It's a pretty obvious reaction to people who obsess about players that are no longer with the team and are used as wedges to criticize the management and coaching.
Out of Town Thread: Part 14
- Thread starter montreal
- Start date
- Status
It's a pretty obvious reaction to people who obsess about players that are no longer with the team and are used as wedges to criticize the management and coaching.
I don't see it as any more petty than the posters who use past players as tools to construct narratives.
Adam Michaels
Registered User
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,753
- 39,725
As an organization, if the decision was to let Danault go to have room for JK, how do you not make sure that you will be able to? And that you will offer what he wants. And that you will make it so appealing that he won't sign a Contract elsewhere? If the idea was that you were not that enticed about JK, how do you let Danault go even if he's not the greatest C out there?
Ozmodiar
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 6,339
- 7,669
like I said in the other thread, he's gonna have to figure this out - balance, edges, lower body strength. otherwise, he'll be spending time on IR.
/ btw ... Pulock hit him.
Hannibal
Fear the Weber
- Feb 11, 2007
- 11,166
- 8,774
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,753
- 39,725
You can't keep everyone? Aren't you suppose to build a strong Centermen line? Isn't that what the goal should be especially when we keep hearing that drafting C's is so important? CAuse you know, you can't acquire them? So not keeping everyone means losing Danault and JK? While giving a contract to wingers that won't be able to be fed by C's? And giving the No3 job to an unproven Evans?
The day that this is the mindset of an organization, fine. Don't keep everyone. Heck, lose everyone. Rebuild. And benefit from high picks paid low money so you'll be able to keep everyone.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,753
- 39,725
Not sure how you came with that list. First, you could have kept Danault and have Suzuki-Dvorak-Danault. You could have also do Suzuki-Dvorak-JK. By giving Arizona your 1st in 2022 or 2023 depending if you want to protect your 2022 pick. You could have have Suzuki-Dvorak-Evans...while playing JK on the wings.
How are people happy that players are gone while having no idea how Evans will ever translate his game in a 82-game season? As a No3. Not No4. No3.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,753
- 39,725
Well...not really? If JK succeeds, he'll succeed on the wings. Which CLEARLY was not what the Habs had in mind when they picked him. Our scouts for C's absolutely have NO IDEA what is up.
Last good and lasting C? Mikhail Grabovski.
CHfan1
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2012
- 8,124
- 9,477
I’d have Jones a little lower (in the McAvoy range) but other than that I agree.
I wanted to see how people ranked the contracts given out to RFA’s (Hughes, Makar, Heiskanen, Werenski, McAvoy) vs the contracts given out to UFA’s (Jones, Hamilton, Nurse).
I don’t think the long term contracts given to UFA’s will age as well.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 90,753
- 39,725
It was ALWAYS about letting Danault go to give room to JK. We lost both. Stupid asset management. Part 3 million.
A lot of "?" to unpack here. I'll address them individually.
- No you can't keep everyone.
- Yes, ideally, unfortunately the salary cap makes this excercise very challenging.
- See above.
- I don't agree that C's can't be acquired.
- Not sure what you mean?
- I don't see why Suzuki & Dvorak couldn't be able to "feed their wingers"...Evans remains to be seen though.
- Yes, but once upon a time they gave an unproven the No 1. job to Danault.
Yeah i'm not sure where I advocated to not keep everyone - I just stated a reality that exists in the NHL since pretty much the salary cap was instituted.
You can't keep everyone.
Hannibal
Fear the Weber
- Feb 11, 2007
- 11,166
- 8,774
How to you manage the keep Danault + Dvorak + Suzuki with is new contract? So that scenario was never an option.
Trade our first, to get dvorak while re-signing KK? Just imagine how this fan base would have reacted here. At least now, we still have a first.
So it was either Suzuki, KK and Evans or Suzuki, Dvorak and Evans.
IMO, that was probably plan A...but the Canes offer sheet changed those plans.
Because sometimes, you just don't know...you have to evaluate a player and trust that he'll turn into what you think he can be. Which is clearly the case here with Evans, the coaching staff really likes him.
Again, it's not any different then when Claude Julien discovered Danault 4-5 years ago and decided to entrust him with some pretty big responsibilities.
LaP
Registered User
I'd prefer not having Evans listed as our 3rd line center personally.
Anybody can get plowed when they're in that position.
Would be like saying Dach needs to learn about balance because he got drilled by Landeskog.
Even Chara and Lucic got layed out like that.
Happens. You get up and keep playing, nothing to overthink or analyze.
Paddyjack
Registered User
With what asset though? We got Dvorak using a first round pick that we got from KK. Just imagine if we get Dvorak using our own pick, which right now is going towards a top 3 pick
HabsWhiteKnightLOL
Registered User
Arizona tried to trade Dvorak all of the offseason (TSN Pierre Lebrun) for a 1st pick even high and couldnt find a partner.With what asset though? We got Dvorak using a first round pick that we got from KK. Just imagine if we get Dvorak using our own pick, which right now is going towards a top 3 pick
2 2nds with Poehling should have been enough to get him.
le_sean
Registered User
- Oct 21, 2006
- 42,020
- 45,176
They didn’t try to trade him all offseason. They were getting offers. There was no rush, they had him signed to a really team friendly deal for 4 years.
Well if it's too much then grab a strong 3rd line center instead, an Eller type.With what asset though? We got Dvorak using a first round pick that we got from KK. Just imagine if we get Dvorak using our own pick, which right now is going towards a top 3 pick
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 15,200
- 16,996
I don’t agree - it’s always about the asset agreeing to the orgs terms... point finale
This org operates on individual terms - Has always been that way.
Doug Harvey wants a raise for being underpaid his entire career... enjoy expansion STL
Big Bird wants $50K more Kings are offering ... enjoy La La Land.
Subban wants what he wants... enjoy southern hospitality.
Danault wants $500K more and guaranteed top-2C role .... viva LA
Gallagher’s agent holding out for more, let Gallagher know it’s take it or be shipped out, calls agent “get it done on their terms”
It has always been that way for this org.
Last edited:
I watched most of the Canes game last night. That team can fly, and KK can not keep up with Necas and Aho. He will have to move down the lineup, but fit is going to be hard, he is their 4th best C and 3rd best LW.
He really doesn’t fit a need for the Canes which makes the whole thing strange. I predicted pre season he would play 15 mins bottom 6 usage and after one game still feels like this is where he lands. Sure it’s only one game, but the fit just isn’t there.
He really doesn’t fit a need for the Canes which makes the whole thing strange. I predicted pre season he would play 15 mins bottom 6 usage and after one game still feels like this is where he lands. Sure it’s only one game, but the fit just isn’t there.
- Status
