Quoting: hockeynutter
Pesce has an injury history and with his age? Carolina reportedly offered him between 5 and 5.5 and he refused wanting more. The risk is just as great here as it is with Montour especially with Pesce more of a defensive defenseman with little offense. Montour has showed the past three years to be good defensively with great offensive upside. That being said his age scares me. It would probably take 5-7 years to sign him and I would really worry with year 3-7 for him!. Edmundson and lyubuskin did great defensively but a huge issue advanced stats showed was our inability to break the puck up out of our zone to the offensive end with our defense. One of the two is okay like Edmundson at 3, but we need puck moving type dmen as well big time. As for Domi I definitely agree.
Yes, Puck moving D is an issue. And I understand thats why people have the hard on for Montour. But his point totals the last 3 years are 37, 73, 33. That tells me his 73 was an abnormality. Especially considering he was/is approaching FA. And he will for sure want between 7-8 for max term.
To me Pesce, who is also a year younger than Montour, is the safer play.
Yes he is defensive not offensive. But long term/big picture. He will be more stable, cost a little less, and continue at a higher level of play longer than Montour will. Defensive D men can do their jobs effectively a long longer than offensive one. Look where we are with Reilly already? Dont need another one of those.
Minten is coming. Cowan is coming. Marners money is coming off the books. So is JT's.
I say beef up the defense now. Then, after this season (or after they trade Marner, whatever happens first) then start spending to beef up the offense.
Let the offense play offense and the defense play defense.