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

PAZ

.
Jul 14, 2011
17,800
10,321
BC
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alienblood

Murzu

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 23, 2013
6,818
10,368
Finland
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: missionAvs

The Abusement Park

Registered User
Jan 18, 2016
35,289
26,553
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

NWOBHM forever \m/
Feb 14, 2010
19,354
16,194
Québec, QC
First women to make it to the NHL in a regular season game. We should be proud of the Avs EDI policy.

IMG_1786.jpeg
 

Tralfamadore

Don't Panic.
Sep 25, 2011
9,242
8,211
Ritchie very noticeable in the pre lim game against Sweden. Don't think he picked up a point on the tying goal but worked very hard and took a beating on the play.

Doesn't look super skilled but works hard and plays a pro game.
 

Tralfamadore

Don't Panic.
Sep 25, 2011
9,242
8,211
Ritchie gets the go ahead goal after a lucky tip off a swede defender in Mack's office up near the blue line. Won a big faceoff in the offensive zone to start the shift. Good work on the cycle leading up to the goal.

Also picked up an assist shortly after with a faceoff win.
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2003
54,138
39,879
Screw You Blaster
Visit site
Ritchie gets the go ahead goal after a lucky tip off a swede defender in Mack's office up near the blue line. Won a big faceoff in the offensive zone to start the shift. Good work on the cycle leading up to the goal.

Also picked up an assist shortly after with a faceoff win.
Hmmm, a lot of faceoff wins. Better trade him, doesn't fit the team at all.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad