Player Discussion Phillip Danault - You Guys Are Getting Paid? Edition

[Not The One]

Eh, sad that this is the only rebuttal you can come up with. Asinine at best.

Y0ur "arguments" have become so devoid of anything resembling logic or rationality that I'm only replying to highlight how ridiculous they are.

The incentive would be there because they would absolutely have to. Bergevin failed to acquire a top 6 C and just said "Well Phils here so were going to be fine."

Without him he does not have that cushion.

Can you even explain what this could possibly mean?

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

"Our 1st line center has 5 goals"

Suzuki is Montreal's 1st line center.

Suzuki has 12.

And 12 is not a big number.

 

[Captain Mountain]

And 12 is not a big number.

it's a 19/20 goal full season pace. Which is good for a 21 year old playmaker center.

Montreal kind of wastes all their centers offensively anyways since most of the team offense comes off the rush, deflections, or point shot rebounds and they don't attack the middle of the ice.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

I mean even if you think this years numbers are inflated, as a rookie he had 48 points in 81 games (Including the playoffs) where he did play those teams.



Is your expectation that a player never slumps? Because even superstar players have slumps from time to time.

Can you imagine his numbers having to play vs Bergeron-Marchand, Backlund-Ovechkin, Stamkos, the Isldrs, Canes, Panthers, Penguins and Matthews-Marner. He's making improvements but he's not there yet, same with JK. Fact is, Habs need that center who can take huge defensive duties, important face-offs and it's Danault who have done all this, not Suzuki, not Kotka and not Evans.
And about slumps, when Crosby have a slump, he comes back with 10 pts in a week, same with any top center of the league. Suzuki isn't at this level yet, unless you have pink colored glasses. Hab don't have any top centers so they need a top defensive center. And Danault is already a top defensive center.

The core of the discussion is what price is right to keep him and what are the consequences of Danault walk away.

 

[habdynasty]

5 goals in 50 games. Wow that’s bad

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

it's a 19/20 goal full season pace. Which is good for a 21 year old playmaker center.

Montreal kind of wastes all their centers offensively anyways since most of the team offense comes off the rush, deflections, or point shot rebounds and they don't attack the middle of the ice.

The good thing having Danault is Suzuki facing the #2 C and have more room for creative offence. Also to mention Suzuki played with Anderson and Toffoli, they were useful to score goals.
Imagine an offensive center 'in the becoming' like Suzuki having the defensive duties of Danault.
Same with Kotkaniemi.

 

[cphabs]

Read your post.

What did I miss? Not perfect.

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

...his linemates generate most of said chances offensively, not Phil...he doesn't need to be flashy offensively, however he does need to have adequate puck distribution skills in the offensive zone as well as the ability to be a threat to score himself, both areas in which he lacks...



...my apologies, you found the one team with enough winger talent to make up for Danault's lack of offensive chops...

He plays with two guys who both had one career 50 point season each before playing with Danault. On top of that he has guys like Weber, Chiarot and Edmundson on D who are below average at moving the puck and do nothing to generate offence.

Out of the 12 teams who qualified for the playoffs so far he'd be a better 2nd line centre than Florida who has Wennberg as their #2 C, Vegas who has Chandler Stephenson as their #2 C or Minnesota who has Victor Rask as their #2 C. For Tampa/NYI he is on par with guys like Cirelli and Pageau.

 

[Sorinth]

Can you imagine his numbers having to play vs Bergeron-Marchand, Backlund-Ovechkin, Stamkos, the Isldrs, Canes, Panthers, Penguins and Matthews-Marner. He's making improvements but he's not there yet, same with JK. Fact is, Habs need that center who can take huge defensive duties, important face-offs and it's Danault who have done all this, not Suzuki, not Kotka and not Evans.
And about slumps, when Crosby have a slump, he comes back with 10 pts in a week, same with any top center of the league. Suzuki isn't at this level yet, unless you have pink colored glasses. Hab don't have any top centers so they need a top defensive center. And Danault is already a top defensive center.

