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

#27 Alex Galchenyuk 2017-18


habs_93
 Share

Recommended Posts

#27 Alex Galchenyuk

8476851.jpg

dr82HSx.png?1@AGally94

Position: Centre
Shoots: Left
Birthplace: Milwaukee, WI, USA 30z0gEC.png
Birth date: 12 February 1994
Age: 23
Height: 6' 1"
Weight: 210 lbs
Drafted by: Montréal
Draft Year: 2012 Round 1 (3rd Overall)

Archive 2016-17

Stats | NHL.com | Contract Info

OwnThePuck HERO Chart (http://ownthepuck.blogspot.com):

3tlZzEk.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to 985 sports, Habs have offered a contract to Galchenyuk for "3 or 4 years"... I personally find this insulting. Why is it that Drouin gets a long-term deal but Galchenyuk, who is equally as good and more established, gets a shorter term offer? Why would be allow him to become a UFA in 3 to 4 years? Bergevin screwed up royally when it came to bridging Subban and Eller and Galchenyuk, and the only defence I heard of any of this was that at the end of the bridge, it would allow us to lock up the player for 7-8 additional years... yet he's traded away Subban and Eller and he's reportedly not going to capitalize on his leverage to sign Galchenyuk long-term either. If this report is true, then it's yet another bumbling mistake at asset management from our GM. He could easily lock Galchenyuk up now for 7 years at 6M per season and have an elite offensive player (potentially a PPG guy) on the cheap through his entire prime. Why would you not want Drouin and Galchenyuk locked up together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigTed3 said:

According to 985 sports, Habs have offered a contract to Galchenyuk for "3 or 4 years"... I personally find this insulting. Why is it that Drouin gets a long-term deal but Galchenyuk, who is equally as good and more established, gets a shorter term offer? Why would be allow him to become a UFA in 3 to 4 years? Bergevin screwed up royally when it came to bridging Subban and Eller and Galchenyuk, and the only defence I heard of any of this was that at the end of the bridge, it would allow us to lock up the player for 7-8 additional years... yet he's traded away Subban and Eller and he's reportedly not going to capitalize on his leverage to sign Galchenyuk long-term either. If this report is true, then it's yet another bumbling mistake at asset management from our GM. He could easily lock Galchenyuk up now for 7 years at 6M per season and have an elite offensive player (potentially a PPG guy) on the cheap through his entire prime. Why would you not want Drouin and Galchenyuk locked up together?

I would suggest Galchenyuk is a slightly higher risk and has had some off ice issues. Signing him longer with potential issues that may cause his value to drop could put us in a position where we are unable to move him. At the same time it provides Galchenyuk the opportunity to leave sooner if he feels he is not being treated fairly. I think his agent will go for a shorter term because if he has some great years his next contract will be even better. My worry is this was a contract year and he could have locked down a big deal now but his play didn't translate. I am not a big fan of his  so far, but believe he still has the potential to develop and am glad we haven't traded him. If i am Julien I put my first line centre position up for grabs between him and Drouin and see if either one can grab it. Sometimes competition brings out the best in everyone and  changes everything. We have an opportunity to put a lot of pressure on the opposition this year with some quality goal scoring and Price in goal.

The comparable with Drouin for me is that he has appeared to found himself after demanding a trade and getting sent to the minors. Drouin has responded to a point where I was hoping we would get him and had mentioned this in the trade rumours thread where last year I didn't want to touch him. There are not too many players who  can make that adjustment, but it appears to have given Drouin a new appreciation for his talent.

Now that I write this Bergy would have to be a little crazy to offer the two highest risk players long term deals. Perhaps that's another reason Gally is getting the shorter term. Could be a nightmare it we are stuck with two highly skilled attitudes for a long time. Might impact someone like Carey's choice at resigning for a long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

He could easily lock Galchenyuk up now for 7 years at 6M per season and have an elite offensive player (potentially a PPG guy) on the cheap through his entire prime. 

This is assuming Galchenyuk wants to be locked up by the Habs for 7 years. He may not be sold on them as an organization and if that is the case, it may have been communicated to Bergevin by Galchenyuk's agent the contract length he'd be willing to sign at this time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Habberwacky said:

At the same time it provides Galchenyuk the opportunity to leave sooner if he feels he is not being treated fairly. I think his agent will go for a shorter term because if he has some great years his next contract will be even better.

