Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

#27 Alex Galchenyuk 2017-18


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, roy_133 said:

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.

I don't think Galchenyuk and his agent wanted to get into a Pacioretty type deal where he's grossly underpaid for several years. In 3 years Galchenyuk will know if he made the right decision. Either way he will be set for life financially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Edmonton, look at Florida and Anaheim and Chicago and Tampa and so on... these are teams that have locked up their young talent early. Very few teams are allowing their elite players to get to the UFA market these days. Elliotte Friedmann was on the radio today discussing how GM's believe offer sheets will start happening in the next year or two because the UFA market is becoming so sparse. Teams are locking up their top players, the ones you can't just go out and sign any more at age 25 or 28, to long-term deals. For some reason, we've been willing to pay long-term for grit but not for skill, and it's a problem with the organization's philosophy. Why did Subban have to get a bridge? A a result, MB had to (reluctantly) pay Subban more than he would have had to long-term, possibly one of the factors leading to his trade. Why did Eller have to get bridged? Why did Galchenyuk have to get bridged and now get a short-to-mid-term deal yet again? Why can't we lock our good young players up rather yet we feel it's okay to go long-term on Shaw or longer-term on Prust and Moen? Why did MB say all young players would get bridge deals when he was in talks with Subban, yet he gave Gallagher and Drouin long-term deals without bridging them? It seems like the organization is picking and choosing and once again lying about why.

In Galchenyuk's case, there are now only two possible scenarios: one is that he walks in three years and two is that he plays reasonably well and then gets paid a boatload of money to stay. Now maybe the GM who has to worry about that won't be Bergevin, and maybe Bergevin is only concerned with the next three years because he knows he won't have much longer than that. But it's just really short-sighted to do what MB just did. Take AG's contract as a starting point. Most of his contemporaries with similar performances at this point in their careers were getting deals for 5.5-6M dollars long-term. So say AG would have made 6M AAV on a long-term deal. In other words, MB could have given him 6 years at 6M a season. Now, for the exact same money, he'll have him on a 4.9 AAV for three years and it would take 7.1M for the three years after just to break out even. Do we really want a 7.1M AAV in seasons where we're also paying Weber 7.8M and Price 10.5M and presumably Pacioretty something in excess of 7M too? Nope. I'd rather have spread out that cap hit over the coming season, when we probably won't start the year close to cap and when Pacman and Price are playing on friendlier deals. This is just really bad asset and cap management if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 9:50 PM, BigTed3 said:

Look at Edmonton, look at Florida and Anaheim and Chicago and Tampa and so on... these are teams that have locked up their young talent early. Very few teams are allowing their elite players to get to the UFA market these days. Elliotte Friedmann was on the radio today discussing how GM's believe offer sheets will start happening in the next year or two because the UFA market is becoming so sparse. Teams are locking up their top players, the ones you can't just go out and sign any more at age 25 or 28, to long-term deals. For some reason, we've been willing to pay long-term for grit but not for skill, and it's a problem with the organization's philosophy. Why did Subban have to get a bridge? A a result, MB had to (reluctantly) pay Subban more than he would have had to long-term, possibly one of the factors leading to his trade. Why did Eller have to get bridged? Why did Galchenyuk have to get bridged and now get a short-to-mid-term deal yet again? Why can't we lock our good young players up rather yet we feel it's okay to go long-term on Shaw or longer-term on Prust and Moen? Why did MB say all young players would get bridge deals when he was in talks with Subban, yet he gave Gallagher and Drouin long-term deals without bridging them? It seems like the organization is picking and choosing and once again lying about why.

In Galchenyuk's case, there are now only two possible scenarios: one is that he walks in three years and two is that he plays reasonably well and then gets paid a boatload of money to stay. Now maybe the GM who has to worry about that won't be Bergevin, and maybe Bergevin is only concerned with the next three years because he knows he won't have much longer than that. But it's just really short-sighted to do what MB just did. Take AG's contract as a starting point. Most of his contemporaries with similar performances at this point in their careers were getting deals for 5.5-6M dollars long-term. So say AG would have made 6M AAV on a long-term deal. In other words, MB could have given him 6 years at 6M a season. Now, for the exact same money, he'll have him on a 4.9 AAV for three years and it would take 7.1M for the three years after just to break out even. Do we really want a 7.1M AAV in seasons where we're also paying Weber 7.8M and Price 10.5M and presumably Pacioretty something in excess of 7M too? Nope. I'd rather have spread out that cap hit over the coming season, when we probably won't start the year close to cap and when Pacman and Price are playing on friendlier deals. This is just really bad asset and cap management if you ask me.

IF Price is worth $10.5 mil, then it would stand to reason that your 5 time 30+ goal-scorer Pacioretty is worth somewhere between 9-11-mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8-7-2017 at 6:24 AM, East_Coast_Juggalo_13 said:

Why can't we lock our good young players up rather yet we feel it's okay to go long-term on Shaw or longer-term on Prust and Moen? Why did MB say all young players would get bridge deals when he was in talks with Subban, yet he gave Gallagher and Drouin long-term deals without bridging them? It seems like the organization is picking and choosing and once again lying about why.

