Prospect Info: Avs draft F Calum Ritchie (2023 #27 overall)

[TruePowerSlave]

Question I always ask myself, would we have been OK giving this guy up + additional for Askarov?

Yes

Could always backfire of course. However, I think Askarov will be great.

 

[PAZ]

Nope.


Askarov does nothing for us today. We need goaltending right now, not in 2-3 years from now.

Eh, I wouldn't be surprised if Askarov outperforms any goalie (Blackwood, Gibson, Merzlikins) available on the market starting this year. He's been lights out in the AHL and has looked great in his 2 NHL starts.

 

[The Abusement Park]

And what does Ritchie do us now?

But we aren’t giving up assets to add Ritchie to the team.

 

[UnkleKraker]

Question I always ask myself, would we have been OK giving this guy up + additional for Askarov?

Personally I think I would if the + was small. As others have said though I think the price for the Ava would have been higher.

 

[Murzu]

But we aren’t giving up assets to add Ritchie to the team.

Might be because English isn't my first language but I don't understand you.

Adding Ritchie to the team doesn't cost assets. Having Ritchie is having an asset (one asset.)

Trading Ritchie for Askarov is an asset for asset. Therefor we would add an asset to the team by adding Askarov to the team. Asset for asset (if value is equal) means 1=1. We lose an asset, we gain an asset.

So if we could had traded Ritchie for Askarov without adding anything substancial, wouldn't the situation be the same. It's just shifting from having a forward prospect to having a goalie prospect.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Might be because English isn't my first language but I don't understand you.

Adding Ritchie to the team doesn't cost assets. Having Ritchie is having an asset (one asset.)

Trading Ritchie for Askarov is an asset for asset. Therefor we would add an asset to the team by adding Askarov to the team. Asset for asset (if value is equal) means 1=1. We lose an asset, we gain an asset.

So if we could had traded Ritchie for Askarov without adding anything substancial, wouldn't the situation be the same. It's just shifting from having a forward prospect to having a goalie prospect.

Might be because English isn't my first language but I don't understand you.

Adding Ritchie to the team doesn't cost assets. Having Ritchie is having an asset (one asset.)

Trading Ritchie for Askarov is an asset for asset. Therefor we would add an asset to the team by adding Askarov to the team. Asset for asset (if value is equal) means 1=1. We lose an asset, we gain an asset.

So if we could had traded Ritchie for Askarov without adding anything substancial, wouldn't the situation be the same. It's just shifting from having a forward prospect to having a goalie prospect.

Well the post was saying would you give up Ritchie+ for Askarov. Hence the giving extra assets for a guy who also wouldn’t fill an immediate hole.

 

[Metallo]

First women to make it to the NHL in a regular season game. We should be proud of the Avs EDI policy.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Big Cal named an Assistant Captain for Team Canada WJC team.

 

[Bender]

Big Cal named an Assistant Captain for Team Canada WJC team.

Take that eastern coward!!!

 

[MaKarter]

He is also Canada's first line center and going to have a big tournament.

 

[the_fan]

Big Cal named an Assistant Captain for Team Canada WJC team.

Is that Newhook in the middle?