Why did we let Ryder go and then sign Briere?

[REV-G]

One of the moves I've wondered about over the past few years is why teams so easily and quickly let Michael Ryder leave? Montreal let him walk for nothing. The Bruins let him walk and Dallas traded him for an older, slowing power forward in Eric Cole and even gave up a draft pick as well.

Wherever Ryder has gone he has put up decent to very good offensive numbers, yet after a year or two teams seem to be quite willing to let him walk or trade him?

I have a lot of trust and hope in our GM but I have to ask, why would we sign Briere and not keep Ryder? Is it a character issue? But Ryder scored more goals and points than Briere did last year and had more goals and points than Briere over the past couple of years and is a few years younger, and yet Ryder signed with New Jersey for less money than Briere did with us and for the same term. And I heard Ryder was willing and even hoping to stay with us.

Is there something we're not aware of? Other than Briere being able to play both center and wing there seems to be more advantages for us to have signed Ryder than Briere.

What are your thoughts on this??

[dlbalr]

First off, I don't think the Habs expected Ryder to take $3.5M on the open market. Had they known that, I think they may have given the thought of keeping him some serious thought. It's worth noting that he got less than expected though, particularly since there only seemed to be a pair of suitors for him (Boston and New Jersey).

I think the reason he's starting to get passed around the league is that he's more or less a one-trick pony. When he's on, he's one of the more dangerous scorers in the game. When he's not, he's barely noticeable or worse. A team that's historically low scoring would have a use for Ryder, he'll get his 25 year in, year out and that team can live with the invisibility the rest of the way since their incumbents can't score with regularity. Boston, a team that was middle of the pack, has Ryder's junior coach and he has been a part of their system before so they know how to insulate him.

One-trick ponies tend to have short shelf lives but keep finding jobs. I know they're not the same player but Mike Sillinger, a faceoff specialist who in his prime was a good 2nd/3rd liner, springs to mind. A lot of teams need faceoff help, Sillinger's specialty filled that need but long-term, a more balanced player was desired. A lot of teams need scoring help, Ryder's specialty can fill that need but long-term, more teams will covet a more balanced replacement. (I'm not saying Ryder will play for 12 teams in his career like Sillinger but he's heading to team #4 now and I suspect he'll change addresses a couple more times.)

So, why Briere over Ryder, the linguistic issue notwithstanding? I think Briere's game-to-game performance doesn't vary quite like Ryder's does which is something a coach would prefer. You note the positional flexibility, that's another positive for Briere. He also has a reputation for being clutch in the playoffs; while I think Ryder's reputation of fading in the playoffs is overblown, he's not at the same level as the newest Hab. Bergevin praised Briere's character - I'm not going to get into speculation about Ryder there, maybe there's something he knows that we don't, maybe not.

Six weeks ago, had we done a poll asking what fans thought Ryder would get, I imagine we'd see something along the lines of three years, $4.5 M per (some would guess higher, others lower, this is my hypothetical average). I'm sure Bergevin did his due diligence to figure out what the cost would be and before free agency, I'd guess the price would have been for more than what he got in the end. So, on they went to plans B, C, etc. There was mutual interest in Briere and he was willing to sign before the market formally opened. When you've already struck out on Plan B (Lecavalier), you probably don't want to circle back to Ryder and risk missing on both.

[TurdBurglar]

While I agree Ryder will put up points, and he did with us last season, there's an important stat your not paying attention to. Last year's playoffs Ryder put up 2 points in 5 games. Not sure if your aware of this but Briere is second in playoff points since the 04-05 lockout. He has tallied 106 points in 102 playoff games. Ryder has tallied 42 points in 64 playoff games. While I don't expect Briere to continue at this pace, it's a stat you can't ignore.

We had a good season last year and a bad playoff run. Briere is exactly the player we needed last playoffs, we didn't have him, but now we do. We can point our fingers at size or defence or injuries, but it came down to we couldn't put the puck in the net last playoffs. Briere does exactly that in the playoffs.

[Trizzak]

Seems it's a clear cut character issue. It could simply be a lot of GMs want him till they have him and see he isn't much of a "team guy"?

[Meller93]

All good points above. I think a lot of it comes down to what Bergevin said " some players get you into the playoffs, others get you through them."

Briere's a proven playoff performer, where as Ryder could easily disappear. We have the talent to get us in the playoffs anyway. Hopefully Briere can help us through them.

