Player Discussion Jesperi Kotkaniemi - Part 20 - Second line centre edition?

[417]

Exactly! The team used Danault in a specific way because he is one of the ~5 best defensive forwards on the planet, and we could add Tatar and Gallagher who are both extremely good defensive forwards and shooters that mesh well with Danault's playmaking to be a great overall line. In the playoffs we could add Lehkonen to the line and go all-in on neutralizing L1s and taking advantage of the L2-4 matchups. It makes perfect sense to do that, but his departure doesn't mean someone else has to step in to his role and do the same things.

We had division winning years + deep playoff runs with Plekanec and Desharnais, but suddenly now we need to find an exact replacement for Danault or we're screwed? I don't understand why it's apparently so complicated to just roll lines 1-4 with conventional deployment. Suzuki and Kotkaniemi don't need to be sheltered in regular shifts, nor do Evans and Paquette/Perreault. I think Danault has warped people's ideas of what good defensive forwards look like, because there's not a lot of teams that will be running two better defensive C's than Suzuki and Kotkaniemi in their top 6 next year.

When your single focus is on the Habs and you ignore what else is going around the league.

You realize that while the Habs are green down the middle, they're not inept.

Suzuki/Kotkaniemi/Evans are all viable NHL centers.

This idea that the team is going to disintegrate if they go into the season with those 3 is just comical to me.

Especially knowing some of the centers we've gone into seasons, with higher expectations mind you.

 

[417]

Danault's struggles last season were real, but largely overstated.

He was below his usual standard, but people make it sound like he was a liability. He wasn't. He'll be sorely missed.

I don't think I overstated it...he struggled, even defensively for large portions of this past season.

But the team persevered didn't they? In large part because of Suzuki AND Kotkaniemi, who for a good portions of this season (pre Stall trade) was actually the best center on this team when both Suzuki and Danault struggled.

I do agree...we'll miss Danault as he was a very good player.

But they'll survive.

 

[Heffyhoof]

When you're single focus is on the Habs and you ignore what else is going around the league.

You realize that while the Habs are green down the middle, they're not inept.

Suzuki/Kotkaniemi/Evans are all viable NHL centers.

This idea that the team is going to disintegrate if they go into the season with those 3 is just comical to me.

Especially knowing some of the centers we've gone into seasons, with higher expectations mind you.

People have forgotten we played the Golden Knights during the conference finals, a team that had a worse center line up than our current one even with Danault out. Better sign that mercenary washed up vet though and pretend he won't get preferential treatment for being a washed up vet.

 

[Archijerej]

That's a ridiculous tweet. Here are the centers for this upcoming season:
Suzuki
KK
Evans

Maybe
Paquette/Poehling/Perrault.

Not only are you putting unproven players in situations above their stations but you're doing it all at once. If we start the season with this center corps expect to be fighting for a lottery pick.

Exactly.

It's ok to take a leap of faith with one young center, but not two or more. Evans was barely a passable #4C for most of last season.

We're counting on Kotkaniemi and Evans to perform at the level they have not yet performed. At the same time, we expect Suzuki to maintain, or increase, his offensive output, while taking on additional responsibilities from Danault. And then there's Poehling, whom we expect to be a full time #4C. Well, I guess in Poehling's case at least there's Paquette as a backup.

I refuse to believe this is Bergevin's plan for next season. Surely, there will be additional moves once we're out of the Eichel race.

 

[Archijerej]

Danault is a good player that will be missed but I still wouldn't have given him that contract.

That's not the issue that's being discussed.

 

[417]

Exactly.

It's ok to take a leap of faith with one young center, but not two or more. Evans was barely a passable #4C for most of last season.

We're counting on Kotkaniemi and Evans to perform at the level they have not yet performed. At the same time, we expect Suzuki to maintain, or increase, his offensive output, while taking on additional responsibilities from Danault. And then there's Poehling, whom we expect to be a full time #4C. Well, I guess in Poehling's case at least there's Paquette as a backup.

I refuse to believe this is Bergevin's plan for next season. Surely, there will be additional moves once we're out of the Eichel race.

