Rumor: Marinaro: Philip Danault turned down $5M/6 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheReelChuckFletcher

Former TheRillestPaulFenton; Harverd Alum
Jun 30, 2011
10,234
22,941
Raleigh and Chapel Hill, NC
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.
 

tkb81

Registered User
Mar 15, 2009
742
599
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.
I think it was more the direction of the two clubs ... especially with weber gone and price out
 

rajuabju

The One & Only
Dec 30, 2006
3,407
536
Los Angeles
I have to say, I was not particularly pleased about the signing... I didnt think it was bad per se, just unneeded in the sense that we had SO MANY centers in our pipeline already. But, glad to be proven a totally inept armchair GM so far.
 

Buck Dancer

Registered User
Jul 13, 2021
3,007
1,756
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.

Would you rather live in LA or Montreal? The choice is pretty easy for me and I’m from Montreal lol
 

CupInSIX

My cap runneth over
Jul 1, 2012
26,283
18,255
Alphaville
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.

Did Bergevin's final offer ever get out? It would seem the offer was pulled from the table during the summer, and I would imagine the most he was willing to do was 4.5m per.
 

SenzZen

RIP, GOAT
Jan 31, 2011
16,939
6,048
Ottawa
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.
I have nothing real to base this off, but I would venture a guess that they could have offered identical contracts and the decision would have been the same.

The role he would be playing in Montreal would be more demanding, and he'd have less support in it. Playing behind Kopitar >>> Playing behind Suzuki
 

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
I have nothing real to base this off, but I would venture a guess that they could have offered identical contracts and the decision would have been the same.

The role he would be playing in Montreal would be more demanding, and he'd have less support in it. Playing behind Kopitar >>> Playing behind Suzuki

Living in LA, young team trending up, and none of the pressure cooker stress. Danault isn’t getting chased down the street or having editorials written on him in CA. I don’t think most guys would think twice... unless maybe your family lives there and you have school aged kids.

I was in the camp that thought it was going to be a bad signing which is seemingly a lousy take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Lunch

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,720
41,029
www.youtube.com
did not want to pay him that much, he's too frustrating for his lack of goals. In his last 64 NHL games he's got 6 goals. If he was our 3rd line center and paid 3M or so a year I'd be thrilled to have him but good on him for getting paid and playing hockey in LA vs Feb winters in Quebec
 

Look Up

Don't be a scan tool
Oct 3, 2013
1,331
1,285
Danault signed with the Kings because they (Blake, Robataille) promised him a more prominent role on offence.

In his own words:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Canadienna

Treb

Global Flanderator
May 31, 2011
28,444
28,426
Montreal
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.

The plan in the next few years was to have Suzuki and KK as top6 C. Danault's role would have been on the downswing compared to LA where he has more time as a main piece until Byfield/Turcotte replace him.

Knowing we were going to lose KK, we probably would have tried harder to retain him instead of trading for Dvorak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadienna

KingsHockey24

Registered User
Aug 1, 2013
14,218
12,632
it’s funny because they actually look like each other too
It's true.

phillip-danault-of-the-los-angeles-kings-looks-on-during-practice-on-picture-id1235482025

june-2014-los-angeles-kings-center-mike-richards-3483-argues-with-the-picture-id614547578
 

Kudo Shinichi

Registered User
Apr 20, 2012
20,596
26,769
So we let Danault walk, lost Kotkaniemi for a first then trade a first for Dvorak who doesn't give a flying f*** about competing.

How can Molson accept this non sense anymore is beyond me.

Whats nonsense is how youre bashing Molson because he didnt use 11.6 M of capspace for 2 players that have scored 3 goals in 20 games combined.
 

Mats26

Vet Movement - What's the Maatta?
Sep 16, 2005
3,843
3,767
So glad we got Danault. Can't imagine having Kopitar\Lizotte as our top 2 centers right now.
 

Stickpucker

Playmaka
Jan 18, 2014
15,651
37,897
I wonder what the issues were with getting Danault locked in. Montreal and Los Angeles offered the same years. Was the extra $500K/year really that difficult to negotiate between? They really weren't that far off.

Pretty cheap of Habs if true. Can't shell out 500k for heart and soul guy shutting down the big dogs of the league.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad