Analyzing Habs forward over past 25 years, and time to trade Gallagher?

[ItzaGreat]

I would have traded Price and Weber a few seasons ago.

I'd trade anyone over 25 years old....except Gally.

You need good veterans to help the kids and he has the CH tattooed on his heart.

 

[Kriss E]

It would take an offer impossible to refuse to trade him

Just a good offer would do.

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Gallagher leads by example, so as not to look too pale in comparison to him in terms of effort, he pushes everyone else on the team to work harder and play the right way, you also could say that you sort of implicitly owe him as a teammate to bring your A-game each and every night to match his contribution to the team. Players like Drouin have to look themselves in the mirror knowing they are producing less than a player Gallagher even though Gallagher is the least talented of the two. He is much more valuable than what he brings on the scoresheet. To me he is untouchable. Even in a rebuild, as a GM, I'd like to keep him to pave the way for the youngsters, that might still be more valuable than the pieces you'll get in return in a trade.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I think its a losing trade with Gallagher .

I don't know if anyone will pay what we would accept lol

Hes the heart and soul of this team and I don't know how much hes valued compared to Patches trade

His next contract will be a very interesting one though

7.5M per at the very least.

 

[Kriss E]

ES production is more telling about a player's ability than ES+PP+PK production. Mostly because special units, especially PP, by their nature (it's not as "chaotic" and unstructured as 5v5), allow coaching strategy to be more prominant. I'm not saying that he's in the same league as Pasta, and if a player can produce on the PP regardless of their coaching due to their talent, like OV has done for the past decade+, then that's obviously something to consider. Julien has an history of bad PP numbers, and it only got worse for the Habs with Muller being largely in charge. Gally's numbers would definitely improve if put on a more capable PP system.

He's absolutely a 1st liner in terms of overall impact (and not a lower end 1st liner, he's about 10-15th in the league at his position), despite his apparent lack of talent.

No it's not, because special teams are part of the game and factor into the overall performance of a player.
I think he's a bottom first liner, I would select a big number of guys ahead of him.

 

[Kriss E]

I didn't say EV scoring is the only metric and bringing up a player's results at even strength isn't "cherry picking". EV production is important because it's incredibly difficult to find, more valuable due to this relative scarcity, and because upwards of 80% of the game is played at even strength. It's a lot easier to find a PP ringer than a player with Gallagher's scoring rates at EV, or shelter a talented player and feed him PP minutes to put up points (eg. Domi last season). The premise of this thread was ranking players by point totals to say Gallagher's more of a 1st/2nd line tweener when he was the 7th best EV goal scorer in the league. He was 33rd in the league in raw goals too so if you'd rather look at all situations I think it's pretty reasonable to say the 33rd best goal scorer in the NHL is a 1st line forward when he also adds significant value in every other facet of the game and his team had a godawful power play.

I agree with the original post, I don't think Gallagher is a premiere player. He produces well at ES because of his style. He's most efficient chasing, grinding out, and scoring garbage goals. He also has a pretty decent shot, so he can still pot some goals in after creating some space for himself.
On the PP? Teams adapt a box system so there isn't much battles for him to grind through.

Nitpicking...ya...when you just look at ES and shorten the field of metrics further by only looking at goals. Ya, 7th best goal EV scorer, 33 best goal scorer...That's also 64th in overall scoring..Whatever the stats may be, you're talking about a 50-55pt scorer at best, career wise, and he's 29.
He is a commendable piece to have on your top line, but ideally you have more talent there.

I have no idea where the idea I think Gallagher is better than Pastrnak is coming from. The point of bringing up those players is to illustrate that even with the obvious difference in skill and raw point totals he's similarly productive at EV as some of the game's elite, and the gaps in raw points aren't as meaningful as they look at first glance. That doesn't mean I'm erasing the gap between Gallagher and Pastrnak, but trading him for some "70 point guy" who does that in soft minutes on a good PP (eg. Mike Hoffman) because we're worried about raw point total rankings is a bad idea.