Then why have they wasted all that draft capital and/or trade capital, if you're so convinced they can't fill those roles?

What was the point?

 

[BLONG7]

You know what's an even cooler story?

You trying to paint what I bolded as relevant. The Habs were a middle of the pack team for all of this "net positive success".

They were a borderline playoff team, the 2 years prior, using this same "net positive success" rate, they missed the playoffs all together.

I think you need to revisit the meaning of "net positive".

You're desperately trying to hold on to mediocrity because you're afraid that Suzuki/Kotkaniemi/Evans might crumble under the pressure and...God forbid.

THE HABS MISS THE PLAYOFFS (queue dramatic music).

Miss me with all the drama man...I want a team that has higher goals then trying to squeeze into the playoffs.

Best way to do that is to get these young centers into situations where THEY are relied upon.

Yes, it won't be easy...hell...THEY MIGHT MISS THE PLAYOFFS NEXT SEASON (queue dramatic music again).

But in 2-3 years...we'll be way ahead of where we've been using your "net positive shccess6" strategy

Well said........the style of play, of trying not to lose has been abysmal for everyone....the game objective is to score goals....we just might be turning a corner there.....yes the kids have to bring it, but that's why those skilled players were drafted.
We will be fine as we move forward......if the middle becomes too thin, he makes a deal...

 

[Archijerej]

You trying to paint what I bolded as relevant. The Habs were a middle of the pack team for all of this "net positive success".

What?

The guy came out on top on the scoreboard against the toughest matchups in the year he "struggled" and it's somehow his fault we were mediocre and not the other two centers who weren't able to outscore easier matchups by a significant enough margin to make us better?

 

[417]

What?

The guy came out on top on the scoreboard against the toughest matchups in the year he "struggled" and it's somehow his fault we were mediocre and not the other two centers who weren't able to outscore easier matchups by a significant enough margin to make us better?

Never said it was HIS fault...what I said was that despite his performance, the NET POSITIVE, as they poster just put it, was actually a NET NEGATIVE.

The team didn't have collective team success employing this strategy...Danault had individual success, which is great for him and his contractual demands.

But for the team...this deployment didn't make them a successful team.

Because at the end of the day...converting scoring chances and scoring goals will always be more important than suppressing them.

Great players always find a way to score, coaches can always manipulate matchups (see finals vs Bolts) so it's great that Danault (and the other 5 players on the ice) suppressed goals and chances against while they were on the ice.

But it's a mirage...they were just winning a battle to lose the war.

I'm sorry, you just can't convince me that using a one dimensional player (that dimension being defense) for 1/3 of the game is a winning strategy. It's not.

It's survival.

 

[JoelWarlord]

When you're single focus is on the Habs and you ignore what else is going around the league.

This idea that the team is going to disintegrate if they go into the season with those 3 is just comical to me.

Yeah. Like I said I just don't really know what standard we're measuring against if we think Suzuki/Kotkaniemi/Evans + Perreault/Paquette are going to be weak defensively. I guess we've just been spoiled as a fanbase going straight from Plekanec to Danault, but I'm not sure people realize how many teams are running mediocre or weak defensive C's because of the scarcity at the position.

 

[Archijerej]

Then why have they wasted all that draft capital and/or trade capital, if you're so convinced they can't fill those roles?

What was the point?

I don't think they wasted anything. These 4 are all legitimate players/prospects. I just think introducing them to their roles as suggested by the current roster composition is a terrible idea.

Suzuki - Danault - Kotkaniemi - Evans was the perfect scenario for development, with Danault serving as a blanket for Suzuki/Kotkaniemi and Evans in his proper role as #4C. Suzuki had already overtaken Danault as the #1C in the regular season. In time, if Kotkaniemi develops as expected, the icetime and role distribution in the middle-6 would have sorted itself out. Poehling is still waiver exempt and later he could have shared duties with Evans on the bottom line. If the pressure from below started to make itself felt, we could have dealt Danault in the 4th year (or so) of his contract. At the same time, all bases would have been covered in case Kotkaniemi flops.

