Nick Ritchie discussion - clears waivers

[zeke]

 

[ponder]

We lost Hyman so Dubas' signed Bunting Kase and Richie. 2 outta 3 ain't bad.We will keep him for the playoffs most likely.

Well, Hyman signed for a $5.5 mil AAV, Ritchie and Mrazek combined went for $6.3 mil AAV. I’d say it was more “Ritchie and Mrazek over Hyman and a cheap backup goalie.”

Re: a cheap backup, Vladar would’ve been a nice option (in retrospect). Calgary traded a 3rd for his rights then signed him at $750K AAV. Hyman and Valdar make slightly less (in terms of AAV) than Ritchie and Mrazek.

 

[tmlms13]

To be fair Richie had been playing better right before the pause.

 

[Macallan18]

View attachment 495272

View attachment 495273


View attachment 495274

View attachment 495275


View attachment 495276

View attachment 495277

at least he is consistent

 

[ottomaddox]

View attachment 495220

It's true.

So damn hard to be humble.

 

[TheShape]

2.5m in cap space to address other areas is more valuable than Ritchie at this point.

Not losing any sleep if Dubas waives him or trades for a lower pick.

 

[FriendlyGiant]

2.5m in cap space to address other areas is more valuable than Ritchie at this point.

Not losing any sleep if Dubas waives him or trades for a lower pick.

I can't believe any team would give up something for him in a trade. Waiving him (or buying him out?) is an option.

 

[TheShape]

I can't believe any team would give up something for him in a trade. Waiving him (or buying him out?) is an option.

Teams will be shedding salary and still need to hit the cap floor. We’re not getting any value for Ritchie for sure. I think he’d get claimed on waivers.

 

[ACC1224]

I'd be surprised if Dubas has any interest in moving Ritchie at this point.

 

[Stephen]

Contenders aren't looking for 2.5M 4th liners/press box dwellers with another year left on their already terrible contracts. Dubas signed Ritchie to appease the fanbase who loves their lunchpail players. Turns out Ritchie has as much grit as a hemorrhoid pillow.

There's nothing wrong with Dubas or certain fans wanting lunch pail players. Kase, Kampf and Bunting have been welcome additions and no one is going to disparage them for being what they are and the team has been extremely successful on the ice with those additions.

Turns out the problem is Ritchie isn't a lunch pail player. Or a classic power forward. Body type and skillset he may represent those things, but something's missing in the software.

 

[Stephen]

I'd be surprised if Dubas has any interest in moving Ritchie at this point.

If you have something lined up that you can use the $2.5 million on, move him. But if everything's humming along you can afford to have him as a reserve. Put it another way. If Bunting is giving you $2.5 million value but Ritchie is closer to a $900K player it doesn't bother the Leafs.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Ritchie brings certain skills no one else on roster can bring .. and you need a certain amount of those skills to ice a successful team especially come playoff time when games get called differently and refs let players decide games on da ice

 

[Ciao]

Today, Rasmus Sandin doesn't count against the salary cap because he is an emergency call-up to replace Timothy Liljegren until he comes back from the COVID list.

It looks like Liljegren will be back soon and the Leafs will no longer be able to bring Sandin up as an emergency call-up.

Without a roster move, the Leafs can only carry 21 players. They can have either 13 forwards and six defenceman, or 12 forwards and seven defenceman.

Pick your 13th forward and your seventh defenceman. One or the other will have to be removed from the roster.

I think the path of least resistance is for Liljegren to go on the taxi squad, leaving room for Sandin to play and to protect Ritchie's contract while he sits in the press box.

Otherwise, if the Leafs put Ritchie on waivers he may get claimed and with Omicron so rampant they might soon wish they had him back to fill a vacant roster spot.

Another choice is to put Ritchie on waivers, leaving the Leafs with 12 forwards and seven defenceman including both Sandin and Liljegren [leaving one of Holl, Dermott, Sandin or Liljegren to sit in the press box]. If Ritchie is claimed, then they lose a valuable asset, but gain enough even more valuable salary-cap space to expand the roster to 22 or 23 players. If Ritchie passes through waivers – which is the optimal result – than they have him available on the taxi squad.

Things are changing so quickly that I think the Leafs will probably kick the can down the road by demoting Liljegren. In this environment, it is very likely there will be enough vacancies on the roster that Nick Ritchie's contract might come in handy before all is said and done.

 

[darrylsittler27]

My gut says Dubas' will keep Ritchie for the playoffs and move Engvall. The players we want to move have no market unless you cough up high picks. The odds were some of those signings would payoff. We spent on Bunting, Kase,Ritchie less than what Hyman got for 8 years.Edmonton screwed up not Dubas'. We shouldn't have signed Mrazek.