[patience is a virtue]

Agreed, this is a playoff move as per the quote from Bergevin.

More importantly, for me, Ryder scored at a 17% shooting percentage last season for the Habs. This is simply not sustainable. His career average is comparatively high at 12.79% (about 10% is normal for NHL scorers) but his average has been pulled up by his last two seasons (17% 2012-13, 16.59% in Dallas in 2011-12).

Maybe Ryder has found the secret to beating NHL goalies in his 30s, but I think it more likely that he has had some puck luck the past couple years and the safe money is on his productivity declining/regressing to the norm this coming season.

Briere is the exact opposite story – 6.9 SH% last season was well below his career average shooting percentage of 14.39%. Unlikely he returns to that level in MTL, but we do have some great set up men (Pleks, DD, Eller, Markov, Galchenyuk) to work with and I expect Briere to score at least 20 this year (if healthy), and hopefully more in the playoffs.

[ForumGhost]

Even with Ryder's decent production over the past 2 years, he still doesn't do much while he's not scoring. And I'm not just talking about playing a 2-way game -- I mean he doesn't really create any offence be himself. He mainly drifts around the offensive zone and waits for the puck to come to him before going for the snipe/tip.

Briere, at least when he's not scoring, he can still play a strong offensive game. Like Ryder, he plays and opportunistic perimeter game, but can do so much more with the puck on his stick in terms of carrying and passing.

Overall, I think Briere is a much more reliable offensive factor regardless of production stats. If given the choice, I would pick Briere over Ryder.

[Habsy]

Ryder skipped the final media stuff on clean out your locker day. And early in the process, his agent said he was not going to return.

[TurdBurglar]

Rumor had it Ryder was looking for a 5m+ for 4+ years when he was still with us.

Probably why he was let go, wanted to see if he could cash in with us before free agency. Once we shot that down and both parties decided to go elsewhere, Ryder went to free agency and found out he wasn't worth his asking price. At that point bridges were already burned and even if he wanted to come back, not saying he did, it was probably too late.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

4 NHL teams in 3 years for a thirty-goal scorer? Something is wrong with that picture.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

At the end of the day, I think Briere will be a much more fun player to have on the Habs and probably bring comparable overall offensive value to boot. So it's all good.

[BlueKross]

At the end of the day, I think Briere will be a much more fun player to have on the Habs and probably bring comparable overall offensive value to boot. So it's all good.

CC that's as lame as it gets. He'll be more fun? Honestly! Reminds a lot of we must keep Gomez because he is good in the dressing room.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

4 NHL teams in 3 years for a thirty-goal scorer? Something is wrong with that picture.

Not necessarily. Paul Coffey did the same between Detroit, Hartford and Philadelphia. Then he repeated it with Philly, Chicago and Carolina. Dave Gagner played for five teams between 95-96 and 98-99 and was a great locker room guy. Between 05-06 and 11-12, Dominic Moore will have played for nine hockey clubs. Everyone loves Moore. Some guys move around a lot. Nothing much to it.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

CC that's as lame as it gets. He'll be more fun? Honestly! Reminds a lot of we must keep Gomez because he is good in the dressing room.

Oh, dear. Let me rephrase. I agree with ForumGhost's analysis that Ryder is one-dimensional and totally useless when not scoring, and that Briere - whose signing I did not particularly like - probably brings a more diverse and dynamic overall offensive game. So it's probably a saw-off in terms of on-ice impact. This being so, then preferring one over the other turns on other considerations, such as which player is more exciting to watch, who brings more intangibles, etc. And Briere wins that particular contest.

Neither re-signing Ryder nor signing Briere would have thrilled me especially. But Briere is now on the team, and I think he'll bring some entertainment value both as a story and on the ice.

And I never said we must keep Gomez because he is "good in the dressing room." Back when he was a 60-point player and top-20 in assists, I defended him as a player, and also as one of the most dashing and exciting players around. This is, after all, entertainment, and I do appreciate guys who bring that. I always liked Kovalev for that reason - even when stinking out the joint, his psychodrama was never dull.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Gomez is the nightmare of advanced statistics. It's proof that possession stats are just one piece of the puzzle in determining a players worth. Gomez always had ridiculously high possession stats, up there with the best in the league but we Habs fans know that while Gomez could easily bring the puck into an opposing zone and even do circles with it he then had absolutely no idea what to do afterwards. He always let defenders put himself into a no shot zone but would still take this soft shot at the goalie instead of finding a place to pass. It's a huge difference between him and Subban. Subban carries, rushes and then starts a play. Gomez would carry, rush and then nothing.