Now, I get the cap management argument behind letting Danault go (although I was prepared to pay him $5,5M/6 years), but you need a replacement. Get a Tierney at least to be the sacrificial lamb to be shelled by the opposition next season. Development through humiliation is not something I believe in.

 

[TopTenPlayz]

Yeah. Like I said I just don't really know what standard we're measuring against if we think Suzuki/Kotkaniemi/Evans + Perreault/Paquette are going to be weak defensively. I guess we've just been spoiled as a fanbase going straight from Plekanec to Danault, but I'm not sure people realize how many teams are running mediocre or weak defensive C's because of the scarcity at the position.

"Been spoiled" would not be the qualifier I'd use for going from plek to danault as the best center. In fact, what's the opposite of been spoiled?

 

[417]

I don't think they wasted anything. These 4 are all legitimate players/prospects. I just think introducing them to their roles as suggested by the current roster composition is a terrible idea.

Suzuki - Danault - Kotkaniemi - Evans was the perfect scenario for development, with Danault serving as a blanket for Suzuki/Kotkaniemi and Evans in his proper role as #4C. Suzuki had already overtaken Danault as the #1C in the regular season. In time, if Kotkaniemi develops as expected, the icetime and role distribution in the middle-6 would have sorted itself out. Poehling is still waiver exempt and later he could have shared duties with Evans on the bottom line. If the pressure from below started to make itself felt, we could have dealt Danault in the 4th year (or so) of his contract. At the same time, all bases would have been covered in case Kotkaniemi flops.

Now, I get the cap management argument behind letting Danault go (although I was prepared to pay him $5,5M/6 years), but you need a replacement. Get a Tierney at least to be the sacrificial lamb to be shelled by the opposition next season. Development through humiliation is not something I believe in.

No...you don't need a replacement.

Or rather, you don't need another Danault clone or a reasonable facsimile of him.

Development through challenges is something I believe in. I don't believe you develop players by sheltering them.

Look back at the way this team has developed certain players (Price, Subban, Gallagher, Pacioretty, Danault) vs how they've developed others (Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, Juulsen, McCarron).

With one group they challenged them...with the others, they sheltered...

The way they developed Danault is a perfect example of that.

Surely you don't believe Danault was a near-Selke level player 4 years ago when they shoehorned him into the #1C role.

Surely you understand that he grew to become the player he is today?

 

[JoelWarlord]

"Been spoiled" would not be the qualifier I'd use for going from plek to danault as the best center. In fact, what's the opposite of been spoiled?

Talking about purely defensively. They were both elite upper echelon defensive forwards and I think it's skewed the fanbase a bit as we had two outliers back to back and are now sorta conditioned to think that it's normal to have a top 6 matchup C as good as those two defensively. It's nice to have but it's not a necessity and it's unfair to compare Suzuki/Kotkaniemi to those two defensively as they're still better defenders than 75%+ of the centers in the league.

Now, I get the cap management argument behind letting Danault go (although I was prepared to pay him $5,5M/6 years), but you need a replacement. Get a Tierney at least to be the sacrificial lamb to be shelled by the opposition next season. Development through humiliation is not something I believe in.

Why? Who's getting shelled by the opposition? Danault leaving doesn't mean any of the young C's individually have to take on his exact role, they'll just play conventional 1/2/4C matchups and we already have Paquette/Perreault in the bottom six who can play C. They'll both be insulated by one of Gallagher or Toffoli too, and our third/fourth lines will have Armia/Lehkonen/Paquette and eventually Byron to do defensive work too. Yes Suzuki would get shelled if we tried to use him in Danault's role, but there's absolutely no reason we have to do that, and I don't see why the coaches would ever want to.

I just look around the league and struggle to find a reason why I should be concerned about Suzuki/Kotkaniemi in the top 6 and Evans 4C being caved in relative to what other teams are running at C. They're all genuinely good defensive centers, just because they're not elite doesn't mean they're weak. The Habs have good depth on the wings to support them, and Gallagher/Toffoli are both very good defensive forwards who can help each C individually.

I'm more concerned about having all three of Anderson, Drouin, and Hoffman in the lineup as genuinely bad defensive forwards, plus Caufield who's in the mediocre range. The wingers are more likely to cause defensive issues than the centers IMO.

