Speculation: Adding a top 6 C, who moves to the wing? (Danault/Galchenyuk)

[TT1]

I know that the answer is probably obvious to most people on this board, a lot of us would move Danault to the wing over Galchenyuk.. but would our management do that?

I just heard Dreger say (on TSN's insider trading) that we're trying to acquire Duchene or Hanzal in order to move Galchenyuk to the wing. Thinking about it logically Danault isn't a "sexy" top 6 center on paper but he does the job really well and is exactly what you want in a center (good on face-offs/defensively responsible, creates opportunities for his wingers) whereas Chucky plays center more like a winger.

Chucky is an elite sniper and he holds onto the puck more than he should, which makes it hard for his wingers to read him. If we do acquire another C i can easily see management moving Chucky to the wing.. and they'll most likely get a lot of criticism for that move. Personally I wouldn't mind it, we could always make adjustments later on (putting Galchenyuk back to C) if things don't work out.

What would you do?

Click to read more...

 

[Habby Gilmore]

Neither, I'd rather see us get an upgrade at wing.

 

[TT1]

Neither, I'd rather see us get an upgrade at wing.

That's another alternative, i personally would rather acquire Landeskog (a defensively responsible LW to help Chucky out) and have him play with Galchenyuk (and Gallagher).

From all the talk that's been going around it seems that we're targeting a center tho.

 

[The Great Weal]

Danault to 3C. Galchenyuk to the wing is a terrible idea, however he looked decent on RW. But I still want him as our top center. Also if we get Hanzal then he would not be in the top 6.

 

[TT1]

Danault to 3C. Galchenyuk to the wing is a terrible idea, however he looked decent on RW. But I still want him as our top center.

Dunno what you mean. Adding another C gives us XXXX/Galchenyuk/Plekanec/Danault/Mitchell as our centers, if you put Danault as our 3C what do you do with Galchenyuk/Plekanec and the newly acquired C?

Danault has chemistry with Pacioretty and Radulov, that line is producing and they're playing efficiently.

Paraphrasing what Dreger said, he said we're also looking to add Hanzal as our 2C in order to move Galchenyuk to the wing, which kinda gives us some indication as to what our management is thinking.

 

[Scuba-Steve]

Danault is much more of a natural center, but Galchenyuk is the only player in the organisation that we can consider a ''real'' 1st line center.

In case where we acquire Duchene, I would have no problem moving Galchenyuk to the wing. I would be comfortable with Duchene - Danault - Plekanec - Mitchell.

 

[Habby Gilmore]

That's another alternative, i personally would rather acquire Landeskog (a defensively responsible LW to help Chucky out) and have him play with Galchenyuk (and Gallagher).

From all the talk that's been going around it seems that we're targeting a center tho.

I like that idea much better than moving either to wing. Let's hope we do something along those lines weather it's Landeskog or another winger.

 

[Adam Michaels]

1C: Galchenyuk/Duchene
2C: Galchenyuk/Duchene
3C: Danault
4C: Plekanec/Mitchell

Most likely Pleky goes, but you never know.

I don't exactly buy what Dreger is saying in this case. There is absolutely nothing about Galchenyuk's game since last year that indicates he's not fit for center. He might not be good at face-offs and need work defensively, but he is too much of an offensive contributor so you can live with some minor deficiencies in his game at age 22.

But to answer the question, between Galchenyuk and Danault, I'd move Danault to wing. He's really, really good along the boards. And what he's been able to show since being moved to center (no matter which line), you know you have this kid in your line-up who will be able to step in and fill a center role down the line when some of the older guys (DD and Pleky) fade from the picture.

 

[blarneylad]

I know that the answer is probably obvious to most people on this board, a lot of us would move Danault to the wing over Galchenyuk.. but would our management do that?

I just heard Dreger say that we're trying to acquire Duchene or Hanzal in order to move Galchenyuk to the wing. Thinking about it logically Danault isn't a "sexy" top 6 center on paper but he does the job really well and is exactly what you want in a center (good on face-offs/defensively responsible, creates opportunities for his wingers) whereas Chucky plays center more like a winger.

Chucky is an elite sniper and he holds onto the puck more than he should, which makes it hard for his wingers to read him. If we do acquire another C i can easily see management moving Chucky to the wing.. and they'll most likely get a lot of criticism for that move. Personally I wouldn't mind it, we could always make adjustments later on (putting Galchenyuk back to C) if things don't work out.

What would you do?

If I'm Galchenyuk after the breakout I had last season at Center and the point per game pace before injury this year, I would demand a trade and/or leave Montreal a UFA asap

 

[The Great Weal]

Dunno what you mean. Adding another C gives us XXXX/Galchenyuk/Plekanec/Danault as our centers, if you put Danault as our 3C what do you do with Galchenyuk/Plekanec and the newly acquired C?

Danault has chemistry with Pacioretty and Radulov, that line is producing and they're playing efficiently.

Totally forgot about Plekanec, but you can't blame me he is invisible. If we trade for Duchene I assume we would include Plekanec in the deal. Also I'd rather have the Byron-Galchenyuk-Radulov line come back instead of the Danault one.
Lets say Sergachev,1st,Plekanec for Duchene

Byron-Galchenyuk-Radulov
Pacioretty-Duchene-Gallagher
Lehkonen-Danault-Shaw
whatever

 

[Adam Michaels]

If I'm Galchenyuk after the breakout I had last season at Center and the point per game pace before injury this year, I would demand a trade and/or leave Montreal a UFA asap

Or make their life difficult this off-season while being an RFA. Granted, he doesn't hold much power because he doesn't have arbitration rights, but he can still make it difficult for the organization.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Totally forgot about Plekanec, but you can't blame me he is invisible. If we trade for Duchene I assume we would include Plekanec in the deal. Also I'd rather have the Byron-Galchenyuk-Radulov line come back instead of the Danault one.
Lets say Sergachev,1st,Plekanec for Duchene

Byron-Galchenyuk-Radulov
Pacioretty-Duchene-Gallagher
Lehkonen-Danault-Shaw
whatever

Good looking line-up. Particularly love the whatever line.

 

[Dominator13]

Didn't you just answer your question?

Get a freaking winger instead of overpaying for something that's barely a need anymore.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

It's just too early to tell whether Danault's a legit top 6 center. It definitely looks promising imo.

I'd try and get a winger but if we can get a Duchene then I sure as hell wouldn't complain. We'd be really strong up the middle.

 

[DangerDave]

Neither. Either Danault goes to the 3rd and we ditch pleky or we get a winger.

 

[TT1]

Am i seeing this right, we're using Galchenyuk on the LW with DD and Shaw vs Philly.

 

[Captain Mountain]

None, and I'm not sure where you heard this from Dreger, but I heard him (or LeBrun, can't remember) that MB wants better center depth. If I had to guess, you'd see something like:

Pacioretty-Danault-Radulov
Lehkonen/Byron/Other-Galchenyuk-Gallagher
Lehkonen/Byron/Other-New Center-Shaw
Lehkonen/Byron/Other-Plekanec-Mitchell

And use that depth to steamroll opponents. It may have escaped peoples notice, but Montreal's LW depth is pretty good. Patches has been amazing, Byron could get 50 points, Lehkonen has been playing very well and Ghetto and Hudon are both good depth pieces. And there are some good rental LWers out there too. Its a copycat league and the trend right now is having 4 lines that can score.

Focus on C/W is overrated too, considering how some guys split C responsibilities on the same line.

 

[Legend123]

Its very simple

Pacs - Duchene - Rads (great playmaking ability from the C and RW to set up our best scorer)
Lehks - Galchenyuk - Gally (good chemistry b/w Gally and Chucky)
Byron - Danualt - Shaw (a lot of speed here)
Mitchell - Plekanec - Flynn (Defensive minutes/shutdown line)
Ideally the Habs add a top 6 LW as well, sliding Lehks to 3rd line and Byron to the 4th.

 

[JuicyHam]

I voted danault LW because I want him to stay in the top six but really the best option is danault 3C. I regret what I have chosen now that I think about it.

 

[Rapala]

It's just too early to tell whether Danault's a legit top 6 center. It definitely looks promising imo.

I'd try and get a winger but if we can get a Duchene then I sure as hell wouldn't complain. We'd be really strong up the middle.

I think he replaces Plek easily.

 

[Aceekay]

Didn't you just answer your question?

Get a freaking winger instead of overpaying for something that's barely a need anymore.

Agreed, we don't need a center, we could really do with a a quality second line winger though.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Nobody mentions DD. I assume in every scenario from all the posts I read here in response to OP DD is gone.

I think the best middle is as follows:

Galchenyuk
Duchesne
Danault
Mitchel

But for that both Pleky and DD need to go and that can be very difficult thing to do!

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Am i seeing this right, we're using Galchenyuk on the LW with DD and Shaw vs Philly.

No...
DD is lw, but will take some faceoffs from time to time

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

If we are lucky and Bergy pulls the trade going forward we will have a new DD on the team. Abetter more liked DD.

DD = Danault Duchesne

 

[bleuetbio]

I dont like the comparison between Danault and Bergeron, but Danault gives so much space to Pacio and Radulov right now. As a speedster, he makes forget us how Radulov is slow. For the moment, I would let him the spot. This is actually working good for us