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

2020-21 State Of The Habs


H_T_L
 Share

Recommended Posts

This team needs to dump the veterans and start playing to win a Cup in 2023-26. Forget the guys who won't be helpful then.

Guys I would actively be trying to shop or let go:

- Price

- Weber

- Byron

- Petry

- Staal

- Perry

- Armia

- Drouin

- Chiarot

- Edmundson

- Merrill

 

I would be interested in re-signing Tatar and Danault but only for the right price. The framework for my line-up next year would be

 

Caufield-Kotkaniemi-Anderson (and yes I would move Caufield to LW given our abundance of RW's and the ability to set Caufield up for one-timers on the left)

Tatar-Suzuki-Gallagher

Toffoli-Danault-Ylonen

Lehkonen-Poehling-Evans

 

XXX-XXX

Romanov-XXX

Kulak-Fleury

 

Allen

Primeau

 

We basically need to find an entire new top end of the D. I'm not against keeping Petry one more year short-term but ultimately I think he's not going to flourish here without a much deeper D corps and I worry his play will end up dropping off as Weber's has and then he'll have no trade value, so better to trade him now. Matt Dumba would remain a high priority trade target for me. Josh Brook could be a candidate to make the team too, but I don't have high hopes he'll be any kind of impact player next year. Would hope we can find something by trading Petry, Price, Drouin, Chiarot, etc. It's a decent forward group but man is this defence weak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States of the Habs :

8-10-2 in their last 20 games  (53GF, 62 GA)

3-7 in the last 10  (18GF, 34 GA)

The trajectory shows this team is likely going to miss the playoffs.    Vancouver is 6-3-1 in their last 10.    Flames 5-5 ... thanks to us.  Vancouver is now only 8pts back with 5 games in hand still.   Calgary is only 4 pts back with 1 game less.    Unless something radically changes we either squeek in by a point or two or miss making the post season.    

On March 20th, odds makers gave the Habs a 93% chance of making the playoffs ... its down to 73%

This organization is a sad shell of what it once was ... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HabsAlways said:

States of the Habs :

8-10-2 in their last 20 games  (53GF, 62 GA)

3-7 in the last 10  (18GF, 34 GA)

The trajectory shows this team is likely going to miss the playoffs.    Vancouver is 6-3-1 in their last 10.    Flames 5-5 ... thanks to us.  Vancouver is now only 8pts back with 5 games in hand still.   Calgary is only 4 pts back with 1 game less.    Unless something radically changes we either squeek in by a point or two or miss making the post season.    

On March 20th, odds makers gave the Habs a 93% chance of making the playoffs ... its down to 73%

This organization is a sad shell of what it once was ... 

 

 

Yup, same old. We're a borderline playoff team that probaby wouldn't even be in the discussion without the division realignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again I look to coaching as our biggest issue last night and in the last stretch. MB has got to go he is Mr band aid! he does not plan ahead at all he must have known that CJ might be an issue with the issues we have had the last couple of years and with his health problems last year so where are we at right now in what should have been an easy playoff stretch? we are on the verge of losing our shot with a good enough team to actually get there because we have a rookie coach who in my opinion is out of his depth. Folks can get upset if they want at the players they want the fact is we have a good team to ice they are not being used to maximize what strengths we have. there are a couple of guys hurt but so what that happens to every team and when it comes to Gally his offence has been replaced by Tofu and Anderson with ease! Price hurt no issue Allen is very very good but the team don't seem to play as well in front of him. that is on the coach! not taking a step back on key veterans when they are off their games benching or not dressing younger players in favor of much older spare parts in Staal and pretty much stripping the team of any identity is all on the coach and allowed by the GM. If the fools running this team can't figure out how to win a few more games this season they will be gone. the players on the ice are what they are we can't change what we have right now but we can sure use them better! there is not going to be a big sell off in the off season like some would like if we don't make the playoffs the players they don't like will have zero value. In the meantime we have a blue chip scoring winger sitting in limbo! not playing in either league. great asset management! the guy must need to learn to order room service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

This team needs to dump the veterans and start playing to win a Cup in 2023-26. Forget the guys who won't be helpful then.