Bergevin does not pay for offense, this goes against his belief that defense wins championships.

Prust, Moen, Shaw, he has seen as "turnover" men, those that go to the puck and regain it for the team, so they can drop the puck to let defense lead the attack.

the most ridiculous seen in his offer for Subban a few years ago, where a decent attacking defenseman was offered a very high salary, where later the league exploded in contract offers.

Montreal, too often seems a one-trick pony, shown by the power play, or the Weber/Subban set-up.

Galchenyuk is offered a price that must show what he is really worth, for they have no clue what offense really means these days, Radulov has shown that when making plays, Montreal does not really seem to catch on to the play, not really their problem, as the know only of defense, how many one-goal games are finally won?, how many times did you sit at the end of your seat waiting for the game to (finally) end?

it was a natural thing to resign Galchenyuk, I even believe they got off easy, as he could have asked for more, seeing that if he left, the only attack would come from Pacioretty.

we should have gotten Radulov as well as Drouin, but for the most years MB has brought defense to Montreal and never used it, so he goes out and buys some more.

in wondering what this year will bring, but there are some really offensive teams out there, not so much sure this year will be the one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Everyone keeps saying the habs don't have a #1 center. That's not true. Here's an outside the box idea. Play Galchenyuk as #1 with pacioretty on the left and Plekanec on the right. Plekanec can help the defensive side of the game. Then the lines could be. 

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Plekanec

Droui - Danault - Gallagher

Lehkonen -Hudon- Hemsky

Byron Mitchell Shaw/Mccarron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, manquant said:

Everyone keeps saying the habs don't have a #1 center. That's not true. Here's an outside the box idea. Play Galchenyuk as #1 with pacioretty on the left and Plekanec on the right. Plekanec can help the defensive side of the game. Then the lines could be. 

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Plekanec

Droui - Danault - Gallagher

Lehkonen -Hudon- Hemsky

Byron Mitchell Shaw/Mccarron

IMO, there's only one thing wrong with your line-ups. Pleks would play on the 1st line,,, the PP and the PK. That's a lot to ask of a 34 year old, (35 in Oct.), all adding up to 20 mins. or more.. I guess tho it might be worth a try for 10 games to see how he does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, manquant said:

Everyone keeps saying the habs don't have a #1 center. That's not true. Here's an outside the box idea. Play Galchenyuk as #1 with pacioretty on the left and Plekanec on the right. Plekanec can help the defensive side of the game. Then the lines could be. 

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Plekanec

Droui - Danault - Gallagher

Lehkonen -Hudon- Hemsky

Byron Mitchell Shaw/Mccarron

I just dont see Plekanec as winger. He's never played wing & I think if you were going to try to transition him there, it would be better to do so on the LW, not his off-wing.  I agree with Chucky playing one of those 2 top centre spots but I think if you are going to play Pleks in a top 6 role you need him to be the defensive two way centre. Something like:

Drouin - Galchenyuk - Gallagher   - Explosive offensive line

Pacioretty - Plekanec - Lehkonen - 2 way offense & checking line

 

I suspect we'll have at least 1 new top 6 player to slot into those lines before training camp though, so i guess its tough to know what CJ will do at this point. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
2 hours ago, ramcharger440 said:

Hope he is 100% and ready to go this fall i expect a lot from him this year. he has shown he has it now we need to see him be more consistent.

Should be a "make or break" year for him, unless injuries get in the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A reporter (not sure who) asked Galchenyuk if he wish he had a better start to the season in his first exhibition game, you know since you sucked hard last year.  Yes reporters can typically ask whatever they want, yes the partnership with the media and the NHL is vital, yes the players make alot of money and fielding questions is a part of their job, and yes the players all receive media coaching.  But this was a ridiculous question, aimed at getting a rise out of Alex, trying to push his buttons, because if Alex lost it then the reporter would have some valuable content.  

Nice to see Alex rise above.  Too bad he had to in the first place.

On the flip side, a different reporter asked CJ something that's worth discussing, but I'll comment on that in the CJ section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am hoping the addition of  Drouin can help Galchenyuk as Drouin appears ready to accept a new challenge despite making some unpopular choices. I haven't given up on Gally yet but he  appears to be distracted and unable to get it together although it is preseason. If he is still playing like this 20 games in there may be some players in the AHL who could be challenging for his spot. Not a good place to be for a player who had so much potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something, he has top end tools for sure plus size and skating, he just cannot bring all his tools to work on a consistent bases, and he is probably one of the worst defensive players in the league not just on the HABS. So if he ain't scoring he needs to go by by. I would take Deuchene in a heart beat for him.. but I believe Gallchenyks value is dropping after each game he plays...so no way we get Deuchen for Galchenyk, I am sure it would have to include Galchenyk and another prospect or pick.....