And I really can't blame him. I think it's smarter for him to sign a shorter deal for the reasons you've stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habberwacky said:

I would suggest Galchenyuk is a slightly higher risk and has had some off ice issues. Signing him longer with potential issues that may cause his value to drop could put us in a position where we are unable to move him. At the same time it provides Galchenyuk the opportunity to leave sooner if he feels he is not being treated fairly. I think his agent will go for a shorter term because if he has some great years his next contract will be even better. My worry is this was a contract year and he could have locked down a big deal now but his play didn't translate. I am not a big fan of his  so far, but believe he still has the potential to develop and am glad we haven't traded him. If i am Julien I put my first line centre position up for grabs between him and Drouin and see if either one can grab it. Sometimes competition brings out the best in everyone and  changes everything. We have an opportunity to put a lot of pressure on the opposition this year with some quality goal scoring and Price in goal.

The comparable with Drouin for me is that he has appeared to found himself after demanding a trade and getting sent to the minors. Drouin has responded to a point where I was hoping we would get him and had mentioned this in the trade rumours thread where last year I didn't want to touch him. There are not too many players who  can make that adjustment, but it appears to have given Drouin a new appreciation for his talent.

Now that I write this Bergy would have to be a little crazy to offer the two highest risk players long term deals. Perhaps that's another reason Gally is getting the shorter term. Could be a nightmare it we are stuck with two highly skilled attitudes for a long time. Might impact someone like Carey's choice at resigning for a long term.

Don't really understand how Galchenyuk is the riskier player. He's proven himself over a longer period of time in the NHL, he's been a 30-goal scorer already, and he's had success despite getting less time per game than Drouin and most of his contemporary top 6 comparables. if we're talking about off-ice issues or personality, Galchenyuk came into the league with a scouting report that he was one of the hardest-working players in junior and he's battled back from a key injury to have success. Drouin has had his own question-marks on personality with his hold-out and rumors that he can be a bit of a diva.

For me personally, it's about what you bring on the ice. I want both guys on my team. But I don't understand the belief that Galchenyuk is riskier nor the belief that one guy deserves a long-term deal while the other one needs to be bridged for a second time in a row when he was your best player in terms of production per ice time last year.

 

1 hour ago, MuddyWaterMoose said:

This is assuming Galchenyuk wants to be locked up by the Habs for 7 years. He may not be sold on them as an organization and if that is the case, it may have been communicated to Bergevin by Galchenyuk's agent the contract length he'd be willing to sign at this time. 

 

Sure, assuming he wants long-term... but again, this is focusing on the Habs' side of thing, where the report is that they're only offering 3-4 years. The Habs should be offering 6-7. That would be much smarter. We've gone over this story with respect to Subban. Same applies to Galchenyuk. He's young and locking him up for 6-7 years would still put him on the right side of 30 at the end of his deal, so this is not the same discussion as whether to sign Radulov into his mid-late 30's... the Habs seemed very willing to pay Weber until he's 40. They had no problem locking up Desharnais til he was 30 and no problem going long-term with Gallagher (which was good) or Shaw (which was dumb). Why the resistance to offer a long-term deal to your most skilled players like Subban or Galchenyuk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they don't want him part of the organizatuon going forward. You hear the rumours , they are listening to offers., which in MB's terms means he's actively seeking to trade him but MB wants the world for a player he's made it know isn't  a top 3

Besides they now have what they've wanted since Guy Lafleur , a home town ( French ) kid to supposedly be the face of the franchise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Regis22 said:

Because they don't want him part of the organizatuon going forward. You hear the rumours , they are listening to offers., which in MB's terms means he's actively seeking to trade him but MB wants the world for a player he's made it know isn't  a top 3

Besides they now have what they've wanted since Guy Lafleur , a home town ( French ) kid to supposedly be the face of the franchise

But that's exactly it. There's nothing objective that puts Drouin ahead of Galchenyuk. They are both talented young forwards with elite offensive skill. One is not liked and one is cherished because he also happens to be French. Too often, MB has played favorites (either liking a player or coach too much to get rid of them or not liking them at all and dumping them for no viable hockey-related reasons), and it's cost us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

Too often, MB has played favorites (either liking a player or coach too much to get rid of them or not liking them at all and dumping them for no viable hockey-related reasons), and it's cost us.