I'm just in a bash advanced stats mood, sorry

[BlueKross]

Oh, dear. Let me rephrase. I agree with ForumGhost's analysis that Ryder is one-dimensional and totally useless when not scoring, and that Briere - whose signing I did not particularly like - probably brings a more diverse and dynamic overall offensive game. So it's probably a saw-off in terms of on-ice impact. This being so, then preferring one over the other turns on other considerations, such as which player is more exciting to watch, who brings more intangibles, etc. And Briere wins that particular contest.

Neither re-signing Ryder nor signing Briere would have thrilled me especially. But Briere is now on the team, and I think he'll bring some entertainment value both as a story and on the ice.

And I never said we must keep Gomez because he is "good in the dressing room." Back when he was a 60-point player and top-20 in assists, I defended him as a player, and also as one of the most dashing and exciting players around. This is, after all, entertainment, and I do appreciate guys who bring that. I always liked Kovalev for that reason - even when stinking out the joint, his psychodrama was never dull.

Nice frame. Yeah things are slow. I didn't link anyone to Gomez, only the lameness of the comment, which was out there.. Personnally don't think Briere replaces Ryders numbers. At best we remain status quo and haven't improved offense. I guess we hope our up and coming stars produce the needed difference.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Nice frame. Yeah things are slow. I didn't link anyone to Gomez, only the lameness of the comment, which was out there.. Personnally don't think Briere replaces Ryders numbers. At best we remain status quo and haven't improved offense. I guess we hope our up and coming stars produce the needed difference.

I doubt we've improved much on paper. The FW we really need is the Erik Cole of 2011. If he returns to form in Dallas, we will be able to declare that trade an absolute debacle, since the much-praised 'cap savings' have now been thrown at Briere.

Ryder's numbers last season were very good, I'll give you that much. But they were also somewhat aberrant for him. He may be one of those guys who gets better with age...or he may just be due for a 'correction' back to his historic level of 50ish points.

[DON]

I doubt we've improved much on paper. The FW we really need is the Erik Cole of 2011. If he returns to form in Dallas, we will be able to declare that trade an absolute debacle, since the much-praised 'cap savings' have now been thrown at Briere.

Ryder's numbers last season were very good, I'll give you that much. But they were also somewhat aberrant for him. He may be one of those guys who gets better with age...or he may just be due for a 'correction' back to his historic level of 50ish points.

If Briere takes one big hit and retires and Conner Crisp is a bust, then your "absolute debacle" would be apt. But if Briere gets 15-20 goals/year, does well in playoffs and Crisp somehow turns into a good bottom six physical presence, then trade will be viewed a bit different.

[BlueKross]

I doubt we've improved much on paper. The FW we really need is the Erik Cole of 2011. If he returns to form in Dallas, we will be able to declare that trade an absolute debacle, since the much-praised 'cap savings' have now been thrown at Briere.

Ryder's numbers last season were very good, I'll give you that much. But they were also somewhat aberrant for him. He may be one of those guys who gets better with age...or he may just be due for a 'correction' back to his historic level of 50ish points.

I doubt that we have improved period. That's my point. Ryder/ Briere doesn't matter. We haven't improved.

[revvvrob]

realize too that even if Briere is a bust, and that he and Crisp were the return on Cole ... that it cost us nothing in terms of assets to acquire Cole as a UFA. I feel we are already playing with house money. If Briere holds us over for 2 years with 15 goals each year and decent leadership and defensive reliability and Crisp makes 4th line NHL, that we have still done fantastic and gained much on very little initial investment. if Briere scores 20+ and we go deep in the playoffs and Crisp makes 3rd line with occasional 2nd line duty, then that's an all out windfall!

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Unless Cole has a serious resurgence in play under Lindy Ruff, Dallas is likely to use him the same way we use Rene Bourque. And really the only way I see that is if Ruff tries a Benn - Seguin - Cole line.

We also really didn't miss him last season and Ryder showed that Cole's believed intangibles as a power forward didn't really cause the team to lack much. Also, Cole has a career history as a poor playoff performer. Nobody got to see that because in his one great year with Montreal we finished 15th in the East. When all your memory of the guy is him having a career year before being shipped out due to poor play, of course you're going to think of the career year and not the career.