 

[417]

Talking about purely defensively. They were both elite upper echelon defensive forwards and I think it's skewed the fanbase a bit as we had two outliers back to back and are now sorta conditioned to think that it's normal to have a top 6 matchup C as good as those two defensively. It's nice to have but it's not a necessity and it's unfair to compare Suzuki/Kotkaniemi to those two defensively as they're still better defenders than 75%+ of the centers in the league.

Exactly...

But this organization has traditionally loved using that defensive C in the top 6 going back even before Plekanec with Smolinsky, Bonk, Juneau.

It's fooled Habs fans into thinking there's no other way to be successful (even though that strategy in itself, has never proven to be successful...which makes for an interesting dichotomy if you ask mez but whatever.)

 

[TopTenPlayz]

Talking about purely defensively. They were both elite upper echelon defensive forwards and I think it's skewed the fanbase a bit as we had two outliers back to back and are now sorta conditioned to think that it's normal to have a top 6 matchup C as good as those two defensively. It's nice to have but it's not a necessity and it's unfair to compare Suzuki/Kotkaniemi to those two defensively as they're still better defenders than 75%+ of the centers in the league.

I don't think either were that good defensively. They were put there because they happened to be the best or rather most experienced centers MTL had at that time and a narrative was created that they were defensive beasts. I don't think danault is better than a guy like Adam Lowry defensively for example and that's just one example

 

[417]

I don't think either were that good defensively. They were put there because they happened to be the best or rather most experienced centers MTL had at that time and a narrative was created that they were defensive beasts. I don't think danault is better than a guy like Adam Lowry defensively for example and that's just one example

Danault was much better than Plekanec ever was defensively...but Plekanec was better offensively (when he was younger, not the Plek we saw the last 5yrs or so).

But you're right...both are largely the result of myths created by over-usage from the coaching staff.

Only in Montreal would both of those players have played those roles for so long.

But God forbid we go into next year with Suzuki/KK in the top 6.

We might finish 22nd overall instead of 19th overall.

 

[JoelWarlord]

I don't think either were that good defensively. They were put there because they happened to be the best or rather most experienced centers MTL had at that time and a narrative was created that they were defensive beasts. I don't think danault is better than a guy like Adam Lowry defensively for example and that's just one example

Plekanec was probably not in the elite tier but he was a strong defender and had a lot of success shadowing opposition 1Cs. I think Danault is leaps and bounds better defensively than someone like Lowry. They're just in a completely different category of player IMO.

I'm not saying they should have kept him, nor do I think they should have used Danault in that role for so long. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily a horrible thing if Suzuki/Kotkaniemi don't match up to him defensively because in my opinion only a handful of forwards in the league do. It's fine to just have your top 6C's be good defensively, you don't need them to be ultra-elite defenders.

 

[Archijerej]

Never said it was HIS fault...what I said was that despite his performance, the NET POSITIVE, as they poster just put it, was actually a NET NEGATIVE.

The above is the strongest condemnation of the other 3 centers, who have not been able to build upon the net positive result Danault was able to achieve during his time on the ice.

The proper conclusion from this is they are not good enough for their current roles.

Your conclusion - let's increase their responsibilities. Bizzare.

Yes, I know it's oversimplification. The centers are not the only players on the ice.

No...you don't need a replacement.

Or rather, you don't need another Danault clone or a reasonable facsimile of him.

There's no Danault clone out there, so this I agree with. However, Kotkaniemi/Evans in your middle-6 is laughable and you absolutely need a veteran middle-6C

Development through challenges is something I believe in. I don't believe you develop players by sheltering them.

Suzuki as a #1C with increased responsibilities due to Danault leaving.

Kotkaniemi as #2C.

Evans actually performing well as #4C, which he hasn't been able to do last season.

That's enough of a challenge. Adding a solid mid-6C is not going to change that. It's merely going to transform our center group from awful to passable in a retool year. That's all I want.

 

[Kents polished head]

He's the guy in charge of the amateur department last I checked.


That's a ridiculous take...I don't believe that.

