Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[Schooner Guy]

I love Suzuki but do you guys think he's a number 1 centre? I'm not convinced yet. He's not a dominating type of player. The Habs need someone to take control of a game and I'm not seeing that from him yet. Hes ranked 50th in points from centre's. I get that the team sucks, but I don't believe that 49 other guys should be ahead of you if you're a number 1 centre.
Sure, he looks amazing at times, but he's not dominant like a number 1 should be. I hope he turns into that.

Suzuki's been playing with AHL players for much of this season. Just having Toffoli back has made such a difference for him the last few games. Other players in the NHL always talk about what a great player he is and how smart he is. I bet he shines on All Star weekend.

His contract will seem like a bargain in a few years when the cap goes up.

 

[Captain Mountain]

When Danault was playing 20+ minutes a night, sucking both offensively and defensively, people were 'crucifying' him because both Suzuki and KK deserved the minutes over him. Not only had they both played way better in the playoffs that Montreal squeaked into the previous Covid year, they also had played better throughout the entire season up until that point.

Rewrite history as it's convenient, but even I admit I never disliked Danault the player, I disliked Danault the 'coach's boy' which a lot of other posters would agree with.

The problem is that Danault NEVER sucked defensively. The problem is that parts of this fanbase tend to look at results more than process.

Danault has rather consistently had a Selke level defensive impact. He wasn't even bad offensively, but some people don't get the difference between game states. Danault produced at ES and not on the PP and he almost never played on the PP (its part of the reason he left).

Its the same reason people get too excited about players brought in with flashy tools and decent surface level stats (see: Anderson, Savard, Hoffman, etc.). They see everything wrong or not ideal with Habs players and either dont see it or ignore it for players playing elsewhere.

Danault played insanely difficult minutes well. That freed up easier minutes for Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. The real issue for the Habs was that they had/have a lot of depth that's more flash than substance, because the Habs are well behind the rest of the NHL in analytics.

Suzuki's value right now is more defense than offense, but he's a bit of an island right now because most of the Habs other centers suck defensively. He suddenly looked better with Toffoli back because Toffoli is much better than most of the Habs other wingers and is playing like himself again.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Best thing about the Phil decision, was, like the Radulov decision, it made the team much worse, thus getting us a top 5 pick (hopefully) and making MB look bad.

I was a huge Radulov fan, and wanted Phil back for the reasons you mention. But in the end both were good moves to push us toward a full rebuild - or at least new leadership.

Oh yeah, destroy for better rebuilt. Get rid of a good ledership and wish a better leadership could emerge from ...nothing. Totally wrong. Try again.

 

[417]

Big contract though.....I hope so.

His contract isn't big...the 7.8M he'll be making next year, would put him 47th in the NHL in terms of cap hits as of today.

That ranking will continue to go down as more and more players sign deals.

His contract isn't "big"...it's reflective of the role he has, his projection and his place among his peers.

We need to stop looking at contracts as though they're just handed out using darts against a board.

 

[417]

The problem is that Danault NEVER sucked defensively. The problem is that parts of this fanbase tend to look at results more than process.

Danault has rather consistently had a Selke level defensive impact. He wasn't even bad offensively, but some people don't get the difference between game states. Danault produced at ES and not on the PP and he almost never played on the PP (its part of the reason he left).

Its the same reason people get too excited about players brought in with flashy tools and decent surface level stats (see: Anderson, Savard, Hoffman, etc.). They see everything wrong or not ideal with Habs players and either dont see it or ignore it for players playing elsewhere.

Danault played insanely difficult minutes well. That freed up easier minutes for Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. The real issue for the Habs was that they had/have a lot of depth that's more flash than substance, because the Habs are well behind the rest of the NHL in analytics.

Suzuki's value right now is more defense than offense, but he's a bit of an island right now because most of the Habs other centers suck defensively. He suddenly looked better with Toffoli back because Toffoli is much better than most of the Habs other wingers and is playing like himself again.

Danault wasn't as good defensively, as he had gotten us accustomed too early in the season last year, that's just reflective of the standard he set....but he was brutal offensively, and it just doesn't make sense for a guy who has a limited offensive ceiling in the first place, who played as man crucial minutes as he did. To struggle to produce offensively.