The core of the discussion is what price is right to keep him and what are the consequences of Danault walk away.

There's this idea that because Danault gets these tough matchups nobody else has to face those players when the truth is far different.

vs McDavid Suzuki has played 31:19 (GF 1, GA 0) whereas Danault is at 44:39 (GF 4, GA 4)
vs Draisaitl Suzuki is at 32:32 (GF 0, GA 0) and Danault is at 31:41 (GF 1, GA 0)

In last years playoffs
vs Crosby Suzuki played 19:41 (GF 0, GA 1) and Danault played 25:17 (GF 0, GA 0)
vs Malkin Suzuki played 23:22 (GF 0, GA 0) and Danualt played 20:09 (GF 0, GA 1)

So Suzuki is already pretty close to Danault in terms of minutes against those top players and has done just as good a job offensively and defensively (All numbers 5on5 from Natural Stat Trick).


But your right the core of the discussion is what price makes sense to keep Danault and what are the consequences of keeping him and what are the consequences of losing him.

And in that regard, we aren't desperate to re-sign Danault because all our centers are good defensively as our most of our wingers so we can absorb the loss of defensive play much easier then we can afford losing an offensive player. And keeping Danault is almost certainly losing Tatar, offensively we have 1 guy that can potentially replace Tatar offensively, Caufield. But frankly asking/expecting a rookie to come in an put up 60+ points like Tatar has been doing for us is not a good plan.

And on top of that our offence isn't just losing Tatar.

• There's the risk that Gallagher isn't going to be as good offensively after his injury
• Drouin might not be back at all, and for all his faults he did produce
• There has to be question marks around Toffoli repeating given that this has been such a big jump in his ppg at the age of 29
• Armia is also likely not be re-signed due to cap constraints unless he takes a very team friendly deal
• Scoring more goals was already an area of need so we can't afford to have it become worse

Addressing our offensive problems is simply a bigger concern then losing Danault's defensive play. So the price point to re-sign Danault is basically still be able to re-sign Tatar or get an equivalent UFA. That's going to be a number that's well below what Danault can get/is worth.

 

[canucklover123]

There's this idea that because Danault gets these tough matchups nobody else has to face those players when the truth is far different.

vs McDavid Suzuki has played 31:19 (GF 1, GA 0) whereas Danault is at 44:39 (GF 4, GA 4)
vs Draisaitl Suzuki is at 32:32 (GF 0, GA 0) and Danault is at 31:41 (GF 1, GA 0)

In last years playoffs
vs Crosby Suzuki played 19:41 (GF 0, GA 1) and Danault played 25:17 (GF 0, GA 0)
vs Malkin Suzuki played 23:22 (GF 0, GA 0) and Danualt played 20:09 (GF 0, GA 1)

So Suzuki is already pretty close to Danault in terms of minutes against those top players and has done just as good a job offensively and defensively (All numbers 5on5 from Natural Stat Trick).


But your right the core of the discussion is what price makes sense to keep Danault and what are the consequences of keeping him and what are the consequences of losing him.

And in that regard, we aren't desperate to re-sign Danault because all our centers are good defensively as our most of our wingers so we can absorb the loss of defensive play much easier then we can afford losing an offensive player. And keeping Danault is almost certainly losing Tatar, offensively we have 1 guy that can potentially replace Tatar offensively, Caufield. But frankly asking/expecting a rookie to come in an put up 60+ points like Tatar has been doing for us is not a good plan.

And on top of that our offence isn't just losing Tatar.

• There's the risk that Gallagher isn't going to be as good offensively after his injury
• Drouin might not be back at all, and for all his faults he did produce
• There has to be question marks around Toffoli repeating given that this has been such a big jump in his ppg at the age of 29
• Armia is also likely not be re-signed due to cap constraints unless he takes a very team friendly deal
• Scoring more goals was already an area of need so we can't afford to have it become worse

Addressing our offensive problems is simply a bigger concern then losing Danault's defensive play. So the price point to re-sign Danault is basically still be able to re-sign Tatar or get an equivalent UFA. That's going to be a number that's well below what Danault can get/is worth.

