Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Is Phillip Danault trying to force a trade?


BigTed3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't watch overtime last night but I saw a few media members comment on this today and then I re-watched the OT sequence and confirmed this...

- Habs started with Danault, JK, and Petry in OT.

- Ducharme stated after his first OT with the team that he chose to start Danault only to try and win possession and that the plan that game was to have Danault come right off after.

- Last night, once the Habs regained possession, Petry circled back to his own zone and appeared to be waiting for a line change. The part the media reported was that at this point the forwards' door on the Habs bench opens and stays open, with 1-2 players standing like they were waiting for a line change. Danault skates by and circles back to the defensive zone and continues playing for quite a while. Kotkaniemi ends up going off before him.

Bottom line is that it looked like Danault blatantly disregarded the coach's request for him to come off. Ducharme had previously told the media this was his intended strategy, Petry behaved like he was waiting for it, the bench door opened and the players there seemed to be expecting it too. So what was that about? Was that Danault disrespecting the coach? Was that his trying to make a point that he deserved to stay out there.

Put that together with Danault's comments about how he deserves to be the 1C and his turning down a big-money contract, and it's all getting a little suspicious that he wants out. Honestly not impressed by the attitude he's shown this year and this incident last night makes me wonder if he's on his way out the door. Wondering if he hasn't requested a trade behind closed doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I didn't watch overtime last night but I saw a few media members comment on this today and then I re-watched the OT sequence and confirmed this...

- Habs started with Danault, JK, and Petry in OT.

- Ducharme stated after his first OT with the team that he chose to start Danault only to try and win possession and that the plan that game was to have Danault come right off after.

- Last night, once the Habs regained possession, Petry circled back to his own zone and appeared to be waiting for a line change. The part the media reported was that at this point the forwards' door on the Habs bench opens and stays open, with 1-2 players standing like they were waiting for a line change. Danault skates by and circles back to the defensive zone and continues playing for quite a while. Kotkaniemi ends up going off before him.

Bottom line is that it looked like Danault blatantly disregarded the coach's request for him to come off. Ducharme had previously told the media this was his intended strategy, Petry behaved like he was waiting for it, the bench door opened and the players there seemed to be expecting it too. So what was that about? Was that Danault disrespecting the coach? Was that his trying to make a point that he deserved to stay out there.

Put that together with Danault's comments about how he deserves to be the 1C and his turning down a big-money contract, and it's all getting a little suspicious that he wants out. Honestly not impressed by the attitude he's shown this year and this incident last night makes me wonder if he's on his way out the door. Wondering if he hasn't requested a trade behind closed doors.

That's a lot of reading into something we actually have no idea about what was really going on. It's all just speculation and I really doubt that Danault would blatantly disregard the coach. Maybe it was JK supposed to get off and that's why Anderson is back on the line with Suzuki to punish JK! All speculation and I think everyone is trying to "read" to much into every little thing lately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I didn't watch overtime last night but I saw a few media members comment on this today and then I re-watched the OT sequence and confirmed this...

- Habs started with Danault, JK, and Petry in OT.

- Ducharme stated after his first OT with the team that he chose to start Danault only to try and win possession and that the plan that game was to have Danault come right off after.

- Last night, once the Habs regained possession, Petry circled back to his own zone and appeared to be waiting for a line change. The part the media reported was that at this point the forwards' door on the Habs bench opens and stays open, with 1-2 players standing like they were waiting for a line change. Danault skates by and circles back to the defensive zone and continues playing for quite a while. Kotkaniemi ends up going off before him.

Bottom line is that it looked like Danault blatantly disregarded the coach's request for him to come off. Ducharme had previously told the media this was his intended strategy, Petry behaved like he was waiting for it, the bench door opened and the players there seemed to be expecting it too. So what was that about? Was that Danault disrespecting the coach? Was that his trying to make a point that he deserved to stay out there.

Put that together with Danault's comments about how he deserves to be the 1C and his turning down a big-money contract, and it's all getting a little suspicious that he wants out. Honestly not impressed by the attitude he's shown this year and this incident last night makes me wonder if he's on his way out the door. Wondering if he hasn't requested a trade behind closed doors.

I would have no problem trading him. I could care less the way he's played and acted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I would have no problem trading him. I could care less the way he's played and acted

I could understand a trade by the way he's played , but I've seen nothing of the way he's "acted". He hasn't scored but he has made some great passes and has still been solid defensively. JK has 2 goals and is still getting a ton of PP time with little to show for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

I could understand a trade by the way he's played , but I've seen nothing of the way he's "acted". He hasn't scored but he has made some great passes and has still been solid defensively. JK has 2 goals and is still getting a ton of PP time with little to show for it. 

i mean in terms of rejecting that contract offer, it was so crazy that I just not liked him since... and it looks like we got lucky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptWelly said:

That's a lot of reading into something we actually have no idea about what was really going on. It's all just speculation and I really doubt that Danault would blatantly disregard the coach. Maybe it was JK supposed to get off and that's why Anderson is back on the line with Suzuki to punish JK! All speculation and I think everyone is trying to "read" to much into every little thing lately.  