Guys I would actively be trying to shop or let go:

- Price

- Weber

- Byron

- Petry

- Staal

- Perry

- Armia

- Drouin

- Chiarot

- Edmundson

- Merrill

 

I would be interested in re-signing Tatar and Danault but only for the right price. The framework for my line-up next year would be

 

Caufield-Kotkaniemi-Anderson (and yes I would move Caufield to LW given our abundance of RW's and the ability to set Caufield up for one-timers on the left)

Tatar-Suzuki-Gallagher

Toffoli-Danault-Ylonen

Lehkonen-Poehling-Evans

 

XXX-XXX

Romanov-XXX

Kulak-Fleury

 

Allen

Primeau

 

We basically need to find an entire new top end of the D. I'm not against keeping Petry one more year short-term but ultimately I think he's not going to flourish here without a much deeper D corps and I worry his play will end up dropping off as Weber's has and then he'll have no trade value, so better to trade him now. Matt Dumba would remain a high priority trade target for me. Josh Brook could be a candidate to make the team too, but I don't have high hopes he'll be any kind of impact player next year. Would hope we can find something by trading Petry, Price, Drouin, Chiarot, etc. It's a decent forward group but man is this defence weak.

 

I think up front I would stay with 

Tatar/Danault/Gallagher (This was definitely our top line before Gallagher got hurt)

Drouin/Suzuki/Anderson (This worked good early and gives Suzuki some size with Anderson)

Toffoli/JK/Caulfield (I'd give Caulfield a chance to adjust to the NHL before making switch side something he hasn't done his whole career) Also JK and Toffoli would be good set ups

Leks/Poehling/Evans or Ylonen 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

This team needs to dump the veterans and start playing to win a Cup in 2023-26. Forget the guys who won't be helpful then.

Guys I would actively be trying to shop or let go:

- Price

- Weber

- Byron

- Petry

- Staal

- Perry

- Armia

- Drouin

- Chiarot

- Edmundson

- Merrill

I would be interested in re-signing Tatar and Danault but only for the right price. The framework for my line-up next year would be

Caufield-Kotkaniemi-Anderson (and yes I would move Caufield to LW given our abundance of RW's and the ability to set Caufield up for one-timers on the left)

Tatar-Suzuki-Gallagher

Toffoli-Danault-Ylonen

Lehkonen-Poehling-Evans

XXX-XXX

Romanov-XXX

Kulak-Fleury

Allen

Primeau

We basically need to find an entire new top end of the D. I'm not against keeping Petry one more year short-term but ultimately I think he's not going to flourish here without a much deeper D corps and I worry his play will end up dropping off as Weber's has and then he'll have no trade value, so better to trade him now. Matt Dumba would remain a high priority trade target for me. Josh Brook could be a candidate to make the team too, but I don't have high hopes he'll be any kind of impact player next year. Would hope we can find something by trading Petry, Price, Drouin, Chiarot, etc. It's a decent forward group but man is this defence weak.

 

I have 0 interest in Danault even if at a so called right cost - it's term and you cannot keep losing with a similar core which he is part of. I don't think he is part of the future. I realize centres don't grow on trees but I would take my chances with Poehling and Evans and not some retread like Weal. I would be shopping for a Centre - Comtois, Athaniasiou, Eriksson - someone with some potential progression. Tatar depends on term more than cost for me - 3 years is as much as I would go. Side note - Although he is a longshot to step up to the club, I must admit I like Joel Teasdale's grit in Laval, but we don't have much LW depth in the prospect pool so I understand your Caufield on the LW. 

Petry has value for 2 more years for me (unless a good offer mid-season 2022-23) - Need someone to mentor the future young defense, and yes - agreed it is weak. We will have a hard time I believe keeping Allen off the Krakken unless Price waives that NMC or we find some incentives for them to take Weber or Byron etc.

You have not mentioned any prospects or draft choices as top-ups. I am against giving up 1st and 2nd rounders until this team shows it is closer to contending status for 23-26. If there was a prospect I would trade at this time, it would be Jordan Harris who IMO projects as a 3/4. Norlinder, Struble and Guhle have too much high ceiling upside for me. Brook has had a half decent year in the AHL - he will battle with Fleury who has regressed / stayed at the same level, for the 5/6 right side pairing and may only be short term filler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

This team needs to dump the veterans and start playing to win a Cup in 2023-26. Forget the guys who won't be helpful then.