I mean good analysis but things to consider, you did just pick the two teams in the NHL with two elite/top centres. Of course, NZ will get the next set up minutes against the second best centre. 99.9 % of the time, we are not having this kind of opposition.

What I find most concerning in that analysis is that PD almost has as much time against the second line C (mind you Drai plays wing as well) as NZ. That actually demonstrates how relied upon he is on. Again, weird set of data because the teams in question are anomalys at the centre position.

However, Now say we go the route that some have insinuated and let PD walk, we plug in KK there. Everyone jumps a peg, so replace NZ in your analysis now and put say I don't know KK, does not sound as great or better term (sounds extremely risky)

I don't think anyone here discounts NZ being good defensively, I am sure we can work him into more minutes but now your number 1 offensive center becomes what a shutdown C? Doesnt make sense. The whole point of PD is so that NZ doesnt have to be a primary defensive centre. the closest thing to an offensive centre we have is NZ.

On your last point, I do not think there is a shot in hell that we get to keep both PD and Tatar. Would be ideal but i think near impossible. Also, unless we change the whole identity of the team, we are one of the few who run a top 9 and rely on everyone to produce unfortunately.

 

[Sorinth]

I mean good analysis but things to consider, you did just pick the two teams in the NHL with two elite/top centres. Of course, NZ will get the next set up minutes against the second best centre. 99.9 % of the time, we are not having this kind of opposition.

I'm not so sure it's as rare as you think, most of the top teams have two first line centers so if we want to go far in the playoffs (In a normal year) then we are going up against the likes of Pittsburgh, Tampa, Washington, Toronto who all have two #1s. Even Carolina could be added to that list if this isn't just a fluke year for them.

What I find most concerning in that analysis is that PD almost has as much time against the second line C (mind you Drai plays wing as well) as NZ. That actually demonstrates how relied upon he is on. Again, weird set of data because the teams in question are anomalys at the centre position.

Ignore the 2nd line if you want, it doesn't change the point. Even just looking at the top line only Suzuki is not far off Danault. Looking at it in terms of minutes per game against the top-line and the difference is less then 2min. In fact against McDavid this season 38:21 was against neither Danault nor Suzuki, so our non-Danault lines are already facing McDavid over 60% of the time. So why are we so worried that we need Danault to shut down opposing teams top line?

However, Now say we go the route that some have insinuated and let PD walk, we plug in KK there. Everyone jumps a peg, so replace NZ in your analysis now and put say I don't know KK, does not sound as great or better term (sounds extremely risky)

I don't think anyone here discounts NZ being good defensively, I am sure we can work him into more minutes but now your number 1 offensive center becomes what a shutdown C? Doesnt make sense. The whole point of PD is so that NZ doesnt have to be a primary defensive centre. the closest thing to an offensive centre we have is NZ.

Suzuki wouldn't end up in a shutdown role without Danault, that's a complete strawman.

KK, Staal, Evans combined are already facing McDavid almost as much as Danault (39% vs 34%). So no I don't think it's a problem or extremely risky.

On your last point, I do not think there is a shot in hell that we get to keep both PD and Tatar. Would be ideal but i think near impossible. Also, unless we change the whole identity of the team, we are one of the few who run a top 9 and rely on everyone to produce unfortunately.

And we won't be able to run that top-9 offence if we lose Tatar which is far more important to the team as a whole then Danault's defensive game. Hockey is so fluid that you can't actually rely on a shutdown line to go up against the other teams top line.

 

[canucklover123]

I'm not so sure it's as rare as you think, most of the top teams have two first line centers so if we want to go far in the playoffs (In a normal year) then we are going up against the likes of Pittsburgh, Tampa, Washington, Toronto who all have two #1s. Even Carolina could be added to that list if this isn't just a fluke year for them.

