Retired jersey/chandail retiré
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About roy_133

  • Rank
    Hockey Guru / Grand manitou

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Forum Trolling

Recent Profile Visitors

12,117 profile views
  1. Well it was awesome to get the win. The D is a bit tricky right now. Hope Schlemko is good. Mete didn't look out of place at all.
  2. Overtime probably not his thing at the best of times lol.
  3. They might be pretty good this year, at least decent.
  4. Here's hoping because he certainly didn't look like the regulation man tonight.
  5. Most his contemporaries that you're talking about would get that contract coming off their ELC. He didn't. If we gave him 6x6 coming off his ELC, which is about what we just gave Drouin coming off his ELC, he'd have spent the last 2 years at 6 mill per and would have 4 years left on his deal at 6, instead of the 3 x 4.9 he just got. I think we're confusing comparables on contracts that bought up a lot of RFA years. I see no reason to believe he'd be willing to do 6 x 6 now, if he could get 3 x 4.9. The math you just did, about why it made sense to go long term, his agent has done many times over. The time to get players locked up on those deals is right out of ELC because they're willing to sell less valuable RFA years and add a few UFA years for the benefit. If we had signed him to 6 x 6 off his ELC, we'd have 1 extra year of control and have paid more in everyone of the previous 5 seasons before that extra year. I agree, you should lock high end players up off their ELC. He should have done it with Subban and it burned him, this one didn't really burn him because Galchenyuk never broke out to the point that it ended up costing us more than we saved by not doing it. I still would have locked Galchenyuk up in 2015 off his ELC, but we wouldn't really be any further ahead. I would have bet that he'd get more than 3 x 4.9 on this deal but he didn't.
  6. I don't think Galchenyuk not wanting to sign long term indicates a problem with the organization, it certainly may, but that's a leap I'm not willing to take right this moment. I think, if as fans we realize "hey, we should sign him long term now since his value will never be lower!" his high powered agent has already had that occur to him. There wasn't a lot of reason for him to sign long term right now, unlike Drouin he had arbitration rights and much less RFA time to be bought up. Maybe it's an organizational problem that caused him to not want to do long term, but it's just as likely he didn't want to sell a bunch of UFA years coming off an injury plagued year he knows he can improve on. It's a lot easier to lock players up in the Drouin stage of their career, right off the ELC when they don't have arb rights and you can sell them on the fact that you're buying up a ton of less valuable RFA years. We really only bought up 2 UFA years from Drouin. Going one year was an option, if you hypothesize things are at an all time low now, I'm not sure going through an arbitration hearing with the guy is any kind of solution though. I just think if we go 1 year, he can arb himself to being a UFA the next summer, if he wants, getting him to be willing to sell us a UFA year at under 5 million? It can't be THAT untenable. I agree it's probably not rosy but he could have been out the door in 2 years and he waived that right by a year and not for an insane amount of money. But either way, 1 year or 3, if he ends up being the player we all think he could be the end game will be the same, deciding between a deal thats something like 8 x 7 or letting him go. They pushed the decision back, is all. I sort of like it, in a way. I'd have preferred 8 x 5.5 or whatever, just don't think the option was there and we'll be faced with the same decision on any short term deal, whether it's 1 or 3 years. This is the risk of bridging guys. I'm not defending Bergevin, he's made some mistakes to get to this point, perhaps. I certainly have a lot of beefs with him, in general. Just think given the circumstance this was hard to avoid. I honest to God expected two 1 year deals and UFA. I'm happy we bought a UFA year and I'm happy with the cap hit.
  7. Don't see much likelihood both Drouin and Galchenyuk are playing C this year, Julien is pretty conservative. I think at this point we're pretty much stuck with 1 of them at C though, no way around that given how the roster is built. I'll start with guessing one line will be Pacioretty with Danault and Gallagher. Pacioretty drives any line and he works with both players individually. Pacioretty's nice because he doesn't require a ton of skill around him. He's a monster 5 on 5. Gallagher is due a bounce back, nothing about his game was that bad last year other than the counting #s and he's young. Danault for all his flaws, is competent and is trusted in all 3 zones. The next line is interesting. I would guess you put Drouin with Galchenyuk at C and either Shaw or Hemsky on the RW for an offensive optimization line. Lots of Ozone starts, hopefully lots of goals. Initial reaction is "put Hemsky there, he's skilled" but I could see Julien wanting to try Hemsky and Pleks and also, I could see them thinking Shaw works well because he's skilled enough to bang pucks in and can take strong side faceoffs/help in DZone coverage since he has a bit of C experience himself. I know people will say put Lehkonen or even Hudon there, yeah I just don't see Julien doing that - at all. So I guess that leaves Lehkonen with Plekanec and Hemsky and Byron on the 4th line. It's not necessarily how I'd optimize the lineup, but it's what I guess they open with. I like the Hemsky signing FWIW. Excited to see how Julien fits these pieces together because there's not an obvious fit.
  8. Bought up 1 UFA year, think they bought 2 from Drouin. I'm sure, for all the talk of how long they should have locked him up, Galchenyuk and his agent aren't stupid. They were probably going to be difficult about a long term deal at depressed value, especially since we bridged him to arbitration rights. So he could have easily gone arb this summer, arb next and been a UFA. To be honest, I expected a 1 year deal so I'm reasonably happy they actually bought up a UFA year. It is what it is, Galchenyuk had no incentive to sign long term right now and since he actually had arb rights, we couldn't just let him sit and at home and think about it. He had the power.