This. Also too often politics have played a part in this now defunct organization IMO. Once a proud team that could hoist several Stanley Cups is now a struggling team with a lack of identity and direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habs=stanleycup said:

This. Also too often politics have played a part in this now defunct organization IMO. Once a proud team that could hoist several Stanley Cups is now a struggling team with a lack of identity and direction.

:2008122810303:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

The Habs should be offering 6-7. That would be much smarter. We've gone over this story with respect to Subban. Same applies to Galchenyuk. He's young and locking him up for 6-7 years would still put him on the right side of 30 at the end of his deal, 

In this case its even more clear cut - and how we're handling it is even dumber - than with subban.  MB has just given a nice big contract to drouin who is basically Galchenyuk 2.0, but with a smaller sample size!! Alex Galchenyuk should immediately get not only what Drouin was offered but, frankly, more (or at least for longer) for his service to his existing team.

I am absolutely baffled by the apparent ineptitude and lack of logic by Marc Bergevin.

And thats not even getting into the fact that Beau and Chuck were both called out and blamed after our P/O loss when it was clear at least one, if not both, were not in our long term plans.  Someone please send a memo to MB that if you plan on trading a player, its not advisable to lower his value in your press conferences prior to doing so.


Back to Galchenyuk:  We've seen several players rumored to be in play for Galchenyuk moved now (good)  the draft is done & chuck wasnt moved (good) and radulov remains unsigned making it more likely we retain AG (really good).  So lets hope he's still with this team next year. I think we'd strongly regret moving him at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, maas_art said:

In this case its even more clear cut - and how we're handling it is even dumber - than with subban.  MB has just given a nice big contract to drouin who is basically Galchenyuk 2.0, but with a smaller sample size!! Alex Galchenyuk should immediately get not only what Drouin was offered but, frankly, more (or at least for longer) for his service to his existing team.

I am absolutely baffled by the apparent ineptitude and lack of logic by Marc Bergevin.

And thats not even getting into the fact that Beau and Chuck were both called out and blamed after our P/O loss when it was clear at least one, if not both, were not in our long term plans.  Someone please send a memo to MB that if you plan on trading a player, its not advisable to lower his value in your press conferences prior to doing so.


Back to Galchenyuk:  We've seen several players rumored to be in play for Galchenyuk moved now (good)  the draft is done & chuck wasnt moved (good) and radulov remains unsigned making it more likely we retain AG (really good).  So lets hope he's still with this team next year. I think we'd strongly regret moving him at this point. 

Not only that, but again, how many players has MB been okay with acquiring despite supposed character issues elsewhere?

- Drouin with his holdout

- Shaw with his homophobic slur

- Here's a story about Mr. Character himself, Shea Weber, which doesn't seem to paint him in the best light: http://www.hockeyworldblog.com/2012/04/13/andrei-kostitsyn-and-shea-weber-mock-zetterberg-head-smash/

Point being that MB seems to be extremely inconsistent in picking on certain players and not others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

According to 985 sports, Habs have offered a contract to Galchenyuk for "3 or 4 years"... I personally find this insulting. Why is it that Drouin gets a long-term deal but Galchenyuk, who is equally as good and more established, gets a shorter term offer? Why would be allow him to become a UFA in 3 to 4 years? Bergevin screwed up royally when it came to bridging Subban and Eller and Galchenyuk, and the only defence I heard of any of this was that at the end of the bridge, it would allow us to lock up the player for 7-8 additional years... yet he's traded away Subban and Eller and he's reportedly not going to capitalize on his leverage to sign Galchenyuk long-term either. If this report is true, then it's yet another bumbling mistake at asset management from our GM. He could easily lock Galchenyuk up now for 7 years at 6M per season and have an elite offensive player (potentially a PPG guy) on the cheap through his entire prime. Why would you not want Drouin and Galchenyuk locked up together?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't the organization want to lock him for the same duration as Drouin? Offer a six-year deal. I mean, you want to build a team around some good, young talent... Well, here's your chance. You have acquired Drouin, great! Now resign Galchehnyuk to a six-year deal and see what they can do together during that time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Why wouldn't the organization want to lock him for the same duration as Drouin? Offer a six-year deal. I mean, you want to build a team around some good, young talent... Well, here's your chance. You have acquired Drouin, great! Now resign Galchehnyuk to a six-year deal and see what they can do together during that time frame.