IT would be nice to have Drouin, Deuchene and Danualt, 1, 2, 3 down the middle, Maybe find a taker for Pleks,

How about Pleks for Chara, both players winding down on there carreers  ( Just kidding )

But some team needing veteran help down the middle for an aging defenceman who can still play in the top 4 would be nice. ( Give Jullsen, Mete etc another year or two to develop)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been mentioned a few times in the last little bit by some of the media folk, such as Pierre LeBrun and Craig Button, that perhaps the Habs should try Galchenyuk on the top line with Patches and Drouin playing his off wing. They cite the fact that he's had a lot of success on his off wing and that, if he gets going, it could be one heck of a power house line. 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MuddyWaterMoose said:

It's been mentioned a few times in the last little bit by some of the media folk, such as Pierre LeBrun and Craig Button, that perhaps the Habs should try Galchenyuk on the top line with Patches and Drouin playing his off wing. They cite the fact that he's had a lot of success on his off wing and that, if he gets going, it could be one heck of a power house line. 

Thoughts?

My problem with Galchenyuk and Drouin on the same line is that tthey are both possession playmakers and having to on the same line ussually allows the opposition to wait on a play basically knowing that only one guy on the line is shooting. we saw some of this when Semin briefly played here with Galchenyuk. I think it might help Galchenyuk, but the turnovers he commits and his lack of determination in winning possesion on the boards would mean Drouin and tthe other winger are less likely to get the puck. I think Drouin, Patches and basically any other good forechecker with speed on the wing (which is basically anybody but Galchenyuk would make Drouin more effective. I think that is some of Galchenyuk's problem right now. Whereever we put him he is making the line he is on less effective and weaker. Thus he ends up on the fourth line. The only person who can fix this is Galchenyuk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take...

Though it may not bode well in terms of "character", sometimes self-confidence can be a problem for young players that need to be boosted by others. And when competition, regarding skill and production, becomes visible in the limelight (as was the case last year with Radulov IMHO) meaning therefore that player is not being seen as the most skilled player on a team, said player loses confidence. Further to that, when management starts to demand more regardless and punishes the player affirming to the player he is not delivering what they expect, the problem is compounded. Now... add to that a challenge from newcomers (Danault, Drouin) for a position said player felt destined to fill, only to have management comment that said player cannot fill the position and never will (MB). Then when a coach (MT/CJ) plays hard ball by reducing opportunity to rebound, it is even further compounded. Again... add to that little regard for past laurels, injury recovery, and for progress over time (how soon some forget).

Poor baby, grow up you may say... but not all individuals are so thick skinned and may need a different approach to get the best out of them. And that to me is what is at stake with Galchenyuk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habs_Hockey_Nutz said:

My take...

Though it may not bode well in terms of "character", sometimes self-confidence can be a problem for young players that need to be boosted by others. And when competition, regarding skill and production, becomes visible in the limelight (as was the case last year with Radulov IMHO) meaning therefore that player is not being seen as the most skilled player on a team, said player loses confidence. Further to that, when management starts to demand more regardless and punishes the player affirming to the player he is not delivering what they expect, the problem is compounded. Now... add to that a challenge from newcomers (Danault, Drouin) for a position said player felt destined to fill, only to have management comment that said player cannot fill the position and never will (MB). Then when a coach (MT/CJ) plays hard ball by reducing opportunity to rebound, it is even further compounded. Again... add to that little regard for past laurels, injury recovery, and for progress over time (how soon some forget).

Poor baby, grow up you may say... but not all individuals are so thick skinned and may need a different approach to get the best out of them. And that to me is what is at stake with Galchenyuk.

Mm. Therrien had said prior to training camp last year that you can't play tough love with everyone, that doesn't work anymore. It doesn't get the most out of some players. It's an old school hockey mentality.

Galchenyuk drove his line last night. To me that silenced the criticism of his whole camp. He hasn't been placed in a position to succeed. And he somehow managed to overcome the bitterness he must be feeling and single-handedly sparked a two goal lead in the dying seconds of the 1st period. Need I remind anyone of how many goals were scored in the first 6 games of the preseason?

His effort lit a fire under us and it deserves more than Danault and Shaw on the third line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RyderRocks73 said:

Mm. Therrien had said prior to training camp last year that you can't play tough love with everyone, that doesn't work anymore. It doesn't get the most out of some players. It's an old school hockey mentality.

Galchenyuk drove his line last night. To me that silenced the criticism of his whole camp. He hasn't been placed in a position to succeed. And he somehow managed to overcome the bitterness he must be feeling and single-handedly sparked a two goal lead in the dying seconds of the 1st period. Need I remind anyone of how many goals were scored in the first 6 games of the preseason?

His effort lit a fire under us and it deserves more than Danault and Shaw on the third line.

He looked really good with Shaw and whether we move him to the 2nd line or third if he can play his game we will have the best 3rd line in the league. Ironically while we struggle to find a big name centre (although Drouin looks like he hasn't missed a beat since junior) our 3rd and 4th line look great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...