|
|
Post by franko on Mar 7, 2004 22:28:58 GMT -5
As much as you hate to give up Ryder and the pick I have to agree that lineup is pretty decent. My question: is decent good enough? Are Cole and O'Neil enough to put us over the top (or at least enough over to oust the Leafs?). And with Balej gone can we afford to wave bye-bye to Ryder, and up-and-comer (who we hope is not a one-season wonder)? OK, more than one question, but it boils down to "does this type of thinking/trade change the long-term plan"? |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 7, 2004 23:19:05 GMT -5
Can't wait for the other shoe to drop--if it ever does.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 7, 2004 23:19:25 GMT -5
My question: is decent good enough? Are Cole and O'Neil enough to put us over the top (or at least enough over to oust the Leafs?). I think that the lineup I posted on the previous page, along with Theo in nets, is good enough to win against any team. And with Balej gone can we afford to wave bye-bye to Ryder, and up-and-comer (who we hope is not a one-season wonder)? As a preference, I'd rather keep Ryder and they keep Cole. O'Neil - Ribeiro - Ryder works well for me as well. That being said, if Ryder is the pivot of this deal for Carolina, it's not too bad bad in terms of "up'n coming" impact because Cole and O'Neil are still young enough to hang around for 3 years +. Frankly a lot can happen in 3 years... "does this type of thinking/trade change the long-term plan"? I don't think so. The long term plan of being self sufficiant with players coming up regularely from our farm year after year still stays. What changes is the short term plan where we have a immediate strong team, it's actually easier to break in prospect on a good team than it is on a weak team IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 8, 2004 0:05:34 GMT -5
As much as I like Cole, trading Ryder for him totally defeats the purpose, to me.
They're about the same age (both 1998 picks) and Ryder is the one having the better season, and it's safe to say he should improve over the next couple of years.
Cole though, seems to have plateau-ed. He's a 15-20 goal, 40-45 points forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Mar 8, 2004 1:00:44 GMT -5
I prefer Ryder over Cole as well. Even though they're both relatively the same age, IMO, Ryder is the one with more upside. Like PTH said, I think Cole has indeed plateaued. Ryder on the other hand, IMO, has the ability to improve even more and eventually become a solid, consistent 2nd line winger.
To me, it doesn't look like Cole is going to get better. On a contending team, he strikes me as 3rd line material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 8, 2004 8:09:12 GMT -5
What the H. E. Double hockey sticks is everyone thinking? We struggled all year to build this thing called chemistry, and have proven we can win with this team as is.
Now we go from a well oiled machine, with all its factory components, to getting second hand parts and trying to make them fit where ever!
This trade dismantles the team.
We have a top line that hasn't played together.
The second line has two players that have played together on a losing team with our best centerman. Is Ribeiro actually better than Ron Francis or Brind'Amour? Can he get something out of them that they couldn't?
The third line has a new centermen.
The fourth line get Dagenais or Perreault or we leave it at Langdon, Juneau and Daks?
Now our defense get a couple new pairing?
With 10 games before hockey's version of "The Dating Game". We all knew we were going to get one top 6 forward. We got him .... and a grit guy ...we got him ... now the plan was for a defenseman .... why change the plan? Why all of a sudden do we need another top 6 forward? Perreault has been doing fine.
I admit the possibility of getting another one excites me, but after the Balej incident everyone thought the farm was dessimated ..... This deal would cause spontaneous combustion on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 8, 2004 10:19:04 GMT -5
Chemistry is not about keeping a team together at all cost to protect the underperforming elements or live with it's weaknesses. HABS have performed well this year but they did it on the back of a handful of players that come to play every night… A very limited amount of players can claim to carry their own weight, let alone be a crucial element for the team. Replacing Dagenais for a real winger won't disturb chemistry… Neither would adding some much needed grit, neither would adding a reliable veteran dmen . Personally I would not mind if Gainey makes this team better and O'Neil instead of Dagenais would be a huge upgrade.
As for the question of Ribeiro being able to get more out of O'Neil than Francis and Brindy can… Well, if he can get out of him what they got out of him for the last 4 years before this season, I'd be pretty satisfied thank you. An off season is an off season, the guy just turned 28 so he's not "done" or on the "decline", heck, he's just about to reach his peak…<br>
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Mar 8, 2004 10:25:45 GMT -5
That being said, if Ryder is the pivot of this deal for Carolina, it's not too bad bad in terms of "up'n coming" impact because Cole and O'Neil are still young enough to hang around for 3 years +. Ryder has brought his 'A' game to the rink more often than any other player this year. O'Neill, on the other hand, looks like he frequently brings his 'D' game. A trade involving these two guys (grit over potential) sends the wrong message, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on Mar 8, 2004 10:55:23 GMT -5
The Habs traded a non-roster player for one of the best offensive players in the game (Kovalev). I don't think it makes sense to trade a key roster player (Ryder) for another (Cole) who may or may not do as well as the man he'd replace. I like Erik Cole, especially for the playoffs, but only if the Habs find more sensible ways to get him.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 9, 2004 14:33:13 GMT -5
Unless a a big deal is announced in the next few minutes, I think all these attention-seeking bums should convene in a rented villa and commit seppuku (hara-kiri). Their rumors have polluted the environment far too long. The MolsonMan, whoever he is, is aptly named, because when he's finally poured we get gaseous bubbles emanating from a liquid. I can't remember the assumed names of all the other so-called insiders.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 9, 2004 14:40:11 GMT -5
I can't remember the assumed names of all the other so-called insiders. Ask Martha Stewart ;D |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Mar 9, 2004 14:44:34 GMT -5
Maybe we should commute the capital punishment to an indefinite prison term? ;D But don't give them access to the internet while they're locked up or they'll propagate more nonsense based on tips they get from their corrections officers! |
|