It's a bit of speculation, but again, what we do know:

1. Danault stated that he saw himself as the 1C and that he shouldn't lose his job to the rookies.

2. Danault was offered a contract by MB and this offer came before the Gallagher contract was signed. It was reportedly for at least 5M per season, for something like 5-6 years according to multiple sources.

3. Ducharme is on record as saying the strategy in OT was to have Danault win the draw and come off in previous games.

4. The bench door was open.

5. Petry appeared to be waiting for a change to be made.

Could it have been Kotkaniemi? Maybe. But if JK was supposed to go off right away, why even have him on the ice to begin with? You don't put someone out there to be the winger at 3v3, and Ducharme had addressed Danault being out there as the win-possession-and-get-off before. The next line up was Suzuki-Drouin-Anderson. If you wanted one of them out there in place of JK, you probably would have just put them out there. To boot, Kotkaniemi got another shift later in OT, whereas Danault didn't see the ice again.

In any case, it was enough for some members of the media to notice as well and while there could well be more to the story, I think it would be lazy to at least not ask the question. I'm by no means implying Danault isn't trying to score goals and win games. I think he is. But I also think he feels slighted that Suzuki and JK are grabbing at his former role and that he's angry about this. I think he believes that there will be other teams who view him as a 1C or 2C and not a defensive player. I think he views himself as a Patrice Bergeron style player and believes he can be a top-line guy. And good for him for having that confidence, but it doesn't mean the Habs need to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

It's a bit of speculation, but again, what we do know:

1. Danault stated that he saw himself as the 1C and that he shouldn't lose his job to the rookies.

2. Danault was offered a contract by MB and this offer came before the Gallagher contract was signed. It was reportedly for at least 5M per season, for something like 5-6 years according to multiple sources.

3. Ducharme is on record as saying the strategy in OT was to have Danault win the draw and come off in previous games.

4. The bench door was open.

5. Petry appeared to be waiting for a change to be made.

Could it have been Kotkaniemi? Maybe. But if JK was supposed to go off right away, why even have him on the ice to begin with? You don't put someone out there to be the winger at 3v3, and Ducharme had addressed Danault being out there as the win-possession-and-get-off before. The next line up was Suzuki-Drouin-Anderson. If you wanted one of them out there in place of JK, you probably would have just put them out there. To boot, Kotkaniemi got another shift later in OT, whereas Danault didn't see the ice again.

In any case, it was enough for some members of the media to notice as well and while there could well be more to the story, I think it would be lazy to at least not ask the question. I'm by no means implying Danault isn't trying to score goals and win games. I think he is. But I also think he feels slighted that Suzuki and JK are grabbing at his former role and that he's angry about this. I think he believes that there will be other teams who view him as a 1C or 2C and not a defensive player. I think he views himself as a Patrice Bergeron style player and believes he can be a top-line guy. And good for him for having that confidence, but it doesn't mean the Habs need to agree.

I have to think that at this level most players have their egos restrained and are professional in games and practices. Dubois and a handful of others excepted. 
If Danault was exhibiting this kind of behavior, it should have come out earlier and regardless of showcasing him or otherwise, I have to believe that they would meet such cancerous demands and we would have seen more of Byron or Poehling as a Centre substitute. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, claremont said:

I have to think that at this level most players have their egos restrained and are professional in games and practices. Dubois and a handful of others excepted. 
If Danault was exhibiting this kind of behavior, it should have come out earlier and regardless of showcasing him or otherwise, I have to believe that they would meet such cancerous demands and we would have seen more of Byron or Poehling as a Centre substitute. 

If you're Danault and you wanted to be traded and felt like you were being slighted, you might act like he's acted.

If you were the Habs, as long as Danault hasn't publicly requested anything, you have no impetus to have to punish him. You still need him to win now because you don't have another veteran center, and reducing his ice time and publicly calling him out reduces his trade value. Some in the media have speculated Danault is still getting favorable linemates and ice time because MB wants to increase his trade value. What benefit would the Habs have from playing Byron or Poehling as their 3C? Not as good as Danault and benching Danault drops his value substantially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an interesting theory BT.  I do wonder.  There's definitely something 'off'   Tonight should be telling as Gallagher is being replaced by Armia on Danault's wing (and presumably his trio has been pushed down the lineup) so we might see more develop on this in the next game or two. 

The thing I keep wondering if PD is truly trying to force a trade though is this:  He's not a 1st line centre. I cant think of any team in the league where he would be but if there was one, it would be a bottom feeder.  So even if MB does finally have enough and trades him, most likely he ends up on the 3rd line somewhere else and almost guarantee he wont have wingers like Toffoli, Tatar, Gallagher etc as his linemates there.

It seems like a really dumb move if its intentional.  At a certain point guys need to swallow their pride & just do the job. I will never forget a reporter asking Karl Alzer about whether he was upset playing in Laval. He said (paraphrasing)  "sure, id love to be with the the club but you have to put things into perspective. Im still playing the game I love and Im getting paid more in 1 year than my dad made his entire working life."    Assuming this is on purpose, Danault could learn a thing or two from KA.  If he's just in a funk then I hope he breaks out of it soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, maas_art said:

Its an interesting theory BT.  I do wonder.  There's definitely something 'off'   Tonight should be telling as Gallagher is being replaced by Armia on Danault's wing (and presumably his trio has been pushed down the lineup) so we might see more develop on this in the next game or two. 

The thing I keep wondering if PD is truly trying to force a trade though is this:  He's not a 1st line centre. I cant think of any team in the league where he would be but if there was one, it would be a bottom feeder.  So even if MB does finally have enough and trades him, most likely he ends up on the 3rd line somewhere else and almost guarantee he wont have wingers like Toffoli, Tatar, Gallagher etc as his linemates there.

It seems like a really dumb move if its intentional.  At a certain point guys need to swallow their pride & just do the job. I will never forget a reporter asking Karl Alzer about whether he was upset playing in Laval. He said (paraphrasing)  "sure, id love to be with the the club but you have to put things into perspective. Im still playing the game I love and Im getting paid more in 1 year than my dad made his entire working life."    Assuming this is on purpose, Danault could learn a thing or two from KA.  If he's just in a funk then I hope he breaks out of it soon. 

Entirely true, but also likely that Alzner knew how badly he had played, whereas Phil didn't think his ply had dropped off. The issue is that Danault was gifted the 1C role and he was playing as well there last year as he was a couple of years ago, so to him, it's probably a question of what changed. Alzner lost his job, whereas in Danault's case, he was never really suited to that role and was a place-holder until someone better came along. He's lost his job due to the ascension of Suzuki and now Kotkaniemi, but in his mind, he sees himself as the same strong player that was told he was a 1C a few years ago. So guessing the mindset is different. I think Danault also knows he has this season to earn his next contract, which is likely his last shot at a big-money long-term deal. If he signs for 5-7 years, he's not getting another shot at big money after that one's over.

I agree with you that most teams won't use Danault as a 1C, but I think he's highly-valued across the league, and there will be teams where he's a clear 2C, which he's maybe fine with. I think he doesn't want to be viewed as a 3C defensive player, which is where it looks like he's headed here. I also don't think it helps that the media have tossed around that he's a Patrice Bergeron-like player and that his coach was Julien, who might have also been coaching him to be the next Bergeron. So Danault might also think he's capable of being what Bergeron is and wants to be paid/played accordingly. I don't think Danault's view of things is reality, but that could be where he's at and why there's a disconnect with how everyone else views him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

Be nice to move PD for a solid LHD, although the way he has played so far this year not really sure what kind of return we might get for him.  Maybe move him to Arizona (he would be a 2nd line center there lol) and a 2nd rnd pick in exchange for OEL . 

Would you do Danault + Chiarot for Keith + Soderberg? I think this could work for both sides, Montreal fills the LHD hole beside Weber and Chicago fills the 2C hole long term and 1C hole until Toews returns. 

Lineup is

Drouin-Suzuki-Anderson

Toffoli-Kotkaniemi-Gallagher

Tatar-Soderberg-Armia

Byron-Evans-Lehkonen

Romanov-Petry

Keith-Weber

Kulak-Edmundson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 26NCounting said:

Be nice to move PD for a solid LHD, although the way he has played so far this year not really sure what kind of return we might get for him.  Maybe move him to Arizona (he would be a 2nd line center there lol) and a 2nd rnd pick in exchange for OEL . 

OEL is signed to a huge contract long-term, so he's probably a player to avoid.

The one guy who jumps out among those who are "available" is Vince Dunn, who is a good skater and puck mover. He would fit the bill for what we're missing in our top 4, he's on a reasonable contract (albeit impending RFA), and St. Louis has soured on him. I imaging St. Louis would need/want a LHD back in return and we'd need to make the cap work, but a deal including Chiarot could make sense for both sides.

Dmitry Kulikov is another guy who could make sense for us. He has some defensive issues but he skates well and can play big minutes if needed, and he'd be a better complement to Weber than Chiarot. He's an impending UFA on a low salary, and he can probably be had for cheap (maybe a 4th or 5th round pick???).

Brandon Montour in Buffalo is a righty but can play both sides of the ice and even if we keep him on the right side, acquiring him could provide some ice time relief to Shea Weber and allow us to move Romanov to the left in the top 4. Another guy I'd be looking into and we know Buffalo has said they're willing to trade. They apparently showed some interest in Mete earlier this year, and their forward group is a mess. They might be a team that would sniff around Danault if they knew he would sign an extension with them. It could be a fit in that he could probably be their 2C behind Eichel, and Eichel might not be around too long...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...