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

PAZ

.
Jul 14, 2011
17,804
10,326
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
6,823
10,404
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
35,294
26,564
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
19,358
16,216
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
9,246
8,226
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
9,246
8,226
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
54,147
39,921
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.
 

RoyIsALegend

Gross Misconduct
Sponsor
Oct 24, 2008
25,146
40,189
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 haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
52,748
57,536
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyIsALegend

expatriatedtexan

Illegitimati non carborundum
Aug 17, 2005
19,461
16,472
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

Gross Misconduct
Sponsor
Oct 24, 2008
25,146
40,189
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

.
Jul 14, 2011
17,804
10,326
BC
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GirardSpinorama

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
46,842
45,823
Caverns of Draconis
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.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad