hatethosebruins Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Not an overly huge Armstrong fan, but to play the devil's advocate (against myself?), we heard a lot of talk from Habs players this year about how the chemistry in the room was better... no more Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, Martin, Cunneyworth, Cole, etc. and we've seen guys like Prust, Bouillon, Armstrong, Gallagher, Therrien brought in... I don't think we can look at the team and say it is boat-loads more talented than last year's. We had better coaching (but to what degree is that really lifting play?), we had some young guys who produced, and we had better luck with injuries (until we hit the playoffs)... but to what degree does this idea of "chemistry" play a role? And is it possible that a guy like Armstrong, whom multiple players and coaches have cited as being very popular in the room, brings more to the table than we can objectively measure on the ice? The impact of intangibles is almost impossible to measure, but while some (myself included) like the idea of bringing in a younger, faster, more physical or better skilled guy to play the 3rd and 4th lines, I wonder whether management, who have a much better idea of how the locker room works, feels Armstrong brings more to the table that we can't see as a fan. The other major factor for Armstrong is that we somewhat underpaid him as a free agent because he was still receiving salary from the buyout in Toronto. I don't think any of us feel he's worth more than 1M but maybe he does and his asking price may be higher than what it was this past year. While he managed to stay healthy, and started the season, IMO, actually playing pretty well. He clearly wore down as the season went on and looked like he had cement in his skates. Can still remember that breakaway vs Ottawa where he looked like a timbits player skating. I can't see him asking for more than what hes already making. At most, id give him 1.25 mil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.