[Guest Stogey24]

Unless Cole has a serious resurgence in play under Lindy Ruff, Dallas is likely to use him the same way we use Rene Bourque. And really the only way I see that is if Ruff tries a Benn - Seguin - Cole line.

We also really didn't miss him last season and Ryder showed that Cole's believed intangibles as a power forward didn't really cause the team to lack much. Also, Cole has a career history as a poor playoff performer. Nobody got to see that because in his one great year with Montreal we finished 15th in the East. When all your memory of the guy is him having a career year before being shipped out due to poor play, of course you're going to think of the career year and not the career.

Cole was also contemplating retirement. His head wasn't in the game after the lockout.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I think we can over-analyze. Cole is a big, strong power forward who generally drives the net. Everyone and his dog can agree that the Habs could use this type of player. 2011 was indeed by far his best season in goal-scoring - because he finally got PP time - but it was in no way aberrant in terms of career points totals. 50-60-point power forward is just what the doctor ordered for this team up front. Cripes, he could even play RW, a clear area of vulnerability on this team.

I agree, obviously, that he was completely out of it last year. If that's the player he is now, then MB was cagey to unload him. Then again, last season may well prove to be the aberration, given Cole's obvious demoralization due to the lockout. The point is just this: if he goes back to being the player he used to be prior to last season, then that trade will have been a serious mistake, because we will have (in effect) traded a big, productive power forward for a small, declining, injury-prone smurf and some guy who may eventually become a 4th liner. Whether or not Cole was acquired as a UFA is irrelevant to this assessment.

I love how everyone goes on about the need for 'balance' on the roster, but suddenly has amensia when it comes to Cole.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

50-60-point power forward is just what the doctor ordered for this team up front. Cripes, he could even play RW, a clear area of vulnerability on this team.

I don't know why this keeps being repeated when we have Gionta, Gallagher and looking to be Briere for the RW. Also, Bourque plays either wing. Heck same with Prust. Are we missing size on the right wing? Well sure, but when two of those guys play bigger than their measurements, one is the captain with one year left and the other an important rookie going forward I don't see this as the weakness that you do.

I agree, obviously, that he was completely out of it last year. If that's the player he is now, then MB was cagey to unload him. Then again, last season may well prove to be the aberration, given Cole's obvious demoralization due to the lockout. The point is just this: if he goes back to being the player he used to be prior to last season, then that trade will have been a serious mistake, because we will have (in effect) traded a big, productive power forward for a small, declining, injury-prone smurf and some guy who may eventually become a 4th liner. Whether or not Cole was acquired as a UFA is irrelevant to this assessment.

I love how everyone goes on about the need for 'balance' on the roster, but suddenly has amensia when it comes to Cole.

At the end of the season for Dallas they were using him with Nystrom and Fiddler, hardly what you'd call top six situation. Like I said, unless Ruff decides he's going to play him with his top forwards in Benn and Seguin he's probably going to be no different than Rene Bourque will be for us. And even if he plays hot with Seguin and Benn, was it really all Erik Cole? Are we really disappointed there? Do people expect great numbers from him if he plays with Whitney and Horcoff even?

I liked how Erik Cole played for us and will admit I was wrong on his contract for the first year but one of my biggest fears with Cole was we were going to pay $4.5M to a playoff stinker for four years. We're now paying Danny Briere, a proven NHL playoff performer $4M for the next two seasons. That alone makes me feel a lot more comfortable. He might be declining, he might have had a poor season as well last year but Briere is about as close to a playoff guarantee as you can get (and there's no such thing as guarantees). Right now I'd prefer to pay $4M a season for that than $4.5M for the next two years on a guy who has never brought it in the playoffs and is declining.

[Neech]

I have little hope for a Cole resurgence. Even during his career year, I thought his abilities as a 'power' forward were overrated - sure, he's big and had good hit totals, but he didn't strike me as a dominant physical force with or without the puck. Would I take a big guy with speed and a ceiling of about 30 goals? Sure, but I don't think Cole would be that guy anymore - he plain stunk with us last year, and at his age and inconsistent track record, it was great to rid of that contract.

Replacing his cap hit with Briere's? Makes no sense at all. Now, I have hope that he can be useful for us and bring much better intangibles than Cole, but I also have an equal fear that he's well into decline, and we're handing another top 6 and powerplay spot to an over-the-hill vet while Eller and Galchenyuk get passed over. Heading into this off-season, Briere is almost the last guy I'd have wanted to fill that space.