Guys I would actively be trying to shop or let go:

- Price

- Weber

- Byron

- Petry

- Staal

- Perry

- Armia

- Drouin

- Chiarot

- Edmundson

- Merrill

 

I would be interested in re-signing Tatar and Danault but only for the right price. The framework for my line-up next year would be

 

Caufield-Kotkaniemi-Anderson (and yes I would move Caufield to LW given our abundance of RW's and the ability to set Caufield up for one-timers on the left)

Tatar-Suzuki-Gallagher

Toffoli-Danault-Ylonen

Lehkonen-Poehling-Evans

 

XXX-XXX

Romanov-XXX

Kulak-Fleury

 

Allen

Primeau

 

We basically need to find an entire new top end of the D. I'm not against keeping Petry one more year short-term but ultimately I think he's not going to flourish here without a much deeper D corps and I worry his play will end up dropping off as Weber's has and then he'll have no trade value, so better to trade him now. Matt Dumba would remain a high priority trade target for me. Josh Brook could be a candidate to make the team too, but I don't have high hopes he'll be any kind of impact player next year. Would hope we can find something by trading Petry, Price, Drouin, Chiarot, etc. It's a decent forward group but man is this defence weak.

 

I agree with this with the exceptions of Danualt, I think we need to move on from him, so the next coach will have to live or die with the kids up the middle. Petry because he is such a good skater, would give him much more longevity than a Weber. 

Tatar is a must to keep because we are really in sad shape on the left side. 

Dumba i would say is not for sale . 3 of there top six are all over 30 years old. A pairing of Dumba and Brodin can carry that team for the next 6 years as top pairing. Now if they wanted to swap Dumba for Petry,  I would do that. 

I would  go hard on Vince Dunn. I would also go after Brandon Montour for a second pairing ....

So something like this

Dunn and Petry

Romanov and Montour 

Kulak and Fleury - i am sure there are other options here as well, just cannot be bothered to look. or nothing of the top of my head.  I liked Mete as a third pairing on his natural side,  I thought he was one of the only defenseman who could open up the ice because of his speed/quickness. I see he played almost 18 minutes (3rd highest for deeman) +1 and even got over a minute on the power play last night. 

Bye - Price, Weber, Chariot, Danualt, Edmundson, Drouin, Armia, Byron, Staal, Perry, Gustavson, Merril, maybe could keep one of the latter two as a seven

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also feel like we need a General Manager who can come in and just go about the business of moving some of these guys out. Nothing personal, but we missed Price's Cup window. It's over. No need to believe anything is gonna chance in the next few years if we keep going about business as usual in the Bergevin era.

 

Phillip Danault
Joel Armia
Eric Staal
Jordan Weal
Michael Frolik
Corey Perry
Jon Merrill
Charlie Lindgren

These guys are the definite "let-go" players. There's absolutely no way I am bringing them back. Danault's name here is because I feel like we actually need to commit to Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. With Danault around, we're not going to do that.

 

Paul Byron
Shea Weber
Ben Chiarot (M-NTC)
Joel Edmundson (M-NTC)
Carey Price (NMC)

This second group are players I am trying as hard as possible to deal away. Various clauses here will make this difficult. Thank Bergevin for players like Chiarot and Edmundson having modified no-trade clauses. Ridiculous.

 

Tomas Tatar
Artturi Lehkonen (RFA)

I am open to resigning these guys. Lehkonen is a restricted free agent and he's also been a good soldier for us for years. His value is pretty low, so I feel like bringing him back, giving him a bigger role, and building back that value is worthwhile. Tatar I am open to resigning, but I don't think he would want to stay here given the rebuilding effort.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Today's main story on Eyes on the Prize: "Poehling's Three Points Lead Laval To Another Win." That tells you all you need to know about the State of the Habs. I'd rather watch Laval play. I assume most people would.

Bouchard is doing a great development job there establishing a winning culture - the guys probably don't want to get called up too soon for fear of losing. I get more enjoyment out of some youtube highlights of Laval's youngsters notably Poehling, Brook, Ylonen, Teasdale vs. habs games as of late. Fleury has been injured. Anyone over 25 on this team, I have no interest in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Today's main story on Eyes on the Prize: "Poehling's Three Points Lead Laval To Another Win." That tells you all you need to know about the State of the Habs. I'd rather watch Laval play. I assume most people would.