Just for a rough example, the only time in Gallagher's career where he got significant time on a good PP unit was 17-18 where he had 7G and 7A on the power play, compared to 5G 1A last year in about the same amount of time on a bad PP unit. If Gallagher had the same kind of PP production last season he'd have a 35G 60P season. In terms of rates he's even higher and he does all this in about 16 mins of ice time while other top forwards are in the 18+ range (for what it's worth I don't think he'd scale linearly and with his style of play 16 minutes is probably a sweet spot).

He's not similar, he just has similar points, and that could very possibly simply be due to having that PP prowess. Again, make the game 60 of ES, pretty sure Pasta finishes way past Gallagher, so comparing the two is just misleading.
I agree though, I have no interest in Gallagher for Hoffman.

 

[LastChancePrice]

7.5M per at the very least.

You see, thats the problem. Hes extremely valuable, but putting Kevin Hayes money on him , for entire organisation, is not the best move. He play on our first line, got big heart and soul, hes the player i like the best for the Habs, but hes not a real first liner, well, a bottom first liner on a average offensive team like we are, his best place is on the first line. Paying him 1rst line money because of our problems is not the best thing to do. If we got to keep him, i just hope Bergevin can pull a magic trick and get him sign at 5.5-6, which imo is what hes worth.

 

[McHaBFan]

I read this board every day and sometimes there is good info and sometimes there isn't.

How can anyone want to trade the Heart and Soul of the team? You do not trade your hardest working player unless he asks for it..

Look at Toronto.. They have talent up the ying yang but no heart. Imagine if they added Gally. They would walk through us all day long and almost every other team..

What a ridiculous thread.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Expected the unexpected. That 21 off season is a huge fork in the road and I won't be surprised if Gallagher walks as a UFA. I expect Bergevin to try and engage on contract talk this July to see where it goes. Got to figure out how much it will cost for Gallagher, Danault, Tatar, Petry and also Kotkaniemi and Poehling

 

[beh3moth]

Heart and soul player. He's my dad's favourite hab as well. Hard to trade him for emotional reasons.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Here is an analysis i did from all forwards the Habs got since the last 10 years, and pointing players since we got a cup, 1993. The rating are as follow, as number rank forward in points in the league.
1-30 : First line forward star.
31-60 : First line forward, Not a star, get the job done
61-100: Bottom First line forward, mostly 2nd line forward on some team, not top league talent

2019-2020
Tatar (31). Note Pacioretty 25th
Gallagher (75)
Danault (79)

2018-2019
Domi (45)
Tatar (70)
Drouin (88)
Gallagher (90)
Note Pacioretty 40p in 66, would have made top 100 for 82 games ratio.

2017-2018
Gallagher (83)
Galchenyuk (93)
Patioretty close to same ratio, did not make top 100 even with 82g conversion,but close

2016-2017
Pacioretty (23)
Radulov (67)

2015-2016
Pacioretty (23)
Galchenyuk (53)
Plekanec (61)

2014-2015
Pacioretty (21)
Plekanec (49)
Desharnais (84)
Gallagher (88)
Galchenyuk (97)

2013-2014
Vanek (25), acquired deadline
Pacioretty (42)
Desharnais (72)

2012-2013 ( lockout year )
Pacioretty (33)
Ryder (48) trade
Plekanec (57)
Eller (84)

2011-2012
Pacioretty (37)
Cole (48)
Desharnais (57)
Plekanec (86)

2010-2011
Plekanec (58)

2009-2010
Plekanec (27)
Gomez (55)
Cammalleri (92)

Note top 50 for habs after.
Kovalev (11) in 2007-2008
Ribeiro (30) 2003-2004
Koivu (27) 2002-2003
Recchi (16) , Dampousse (42), Corson (47, in 62 games )1997-1998
Turgeon (13, but trade after 10g...), Damphousse (21) Recchi (22) 1996-1997
Turgeon (18) Damphousse (20) Recchi (36) 1995-1996
Leclair (13) Recchi (19) ( the trade! ),Turgeon (21, from ISL),Damphousse (40) 1994-1995
Damphousse (20) Bellows (48) 1993-1994
Damphousse (24), Muller (27), Bellows (33), Lebeau (46) 1992-1993, year of the Stanley Cup.

