The only center that is moody and selfish is Danault. Domi took it like a pro and showed up to the post-season where everyone believed he'd back out & put his health first. When slotted at 4C, he didn't whine, he didn't cry, he didn't pout. He still played, and never went public with some stupid rant. All season long he was given shitty wingers to play with. Not once did he complain - unlike Danault after 3 games of being "demoted".
This is a huge joke, right!?
Twist and shout should be your theme song after twisting events to suit some kind of anti-Danault narrative.
Danault did not come out publicly to whine about how he was used by the coaching staff during the playoffs and certainly didn't sulk and not show up while being demoted to play with Lehkonen and Byron, as you put it.
Basically, when asked how he felt about his future becoming that of a third line C starting next season, he said he had proven, over the last three years, that he could produce as a two-way, top-6 C that could also be relied upon for some offense, that reducing his role to a strictly defensive role didn't appeal to him because he believed he could also continue to improve on the offensive side of his game.
This is whining? It may well be more honest than we have been accustomed to hearing from robotic hockey players trained to spew out prefabricated responses to media types but, it didn't come across as whining in the least, IMO.
When asked if being relegated to a third line role in Montreal would affect his decision to re-sign with the team as an UFA, he said, "Yes."
Was he supposed to say, "No?"
Being relegated to a third line role for the foreseeable future and what would amount to, barring injury, likely the rest of his career, would have a huge financial impact on the player who is, not unlike other regular human beings, looking to provide for his family.
It was, to me, Danault positioning himself for upcoming contract negotiations that could also see him end up playing a 3rd line role with Montreal if it is explained in a way that values Danrult's role with the team and pays him accordingly.
If Danault is offered 5M rather than 3.5M, let's say, as a 3rd line C and presented with a role facing off against the opponents' best players in a shut down role that would see him get TOI closer to a balanced TOI for the top-9 than the TOI we see with a traditional 3rd line that follows two offensive lines, he might well readily accept his role and help the Habs to the best of his abilities.
Is paying 5M an overpay for a 3rd one C?
It is, for a C that could not play above that role. It might not be for one like Danault that can effectively contribute as a 2nd line, shutdown C in case of injury or on an off night from one of the younger, more offensive Cs.
Choosing to pay for depth down the C-line is not the worst way to allocate Cap space, even if it represents a slight overpayment for the third line C.
Furthermore, with Suzuki and Kotkaniemi still at a relatively cost-controlled asset, that overpayment wouldn't have the same impact in the initial years of the contract and could be easily accounted for with other contracts over time.
Paying Danault 5M to have genuine depth at C throughout the top-9 is a much smarter approach than paying 10.5M for a #1G, even if I think that Montreal can still make it work with Price at the current cost.