Ignore the 2nd line if you want, it doesn't change the point. Even just looking at the top line only Suzuki is not far off Danault. Looking at it in terms of minutes per game against the top-line and the difference is less then 2min. In fact against McDavid this season 38:21 was against neither Danault nor Suzuki, so our non-Danault lines are already facing McDavid over 60% of the time. So why are we so worried that we need Danault to shut down opposing teams top line?

Suzuki wouldn't end up in a shutdown role without Danault, that's a complete strawman.

KK, Staal, Evans combined are already facing McDavid almost as much as Danault (39% vs 34%). So no I don't think it's a problem or extremely risky.

And we won't be able to run that top-9 offence if we lose Tatar which is far more important to the team as a whole then Danault's defensive game. Hockey is so fluid that you can't actually rely on a shutdown line to go up against the other teams top line.

Sure, again select few, but that doesn't mean they have two number one lines. Very few teams have two top 30 centres, even fewer have two number one lines. You're naming the select few who have TWO top tier centres, I will argue Tampa is not there yet but mute point.

What do you mean Suzuki is not far off Danault? Looking at the stats you listed, it looks like PD had about 15 more minutes against McDavid than NZ in span of 8 games? This is not considering the fact that half the games are at home, and Oilers get last change. This also doesnt include the fact that McDavid gets double shifted and gets away from his matchup like the oilers intend. I checked the avg TOI vs his TOI against MTL and its TOI against MTL is higher than his avg.


You used NZ as a reference of TOI with Danault against McDavid, unless you are insinuating that the team do it by commission against McDavid or that we will sign a shutdown centre, I want to know who you have playing against the other team's top line on a consistent basis. I see you mention"hockey is fluid" and matching is not a thing but it clearly is based off the minutes you presented.

So Three centres combined have the same TOI against McDaviD as Danault does by himself? Doesnt that argue my point?


We have literally been doing that, albeit we are not good or competing for a cup. You stated stats that show that PD has the most ice time against the other team's top C and has a very marginal close second the second top C. I do not see how replacing a centre over a winger will make it easier to run the top 9, especially considering we do not use Danault's line as a primary offense line. We also have Cole on the wing and it's much easier to hide a winger than it is a centre. So if the plan again, is to go with NZ, KK, Evans- Poehling, every single player gets more minutes against McDavid. Again, how does that bode well for developping centres, some of whom we have no idea can take on the additional minutes similar to how Allen can't steal a starter position.

Edit: No idea how to respond to specific comments

 

[canucklover123]

Manz was pretty thrash today though not gunna lie lol

 

[Mrb1p]

Sure was "one of the best defensively" today

 

[Sorinth]

Sure, again select few, but that doesn't mean they have two number one lines. Very few teams have two top 30 centres, even fewer have two number one lines. You're naming the select few who have TWO top tier centres, I will argue Tampa is not there yet but mute point.

That was off the top of my head and sticking to the Eastern conference since that's who we would face in the playoffs and a full 30% of the teams have two #1 centers. That's not a rare situation.

What do you mean Suzuki is not far off Danault? Looking at the stats you listed, it looks like PD had about 15 more minutes against McDavid than NZ in span of 8 games?

Like I said Danault faces McDavid a little under 2min more per game then Suzuki, it's not nothing but it's also not a big deal.

This is not considering the fact that half the games are at home, and Oilers get last change. This also doesnt include the fact that McDavid gets double shifted and gets away from his matchup like the oilers intend. I checked the avg TOI vs his TOI against MTL and its TOI against MTL is higher than his avg.

All points that support the idea that having a dedicated shutdown guy doesn't work.

You used NZ as a reference of TOI with Danault against McDavid, unless you are insinuating that the team do it by commission against McDavid or that we will sign a shutdown centre, I want to know who you have playing against the other team's top line on a consistent basis. I see you mention"hockey is fluid" and matching is not a thing but it clearly is based off the minutes you presented.