Top 50 last 10 years
Domi (2018-2019)( 1 year wonder?)
Pacioretty (2011-2012 threw 2016-2017)
Cole and Plekanec one year bottom 50

Conclusion: Since 97, we never got three top forward in the league at the same time. We gave Pacioretty who finish top 25 three year in a row, and we trade him for two average season. Tatar is more a bottom 60-100 player. Pacioretty is so far top 25 in the league again, with talent around him. We hope Suzuki is more than a bottom 100 player in his career. But my conclusion with all this, we dont have pure talent, and as crazy as it might sound, hes a hard working horse, but it might be time we trade Gallagher and get a deal for a player who got more talent? Hes a bottom 1rst line, top 2nd line player. A trade for Hall? Both around same age, Hall got more talent, four time top 25 scorer in the league. Or perhaps its the time to get maximum value out of him, with picks and prospect, or we make sure we dont overpay him on his next contract, cause hes not prime talent level. We need player with heart, but we really need more talent.

Hall is great but offence is not really a problem with the club right now. Habs are tied for #1 for goals scored at 5v5. Defending & special teams are the main issue.

 

[Deebs]

It would take an offer impossible to refuse to trade him

I'm of this mindset as well. He's so important to us, the deal would have to be weighted heavily in our favour to be consider.

 

[Skip Bayless]

6 year deal incoming

 

[JoelWarlord]

Whatever the stats may be, you're talking about a 50-55pt scorer at best, career wise, and he's 29.
He is a commendable piece to have on your top line, but ideally you have more talent there.

Of course, and in the OP's hypothetical of course you trade him for a (signed) Taylor Hall or another elite player of that calibre, I just don't think anyone is going to pay enough to make it worth trading him for veterans, in my mind the only realistic trades will be for futures to start a rebuild.

He's not similar, he just has similar points, and that could very possibly simply be due to having that PP prowess. Again, make the game 60 of ES, pretty sure Pasta finishes way past Gallagher, so comparing the two is just misleading.

I seriously have no idea why this has become a sticking point, it's a throwaway comparison meant to make you go "hmm Gallagher produces more than I thought", not a serious comparison where I'm comparing him to Pastrnak and saying he's just as good. I only bring it up because there's a tendency to talk about guys as a "50 point guy" or "70 point guy" when a lot of the times that comes down to PP and circumstance. Being a dominant EV scorer with 52 points in 16 mins a game is a very different thing than being say, Drouin with 53 points in ~19 minutes and lots of PP time.

It's only misleading if you're reading something into it that isn't there.All I'm saying is he's better than what is implied by "a 50-55pt scorer" because the majority of those points are the single most difficult points to find in the game (even-strength goals), not that he's as good as one of the best players alive because they have the same number of points at EV.

I agree though, I have no interest in Gallagher for Hoffman.

Exactly. It's not about the specifc comparables but that if we're going to trade Gallagher for a "70 point" forward it's going to be a guy who gets soft minutes and PP production, not an elite all situations forward because teams aren't giving those players up unless they're the Oilers with Hall.

 

[danyhabsfan]

I'm all for trading players at their peak like Richards and Carter instead of overpaying them by giving them a big contract to stay in Montreal.

I'm not sure I'm ready to give Gallagher a 6 years deal for over 6M.

That's a question Bergevin has to asked himself now and if his answer is no
he has to trade him while he has terms on his deal instead of the Pacio situation where he got lucky to have found a trade partner in Mcphee.

