F50marco

Member Since
May 29, 2015
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
16100
Posts per Day
9.49
Forum Threads
294
Forum: Armchair-GM6 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 5:56 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 4:30 pm
Forum: San Jose SharksWed at 2:20 pm
I know everyone wants a team full of 24 year old, 4M cap hit, 100 point scorers but that just isn't reality.

Burns will probably decline and more than likely won't be "worth" 8M when he's 38 but he doesn't necessarily need to be either. He's coming off 60+ and 80+ point seasons as a dman playing 25+ mins a night and well on his way to another 60 point season this year despite the team around him being poor. Even if he were to round out being a 30-40 point guy by the time the contract ends, he'd have been worth every penny.

People often forget that you have to take the good with the bad with a contract and hope that the good outweighs the bad throughout that entire time as a whole. If I had to choose between a star dman for 4 years then a declining dman for the last 4 years, over nothing at all, I'd take Burns till he's 40. With that said it all comes down to rate of decline and if he's still doing what he's doing at 34, I don't think he'll slow down rapidly to the point of buyout candidate.

If his rate of decline is like that of Brent Seabrooks than yeah but if he's still pumping out offensive numbers but just can't play 27 mins a night anymore so he needs a little more sheltered minutes, so be it. Don't forget you paid 8M for an 80+ point dman not too long ago, technically on a season by season basis, that's worth easily 11M like Karlsson. So you got him for cheaper than he should have been also.

From the looks of it, Burns makes me think he'll still be able to provide value as he ages, just like Shea Weber will. If you are expecting them to remain Norris calibre dmen until their contracts are over, you'll be disappointed but then again they don't have to be. They just can't be straight up <em>bad. </em>
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 1:06 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 12:26 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HabsForEver</b></div><div>We were in a playoff spot until these injuries started. You are severely underrating this team. They almost made it last year, and they proved it at the beginning of the season they weren't overachieving.</div></div>

Once again, not doubting that they are "good" players. You are diverging to far from the whole point of the original comment. Habs 3rd and 4th lines based on stats and at least my opinion of the eye test show they aren't one of the best in the league. That's the debate here. Not whether I like Armia and KK or whatnot. I like our players but I'm going to call a spade a spade. They're decent but not nearly best in the league good.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HabsForEver</b></div><div>Would rather have two players playing at 70% than one at 100% and one at 10%.

Perhaps cheer for a different team or be quiet if you are that simply minded.</div></div>

I prefer not playing Kovy at all if he can't play 4th line. (where he'd slot if the others are healthy) Much rather play players where they belong and Armia was outstanding this year and deserving of minimum 3rd line duties. Playing him on the 4th line would be a slap in the face motivationally and wouldn't help the Habs as much as you think (70%). Habs have other options than Kovy for the 4th line role if that's the case. It doesn't have to be two players at 70%. It can be Armia at 100% and Poehling/Cousins at 100% (playing 4th line where they currently would slot if everyone is healthy).

Don't get salty. I disagreed with you is all. Nothing <em>simple</em> minded about it. That line of thinking is not what I want from a coach in Montreal. You can think the exact opposite if you'd like and we can agree to disagree about it. Doesn't make me any less a fan than yourself.