  9. I don't disagree although I'll say this, I do wonder how much of their issues with him are faceoff related vs strictly defensive play related. I mean, even on his hero chart in the original post his shot suppression is awful, the guys you mentioned don't struggle that badly with it. If he could be even league average defensively he'd get himself a lot of rope. So it's tough, I agree, he should be stuck at C and left there and developed there but for the time being, if he's going to be that bad defensively, the only way to do it is to shelter his minutes. I just don't think, as dynamic as he is, you can play him 20 minutes a game yet. I think his role right now should be 2nd line, offensive zone C and let someone else do a lot of the heavy lifting. Even if Galchenyuk only plays 15-17 minutes, make the most of them. Ozone starts, tons of PP. I do think if Galchenyuk is willing to work on his defensive game, Julien could be a good coach for him and I hope the contract situation doesn't make management think they have to trade him. I'd like to see him back, full healthy camp with Julien. We're bad at handling young, talented players. It's not a secret. Too bad.
  10. Of course it is. I'm sure Bergevin would feel out his agent either way on what it would take for a long term, middle term and short term deal. There's also a chance Galchenyuk's agent said he's not interested in a long term. That's why, as much as the management team annoys me, it's hard to get mad at them over a report that may or may not be true and that we have no context on. Galchenyuk isn't stupid and he has a very good agent, he has every reason to believe signing a 7 year deal right now will cost him money. Maybe the Habs are butchering this, but it's logical of Galchenyuk's agent to have made it clear from the start that a long term deal would be very expensive. Drouin's first ELC year slid so he's 2 years behind. He's just off his ELC and Galchenyuk has already done his ELC and a 2 year bridge. So if Galchenyuk gets 4 years, it would buy up the same amount of UFA years as Drouin's 6 bought up, Which was my point. Also, it's pretty clear they don't think Drouin is an inferior player. Maybe they'll be right, maybe they'll be wrong. And he had REALLY high SH%s both of those short stretches, it's very hypothetical and it'll take more time for me to be convinced. We'll see. His defensive play is bad and until it's fixed he's not going to play 22 minutes a night for any coach. It's just the way it is. He deserves to play more than he has, but 5 more minutes a game? During both of those stretches his ice time was low for a top center but he had major offensive optimization. It's hard to say what those extra 2-3 minutes would do for him considering they'd probably be different types of minutes in situation he struggles in. 100 shots in 60+ games isn't enough, I think he's been mishandled at times but quite a bit of this is on him. He can't rely on being a bad defensive C who shoots 17-20%. I think we need a lot more evidence before I'm comfortable saying he's got a good chance of being a PPG player. There weren't even 10 PPG players in the NHL last year and in terms of consistent PPG guys, you can count them on 1 hand. Hope he gets there but I think he's a ways away.
  11. How many UFA years did we buy from Drouin? 1-2? So 3-4 year deal is pretty much the same ballpark on Galchenyuk, it's probably as much to save cap space as anything since UFA years tend to be considerably more expensive, short term gain for a team that will be in cap hell pretty soon. Also, not sure how true the rumor is anyway. I'd probably guess if they don't want to do long term and I can see why a long term deal could be tough from both ends, Galchenyuk doesn't have a ton of incentive to do one given that you'd have to think he can be a better player than he was for the bulk of last year, post injury, they'd just do a 1 year deal and revisit it next year with 1 RFA year lef. It's dangerous but it's pretty much the situation we're in. I'm not sure about his PPG likelihood, I know he had 20 or so games at that level but he had a lot of fortunate in the SH% department. He was shooting less last year too.
  12. Wonder what this means for Galchenyuk and Radulov both, going to be an interesting summer. Initial reaction is I like it.
  13. I'm not saying everyone got along, not everyone does on a team. I'm saying GMs don't trade franchise level players because a couple guys have problems with him. Also, Bergevin came into this job with obvious attitude towards Subban. Subban may have had a problem with Pacioretty getting the C and Pacioretty may have disliked Subban, I don't buy that as a reason for the trade, especially given Bergevin's history
  14. Lol, yeah people think that. I don't get why. Did Pleks or Pacioretty cause Bergevin's first order of business upon taking over to be fighting with Subban into him taking a bridge contract, acting like he wasn't a number 1 D at every turn, fighting him again on his next contract to the point it went to arbitration, never missing a chance to throw him under the bus? I don't know how PK's teammates felt about him, I'm sure when you're on a team that's losing as much as we were in 2015-16 everyone's tempers are a little short and it wouldn't surprise me that PK's energy could be grating when you're in the middle of one of the worst stretches in franchise history but I don't see it. I don't see them having that kind of sway, if ANYONE in the organization would as a player, maybe it would be Price but even then. There's a long history of Bergevin being iffy on Subban, whether you think it was warranted or not. Let's put it this way, if you thought Pleks + Pacioretty were iffy on Shea Weber, do you believe in anyway Bergevin would explore trading him?
  15. There's lot of variables though, Bishop is actually a .919 career SV% goalie, close enough to Price that if you got him for 3-4 million less per year than Price would get on a new deal, it could be worth exploring. You're right though, IF you feel like Price will be a .925 goalie for the next few years the value is there. He was .923 this year, he's had injury problems and is logically exiting his physical prime. It's not impossible his performance stagnates or even raises after 30, it's just probably not the safest bet. If you're giving him 7-8 years x 8.5, you're worried about more than just the next couple of years.