I love Boucher and like most of his acquisitions. But the gm needs to say no sometimes. Does the gm have a vision?
Ok I'll wait and watch but this is getting a little ridiculous.
Because a GM claims a guy that his coach likes on waivers means that he has no vision? What?
I remember when Hoffman was on waivers we need to claim a guy like that on the waiver wire
What does it have to do with this? Waivers at the beginning of the season is completely different as every team has several bubble guys and prospects trying to make it. The waiver wire is full and it's unlikely that a guy gets claimed because it guarantees him a roster spot (and NHL salary)...If a team claims a guy in the waiver wire after training camp, it's because they like him more than their other prospects and bubble guys trying to make it, aka they probably a very bad prospect pool and depth.
Ideal situation is to have 13 forwards, with the 13th being somebody who you don't screw up if he's in the pressbox half of the time. My guess is that's the role Dumont was brought in for.
Guys on pretty close to a league minimum deal. This is pretty inconsequential. Allows us to send Paul down when he's not playing games.
Actually, I hope they send down Dido instead. He's good with the puck on his stick but that's about it. Not a NHL player otherwise. Paul on the other hand seems to be able to do a bit of everything.
Smith-Pageau-Burrows
Paul-Thompson-Pyatt
Dumont
is my bottom 6
How can't you see it? Dorion is the guy who signed him to the ridiculous one-way contract.
Did you understand what I said?
Even if he is waived next year and goes there he will cost $300k. That's not chicken feed in the AHL and that kind of dough usually reserved for top producing tweeners or journeymen defensemen.
Edit : my mistake, you're right... apparently he has clause garanteeing him a 300K next year...
This is not a very good NHL roster. Unfortunately, this is what we have for next year now too, minus Didomenico. You know for sure that we will signing a "depth guy" to fill out that 4th line because "development".
How come?
Ryan-Brassard-Stone looked very good as a top-line. Duchene and Hoffman are no slouches I think. Dzingel is not ideal in the top-6 but it is what it is after that MacArthur left a big hole in the middle of the line-up, forcing Dzingel out of the 3rd line (and Burrows out of the 4th line)
Pageau and Smith are great 3rd liners, capable of producing more when needed (like in 2015-16). Burrows has been producing at a 34 pts pace with the Sens
Thompson, Pyatt are great 4th liners. Dumont is an energy player, let's see how he plays with Ottawa before judging anything
This "not very good roster" was 3rd in GF/GP before the Pittsburgh game and 6th in P% in the whole league.