 

[ACC1224]

If you have something lined up that you can use the $2.5 million on, move him. But if everything's humming along you can afford to have him as a reserve. Put it another way. If Bunting is giving you $2.5 million value but Ritchie is closer to a $900K player it doesn't bother the Leafs.

I don't think he's untouchable by any means but I do think the team values the presence he brings.
Bunting is great value but he doesn't bring the same presence.

IMO, I thought Ritchie's game was finally coming around before the break.

 

[Ciao]

I don't think he's untouchable by any means but I do think the team values the presence he brings.
Bunting is great value but he doesn't bring the same presence.

IMO, I thought Ritchie's game was finally coming around before the break.

I would like them to keep keep Ritchie, and I wouldn't want to lose him on waivers. I think there is zero chance that the Leafs would trade him.

I think it's more likely that they make another roster move – if not demoting Liljegren, then trading a forward such as Engvall or Mikheyev, but I'm doubtful they would move either of them.

I suppose they could also put Simmonds on waivers, but I just don't see that happening either.

All in all, I think it's a good thing that the Leafs don't have any player contracts on their roster that they really want to lose. It generally indicates that they have a fairly strong roster.

 

[ACC1224]

I would like them to keep keep Ritchie, and I wouldn't want to lose him on waivers. I think there is zero chance that the Leafs would trade him.

I think it's more likely that they make another roster move – if not demoting Liljegren, then trading a forward such as Engvall or Mikheyev, but I'm doubtful they would move either of them.

I suppose they could also put Simmonds on waivers, but I just don't see that happening either.

All in all, I think it's a good thing that the Leafs don't have any player contracts on their roster that they really want to lose. It generally indicates that they have a fairly strong roster.

Yeah, good post.

IMO, Engvall is redundant on the roster and can go at any time if necessary.

 

[ACC1224]

It's true.

So damn hard to be humble.

What is it you feel you were correct about?

 

[fahad203]

I don't have a problem with Ritchie being around. He has done more than what Foligno did, that is he didn't cost us anything. Not to mention that Nash guy

You'll need some NHL experience with some toughness. Ritchie still has some decent hands. I am more confident with Ritchie in the line up on bottom 6 than I am with Robertsson
Play him against tough teams, rotate him to give some players like Kase, Jason some nights off

 

[zeke]

I'd be surprised if Dubas has any interest in moving Ritchie at this point.

Given how well all his other signings Bunting Kase Kampf Simmonds have turned out so far, and given that he was able to get Clifford for free, and given that not only was Ritchie unable to hold onto a top-6 spot as he was originally slotted in but is now deservedly out of the lineup....I think Dubas would definitely be interested in moving Ritchie.

 

[ottomaddox]

What is it you feel you were correct about?

There is no correct. I may have an opinion, but tides turn. Perhaps Ritchie remains a leaf and becomes a contributing player. It's possible.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Ritchie brings certain skills no one else on roster can bring .. and you need a certain amount of those skills to ice a successful team especially come playoff time when games get called differently and refs let players decide games on da ice

This. Ritchie's popularity will explode in these parts as soon as he throws one punch in the playoffs. He's looked more like a hockey player the last few games as well, I'm in no hurry to unload him whatsoever.

 

[LeafChief]

I wouldn't be against moving Ritchie but I think he may still have somethign to show.

The signing that has always puzzled me has been Mrazek. Too much money. Too much term.

 

[zeke]

Ritchie brings certain skills no one else on roster can bring .. and you need a certain amount of those skills to ice a successful team especially come playoff time when games get called differently and refs let players decide games on da ice

I mean...he's a heavyweight, sure. But Simmonds and Clifford bring that, but with a bit more energy and less defensive liability.

Ritchie was supposed to bring superior puck skills and offense on top of that, but we haven't seen that at all so far. In fact, Simmonds has been notably better with the puck.

And remember, Ritchie dropped all the way down to the 4th line for Boston in the playoffs last year due to ineffectiveness.

Is Ritchie good as a 4th line enforcer? Sure, probably. Not necessarily great though.

Moving him means we won't have to play any cap-limit roster games the rest of the way, though, and $2.5m is a lot of deadline capspace we could use to upgrade the roster with an impact salary player.

 

[ACC1224]

There is no correct. I may have an opinion, but tides turn. Perhaps Ritchie remains a leaf and becomes a contributing player. It's possible.

I guess I misread your post.