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?

 

[Tralfamadore]

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]

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.

 

[darthwispy]

He ended up with 2 assists and a goal

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

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.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

 

[expatriatedtexan]

That is some incredible vision and silky, silky smooth hands.

I keep trying to temper my expectations of/for Calum, but he keeps doing stuff like this. I'm beginning to seriously hope he isn't used as fodder for this deadline.

 

[TatteredTornNFrayed]

Hmmm, a lot of faceoff wins. Better trade him, doesn't fit the team at all.

No-look passes fits right in though. Just needs to work on making sure there are no teammates there to receive.

 

[CobraAcesS]

That is some incredible vision and silky, silky smooth hands.

I keep trying to temper my expectations of/for Calum, but he keeps doing stuff like this. I'm beginning to seriously hope he isn't used as fodder for this deadline.

I don't think they'll give him away. Otherwise we'd probably have Askarov.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

I will say this.

If we believe the Avs development will f*** up Ritchie or if we don’t believe he will really become a legit top 6 forward, his value will absolutely be at the highest heading into this trade deadline.

He’s the 1C for Team Canada at the World Junior Championship. Every team will be seeing him likely dominate.

 

[Balthazar]

I will say this.

If we believe the Avs development will f*** up Ritchie or if we don’t believe he will really become a legit top 6 forward, his value will absolutely be at the highest heading into this trade deadline.

He’s the 1C for Team Canada at the World Junior Championship. Every team will be seeing him likely dominate.

It's true but also it's really, really sad that we came to this. The Avs really could use a center on ELC for the next 3 years but do we trust them to turn him into a legit 2C? After Jost and Newhook I gotta say no.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I will say this.

If we believe the Avs development will f*** up Ritchie or if we don’t believe he will really become a legit top 6 forward, his value will absolutely be at the highest heading into this trade deadline.

He’s the 1C for Team Canada at the World Junior Championship. Every team will be seeing him likely dominate.

Let's just say you're CMac and you've decided to pull the trigger and use Ritchie for an upgrade. What position and player are you targeting with him as the bait?

Our needs appear to be 3C and a better Dman to pair with Malinski, in my opinion. I just have a hard time sacrificing Calum for those positions. Now, if Mitts doesn't get it going and we are improivng the 2C spot he'd almost have to be back in play.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Let's just say you're CMac and you've decided to pull the trigger and use Ritchie for an upgrade. What position and player are you targeting with him as the bait?

Our needs appear to be 3C and a better Dman to pair with Malinski, in my opinion. I just have a hard time sacrificing Calum for those positions. Now, if Mitts doesn't get it going and we are improivng the 2C spot he'd almost have to be back in play.

He’s a potential top 6 forward with size and talent. I’m only giving him up for a top 6 forward or top 4 defenseman. I’m not moving him for a bottom 6 or bottom pairing plug.

 

[PAZ]

It's true but also it's really, really sad that we came to this. The Avs really could use a center on ELC for the next 3 years but do we trust them to turn him into a legit 2C? After Jost and Newhook I gotta say no.

It's an unrealistic expectation to expect Ritchie to develop into a #2C during his ELC, regardless of the Avs' development. Look around the league and see how many U23 #2 centers there are. Then consider how many of them were drafted outside of the top 10.

I do think the Avs can develop Ritchie into a top 6 forward and he'll be a top 6 winger (with a below average defensive game) near the end of his ELC. Just depends if it's worth the wait.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Yeah for Defense I'd only move Ritchie if we were adding to him to get a legit #2/3 sort and not an older guy either.


Not sure I agree with regards to the Forwards though. If I can get a good quality 3C with some term, I wouldn't be against moving Ritchie for that. The question for me is more of a just what kind of quality 3C would do the trick. Pageau 50% retained? Laughton? Backlund? Cole Sillinger? Not saying these guys are available or anything just throwing out names in a hypothetical situation.


Personally, I'd say No to Laughton, No to Backlund, have to think about Pageau at 50%, and say yes to getting Sillinger. And then a guy like Lowry I would obviously say yes in an instant.