 

[ECWHSWI]

You see, thats the problem. Hes extremely valuable, but putting Kevin Hayes money on him , for entire organisation, is not the best move. He play on our first line, got big heart and soul, hes the player i like the best for the Habs, but hes not a real first liner, well, a bottom first liner on a average offensive team like we are, his best place is on the first line. Paying him 1rst line money because of our problems is not the best thing to do. If we got to keep him, i just hope Bergevin can pull a magic trick and get him sign at 5.5-6, which imo is what hes worth.

it's not because we have "problems", its how it is, 50 points forwards makes 6/6.5 nowadays, and Gallagher is an A, gets closer to 60 pts, is the Habs heartbeat, Cap will go up a little... so yeah 7.5

same for his linemates btw, Danault will make 6.5 or more, Tatar 7 or more...


the 8M or so saved on the Cap will go to them, to that one line.

 

[abo9]

You trade Gallagher you are repeating the mistake of trading Guy Carbonneau. There are some players you need to stay with the team.

I see the point being made though. Imo it really depends how mature our young core is. The problem many see is that Gallagher will ask for a big big raise due to his goal scoring abilities in addition to all the other small things he brings. He's going to be 29 at the time of the raise. The way he plays, and at his size, I'm not comfortable paying him 6-7 years at $8M or something, I'd be wary of a steep decline from one year to another.

Same thing for Petry, he stepped up amazingly the past 2 years but omg this guy has 2 good NHL seasons and he's going to ask for way more than he will be worth going forward.

Since Montreal will not be in contention for at least the next 2-3 years (and tbh probably more), they need to recognize how to capitalize on players exiting their prime who are in high demand for playoff teams. Can you imagine how attractive Gallagher is for a playoff team at $3.7M? Heck, trade him next year to Tampa or Washington, that's a $1-2M 30 goals scorer on a stacked team lol

 

[lamp9post]

it's not because we have "problems", its how it is, 50 points forwards makes 6/6.5 nowadays, and Gallagher is an A, gets closer to 60 pts, is the Habs heartbeat, Cap will go up a little... so yeah 7.5

same for his linemates btw, Danault will make 6.5 or more, Tatar 7 or more...


the 8M or so saved on the Cap will go to them, to that one line.

Term will be a major factor on the cap hits of these players. If Gallagher wants 6 years, the contract will take him to 35, which would hopefully bring down the cap hit somewhat. Otherwise it is a pretty risky contract. Same for Danault. I would prefer to trade Tatar than give him $7M, but if that ends up happening, the term can't be more than 3 years.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Term will be a major factor on the cap hits of these players. If Gallagher wants 6 years, the contract will take him to 35, which would hopefully bring down the cap hit somewhat. Otherwise it is a pretty risky contract. Same for Danault. I would prefer to trade Tatar than give him $7M, but if that ends up happening, the term can't be more than 3 years.

if what you say happen to be what our GM has in mind, we'll lose players then.

 

[Paddyjack]

I see the point being made though. Imo it really depends how mature our young core is. The problem many see is that Gallagher will ask for a big big raise due to his goal scoring abilities in addition to all the other small things he brings. He's going to be 29 at the time of the raise. The way he plays, and at his size, I'm not comfortable paying him 6-7 years at $8M or something, I'd be wary of a steep decline from one year to another.

Same thing for Petry, he stepped up amazingly the past 2 years but omg this guy has 2 good NHL seasons and he's going to ask for way more than he will be worth going forward.

Since Montreal will not be in contention for at least the next 2-3 years (and tbh probably more), they need to recognize how to capitalize on players exiting their prime who are in high demand for playoff teams. Can you imagine how attractive Gallagher is for a playoff team at $3.7M? Heck, trade him next year to Tampa or Washington, that's a $1-2M 30 goals scorer on a stacked team lol

I do understand this, and in some ways I agree. But when I was listening to Carbo and Claude Lemieux the other day talking about how it went when they first came with the team, they were saying, "we looked at players like Gainey, Robinson, etc, and we simply copied what they were doing". That is why you need in your core players that do care about the team logo. It may cost a few million more, but overall benefit on the team is worth it.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Expected the unexpected. That 21 off season is a huge fork in the road and I won't be surprised if Gallagher walks as a UFA. I expect Bergevin to try and engage on contract talk this July to see where it goes. Got to figure out how much it will cost for Gallagher, Danault, Tatar, Petry and also Kotkaniemi and Poehling

At their age, those 3 are not worth signing long term at prime prices.