As someone mentioned above, at some point, this organization started prioritizing defensive play and 2 way play more than offensive ability, and that's why we started placing value on guys like Danault, Plekanec, Bonk, Juneau...but I think those days are done.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

clearly folks still think its 2006 when i see people think Suzuki's contract is bad.

 

[26Mats]

Oh yeah, destroy for better rebuilt. Get rid of a good ledership and wish a better leadership could emerge from ...nothing. Totally wrong. Try again.

MB was good leadership??????

Because that's the leadership I was talking about. I don't consider Gorton and Hughes nothing.

Try again.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

When Danault was playing 20+ minutes a night, sucking both offensively and defensively, people were 'crucifying' him because both Suzuki and KK deserved the minutes over him. Not only had they both played way better in the playoffs that Montreal squeaked into the previous Covid year, they also had played better throughout the entire season up until that point.

Rewrite history as it's convenient, but even I admit I never disliked Danault the player, I disliked Danault the 'coach's boy' which a lot of other posters would agree with.

OMG. Such bad review of history. Danault sucked only the first 20 first games and like a true fighter who went to the ground, he stand up and won the fight at the end. He ended the season with a +9. When Suzuli andd KK were in the minus. In PO time, it was Danault taking care of the biggest centers, like Matthews (a superstar), Connor and Marchessault. The team of Connor eliminated Oilers in 4 games and the team of Marchessault eliminated the Avs. And becuse the unexpirementd coach of Mtl didn't match Danault vs Point the first two games, Tampa won the two first games. Suzuki was beaten by Point pretty easy. The only game Mtl won is when Danault did match up with Point. But Tampa is such a perfect team everywhere, the logical conclusion happened. KK was a marginal player a credible poster shouldn't mention in the discussion.

 

[MTL-rules]

His contract isn't big...the 7.8M he'll be making next year, would put him 47th in the NHL in terms of cap hits as of today.

That ranking will continue to go down as more and more players sign deals.

His contract isn't "big"...it's reflective of the role he has, his projection and his place among his peers.

We need to stop looking at contracts as though they're just handed out using darts against a board.

Come on, he has a big contract... he isn't the 47 best player in the league.

The good thing is that he's still very young and should be worth his contract in the long run... but to say that his contact is not big is false narrative.

 

[Andy]

Danault wasn't as good defensively, as he had gotten us accustomed too early in the season last year, that's just reflective of the standard he set....but he was brutal offensively, and it just doesn't make sense for a guy who has a limited offensive ceiling in the first place, who played as man crucial minutes as he did. To struggle to produce offensively.

As someone mentioned above, at some point, this organization started prioritizing defensive play and 2 way play more than offensive ability, and that's why we started placing value on guys like Danault, Plekanec, Bonk, Juneau...but I think those days are done.

Agreed to a certain extent.

The thing with Danault though (if we set aside his usage) is that he had an elite skill which was his defensive game. I know last year he was up and down, but he was effectively a one-man shutdown line, at least IMO.

I'm of the opinion that you need to retain players with an elite skill. When you look at successful teams, there is always a core set of players that are retained and the peripherals are always changing. In montreal under MB, it seems like we always try to lockdown the peripheral players and play hardball with those with an elite or unique skillset, e.g., Subban, Radulov, Markov, Danault (Suzuki and Price being the exception).

Ideally, I would have loved to have kept Danault. I didn't think his price tag was unreasonable given the quality of his defensive game.

But as you mentioned, hopefully we move away from the emphasis on defensive game under new management.

 

[26Mats]

Danault wasn't as good defensively, as he had gotten us accustomed too early in the season last year, that's just reflective of the standard he set....but he was brutal offensively, and it just doesn't make sense for a guy who has a limited offensive ceiling in the first place, who played as man crucial minutes as he did. To struggle to produce offensively.

As someone mentioned above, at some point, this organization started prioritizing defensive play and 2 way play more than offensive ability, and that's why we started placing value on guys like Danault, Plekanec, Bonk, Juneau...but I think those days are done.

Danault and Plekanec are very valuable. You just also need higher level offensive players. But Phil brings good offense for a 3c. And Pkekanec was our leading scorer.

 

[417]

Come on, he has a big contract... he isn't the 47 best player in the league.

The good thing is that he's still very young and should be worth his contract in the long run... but to say that his contact is not big is false narrative.

I'm not sure what "big contract" means.

He's paid the appropriate amount, for the amount of years they signed him for and for the player he is projected to become.