11g14a in 28gp for Poehling ... some good progression.    Still not sold that his skating is good enough the NHL but having said that ... maybe we can move on from Danault and he can take over as our 2way C on 3rd line with Suzuki/JK  1A/1B

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Important to remember that Danault is 28 and remains one of the premiere shutdown centers in the league. He has great possession numbers despite the drop-off in production. If we've learned anything about our center position this year it's that Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are not yet ready to carry the load and are not elite (yet). They should continue to improve, but neither one has shown they can be a star, never mind taking on big match-ups. Behind them, you have Evans and Poehling and that's about it. While our top centers are young and can be around another 5-10 years, there is a real lack of depth there in the organization and there is still no immediate/elite answer.

The question is whether you can see the Habs running JK/Suzuki/Evans/Poehing next year. Which one of those guys is matching up with Matthews or McDavid or Crosby or Barkov? Who's getting the bulk of D zone starts? Who's getting the face-offs in your own zone with a minute left when you're up one? That would be 4 guys with very little experience and with very little buffer if one of them gets hurt or just doesn't perform well.

So to me, Danault still adds value. Sure the ideal contract for the Habs would be 2 years but that isn't going to happen. If we can sign Danault for 4 years at 4.5M a year, to me that's still good value and only takes him into his early 30's, where I wouldn't expect a huge drop-off in play. As I've posted elsewhere, the goal of this team needs to be to build a winner for 2023-26 and Danault is still young enough where he can be a part of that, as long as he is willing to accept a 3rd-line shutdown role. We have enough winger depth that he will still get good wingers to play with. Yes, the perfect solution would be to find an elite center and play him as your 1C with Suzuki and JK behind him, but that isn't happening in the short term, so to me, Danault is still a better option than what we have otherwise. Don't give him an NTC/NMC and I think he'd also still be moveable on the above contract if ever we did find a better solution or if Poehling/Evans breaks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jennifer_rocket said:

I also feel like we need a General Manager who can come in and just go about the business of moving some of these guys out. Nothing personal, but we missed Price's Cup window. It's over. No need to believe anything is gonna chance in the next few years if we keep going about business as usual in the Bergevin era.

 

Phillip Danault
Joel Armia
Eric Staal
Jordan Weal
Michael Frolik
Corey Perry
Jon Merrill
Charlie Lindgren

These guys are the definite "let-go" players. There's absolutely no way I am bringing them back. Danault's name here is because I feel like we actually need to commit to Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. With Danault around, we're not going to do that.

 

Paul Byron
Shea Weber
Ben Chiarot (M-NTC)
Joel Edmundson (M-NTC)
Carey Price (NMC)

This second group are players I am trying as hard as possible to deal away. Various clauses here will make this difficult. Thank Bergevin for players like Chiarot and Edmundson having modified no-trade clauses. Ridiculous.

 

Tomas Tatar
Artturi Lehkonen (RFA)

I am open to resigning these guys. Lehkonen is a restricted free agent and he's also been a good soldier for us for years. His value is pretty low, so I feel like bringing him back, giving him a bigger role, and building back that value is worthwhile. Tatar I am open to resigning, but I don't think he would want to stay here given the rebuilding effort.
 

We're actually actively harming ourselves by hanging onto to Danault and refusing to simply play him as a 3rd line checking C.     Funnily enough I wouldn't care if Perry played another year, he's actually contributed.    Now somebody I would add to your list that would be controversial is Gallagher.    We now have Anderson, Toffoli (who can play LW too) and hopefully Caufield vying for top minutes.   I would keep Armia to play 3rd/4th as he has great puck posession, can kill penalties etc and is still young enough at 27 to get some miles out of him.    Gallagher is now expendable ... his goal scoring is replaced with Anderson/Toffoli, and at 28 years old with a good reputation in the league he could fetch us a good young D prospect. 

