Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Catching Covid has nothing to do with weak immune system. Severe symptoms is where the immune system is at play. Armia could just be a social butterfly or be around people who are exposed more than others.
Player Discussion Joel Armia turnaround year?
- Thread starter Lshap
- Start date
Catching Covid has nothing to do with weak immune system. Severe symptoms is where the immune system is at play. Armia could just be a social butterfly or be around people who are exposed more than others.
PhysicalHABuse
Registered User
- Jun 11, 2016
- 63
- 71
I'd take Danault over Hoffman/Armia
MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 6,082
- 5,649
The point it moot since Danault didn't want to stay here, but I'd take Danault and his salary 10x before Armia and his salary. Gazillion times. Armia is useless.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Danault would have stayed if we respected his game and not tried the "He's not worth $5.5M as a 3C"
1909
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2016
- 21,624
- 12,133
As fans, we don't matter about the decision he made and the salary he should make. It was up to Bergevin to give him what he wanted. Unless Danault knew very well that this team was going to b a shit show with Price injured seriously, Weber gone, and Ducharme behind the bench.
MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 6,082
- 5,649
Well, just because we don't have 2 better centemen on this team doesn't make him a top 6 C. He's a high end 3rd C, maybe low end 2nd behind a McDavid.
I would have paid him 5.5 at 3rd C and gotten rid of Byron/Armia, but I don't make those decisions
And he didn't want that.
Yeah Philip Danault left the Canadiens because some people on HF boards were calling him a 3C.
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
Again you are wrong. Danault is always in the + except 2 first years when he didn't have experience.
He is actually a very decent #2 C with a +11. He is behind Kopitar and this team have enough pts to be in a PO spot, if they keep that way. Actually Danault is better than Suzuki, more goals, more pts and +11 while Suzuki is -16.
It was disgusting the way Danault was treated on this forum and on social medias in general. That's a lot of so-called hockey experts who did not know what they were talking about. I understand perfectly why he wanted out and I'm not surprised he is having success with the Kings. And I'm not surprised Habs are the worst team of nhl right now. I'm not surprise only recently members of this board start complaining about the lack of effort of Armia. I saw that long before but for a reason I ignore, posters here didn't see it. Like I saw Danault was driving the Danault-Gallagher-Tatar line. But here it was Gallagher, Gallagher, Gallagher.
So my point is Danault is excellent as #2 C. Put that in your head and repeat it. He is always in the +.
le_sean
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2006
- 43,406
- 48,593
Lol he was not the play driver on that line. Stop this. All three played a specific role that played well off each other.
You’re giving him kudos for playing really well this season and yet he’s still only on pace for 45 points. And that’s with 2 mins a game on the PP which he was not getting here. Wtf is so special about that.
I don't know why it can't be as simple as Danault is a good player, he was a good player for us, and that contract he signed in LA is good value, but it would not have been a good thing for the Canadiens. We'd have what, 3 more points if he stayed? It doesn't make sense to sign him for 6 years in this situation.
Yes, I would rather have paid Danault 5.5 and signed a bottom sixer for 2.5M than pay Hoffman 4.5 and Armia 3.5, or I would have rather signed him than had the whole offer sheet > Dvorak trade tree happen, but just because Bergevin made a worse decision later doesn't make it a good decision to sign Danault to that contract.
Yes, I would rather have paid Danault 5.5 and signed a bottom sixer for 2.5M than pay Hoffman 4.5 and Armia 3.5, or I would have rather signed him than had the whole offer sheet > Dvorak trade tree happen, but just because Bergevin made a worse decision later doesn't make it a good decision to sign Danault to that contract.
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
If he wasn't the driver of this line, why Gallagher is completely lost without him? Why Danault with new teamates is doing well?
Why Danault is always in the + in the stats?
Why he have stats in the + when he check the top centers?
But I guess you only care about goals and never look at the +/- stats.
MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 6,082
- 5,649
One plays for LA, one plays on this year's Mtl tire fire team. Can't compare their production this year. Look at last year, they were on the same team, same system, sharing wingers...
And +/- is the worst metric in hockey lmao
The problem is less that he left and more that he AND Kotkaniemi left and we brought in Dvorak.
Even knowing what I know today, I still would have moved on.
1909
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2016
- 21,624
- 12,133
Danault us playing mostly against the best offensive lines of the opponents. So the plus minus means a lot.
Monsieur Miz
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2017
- 4,992
- 9,121
MasterD
Giggidy Giggidy Goo
- Jul 1, 2004
- 6,082
- 5,649
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
Take a team with all the players with a + and take another team with all the players with a -.
Guess witch team is a winner and witch team is a loser.
But yes, we can't compare players into a different situation. Because of that argument you are safe.
Last year, Suzuki - 5 and Danault +9, same team, same system, sharing wingers.
Last edited:
le_sean
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2006
- 43,406
- 48,593
Take a team with all the players with a + and take another team with all the players with a -.
Guess witch team is a winner and witch team is a loser.
But yes, we can't compare players into a different situation. Because of that argument you are safe.
Last year, Suzuki - 5 and Danault +9, same team, same system, sharing wingers.
I guess that means Joel Edmundson was literally 5x better than Petry last year? And Armia was better than both Danault and Toffoli?
Really incredible logic here.
Catanddogguitarrr
Registered User
Armia was good, not excellent but just good last year. I knew he was playing to get his next contract. Now he got his contract and he sit down. On the other side, Danault got the contract he wanted and he plays on par for that contract. He's honest, no bs.
Edmondston was a good D last year, better than Petry. Petry was always overated. Habs are so weak without Edmundson this year, the same thing as without Weber if not more.
le_sean
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2006
- 43,406
- 48,593
How on earth was Edmundson better than Petry last year? You’re just lying. Halfway through the season Petry was getting Norris consideration from the media.
And the question is, based on your logic, was Edmundson 5x better than Petry? Because his +\- was 5x better.
1909
Registered User
- Jul 6, 2016
- 21,624
- 12,133
alright. You don't want to admit that Danault is an important player, and you are better than NHl GM's and coaches. Fine. Keep living in your fantasy world.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,267
- 18,235
Probably quite a bit more. Suzuki has more room, Dvorak/KK plays where they should, and whoever replaces Armia at 900K is a better player than Joel Armia. And we probably get much more productive hockey out of Brandon Gallagher.
The issue is long term, because the minute Danault's skating starts dwindling, his usefulness goes downhill, fast. Really fast. And that will probably happen before the end of his deal, and we're then stuck with a 5.5M 3rd/4th line tweener at best when this team is probably ready to be good.
