing.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    I consider Peverley to be that guy, of course he is injured too...

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : I'd play the hot hand on the power-play.  Seguin and Lucic would always be on my power-play and then I would play two of Marchand, Horton, Ryder (whoever was hottest).  Certain times that would be Ryder.  Also, you cant predict 4 injuries, but you can predict one.  Having a fifth PP winger is a good thing.
    Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]Ah, well there you go, you're the only person on this thread who answered that question. You would play Ryder ahead of Marchand. At least now I can respect your opinion because it is grounded in reality. I would never make that switch, I like Marchand on the pp, especially since he's a lefty and we only have two of those in our top 6. I don't agree with your opinion, but if you would take some of Marchand's ice time and give it to Ryder, the you can argue he would contribute more than someone like Pouliot. Of course Marchand would then contribute less. In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    It wouldnt always be Marchand sitting for Ryder.  Horton and Marchand (and Ryder) are all relatively streaky players.  I'd play the one that wasnt cold (assuming health).  But assuming all hot, yes, I would play Horton and Ryder.  Marchand probably has the better all around two way game, but Ryder is the better sniper.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]I consider Peverley to be that guy, of course he is injured too... In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    As I said, the decision to match the offer (if we had been given the opportunity) would have been a very tough one.  Personally, I probably would have done it becasue a) we had the room and b) its all about the post-season.  But I can see the logic in letting him walk.  Personally, I dont think that either decision would have been a bad one.

    My points are A) we can absolutely use the guy right now B) what Ive bolded above and C) the two questions: Do we need him right now?  and Was it a bad move to let him walk? are two COMPLETELY different questions.

    Oh yeah, and my fourth point: I always liked the guy.  I always respect players who bring it in the postseason.  <3 Derek Lowe.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : Yea because he scored 30 goals last season. Oh wait... Oops. Consider his production replaced. Need I point out that we have the highest ranked offense in the league? Clearly his production and Recchi's hasn't been replaced. Because obviously best in the league isn't good enough. Where we faulter is STOPPING goals. Not scoring goals. I'll give you that one, Ryder did make 1 phenomenal save to keep the playoffs going. So I guess Ryder could possibly help there... ha. And just so you know, I am "giving my own head a shake" but its over the ignorance some people display when trying to argue statistics.
    Posted by lambda13[/QUOTE]
    I am not trying to argue the stats. Need I point out that the Bruins have been shutout 7 times this year. I just think Ryder may have made a difference in a few of those games. He seems to have a knack for scoring timely goals. I am not a Ryder lover by any means but I think the team misses him & his 30 goals right about now.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far

    In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Michael Ryder: 30 Goals So Far : Jp, the problem is that Ryder was coming off of back to back 18 goal seasons in Boston.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    I know Dez, Ryder had 2 disappointing regular seasons in a row with the Bruins. I for sure wasn't expecting the goal production he is having this year. As I said before I am not a Ryder lover, but it just seems like the Bruins settled for Pouliot as their free agent signing of last offseason. I know it was for just 1 million but nobody can argue that was money well spent.
     

Share