As long as you understand the Habs do not have a replacement for Plekanecs, we are all good.
The premise of the argument is planning. You don't plan to replace the production of a once former top6 C, with a player that can produce the way he does in the worst season of his career.
I am at a loss for what you think you understand about this discussion.
They (De La Rose, McCarron, Danault) won't need too, because they won't be miscast as 2nd line centers, playing 1st line (hopefully) They will be appropriately used as bottom 6 players. So no, I don't expect 20+ goals...that will be for guys like Galchenyuk, Lehkonen, Drouin and whoever we're able to bring in as top 6 centers
What I'm arguing right now is that the Habs have an in-house replacement for the PLAYER THAT TOMAS PLEKANEC IS TODAY. He provides very little offense and good defensive play, we can get that from Philip Danault.
Does that mean I think Danault is a top 6C?? NO
Does that mean I think Danault is going to be a better player than Plekanec was in his prime?? NO
Does that mean I think we don't need top 6C's? HELL NO!
Who cares what he WAS...Bergevin needs to get 2 top 6C's...everyone knows that.
What I said was that we have players who can replace Tomas Plekanec TODAY...
Tomas Plekanec TODAY, is NOT a top 6 player
There ARE signs of Plekanec being properly replaced (FOR THE PLAYER HE IS TODAY, NOT THE PLAYER HE WAS 10YRS AGO, THE SEARCH CONTINUES FOR THAT).
I don't even know what to say anymore... I NEVER argued we don't need a prime Plekanec or someone like him on this team.
My post was in response to replacing Plekanec TODAY, who is way past his prime. We have someone to replace the player Plekanec is TODAY...the search to replace the player Plekanec WAS, is on-going.
Those are all quotes that I've had on this discussion with you...and you STILL don't understand that we agree. You're STILL challenging me on this.
At one point, I have to walk away. Only God can help you now.