Again, they didn't just throw a dart against a board...he's paid in line with what his peers make. The Habs can't pay him 10x less than that.

47th rank in cap hit doesn't = 47th best players.

That's not how contracts work.

 

[417]

Agreed to a certain extent.

The thing with Danault though (if we set aside his usage) is that he had an elite skill which was his defensive game. I know last year he was up and down, but he was effectively a one-man shutdown line, at least IMO.

100% but this isn't a sustainable way of having team success...because if you're playing an elite defensive player that much time, and that's absolutely what Danault was, an elite player...than it means you're taking away ice time from your offensive players, and offensive players NEED ice time.

I'm of the opinion that you need to retain players with an elite skill. When you look at successful teams, there is always a core set of players that are retained and the peripherals are always changing. In montreal under MB, it seems like we always try to lockdown the peripheral players and play hardball with those with an elite or unique skillset, e.g., Subban, Radulov, Markov, Danault (Suzuki and Price being the exception).

Ideally, I would have loved to have kept Danault. I didn't think his price tag was unreasonable given the quality of his defensive game.

But as you mentioned, hopefully we move away from the emphasis on defensive game under new management.

I would have liked too as well...but that's ship pretty much sailed after Gallagher signed, but definitely after Toffoli signed.

That was basically the money earmarked for Danault.

I wouldn't personally want to pay a primarily defensive player, even if he's elite, more than 5M a season...so I have no problem with letting Danault walk, we kept him during the run and that's just the bullet we had to bite.

If we look at Suzuki...I don't think Suzuki will ever be as good defensively as Danault, but I think he can be MUCH better offensively. So to me, paying him 7.8M makes a lot of sense...

 

[417]

Danault and Plekanec are very valuable. You just also need higher level offensive players. But Phil brings good offense for a 3c. And Pkekanec was our leading scorer.

I didn't say they're not valuable...they were/are. But there's a limit to that value because what they bring is mostly defensive.

Like it or not, but offense = $$

Elite defensive shut down Dmen have a cap...the same works for forwards IMO.

Also when i'm talking about Plekanec, i'm talking about later-stages-Plekanec. The younger Plekanec was a pretty good offensive player.

 

[26Mats]

I didn't say they're not valuable...they were/are. But there's a limit to that value because what they bring is mostly defensive.

Like it or not, but offense = $$

Elite defensive shut down Dmen have a cap...the same works for forwards IMO.

Also when i'm talking about Plekanec, i'm talking about later-stages-Plekanec. The younger Plekanec was a pretty good offensive player.

While I wanted to support Phil and prime Pkeks as players, I agree that MB's vision was terrible.

It always felt like he wanted to try to set some kind of record for winning the cup with the most grinders ever. Great plan Marc.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

MB was good leadership??????

Because that's the leadership I was talking about. I don't consider Gorton and Hughes nothing.

Try again.

When did I mentioned MB. You mean the gm who had mediocre years, then a good year when he traded for Anderson, bring Chiarot and Edmundson and Perry. He traded Paccio to get Suzuki and Tatar. He traded deadwood to get Danault. Big mistake when he traded away Sergy for overrated Drou. But anyway, he was able to build something that was starting to look interresting. Then he let Danault walk away, after a year when Danault and his agent didn't have a talk with Bergy. But Bergy cryed with lot of tears and emotion (snif-snif-snif) when he offered Gally that insane huge contract.

Anyway, I was talking about leadership on the ice. But back to the topic, Suzuki, he is too young and unexperimented to have that role. Don't fool ourselves, MB did offered him an insane contract just because he was afraid the Canes would come up with another hostile offer to Suzuki. I know, you know it and everybody here knows it.

 

[26Mats]

When did I mentioned MB. You mean the gm who had mediocre years, then a good year when he traded for Anderson, bring Chiarot and Edmundson and Perry. He traded Paccio to get Suzuki and Tatar. He traded deadwood to get Danault. Big mistake when he traded away Sergy for overrated Drou. But anyway, he was able to build something that was starting to look interresting. Then he let Danault walk away, after a year when Danault and his agent didn't have a talk with Bergy. But Bergy cryed with lot of tears and emotion (snif-snif-snif) when he offered Gally that insane huge contract.

Anyway, I was talking about leadership on the ice. But back to the topic, Suzuki, he is too young and unexperimented to have that role. Don't fool ourselves, MB did offered him an insane contract just because he was afraid the Canes would come up with another hostile offer to Suzuki. I know, you know it and everybody here knows it.

