View Single Post
Old
03-14-2007, 01:36 PM
  #31
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I suppose you're missing the point. Johnson earns in the Hecht/Schaefer salary bracket and isn't as good as them. And yeah, Hecht plays the top line in Buffalo, but he's also played the third line frequently and bounced all over the lineup. His stats remain virtually the same, unlike Johnson's. Same goes for Schaefer.

But the point is that these players (among many, many others) earn in the same salary bracket as Johnson yet outproduce him, and I'd also take Schaefer or Hecht's fundamentals over Johnson's.


Re: Peca and Draper. I suppose you're missing the point again. Just because there aren't many out there (which I don't necessarily agree with, but will save that dispute for another time) doesn't mean Montreal should overpay for players not as good as them, paying them in the same salary bracket.


I don't think the fact that Johnson's likeable and generally solid fundamentally should make him above reproach. Montreal needs to be fiscally responsible going forward, and I don't think spending much on the bottom-six is fiscally responsible--especially when said players aren't producing enough offense, and/or aren't producing enough intangibles.
Mtl's full of , yeah he's good but...., type players. It's the same trickle down effect that we've spoken of. If there was more grit on the 1st 2 lines, you wouldn't need any from Bonk/Johnson.

One question about Johnson though. Going into the year, it was going to be Bonk/Begin and whoever, and Johnson/Plekanec, and probaly Perezhogin. I wonder how the line's production would have differed ?

I like the competence of a Bonk or Johnson, but there are limitations. The team can't keep over paying support players.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote