Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[417]

I fail to see how Toffoli prevented us from signing Danault while we are paying $8M to Hoffman and Armia.

Marc Bergevin made a first proposal to Danault before he had even signed Tyler Toffoli...Danault refused it.

Bergevin signed Toffoli, so that ate up most of the money that was allotted for Danault. MB said this himself.

The Habs tried to retain Danault but he, just like all other players, have a number...Danault's price was higher than what they were willing to pay.

Hoffman & Armia aren't really consequential to Danault.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Your information differs from mine. I've that the max we've offered was 5×5.

Here's an Engels article claiming we offered 6x5, granted that offer was made in the fall before last season so it's possible that offer had dropped to 5x5 by the time free agency rolled around. I doubt that would be the case but it's possible, either way there was an offer at the Pageau price on the table at one point and he decided to wait and see what was out there and got 500k more.

Again that's not me trying to say he forced his way out of town or wanted too much money or anything, but I think he (reasonbly) views himself as a tier better than Pageau and hoped he could get a deal based on the Kevin Hayes contract somewhere. Again, I really think this is just one of those situations where it is what it is and both sides were a touch too cagey and allowed the third party to get involved when they should have been able to figure it out over a 500k difference back at the start of last season.

That's a separate question of roster construction and I don't want to go there. My opinion was always that keeping Danault made a lot of sense even with Kotkaniemi on board, especially considering his bumpy development path. It's spilled milk under the bridge, though. Now we have neither.

I think it made sense if we had Price and Weber still as you never want to punt seasons on the development of young C's with those guys in the fold, but once they left I think there was an argument to let him walk rather than commit for 6 years as we had little hope of getting back to the playoffs in that case. Nothing to do with the player right now or his skillset for me, it's just the term and I don't think the rest of the team would be good enough to get value out of Danault's age 28-30 seasons to make it worth commiting for age 31-33.

 

[Archijerej]

The Habs tried to retain Danault but he, just like all other players, have a number...Danault's price was higher than what they were willing to pay.

No offense, but what kind of a point is that? Yeah, I concede that Danault left, because he wanted more than we were willing to offer. That's not the point, though.

What I object to is a narrative, pushed by some posters, like it was some kind of God's will and we could do nothing about it. The difference was an extra year on a deal and an extra $0,5M of salary. So, if someone like me thinks we should have kept him, it cannot be countered with a simple "he chose to leave".

Now, if you believe, as I know you do, that we shouldn't have signed him on the terms offered by LA, that's an entirely different conversation about roster construction.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Remember when people were saying his potential was Patrice Bergeron after last year’s run? He’s looking more like a future Bryan Little now, and that’s being generous. Very disappointing. You’d think he’d be the lone bright spot. Nope, he’s been ass along with everyone else. This is why we need to tank.

 

[Hector Salamanca]

Remember when people were saying his potential was Patrice Bergeron after last year’s run? He’s looking more like a future Bryan Little now, and that’s being generous. Very disappointing. You’d think he’d be the lone bright spot. Nope, he’s been ass along with everyone else. This is why we need to tank.

Wrong thread

 

[Garbageyuk]

Wrong thread

Nope.

 

[aresknights]

No offense, but what kind of a point is that? Yeah, I concede that Danault left, because he wanted more than we were willing to offer. That's not the point, though.

What I object to is a narrative, pushed by some posters, like it was some kind of God's will and we could do nothing about it. The difference was an extra year on a deal and an extra $0,5M of salary. So, if someone like me thinks we should have kept him, it cannot be countered with a simple "he chose to leave".

Now, if you believe, as I know you do, that we shouldn't have signed him on the terms offered by LA, that's an entirely different conversation about roster construction.

? I have is after the SC final run if Habs offer the .5 mil.extra plus a year does he sign or still leave? Maybe he wanted out period?
Maybe they couldn't do anything unless it was 1 or 2 mil over Kings offer?
I dunno.

 

[Adam Michaels]

You know what makes Suzuki impressive? In such a shitty season for the Habs, and even if Nick is not out there doing what we know he can do, the kid is still on pace for a career year.

He has 27 pts in 44 GP. Since he's the only one on pace to play all 82 games, he's on pace for a 50-point season. His first two seasons, he had 41 pts. He has 9 goals in 44 GP, a pace of 17 goals in 82 GP. He had 13 goals in his rookie year and 15 last year.

 

[MasterD]

You know what makes Suzuki impressive? In such a shitty season for the Habs, and even if Nick is not out there doing what we know he can do, the kid is still on pace for a career year.

He has 27 pts in 44 GP. Since he's the only one on pace to play all 82 games, he's on pace for a 50-point season. His first two seasons, he had 41 pts. He has 9 goals in 44 GP, a pace of 17 goals in 82 GP. He had 13 goals in his rookie year and 15 last year.

That's nice and all, but for 8M$ next year you'd hope for more points and a lot more leadership.

Right now, today, he doesn't deserve twice Toffoli's salary. I hope he proves me wrong in the future.

 

[Adam Michaels]

That's nice and all, but for 8M$ next year you'd hope for more points and a lot more leadership.

Right now, today, he doesn't deserve twice Toffoli's salary. I hope he proves me wrong in the future.

Agreed. But he's put up 9 pts in the last 7 GP, so he's stepped it up lately. Which is leadership by going out there and even though your team is being destroyed, he's still doing what we expect of him.

But you're right that next year, you want him to take his game to the next level.

 

[Deebs]

Agreed. But he's put up 9 pts in the last 7 GP, so he's stepped it up lately. Which is leadership by going out there and even though your team is being destroyed, he's still doing what we expect of him.

But you're right that next year, you want him to take his game to the next level.