I was saying, although the poster is right that the Danault loss hurt Suzuki, it was overall a good thing because it was such a bad move that it helped get MB fired. And we needed new leadership at the top, meaning GM/president, more than anything.

 

[417]

While I wanted to support Phil and prime Pkeks as players, I agree that MB's vision was terrible.

It always felt like he wanted to try to set some kind of record for winning the cup with the most grinders ever. Great plan Marc.

It goes back further than MB, i'm not sure if it's just been our inability to acquire or draft high impact players...but we've definitely prioritized 2 way players above all else except for goaltending, which I guess ties into one another.

It's been an organizational philosophy but based on Kent Hughes comments the last few days, it seems like they're going to shift away from this and frankly, it's about GD time.

 

[Heffyhoof]

OMG. Such bad review of history. Danault sucked only the first 20 first games and like a true fighter who went to the ground, he stand up and won the fight at the end. He ended the season with a +9. When Suzuli andd KK were in the minus. In PO time, it was Danault taking care of the biggest centers, like Matthews (a superstar), Connor and Marchessault. The team of Connor eliminated Oilers in 4 games and the team of Marchessault eliminated the Avs. And becuse the unexpirementd coach of Mtl didn't match Danault vs Point the first two games, Tampa won the two first games. Suzuki was beaten by Point pretty easy. The only game Mtl won is when Danault did match up with Point. But Tampa is such a perfect team everywhere, the logical conclusion happened. KK was a marginal player a credible poster shouldn't mention in the discussion.

This is the Suzuki thread so I won't go further after this, but you don't win hockey without scoring, maybe that's why Tampa beat us? At least KK could put a puck in the net and contribute to it, Suzuki as well for that matter. Gorton and Hughes will hopefully end the love affair with '200-foot' players who can't play the offensive 100.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

While I wanted to support Phil and prime Pkeks as players, I agree that MB's vision was terrible.

It always felt like he wanted to try to set some kind of record for winning the cup with the most grinders ever. Great plan Marc.

Pleks, Danault or any other good defensive player is needed in a winning team. A winning team needs offensive players, I must say a priority. But it's Timmins who never drafted good offensive players except Kost, Paccio, Gallagher and Subban over those years. When I was watching the projected draft players, I wanted Carter and Getzlaf. No, TT picked somone else. Then I wanted Kopitar. No, Timmins picked a superstar goalie, when Habs had Theodore and Garon. And Huet came after and Halak was in our system. But I guess Kopitar wasn't good enough, Koivu would be good until he reach 38 yrs old and Plekanec was so much better offensivly that Kopitar, Carter or Getzlaf, lol. All to say I wanted those offensive true talents so much and that teamk was stucked with defensive minded mentality for so long.

But it's not a reason to get rid of a good defensive center because you want an offensive team. Danault, Pleks or another one can fill an important role. It's not like one or another. We can have both. Nobody here who liked Danault said he should be the #1 center.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

This is the Suzuki thread so I won't go further after this, but you don't win hockey without scoring, maybe that's why Tampa beat us? At least KK could put a puck in the net and contribute to it, Suzuki as well for that matter. Gorton and Hughes will hopefully end the love affair with '200-foot' players who can't play the offensive 100.

The minute Hughes brings a real player (let's say a center) who proved something in the past, we will forget Suzuki as a captain and as the #1 center. There are so many better centers in the league, Suzuki is not the level Koivu was. He can be a good #2 center and we need a good #3 center who can take defensive role. Suzuki is a mix of in-betwen offensive center and 200 feet center, without being excellent in both. 65 pts will be his maximum, not more.

 

[Schwang]

Suzuki is a secondary player not a play driver. He is like a Landeskog in Colorado. Great hockey player, contributes greatly. But isn't the driver of the team ie Rantanan, MacKinnon, Makar.

Or he can be seen as a Nugent-Hopkins like player behind the depth chart of Draisaitl and McDavid.

If we think Suzuki will be the driver to bring us to the Cup we will be talking about this in 10 years that he was a lesser version of Koivu.