I just don't think they've been invested in him being more than a bit part on this team for 3 years. They wanted him to watch and learn mostly, but that time has come and gone..it's time to actually deploy him into the role you envisioned when you drafted him.

It's the next phase of his development.

Once more, you have a vivid imagination, but please don't turn your fairytales into my reality.


I'm not going to use a small sample and extrapolate. As I said, you have a vivid imagination so I'll leave the histrionics to you.

The coach had a game to win, he did what he felt be needed to do for that game.

I don't think that has any implication moving forward.

Yeah, quite obviously Suzuki > Kotkaniemi is ALL a matter of a short sample here and there...
As for "turning my fairytales into your reality", you're the one who said we got out and got Thompson because "Julien decided Kotkaniemi was tired".

 

[Kents polished head]

I don't think they wasted anything. These 4 are all legitimate players/prospects. I just think introducing them to their roles as suggested by the current roster composition is a terrible idea.

Suzuki - Danault - Kotkaniemi - Evans was the perfect scenario for development, with Danault serving as a blanket for Suzuki/Kotkaniemi and Evans in his proper role as #4C. Suzuki had already overtaken Danault as the #1C in the regular season. In time, if Kotkaniemi develops as expected, the icetime and role distribution in the middle-6 would have sorted itself out. Poehling is still waiver exempt and later he could have shared duties with Evans on the bottom line. If the pressure from below started to make itself felt, we could have dealt Danault in the 4th year (or so) of his contract. At the same time, all bases would have been covered in case Kotkaniemi flops.

Now, I get the cap management argument behind letting Danault go (although I was prepared to pay him $5,5M/6 years), but you need a replacement. Get a Tierney at least to be the sacrificial lamb to be shelled by the opposition next season. Development through humiliation is not something I believe in.

Why?! That strategy worked SO well for the Oilers

 

[417]

The above is the strongest condemnation of the other 3 centers, who have not been able to build upon the net positive result Danault was able to achieve during his time on the ice.

I think offensive players need ice time...they need to be on the ice in critical situations.

Not being yanked off the ice any time the opponent puts their top line guys out (which is often) in order to use Danault.

I think you're neglecting how much that has an impact on offensive skill players.

14-15 mins a game simply isn't enough.

The proper conclusion from this is they are not good enough for their current roles.

Your conclusion - let's increase their responsibilities. Bizzare.

Yes, I know it's oversimplification. The centers are not the only players on the ice.

Glad you came to that conclusion on your own.

There's no Danault clone out there, so this I agree with. However, Kotkaniemi/Evans in your middle-6 six is laughable and you absolutely need a veteran middle-6C

Sure you need him if he's available and is a clear upgrade on both of those players.

Suzuki as a #1C with increased responsibilities due to Danault leaving.

Kotkaniemi as #2C.

Evans actually performing well as #4C, which he hasn't been able to do last season.

That's enough of a challenge. Adding a solid mid-6C is not going to change that. It's merely going to transform our center group from awful to passable in a retool year. That's all I want.

I don't disagree...I just don't see any realistic target.

What's left in free agency doesn't fill that requirement.

Trade market? I'd be down for a Dvorak but the cost seems prohibitive.

Any other candidates you can think of?

 

[417]

Yeah, quite obviously Suzuki > Kotkaniemi is ALL a matter of a short sample here and there...
As for "turning my fairytales into your reality", you're the one who said we got out and got Thompson because "Julien decided Kotkaniemi was tired".

That's just fact...you can literally trace CJs comments about KKs being tired and the acquisition of Nate Thompson within days of each other.

 

[Kents polished head]

That's just fact...you can literally trace CJs comments about KKs being tired and the acquisition of Nate Thompson within days of each other.

And clearly, Julien had no insight whatsoever about what was really going on with his players. He just decided KK was tired on a whim.

 

[417]

And clearly, Julien had no insight whatsoever about what was really going on with his players. He just decided KK was tired on a whim.

Every player gets tired...water is wet.

It was just a convenient excuse for a coach to insert a veteran in the lineup.

That's got nothing to do with me thinking they want to sabotage KKs career.

Coaches prefer veterans...it's just how it is.