So Three centres combined have the same TOI against McDaviD as Danault does by himself? Doesnt that argue my point?

They are already doing it by commission, which is shown by the fact that the majority of the time McDavid is on the ice Danault isn't.

We have literally been doing that, albeit we are not good or competing for a cup. You stated stats that show that PD has the most ice time against the other team's top C and has a very marginal close second the second top C. I do not see how replacing a centre over a winger will make it easier to run the top 9, especially considering we do not use Danault's line as a primary offense line. We also have Cole on the wing and it's much easier to hide a winger than it is a centre. So if the plan again, is to go with NZ, KK, Evans- Poehling, every single player gets more minutes against McDavid. Again, how does that bode well for developping centres, some of whom we have no idea can take on the additional minutes similar to how Allen can't steal a starter position.

They are already playing against McDavid is that bad for their development? How is taking 1 or 2 more shifts going to ruin them?

And this is neither here nor there but I wouldn't pencil Poehling into the lineup.

It's not replacing a C over a W, it's about which one do you lose. If we lose Tatar then we don't have any established offensive players on the 3rd line which makes it extremely unlikely that you can run a balanced top-9.

Edit: No idea how to respond to specific comments

You just manually add the [ Q U O T E ] ... [ / Q U O T E ] to split up a post except no spaces.

 

[TheBuriedHab]

Hes a great player if hes on your third line being paid 3 million a year.

 

[CHwest]

What happened if they never drafted Getzlaf, Carter, Bergeron, Kopitar, Giroux, Henrique, Point or Aho? Why?
Who decided to pass on so many great centers?
Is it Danault's fault if Habs had nothing better than him for a while?
Did you see lack of effort in his game or bad chemistry or cancer room?
Did you see problems off-ice?

The problem is with how much money he wants.

 

[canucklover123]

That was off the top of my head and sticking to the Eastern conference since that's who we would face in the playoffs and a full 30% of the teams have two #1 centers. That's not a rare situation.


Like I said Danault faces McDavid a little under 2min more per game then Suzuki, it's not nothing but it's also not a big deal.



All points that support the idea that having a dedicated shutdown guy doesn't work.



They are already doing it by commission, which is shown by the fact that the majority of the time McDavid is on the ice Danault isn't.



They are already playing against McDavid is that bad for their development? How is taking 1 or 2 more shifts going to ruin them?

And this is neither here nor there but I wouldn't pencil Poehling into the lineup.

It's not replacing a C over a W, it's about which one do you lose. If we lose Tatar then we don't have any established offensive players on the 3rd line which makes it extremely unlikely that you can run a balanced top-9.



You just manually add the [ Q U O T E ] ... [ / Q U O T E ] to split up a post except no spaces.

Test

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

delete

 

[canucklover123]

That was off the top of my head and sticking to the Eastern conference since that's who we would face in the playoffs and a full 30% of the teams have two #1 centers. That's not a rare situation.



Like I said Danault faces McDavid a little under 2min more per game then Suzuki, it's not nothing but it's also not a big deal.



All points that support the idea that having a dedicated shutdown guy doesn't work.



They are already doing it by commission, which is shown by the fact that the majority of the time McDavid is on the ice Danault isn't.



They are already playing against McDavid is that bad for their development? How is taking 1 or 2 more shifts going to ruin them?

And this is neither here nor there but I wouldn't pencil Poehling into the lineup.

It's not replacing a C over a W, it's about which one do you lose. If we lose Tatar then we don't have any established offensive players on the 3rd line which makes it extremely unlikely that you can run a balanced top-9.



You just manually add the [ Q U O T E ] ... [ / Q U O T E ] to split up a post except no spaces.

Again the argument is around the minutes Danault plays and who he plays against.

So I used your website… top centers in TOI Danault has played against this year in that order:
Matthews,Schifle, Horvat, Norris (lol), MCDavid, Lindholm. Ironically, top center from each team.