I tend to agree. Hopefully they can get a winger or 2 for him that can drive the play. Otherwise, that's a pricey 2nd line centre.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Complaining about Suzuki's contract is just silly. The cap will be 82.5M next year and his deal will make up 9.54% of the cap. Plekanec's 5M and 6M deals in his prime made up 8.4% and 8.8% of the cap. Complete non-issue. This is just what actual bonafide top 6 centers cost now. Kevin Hayes signed for 7M, under a 75M+ cap the number for a real top 6C is going to start with a 7, it is what it is and there's no sense getting worked up about it.

We're just used to paying less because we haven't actually had one since Plekanec in 15-16. Desharnais, Danault, and Domi cost much less because they had special teams limitations or weaknesses at one end of the ice or the other, or needed a specific massaged deployment situation. Suzuki costs more because he's a straight up top 6 center in the NHL and can play in all situations, and because they're locking him in with a bunch more projected development on the way.

It's been an organizational philosophy but based on Kent Hughes comments the last few days, it seems like they're going to shift away from this and frankly, it's about GD time.

Even if over the next decade our team isn't any better than the Bergevin decade it'll be worth it to me if we get the same results by actually having exciting scoring talent. I'm so sick of having our top line be "greater than the sum of its parts/better than the name value would indicate". I want to watch star players.

I've said this in another thread but I'm 27 years old and in terms of legitimately exciting offensive talents I've watched in my lifetime it's Subban, Kovalev, one year of Radulov, and maybe Cammalleri. That's a pretty depressing list for 20+ years of fandom. Really hope we can finally add some more game breakers, I'm so tired of getting excited about 50 point forwards because they score goals at even strength and defend well.

But it's not a reason to get rid of a good defensive center because you want an offensive team. Danault, Pleks or another one can fill an important role. It's not like one or another. We can have both. Nobody here who liked Danault said he should be the #1 center.

No, but they didn't get rid of him. He chose to leave in free agency and there was no reasonable salary number that would have convinced him to stay without being poor value for the Canadiens. The reason to get rid of him (or more accurately not overpay to ensure he stays) is more to do with his age and the competitive window of the team.

I also don't think we necessarily need "both" because Suzuki already is a very strong defensive C. He's not a Selke guy like Danault but we will have zero issues using Suzuki as the matchup C and giving him hard defensive minutes.

 

[26Mats]

Pleks, Danault or any other good defensive player is needed in a winning team. A winning team needs offensive players, I must say a priority. But it's Timmins who never drafted good offensive players except Kost, Paccio, Gallagher and Subban over those years. When I was watching the projected draft players, I wanted Carter and Getzlaf. No, TT picked somone else. Then I wanted Kopitar. No, Timmins picked a superstar goalie, when Habs had Theodore and Garon. And Huet came after and Halak was in our system. But I guess Kopitar wasn't good enough, Koivu would be good until he reach 38 yrs old and Plekanec was so much better offensivly that Kopitar, Carter or Getzlaf, lol. All to say I wanted those offensive true talents so much and that teamk was stucked with defensive minded mentality for so long.

But it's not a reason to get rid of a good defensive center because you want an offensive team. Danault, Pleks or another one can fill an important role. It's not like one or another. We can have both. Nobody here who liked Danault said he should be the #1 center.

Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure Timmins has defensive mentality. I just think his strength is finding solid all around players, which is good for finding D, but not good for finding offensive flair. Gainey made up for that by signing kovalev, Cammalleri, Gionta, and Markov and Pkeks were in the system. Ig Gainey hadn't messed up the McDonagh trade, who knows, maybe we win a cup.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Danault wasn't as good defensively, as he had gotten us accustomed too early in the season last year, that's just reflective of the standard he set....but he was brutal offensively, and it just doesn't make sense for a guy who has a limited offensive ceiling in the first place, who played as man crucial minutes as he did. To struggle to produce offensively.

As someone mentioned above, at some point, this organization started prioritizing defensive play and 2 way play more than offensive ability, and that's why we started placing value on guys like Danault, Plekanec, Bonk, Juneau...but I think those days are done.

Its not wrong to place value on guys like Danault, Plekanec, Bonk, etc. Its non-negotiable to have a top-6 center that is strong defensively if you want to win the cup. Its when you ignore guys that produce that there's an issue.

And Danault's production issues where part Gallagher's injury and part the issues with most of the Habs other wingers. Its why he's been back to his usual self with guys like Arvidsson and Iafallo.

Most of the Habs current issues stem from overvaluing physical tools and undervaluing actual on-ice impact.