Maybe you can point someone out, but I haven't heard or read anyone say Danault is a proven Top-6 player. He is currently proving he has the potential to be a 2C. There is a difference.
I have read around here that danault is a top 2c (which imo is too hasty ...) now don't get me wrong he deserves every bit of the icetime he gets... but i agree... if he plays in the top 6 by the playoffs.... we're in trouble... i love the kid but it's just too much, too soon... he's proven to be damn solid to 9 that can fill-in top6 when needed... and actually if you have enough depth to play this kid on the 4th line, you're in a good place...
Those who thinks that Danault cannot be a center on the top-6 should listen to what Pacioretty said after the game tonight about him. A lot of praise for the kid.
Yea I caught that. Ever since MT put Pacioretty with Danault in November on the 3rd line with Shaw, Pacioretty has been praising him. After their first shift together, Pacioretty told Danault that he really likes playing with him.
At the deadline, when MB called Pacioretty, the guy thought he was the one traded.
But it was to tell him about the Danault acquisition. Max admitted that he didn't know much of Danault (who was going up and down in Chicago). But MB assured him that he will be a key piece for the team's future.
I think that future has come a lot quicker.
I definitely see him as a 2C eventually. He's proving he can handle it at this young stage in his career.
Hi think people are overthinking what is a number 1 2 or 3 center. The reality is the top center is the one you use on the first PP unit. I like what Daneault is doing now. He complements Pacioretty and Radulov very well. He competes in the corners and takes care of the defensive responsibilities. I would definitively leave him there when Galchenyuk comes back and try to extract a bit more offence on the second line. Especially once Gallagher is back. Lekonen, Chucky and Gally could be a decent line.
I hope people really don't think Byron can repeat them numbers every year.
Danault on the other has upside.
I can see Byron getting constantly 40 pts per year as long as he plays on the top 2 lines. He doesn't have a great shot, but he's really fast, he has strong hockey IQ, he has good vision and good hands, he's hard to knock off the puck, and he's a smart player. He's also not afraid to go to the dirty areas and score those ugly goals.
If I weren't a Habs fan since the 1940s I would be amused by how some fans would reconstruct the team. Sometimes I find it painful. I won't make any brilliant proposals because I don't want to reread my posts a few months from now and wonder how I could have been so naïve. I'll leave it up to Bergevin. He's done all right so far.