The only other two on your list that I might be open to retaining short term while we transition to better prospects are Merril and Edmundson, I may even go for Gustaffson (who had 2A last night).   It would depend on who's ready to step in.   Edmundson is 27 and a serviceable big bodied Dman who can play say the bottom pair and spot into the top pair.   Merrill has actually looked decent.       So keeping 2 of those 3 along with Romanov and Petry gives 2 spots to prospects while retaining some experience without our D turning into more of a tire fire.   But Weber, Chiarot have to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Important to remember that Danault is 28 and remains one of the premiere shutdown centers in the league. He has great possession numbers despite the drop-off in production. If we've learned anything about our center position this year it's that Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are not yet ready to carry the load and are not elite (yet). They should continue to improve, but neither one has shown they can be a star, never mind taking on big match-ups. Behind them, you have Evans and Poehling and that's about it. While our top centers are young and can be around another 5-10 years, there is a real lack of depth there in the organization and there is still no immediate/elite answer.

The question is whether you can see the Habs running JK/Suzuki/Evans/Poehing next year. Which one of those guys is matching up with Matthews or McDavid or Crosby or Barkov? Who's getting the bulk of D zone starts? Who's getting the face-offs in your own zone with a minute left when you're up one? That would be 4 guys with very little experience and with very little buffer if one of them gets hurt or just doesn't perform well.

So to me, Danault still adds value. Sure the ideal contract for the Habs would be 2 years but that isn't going to happen. If we can sign Danault for 4 years at 4.5M a year, to me that's still good value and only takes him into his early 30's, where I wouldn't expect a huge drop-off in play. As I've posted elsewhere, the goal of this team needs to be to build a winner for 2023-26 and Danault is still young enough where he can be a part of that, as long as he is willing to accept a 3rd-line shutdown role. We have enough winger depth that he will still get good wingers to play with. Yes, the perfect solution would be to find an elite center and play him as your 1C with Suzuki and JK behind him, but that isn't happening in the short term, so to me, Danault is still a better option than what we have otherwise. Don't give him an NTC/NMC and I think he'd also still be moveable on the above contract if ever we did find a better solution or if Poehling/Evans breaks out.

That's presuming we're a team still trying to make the playoffs or a team that admits it's roster is flawed and needs a total rebuild aiming for 3-4 years from now to contend when our young guns (Suzuki, Anderson, Kotkaniemi, Caufield, Primeau) are in their prime.    You only hang onto to Danault if you're still pretending this team can win a cup any time soon.    If we're aiming for 3-4 years from now, Danault is now 32-33 ... I'd rather have Poehling for the next 3-4 years establishing himself as a strong 2-way center that we lean on to kill penalties etc (which is what he was drafted as)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, HabsAlways said:

That's presuming we're a team still trying to make the playoffs or a team that admits it's roster is flawed and needs a total rebuild aiming for 3-4 years from now to contend when our young guns (Suzuki, Anderson, Kotkaniemi, Caufield, Primeau) are in their prime.    You only hang onto to Danault if you're still pretending this team can win a cup any time soon.    If we're aiming for 3-4 years from now, Danault is now 32-33 ... I'd rather have Poehling for the next 3-4 years establishing himself as a strong 2-way center that we lean on to kill penalties etc (which is what he was drafted as)

Doesn't mean there isn't value in holding onto Danault short-term though. I have reservations going into next year with JK/Suzuki/Evans/Poehling and having very little experience at center AND having no depth in the event of injury. It doesn't hurt to have a guy who can take heavy match-ups, D zone starts, late face-offs, etc. and mentor the kids. As I said, if you really see that Evans and Poehling are ready, you'd have the option of trading Danault and as long as he's signed to a reasonable deal, that should be easy. I'm not suggesting we sign him to 6 years 5.5M and make him untradeable. Believe me, I'd love for JK and Suzuki to just be great next year and be capable of taking on any role, but it's unlikely. They still both need some amount of sheltering and I'd rather develop their games as top 6 centers instead of making them focus on being 40-point defence first guys. I also don't want to be Buffalo where you bring in young centers but have no support for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Doesn't mean there isn't value in holding onto Danault short-term though. I have reservations going into next year with JK/Suzuki/Evans/Poehling and having very little experience at center AND having no depth in the event of injury. It doesn't hurt to have a guy who can take heavy match-ups, D zone starts, late face-offs, etc. and mentor the kids. As I said, if you really see that Evans and Poehling are ready, you'd have the option of trading Danault and as long as he's signed to a reasonable deal, that should be easy. I'm not suggesting we sign him to 6 years 5.5M and make him untradeable. Believe me, I'd love for JK and Suzuki to just be great next year and be capable of taking on any role, but it's unlikely. They still both need some amount of sheltering and I'd rather develop their games as top 6 centers instead of making them focus on being 40-point defence first guys. I also don't want to be Buffalo where you bring in young centers but have no support for them.

Oh I don't think they will be either ... I just firmly believe it's time for "trial by fire' ... roll with JK, NS, RP and JE down the middle ... ride with Romanov, Brook, Fleury ... ride with Caufield, Ylonen etc.      Then in 3-4 years you have a clearer picture of who is your core to compete and who you need to upgrade on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HabsAlways said:

Oh I don't think they will be either ... I just firmly believe it's time for "trial by fire' ... roll with JK, NS, RP and JE down the middle ... ride with Romanov, Brook, Fleury ... ride with Caufield, Ylonen etc.      Then in 3-4 years you have a clearer picture of who is your core to compete and who you need to upgrade on.

And I'm all for that too to some degree... I'd rather have Brook than Weber. I'd rather have Ylonen than Perry and Caufield than Byron. I'd rather have Poehling than Staal. No point hanging on to older players who aren't contributing, taking up cap space, and aren't going to be here when we're able to make a Cup run. But Danault, Tatar, etc. can feasibly be strong contributors if we can put a run together in 2-3 years. They're still valuable now and I think they'll still have value then. The issue for me is not whether to retain them now but whether we can do so on a friendly enough contract. If they want 5-6 years, forget it. If they want big money, forget it. But if Tatar wants 3 years at 4.75M and Danault wants 4 years at 4.5M, I'd sign those deals easily. Both will still be tradeable, and I think this helps the team more to keep them a year or two and then worry about trading them if needed down the line. JK and Suzuki need to work on draws and defensive play. Evans hasn't shown me he can play center consistently yet. Poehling hasn't shown he can play in the NHL yet. I'm all for giving them a chance but not all at once. You can't have 4 guys all learning how to play NHL center at the same time, it's just not going to go well. And we're not talking about bumping Kotkaniemi or Poehling for Staal here, we're talking about keeping a highly-regarded and effective shutdown 3C as a 3C. I agree with you it'll take better coaching to make sure Danault isn't over-used at the expense of the others, but with the right coach, Danault as a true 3C has great value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Important to remember that Danault is 28 and remains one of the premiere shutdown centers in the league. He has great possession numbers despite the drop-off in production. If we've learned anything about our center position this year it's that Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are not yet ready to carry the load and are not elite (yet). They should continue to improve, but neither one has shown they can be a star, never mind taking on big match-ups. Behind them, you have Evans and Poehling and that's about it. While our top centers are young and can be around another 5-10 years, there is a real lack of depth there in the organization and there is still no immediate/elite answer.

The question is whether you can see the Habs running JK/Suzuki/Evans/Poehing next year. Which one of those guys is matching up with Matthews or McDavid or Crosby or Barkov? Who's getting the bulk of D zone starts? Who's getting the face-offs in your own zone with a minute left when you're up one? That would be 4 guys with very little experience and with very little buffer if one of them gets hurt or just doesn't perform well.

So to me, Danault still adds value. Sure the ideal contract for the Habs would be 2 years but that isn't going to happen. If we can sign Danault for 4 years at 4.5M a year, to me that's still good value and only takes him into his early 30's, where I wouldn't expect a huge drop-off in play. As I've posted elsewhere, the goal of this team needs to be to build a winner for 2023-26 and Danault is still young enough where he can be a part of that, as long as he is willing to accept a 3rd-line shutdown role. We have enough winger depth that he will still get good wingers to play with. Yes, the perfect solution would be to find an elite center and play him as your 1C with Suzuki and JK behind him, but that isn't happening in the short term, so to me, Danault is still a better option than what we have otherwise. Don't give him an NTC/NMC and I think he'd also still be moveable on the above contract if ever we did find a better solution or if Poehling/Evans breaks out.

