illWill Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 theres alot on the market this off season but outside of iggy, ryder might actually be the best sniper out there. 5 of 8 seasons 25+ goals 3 of 8 seasons 30+ goals 2 seasons in BOS played on there checking line and still managed 18 goals per.he was a key contributor in their Stanley Cup run he's known to score big goals at key moments only bad season was his final season in MTL where he knew he was done there and played as such. he even mentioned it in his ride from the airport on 24CH. I would give him 2years @ $4 million but go as high as $5. 33-34yrs old. that's the longest and why not?? he's are leading scorer(tied) and led dallas the year before as well. he's a good hockey player. Yeah I'm not quite understanding why some are hesitant to resign him at market value. 5 mill for a few years is quite reasonable. We all know what he brings to the table. He is playing exceptionally well and has transitioned seamlessly onto the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 dont think hes going to accept less than his last contract at 3.5/per Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 dont think hes going to accept less than his last contract at 3.5/per I don't think he is going to accept less then $5m/5yrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 5years is long he's 32 now. i dont think GM's will throw 5 million at him at age 37-38. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 We could offer him 2-3 years, but he will not take it. He's looking for a retirement contract, one that will pay him until his late 30's. He's looking for 5 years roughly. While he's worth 5m for the first 2-3 years, he wants around 5 years so he can be paid out while on the decline. Unless we offer him around a 5 year term, he will not resign with us, no matter how much us, the fans, want him to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 A five year term with a declining salary might do the trick. Start with 5.5 and go down to 3. One good thing about Ryder is his game is not based on speed. He might age gracefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I like what Ryder brings, but $5 mil on a long-term deal? That's a helluva lot of money for a fairly one-dimensional, aging, complementary piece. What happened to all the cap hawks around here?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I like what Ryder brings, but $5 mil on a long-term deal? That's a helluva lot of money for a fairly one-dimensional, aging, complementary piece. What happened to all the cap hawks around here?? I guess we're keeping quiet on this one for the most part. Personally I think $5 M per year on a long-term pact is a terrible idea. It's probably market value based on recent deals but there's a reason Bergevin spoke highly of the potential cost savings in the future when this deal was made. I can't see him giving Ryder big money and term after moving Cole for primarily that exact reason. The better Ryder does, the more likely he seals his fate in that he won't be back next year. That's not a bad thing either as the better he does, in theory the better the team does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I guess we're keeping quiet on this one for the most part. Personally I think $5 M per year on a long-term pact is a terrible idea. It's probably market value based on recent deals but there's a reason Bergevin spoke highly of the potential cost savings in the future when this deal was made. I can't see him giving Ryder big money and term after moving Cole for primarily that exact reason. The better Ryder does, the more likely he seals his fate in that he won't be back next year. That's not a bad thing either as the better he does, in theory the better the team does. totally agree.... but like i said 2 years 5 million per i would do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Ryder just turned 33 on March 31st. My guess is he's gonna look for a 4 year deal worth approx 4 million-4.5 million$ per year...especially if he keeps up with his point production. Ideally, i'd like to sign him to a 3 year deal, but my guess is he won't accept anything less that a 4 year deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 To me, it's pretty simple. If Ryder turns out to be a 'soulful' type of player who likes the city, wants to be part of building a winner, etc., he will take a cap-friendly deal. In the unlikely event that that is the case, we should sign him even if the term is a bit excessive. Otherwise, he is going to the highest bidder, and that emphatically should not be us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Ryder just turned 33 on March 31st. My guess is he's gonna look for a 4 year deal worth approx 4 million-4.5 million$ per year...especially if he keeps up with his point production. Ideally, i'd like to sign him to a 3 year deal, but my guess is he won't accept anything less that a 4 year deal. After he was traded to Montreal I read Ryder will be looking for 5 years @ $5m per for his next contract and that he probably will retire after that contract. As dblair said, the better he does the more it's clear he won't be back. that is unless MB decides he will be a key piece for us for the next 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I've always seen Ryder as a mercenary of the NHL. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I've always seen Ryder as a mercenary of the NHL. Time will tell. most of them are. the rules say they have to be. NHLPA want bucks not teams. Teams aint their problem BUCKS are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 most of them are. the rules say they have to be. NHLPA want bucks not teams. Teams aint their problem BUCKS Are The rank and file have to maximize their own contracts given the short duration of an NHL career. However, if a team is lost that's a lot of pro hockey players out of a job so the NHLPA needs to recognize that its in the players collective interest to care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The rank and file have to maximize their own contracts given the short duration of an NHL career. However, if a team is lost that's a lot of pro hockey players out of a job so the NHLPA needs to recognize that its in the players collective interest to care. That's why we have the salary cap. I chuckle any time people flip out about a player making $9M, $10. The cap permits it. Prior to the lockout, the problem wasn't Bobby Holik or Jaromir Jagr's contracts. It was that the league was being skewed to four-six powerhouse teams and nobody else could attract top free agents and pay for them at the same time. Just look at a few players: Brett Hull 1998: St. Louis Blues 1999-2001: Dallas Stars 2002-2004: Detroit Red Wings Jason Arnott 1998: Edmonton Oilers 1999-2002: New Jersey Devils 2002-2006: Dallas Stars Joe Nieuwendyk 1995: Calgary Flames 1996-2002: Dallas Stars 2002-2003: New Jersey Devils Then you got Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya (both going to Colorado for extremely cheap), Claude Lemieux (bounced between New Jersey and Colorado), Rob Blake (five seasons with the Avalanche prior to the lockout), Luc Robitaille (two seasons with the Wings) and even Uwe Krupp (bounced between Colorado and Detroit). Big free agents rarely went elsewhere and when they did, they were the only free agent who went (Fedorov in Anaheim) or they signed and bombed in New York (Bure, Fleury, Lindros, Holik, etc.) The talent discrepancy was so skewed. Teams like Dallas, New Jersey, Detroit and Colorado still developed a core but when they need to go "over the top" the players were not hard to find. There's a reason so many teams talk negatively about the 90s and pre-lockout period, Montreal included. You just couldn't draw the big free agents. Today, teams like Minnesota can scoop up Zach Parise and Ryan Suter and completely change the fortunes of their team. That doesn't stop them from having Heatley, Mikko and even acquiring Pominville at the deadline. Big names will still goto big markets or "winning" markets but that doesn't stop a team from convincing a player to play for them. The salary cap is pretty strict. Nobody is going to lose their team because the cap ceiling is too high. A bigger issue for a lot of these teams is being able to rebuild with such a high cap floor. Even then, every single NHL team should be able to survive in the cap. If they don't? That's the fault of management/city, not the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The rank and file have to maximize their own contracts given the short duration of an NHL career. However, if a team is lost that's a lot of pro hockey players out of a job so the NHLPA needs to recognize that its in the players collective interest to care. sorry, I did not mean a team lost due to going broke. What I meant was team building, NHLPA has no interest in a team being better because someone wants to play there in spite of salary concerns. A player who would accept less than market value would be under considerable pressure from the NHLPA not to sign there but to go where the bigger bucks are. They are only concerned that no-one should lower the overall salaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMAC Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 sorry, I did not mean a team lost due to going broke. What I meant was team building, NHLPA has no interest in a team being better because someone wants to play there in spite of salary concerns. A player who would accept less than market value would be under considerable pressure from the NHLPA not to sign there but to go where the bigger bucks are. They are only concerned that no-one should lower the overall salaries. Agreed. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But, that said, it happens all the time that players take less than they might get as an FA in order to stay in a good situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.