trade/signing target: Phillip Danault

I don't think anyone has said anything close to that. You get so defensive with Strome lol.

 

Its just that with a "soft, skill-only 1C" making 9-10m its not a good fit having a 2C thats also extremely "soft and skill-only" making ~6m.

 

Besides having chemistry with Panarin (and yes, I know he played ~10 games without Panarin) what does he bring to the table? He's not good defensively, he dont PK, he's not good at faceoffs. Its a lot to pay 6m just because "he puts up points and has chemistry with our star". Panarin's worst season in the NHL was 31g, 74p in 82 games. He will be just fine without Strome.

Exactly. Zib and Strome is homo at it's very core. There was a whole thread about it. Pick one. And the decision gets harder for that the larger the pay gap is between the two.

I don't think anyone has said anything close to that. You get so defensive with Strome lol.

 

Its just that with a "soft, skill-only 1C" making 9-10m its not a good fit having a 2C thats also extremely "soft and skill-only" making ~6m.

 

Besides having chemistry with Panarin (and yes, I know he played ~10 games without Panarin) what does he bring to the table? He's not good defensively, he dont PK, he's not good at faceoffs. Its a lot to pay 6m just because "he puts up points and has chemistry with our star". Panarin's worst season in the NHL was 31g, 74p in 82 games. He will be just fine without Strome.

This is exactly my point. I think Strome's done a great job on the Rangers and is great value for his production but he and Mika are two centers on the softer and easy to play against side of things. Philly D is very much not easy to play against and is a premier faceoff guy in the league who is young, and just came off a breakout cup final run.

I don't think anyone has said anything close to that. You get so defensive with Strome lol.

 

Its just that with a "soft, skill-only 1C" making 9-10m its not a good fit having a 2C thats also extremely "soft and skill-only" making ~6m.

 

Besides having chemistry with Panarin (and yes, I know he played ~10 games without Panarin) what does he bring to the table? He's not good defensively, he dont PK, he's not good at faceoffs. Its a lot to pay 6m just because "he puts up points and has chemistry with our star". Panarin's worst season in the NHL was 31g, 74p in 82 games. He will be just fine without Strome.

You realize the Caps won a Cup with Backstrom and Kuznetsov at center, right? Where's the big bruising center?

Again, if Strome did all the things people complain he doesn't do, he would be a $9 million player and not a $6 million player.

Not every player is going to play physical style, and that's not their role. That's why we got Goodrow and Blais and others.

Your last sentence really doesn't make any sense, either. Of course Panarin will be "fine" without Strome, but he's great with him.

And I'll go back to the original point, not one single person has mentioned a suitable replacement that is younger, cheaper, and actually makes us better.

So maybe we should just stick with what we have because there's nothing wrong with it other than people just like to complain?

This is exactly my point. I think Strome's done a great job on the Rangers and is great value for his production but he and Mika are two centers on the softer and easy to play against side of things. Philly D is very much not easy to play against and is a premier faceoff guy in the league who is young, and just came off a breakout cup final run.

This is exactly my point. I think Strome's done a great job on the Rangers and is great value for his production but he and Mika are two centers on the softer and easy to play against side of things. Philly D is very much not easy to play against and is a premier faceoff guy in the league who is young, and just came off a breakout cup final run.

Strome is younger... And I've heard about the great playoffs by Danault from numerous sources. He had 4 points in 22 games. Paying 6 mill per for a defensive centerman doesn't make sense to me. I don't care to see that kind of money for a dude who is a top 20 faceoff guy. Discounting the fact that Panarin had his 2 best seasons in the NHL from a PPG perspective playing with Strome is a mistake.

People lost their shit over 3.6 x 6 for Goodrow.. 6.5 x 6 for Danault makes that look like a bargain?

He's a French Canadian Bobby Holik.

We already had Bobby Holik. We should not have Bobby Holik. We should never have had Bobby Holik.

Someone is going to give him an absolutely insane contract.

He's a French Canadian Bobby Holik.

 

We already had Bobby Holik. We should not have Bobby Holik. We should never have had Bobby Holik.

 

Someone is going to give him an absolutely insane contract.

What? No. Holik was good. He was always good. The problem wasn't getting him. The problem was making him their first-line center.

"If Bobby Holik is your third-line center, we're winning the Stanley Cup. If Bobby Holik is your first-line center, we're not winning the Stanley Cup." — Bobby Holik (paraphrased)

What? No. Holik was good. He was always good. The problem wasn't getting him. The problem was making him their first-line center.

 

"If Bobby Holik is your third-line center, we're winning the Stanley Cup. If Bobby Holik is your first-line center, we're not winning the Stanley Cup." — Bobby Holik (paraphrased)

But that's the damn problem - he's Holik in the sense that someone will literally pay him and ask of him top 6 minutes. You can't do that.

You can't take Bobby Holik NJD and make him Bobby Holik NYR. That's what a contract of the size Danault wants would do.

I have no problem with Danault as a 3C. In fact, he's perfect there. But your top two lines are supposed to score goals and he creates less offense than Strome by a wide margin. People want to say Strome was propped up by Panarin but the fact remains that Panarin put up career numbers with Strome too. It goes both ways.

If you're swapping one for the other and making Chytil the 2C, that's sort of works but again, Chytil hasn't proven anything yet.