All depends on who plays with him and really all indications suggests the team is going to be trash again next year so I'm not expecting some massive breakout in terms of points. Not sure why anyone would.

 

[Scriptor]

All depends on who plays with him and really all indications suggests the team is going to be trash again next year so I'm not expecting some massive breakout in terms of points. Not sure why anyone would.

Kid's 22 (23 next year). If he's improved every year so far and improvise again next year, in a reconstruction context with little support and depth in the lineup, that's good enough for me. I don't expect him to carry an entire roster that is far from finalized on his souliers next season, even if he makes close to 8M starting then,

He could well have his breakout year at 26, 27 instead. I could see that happening with a better supporting cast then and continued progression in the meantime.

Breaking out as a PPG C at has peak would not be surprising after moving from 40 to 50 to 60 to almost 70 points in the meantime.

People, IMHO, ae being disingenuous in their critique of the player at this stage. If he starts stagnation or régresses meaningfully in the meantime, sure, but were not looking at this yet. Plus, the kid tends to come back stronger after a lull in his play, which indices he gives a shit.

 

[Adam Michaels]

All depends on who plays with him and really all indications suggests the team is going to be trash again next year so I'm not expecting some massive breakout in terms of points. Not sure why anyone would.

It does depend who he plays with as you say. Because even in seasons when the team overall is bad and finishes low in the standings, you still have certain players that can produce.

We obviously don't want to be like the Sabres. But they are an example of a team that finished at the bottom of the standings and pick Top-5 or Top-10, but they still had Eichel, Reinhart and O'Reilly putting up 50-60+ point seasons.

 

[Colezuki]

He's in a sophomore slump simple as that, it's evident because he goes through ~10 game stretches where he is a point a game, then 10 game stretches where he gets none.

9pts in 7gms
5pts in 22 gms
13pts in 9gp
1 pt in 6 gp

It's just a struggle with consistency, as he get's older he'll be fine

 

[durojean]

Marc Bergevin made a first proposal to Danault before he had even signed Tyler Toffoli...Danault refused it.

Bergevin signed Toffoli, so that ate up most of the money that was allotted for Danault. MB said this himself.

The Habs tried to retain Danault but he, just like all other players, have a number...Danault's price was higher than what they were willing to pay.

Hoffman & Armia aren't really consequential to Danault.

Then he should have traded Danault. We lost a lot for nothing this summer.

 

[Ozmodiar]

This might surprise some folks.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Then he should have traded Danault. We lost a lot for nothing this summer.

It's the price you pay when you "go for it" while having a bunch of players on the final year of their deals. Those players become your own rentals.

It's similar to Tampa losing Gourde, Coleman, and Goodrow to free agency. They kept them to go for another cup.

Columbus did it a few years ago when they kept Bobrovski, Duchene, and Panarin, among others. Their plan was to go for it. So they kept them and lost them to free agency.

 

[417]

Then he should have traded Danault. We lost a lot for nothing this summer.

Easy to say now, not so much when it was time to make that decision.

 

[Canadienna]

This might surprise some folks.
https://twitter.com/nhl/status/1488649621572395010?s=21

Nick's weird.

He'll be cruising/gliding around for most of a shift and then suddenly if there's a loose puck he turns on some jets you'd never know he had.

 

[JoelWarlord]

I think it's pretty silly to get pre-emptively mad about his performance relative to salary for NEXT season based on having a slow start spending half the season with an ice cold Caufield and a useless Hoffman. He was on pace for 60 points last year, slowing down on a nightmare team with no help doesn't mean he's now doomed to be a poor man's Derek Stepan forever, he's producing just fine ever since playing with Toffoli and Lehkonen.

As an aside, if we're going to be rebuilding and adding high end talent people are going to have to wrap their heads around the fact that AAVs for those players start with a 7, 8, 9, or 10 now. There's a reason we haven't had a forward with an AAV that starts with a 7 before, and it's not because Nick Suzuki is overpaid. A 7M contract is not some wildly lavish spend under an 81.5M cap, it's 9.66% of the cap. Plekanec in his prime cost 8.8% and 8.4% of the cap at 5M and 6M. This contract is the equivalent of if Plekanec made 5.74M on his 6 year deal that started in 2010, and 6.9M on his extension in 2016.

The cap is higher now. The cap will be significantly higher by the time we start competing (player debt repaid and ESPN/TNT contracts take effect) Stop freaking out that the AAV starts with a 7, the value is fair today and we get 8 years of term so the contract will be a bargain under a 90M+ cap by the time we're actually competing again.

 

[webersshot]

This might surprise some folks.
https://twitter.com/nhl/status/1488649621572395010?s=21

Nick Suzuki? Wtf? Lol. Really?

 

[Captain97]

Nick's weird.

He'll be cruising/gliding around for most of a shift and then suddenly if there's a loose puck he turns on some jets you'd never know he had.

I've noticed this, I winder if it's because over the years in junior and now as well he's played so many minutes he conserves energy for key moments.

 

[Ozmodiar]

I've noticed this, I winder if it's because over the years in junior and now as well he's played so many minutes he conserves energy for key moments.

A lot of it has to do with anticipation and maintaining the proper angle to take advantage. He avoids overstating the play.

also, he has a powerful stride. Watch the acceleration on his OT goal vs the Leafs in the playoffs. Caufield’s legs are going fast while Suzuki looks to be on a Sunday leisure skate. However, Suzuki has to glide to let CC catch up - to stay onside.

 

[Adam Michaels]

So far, it looks like this is the only event Nick will participate in.

 

[Sterling Archer]

This might surprise some folks.
https://twitter.com/nhl/status/1488649621572395010?s=21

I'm old enough to remember when some people said Suzuki's wasn't fast enough to be effective in the NHL