As Roy mentioned,,,, maybe Chucky doesn't really think a long term deal is in his best interest. Both sides have to be on the same page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Habberwacky said:

I would suggest Galchenyuk is a slightly higher risk and has had some off ice issues...  ...My worry is this was a contract year and he could have locked down a big deal now but his play didn't translate...

...Drouin has responded to a point where I was hoping we would get him and had mentioned this in the trade rumours thread where last year I didn't want to touch him. There are not too many players who  can make that adjustment, but it appears to have given Drouin a new appreciation for his talent....

It's fine to not like a player, but this is grass is greener on the other side of the fence silliness. You can argue that Drouin has more potential, but doing so requires acknowledging reality: Drouin is the inferior player now, and has been so during his entire run in the NHL so far. And that includes last season.

Galchenyuk's career 5-on-5 primary points per 60 rate is 1.55, Drouin's is 1.22. Galchenyuk is the better player. But let's talk about last season, where Galchenyuk's play "didn't translate" and Drouin "responded". Last season, Galchenyuk produced 1.29 primary 5-on-5 points per 60 minutes of ice time. Drouin produced 1.08. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that point production scales roughly linearly with ice time. So consider that Drouin was given 1.26 times as much 5-on-5 ice time as Galchenyuk and still produced significantly fewer primary points. Maybe the sample size gives you pause; that's reasonable. But that's not a reason to assume that Drouin will turn into a legitimate powerhouse with zero evidence, it's a reason to assume he might be a solid second/third line player over an 82-game season with room to grow in the next 2-3. Galchenyuk is already a top 6 player by any rational assessment. Was Galchenyuk's 5-on-5 primary point production last season below his career rate? Yep. But he had 15% less 5-on-5 ice time than his mean 5-on-5 ice time in 82-game seasons. And Galchenyuk's 2016-17 5-on-5 primary point rate was... 17% below his career rate. Almost identical.

That "Galchenyuk didn't earn his chances while Drouin forced the team's hand" narrative just isn't working out like it's supposed to, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

As Roy mentioned,,,, maybe Chucky doesn't really think a long term deal is in his best interest. Both sides have to be on the same page.

But this isn't about what Chucky does or does not want. The article was about how the Habs had only offered 3-4 years. If you're the Habs, you want him for 6-7. Offer that and see what he responds. If you're starting at 3-4, it shows little interest in locking up a key asset through his prime and a willingness to lose him for nothing in 3-4 years via free agency. It'll be a lot more expensive to try and pay him at 26-27 years old when he's a UFA and 30 other teams want him for free.

 

39 minutes ago, roy_133 said:

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.

Drouin is exactly one year behind Galchenyuk in terms of pro contract years, so if we gave Drouin 6 years, then giving Galchenyuk 5 years would take us to the same point in contract negotiations. As I said, we can argue about whether Chucky wants to go short or long term but from team's perspective makes no sense to go mid-range and leave him as a UFA and makes no sense to refuse a long-term contract when you just gave the younger, inferior player one.

As for PPG, I've gone over this data before, but if you look at the last 30 or so games last year and then the games this season before his injury when he's playing center, he's almost a point per game and he's doing that playing 2-5 minutes less per game than most other top-line centers. So there's every reason to believe that if he were given the 1C spot for a full season and given the ice time properly allotted to that roster spot, that there is a good chance he could be a PPG player.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

But this isn't about what Chucky does or does not want. The article was about how the Habs had only offered 3-4 years. If you're the Habs, you want him for 6-7. Offer that and see what he responds. If you're starting at 3-4, it shows little interest in locking up a key asset through his prime and a willingness to lose him for nothing in 3-4 years via free agency. It'll be a lot more expensive to try and pay him at 26-27 years old when he's a UFA and 30 other teams want him for free.

 

 

 

I read it as an offer of potentially 3 or 4 years. Read more as a possible scenario being tossed around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigTed3 said:

But this isn't about what Chucky does or does not want. The article was about how the Habs had only offered 3-4 years. If you're the Habs, you want him for 6-7. Offer that and see what he responds. If you're starting at 3-4, it shows little interest in locking up a key asset through his prime and a willingness to lose him for nothing in 3-4 years via free agency. It'll be a lot more expensive to try and pay him at 26-27 years old when he's a UFA and 30 other teams want him for free.