I have no problem with Danault as a 3C. In fact, he's perfect there. But your top two lines are supposed to score goals and he creates less offense than Strome by a wide margin. People want to say Strome was propped up by Panarin but the fact remains that Panarin put up career numbers with Strome too. It goes both ways.

 

If you're swapping one for the other and making Chytil the 2C, that's sort of works but again, Chytil hasn't proven anything yet.

It is quite interesting that the ES production isn't that much different between Danault and Strome. That's not to discount PP production, but it's not exactly apples to apples to look at total point production when one of them gets tons of PP time w/ two top players in the league and plays at even strength with a top 5 forward, while the other doesn't get PP time and centers guys like Gallagher and Lehkonen instead. The fact that ES production is close is astounding. It's actually a fairly good selling point for Danault, on top of the Cup caliber defense he plays

It is quite interesting that the ES production isn't that much different between Danault and Strome. That's not to discount PP production, but it's not exactly apples to apples to look at total point production when one of them gets tons of PP time w/ two top players in the league and plays at even strength with a top 5 forward, while the other doesn't get PP time and centers guys like Gallagher and Lehkonen instead.

You know why? Because good offensive players play on the PP, and lesser offensive players don't.

You know why? Because good offensive players play on the PP, and lesser offensive players don't.

Generally, but that's not the reason in Montreal. They did whay we thought Quinn would do, which was give their young forwards PP time instead of an expiring contract

Generally, but that's not the reason in Montreal. They did whay we thought Quinn would do, which was give their young forwards PP time instead of an expiring contract

Quinn has nothing to do with this, not sure why he's even being brought up...But even so...Nah. Caufield wasn't even on the team all year, and even when he was having a monster playoff, Perry, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson were all on the PP. And when Kotkaniemi went down, Staal got his PP time.

The only young player getting PP time was Suzuki.

Some players just aren't good on the PP. Same thing with Fast. There's a reason why he was never there. Same thing with...

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/189/188641/188641.jpg

Quinn has nothing to do with this, not sure why he's even being brought up...But even so...Nah. Caufield wasn't even on the team all year, and even when he was having a monster playoff, Perry, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson were all on the PP. And when Kotkaniemi went down, Staal got his PP time.

 

The only young player getting PP time was Suzuki.

 

Some players just aren't good on the PP. Same thing with Fast. There's a reason why he was never there. Same thing with...

 

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/189/188641/188641.jpg

That link just proves you wrong. I mean they gave it to Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. They all play the same position.

Not many 45-50 ES point players are bad at offense. That's a tough sell, but good luck with it.

That link just proves you wrong. I mean they gave it to Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. They all play the same position.

 

Not many 45-50 ES point players are bad at offense. That's a tough sell, but good luck with it.

Kotkaniemi was 8th in PP TOI/G amongst forwards.

Danault has played 392 games, 199 points...1 PPG and 13 PPP. He sucks on the PP.

Kotkaniemi was 8th in PP TOI/G amongst forwards.

And 2nd amongst Centers, which aligns with Suzuki C on PP1, Kotk C on PP2. Aka give the future centers the preferential PP ice time so they have a chance to grow and succeed.

Quinn has nothing to do with this, not sure why he's even being brought up...But even so...Nah. Caufield wasn't even on the team all year, and even when he was having a monster playoff, Perry, Gallagher, Toffoli, Anderson were all on the PP. And when Kotkaniemi went down, Staal got his PP time.

 

The only young player getting PP time was Suzuki.

 

Some players just aren't good on the PP. Same thing with Fast. There's a reason why he was never there. Same thing with...

 

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/189/188641/188641.jpg

Right. I mean, Mitch Marner is awful on the PP.

Danault has played 392 games, 199 points...1 PPG and 13 PPP. He sucks on the PP.

He might, but I never said he was good on the PP. I even said "not to discount PP production" with respect to Strome's production. But offensive production is clearly very close at even strength. Strome offers PP advantages, Danault checks off every other box. PK, top flight defense, faceoffs, etc. I might even be talking myself into taking Danault over Strome if all else is the same, as I dig into the stats. I had been thinking it'd be pretty risky to rock the Panarin/Strome chemistry boat over it, but now...if Strome can be replaced by any number of the young, talented wingers we have on the PP, I might be tempted to take Danault instead

And 2nd amongst Centers, which aligns with Suzuki C on PP1, Kotk C on PP2. Aka give the future centers the preferential PP ice time so they have a chance to grow and succeed.

You realize players play out of position on the PP right? Like, we have 2 Cs on our PP1...if a guy is 8th amongst forwards, then it's a pretty evident they're not focused on giving a young player ice time. Of the 7 guys ahead of him, 6 are vets are getting more PP time than he is.

Regardless...Danault stinks on PP.

You realize players play out of position on the PP right? Like, we have 2 Cs on our PP1...if a guy is 8th amongst forwards, then it's a pretty evident they're not focused on giving a young player ice time. Of the 7 guys ahead of him, 6 are vets are getting more PP time than he is.

 

Regardless...Danault stinks on PP.

Well, yeah, obviously. Zib and Strome are out there together. But Zib is a shooter. Strome is a passer. Danault isn't a shooter, and the two young centers that got the PP time aren't shoot first either.

It's still all besides the point I made re: even strength offensive production.

Is there anything more Danger Zone than 3C Danault making $6m until his mid 30s?

Kenny Loggins?

If we are paying a centerman 6.5 mill per, he absolutely should not be tits on a bull on the powerplay.

He also shouldn't be basically a PP specialist either. That's not what we need.