I agree with you on Danault I would like to keep him but strictly as a 2-way 3C. I do disagree with your statement of KK and Suzuku not being able to handle the oppositions top players. KK controlled 75 % of the shots vs Draisaitl and McDavid and had 9 scoring chances vs a combined 0 for those 2 while facing them at 5vs 5 in the last game vs the Oilers. Those are the 2 leading players for the Art Ross this season. Sure he needs some more time to develop but he has proven he is capable of playing against them successfully. Like you though I would still keep Danault as Suzuki-Kotkaniemi-Danault-Poehling/Evans looks much better than Suzuki-Kotkaniemi-Poehling-Evans. I also wouldn't be opposed to signing Danault long term like 8 years x 4.5 Mil as long as there is no trade protection. That way even at say 32 he still has trade value. 

I am not as convinced that KK or Suzuki will not break out and hit that elite center status. I think one maybe both have shown enough skill for me to think they could still hit that level. There is also one other center in the organization that IMO has displayed a level of play equal to or better than ANY prospect we have had in the last 30 years. That player is Sean Farrell. He has 102 points in 54 games this season for the Chicago Steel. That is almost the same totals that Jack Hughes had in his last season with the USNDT (112). I just don't know if he has the size and defense to hit the elite level. We will see how he fares the next couple of seasons in the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I agree with you on Danault I would like to keep him but strictly as a 2-way 3C. I do disagree with your statement of KK and Suzuku not being able to handle the oppositions top players. KK controlled 75 % of the shots vs Draisaitl and McDavid and had 9 scoring chances vs a combined 0 for those 2 while facing them at 5vs 5 in the last game vs the Oilers. Those are the 2 leading players for the Art Ross this season. Sure he needs some more time to develop but he has proven he is capable of playing against them successfully. Like you though I would still keep Danault as Suzuki-Kotkaniemi-Danault-Poehling/Evans looks much better than Suzuki-Kotkaniemi-Poehling-Evans. I also wouldn't be opposed to signing Danault long term like 8 years x 4.5 Mil as long as there is no trade protection. That way even at say 32 he still has trade value. 

I am not as convinced that KK or Suzuki will not break out and hit that elite center status. I think one maybe both have shown enough skill for me to think they could still hit that level. There is also one other center in the organization that IMO has displayed a level of play equal to or better than ANY prospect we have had in the last 30 years. That player is Sean Farrell. He has 102 points in 54 games this season for the Chicago Steel. That is almost the same totals that Jack Hughes had in his last season with the USNDT (112). I just don't know if he has the size and defense to hit the elite level. We will see how he fares the next couple of seasons in the NCAA.

JK may have had a good game against them last game but for the most part he doesn't get the same assignments that Danault gets and it does show. Last night he had a couple of bad turn overs. He has looked better but I don't think he'd look as good given the role that Danault plays night in and out. He's not there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CaptWelly said:

JK may have had a good game against them last game but for the most part he doesn't get the same assignments that Danault gets and it does show. Last night he had a couple of bad turn overs. He has looked better but I don't think he'd look as good given the role that Danault plays night in and out. He's not there yet.

I did say he needs more time but my point was he also deserves a bigger role. He is never going to be able to prove he can play against them constantly in a top line role if he isn't give more ice time. I don't mean for the Habs to play him in the top line for extended periods I only mean give him a game here and there (like 1 every 3 to 5 games) as the top C see how him and the team does then go from there. Keep sheltering him the rest of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, campabee82 said:

I did say he needs more time but my point was he also deserves a bigger role. He is never going to be able to prove he can play against them constantly in a top line role if he isn't give more ice time. I don't mean for the Habs to play him in the top line for extended periods I only mean give him a game here and there (like 1 every 3 to 5 games) as the top C see how him and the team does then go from there. Keep sheltering him the rest of the time.

Well of course depending on the opponent and even during different games and what the score is. The point was I believe at this time we still need Danault because neither Suzuki or JK are ready for that role. It also helps both of their offensive play if Danault is around for the harder shifts. It gives them both more time to develop.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

Danault is still a better option than what we have otherwise. Don't give him an NTC/NMC and I think he'd also still be moveable on the above contract if ever we did find a better solution or if Poehling/Evans breaks out.

Agreed ....no one on this team can win face-offs besides Danault ...I'm looking at the Calgary games ( for instance ) and  how bad this team is between the marks and how many times we lose possession especially in the D zone ..brutal...he should have taken the 1st contract offer from Montreal but he's worth keeping short term ( 3 yrs ?) for less money if he'll sign at all ....otherwise ...hopefully get another centre for the same coin  

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...