Now deep dive into it, lets use Toronto and Edmonton. Toronto because they have 2 top centermen, something you mention is not that rare and Edmonton because they have the best player in the world. Lets also consider time away from the playee relative to TOI, something you omitted which is important.

Danault vs.
Matthews:
TOI against Matthews: 73:40
TOI away from Matthews 45:01

McDavid:
TOI against McDavid: 44:39
TOI away from McDavid 47:43

Considering NZ has the largest TOI on Centers and he gets lined up against difficult matchups as well, it makes perfect sense to use him in this comparison as you did prior

Suzuki vs
Top centers NZ has played against in TOI In that order: Statsny, Tavrares, Schifle, Miller, Backlund, Horvat
Matthews:
TOI against Matthews: 25:34
TOI away from Matthews 85:46

McDavid:
TOI against McDavid: 31.19
TOI away from McDavid 58.31

Its quite clear that Suzuki spends more time away from the top tier centermen than he does against. Its actually not even close. NZ spent close to 22% vs Matthews in his total TOI and about 35% vs McDvid.

On the contrary, PD spends 61% of his total TOI against Matthews and 50% against McDavid. That means he plays the top Center at minimum 50% of the time where the rest of the team combined does that (Worst case scenario)

I think you refer to “defensive center” in absolute. You are right the game is fluid but that does not negate that Danault still is the primary opposition for the other team’s top center. NZ is our best centre, plays the most at C ATOI and still his proportion of time spent is largely different than PD again cementing PD being used as the primary minute eater of "tough" minutes

It is not as simple as taking “ 1 or 2 more shifts” as you suggest. I did refer to Suzuki being "a defensive centre" in haste, which is not correct. However you did bring up the argument first about the reliance on PD vs top tier players.

Anyway Y ou suggest doing it by committee in his absence, which I mean sure you can, doesn’t mean it will be a good result.

Just looking at this, if you remove PD and have NZ take his spot, that means youll have to have someone take NZ and so on. You obviously are not gunna split the time evenly cause that defeats the purposes of line rankings. It also will make it even harder on our young centermen, so it is not 1 or 2 more shits.

If we are counting on KK and Evans to take on the minutes, I mean it’s a rookie center who was a scratch four games ago and another Center who might be in Finalnd by the way he is playing.

Definitely not ideal for development, as you putting players in situations they might get throttled in or are not ready for.

One solution is to get a veteran third C who can play some minutes to ease the burden, again will be hard pressed to find a center that provided 5 on5 statistics similar to PD at a price point that would make a marginal amount in savings on the cap

Lastly, you mention about Tatar or PD (personallyi woulda shipped them both at TD) but in this context, again you can hide a winger in the top 9 like Caufield. You can’t hide a center as well. You definitely cannot give them extended minutes against tougher opposition if they are not ready for it.

I went deeper with CF% and all that but the post was getting long…

 

[Rapala]

Suzuki has been spelling Dan5 for well over a season now. I’m not sure why some people don’t even realize this?

 

[BLONG7]

Sure was "one of the best defensively" today

-3 under par after one period, and took the rest of the night off, thank goodness.
This guy has trashed his own contract season..............definitely has not responded well at all.
Not sure if our new GM will try very hard to keep him....the eye test has stink eye all over it.

 

[26Mats]

Sure was "one of the best defensively" today

I'll have to wait to know the reality of the nature of an injury before I comment.

 

[Mrb1p]

-3 under par after one period, and took the rest of the night off, thank goodness.
This guy has trashed his own contract season..............definitely has not responded well at all.
Not sure if our new GM will try very hard to keep him....the eye test has stink eye all over it.

-6 in 4 periods.

Yikes!

 

[BLONG7]

-6 in 4 periods.

Yikes!

He has had some awful awful stretches this year.....mostly at the beginning, but awful just lately.....there is supposedly and injury....why they did not sit him I am not sure? Now, out comes the excuses....