 

Drouin is exactly one year behind Galchenyuk in terms of pro contract years, so if we gave Drouin 6 years, then giving Galchenyuk 5 years would take us to the same point in contract negotiations. As I said, we can argue about whether Chucky wants to go short or long term but from team's perspective makes no sense to go mid-range and leave him as a UFA and makes no sense to refuse a long-term contract when you just gave the younger, inferior player one.

As for PPG, I've gone over this data before, but if you look at the last 30 or so games last year and then the games this season before his injury when he's playing center, he's almost a point per game and he's doing that playing 2-5 minutes less per game than most other top-line centers. So there's every reason to believe that if he were given the 1C spot for a full season and given the ice time properly allotted to that roster spot, that there is a good chance he could be a PPG player.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I hae discussing term without the cap dollar. Maybe Chucky want 7 million a year for 7 years, I'd say no to that too

I'd probably say no to that too, but most of the other young guys with his level of production have gone for about 6M a year on long-term deals with teams like Edm and Fla... I think anywhere from what Drouin got (5.5M) to about 6.5M would be fair-market value. Again, I'll come back to this though, but if Chucky wants 7M x 7, the smart move is to counter at 6-7 years but a lower dollar value. Don't let him become a UFA in 3-4 years, because you will undoubtedly pay more per year after that or you'll lose him for nothing. If the Habs sign him to 3-4 years and he becomes a UFA at age 26-27, the offers from other teams will be huge. How many 30-goal scorers hit the market at that age? Not many. Smart teams lock up their own players so that doesn't happen.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigTed3 said:

I'd probably say no to that too, but most of the other young guys with his level of production have gone for about 6M a year on long-term deals with teams like Edm and Fla... I think anywhere from what Drouin got (5.5M) to about 6.5M would be fair-market value. Again, I'll come back to this though, but if Chucky wants 7M x 7, the smart move is to counter at 6-7 years but a lower dollar value. Don't let him become a UFA in 3-4 years, because you will undoubtedly pay more per year after that or you'll lose him for nothing. If the Habs sign him to 3-4 years and he becomes a UFA at age 26-27, the offers from other teams will be huge. How many 30-goal scorers hit the market at that age? Not many. Smart teams lock up their own players so that doesn't happen.

 

 

 

I agree. I would do 6 to 8 years at 5.5 to 6.5 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roy_133 said:

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.

Fair points, and you're right about Drouin not playing in his first year of his ELC contract. On AG, I still believe he could be a PPG forward under the right conditions. It's just funny to me that we've seen him put up near-PGG totals in a 50-60 game sample size and yet don't continue to play him at center, don't increase his ice time to see what he can do, and actually give him worse linemates as time goes by. He was playing with the likes of Ott and Martinsen by the end of last year! You see teams like Edmonton letting McDavid go wild and not caring about his faceoff percentage or Pit doing the same with Malkin and so on. Not sure why we feel such a need to stifle offensive creativity and then complain that we can't score goals. We did the same thing to Subban, trying to change the way he plays instead of letting him flourish offensively the way Ott allows Karlsson to play as he wishes or SJ does with Burns. We already managed to screw up the Subban dossier big-time, so it would be nice to not give up on or give away a great offensive player like Galchenyuk the same way. Maybe he's not a PPG forward in the end, but for Pete's sake, he's shown flashes he can be and yet we've played him behind the likes of Danault, Desharnais, King, etc. Give the guy a full season as the 1C, give him 18-20 minutes a game, and then come back and re-evaluate what your long-term plans are. I will live with a guy's inexperience as a center defensively if he's putting up 70+ points a season. It would not be unreasonable at all to play a 1st line of Drouin-Galchenyuk-Gallagher and give them sheltered zone starts and then use a 2nd line of Pacioretty-Danault-Lehkonen and give them tougher assignments. It's very doable. We can maybe even improve on that if we sign/trade for another option. So frustrating to just see us toss talent away like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, habsisme said:

I agree. I would do 6 to 8 years at 5.5 to 6.5 million

My offer to him would be 6-7 years at 6M a season. If he wants more, I'd got to 6.5M per year on the same length. He'd only be 30 by the end of that deal. As I said, comparable players signed deals in the 6M range, so we're not going to be able to argue for much less than that. If he wants north of 7M a season, he's probably not getting that reasonably and at that point, I'd take a 1-year deal so that he's still an RFA next year. But a 3-4 year deal is pretty much the dumbest contract length we could give him from our point of view.

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...