They are very likely to underperform their price tag at a time when our youth will take its place in the lineup and have hefty raises themselves.

Now since you need to keep some vet presence and since he's a homegrown talent and the youngest of the three and also likely to take a discount, I'd keep Gally, but if we also re-sign Tatar and Petry long term at market prices, we'll be having cap problems later on. All 3 of them could easily ask for 7+.

If we're at that point and habs do this, it means there's a huge problem with long term vision with this team.

 

[abo9]

I do understand this, and in some ways I agree. But when I was listening to Carbo and Claude Lemieux the other day talking about how it went when they first came with the team, they were saying, "we looked at players like Gainey, Robinson, etc, and we simply copied what they were doing". That is why you need in your core players that do care about the team logo. It may cost a few million more, but overall benefit on the team is worth it.

That's why I said it depends on how mature our other players are (Domi, Danault, etc.). That's up to the coaching staff to communicate how important Gallgher is to the team. But also, you have to think if Gallagher will be useful in 3-4 years down the line. I'd be down to keep gallagher on a 4-5 years contract but he's been so underpaid that its not gonna happen.

This is a difficult decision and I'm not sure I trust Bergevin to do the best.

 

[Habs Halifax]

At their age, those 3 are not worth signing long term at prime prices.

They are very likely to underperform their price tag at a time when our youth will take its place in the lineup and have hefty raises themselves.

Now since you need to keep some vet presence and since he's a homegrown talent and the youngest of the three and also likely to take a discount, I'd keep Gally, but if we also re-sign Tatar and Petry long term at market prices, we'll be having cap problems later on. All 3 of them could easily ask for 7+.

If we're at that point and habs do this, it means there's a huge problem with long term vision with this team.

Totally could be a problem if we give them high AAV with term at that age. Lets say all of Gallagher, Tatar, Petry, Danault are gone... how does it project?

Domi / Suzuki / Caufield
Drouin / Kotkaniemi / Armia
Lehkonen / Poehling / Ylonen

Mete / Weber
Romanov / Brook
Norlinder, Harris, Struble / Fleury, Juulsen

Price
Primeau

I'm telling you... that 21 offseason is the fork in the road and if any Habs fan want us to sell vets before their current deal expires, you better hope that we fall flat on our face this year and next. Otherwise, I am not sure how it goes down in the next two seasons. The good news is it's two more years to evaluate the prospects and their development... especially the age 20 and under guys today. It's all tracking to major decisions in the 21 off season if you ask me

 

[azcanuck]

Heart and soul player. He's my dad's favourite hab as well. Hard to trade him for emotional reasons.

Not for emotional reasons at all.

He's a mainstay guy who sets a great example for everyone.

Do you worry about his style of play and longevity? Of course. But he will always give that effort. I see him playing well up to mid thirties. He's more talented then you'd think just glancing at him. He has terrific savvy around the net. He works very hard in the off season. He's an honest player.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Totally could be a problem if we give them high AAV with term at that age. Lets say all of Gallagher, Tatar, Petry, Danault are gone... how does it project?

Domi / Suzuki / Caufield
Drouin / Kotkaniemi / Armia
Lehkonen / Poehling / Ylonen

Mete / Weber
Romanov / Brook
Norlinder, Harris, Struble / Fleury, Juulsen

Price
Primeau

I'm telling you... that 21 offseason is the fork in the road and if any Habs fan want us to sell vets before their current deal expires, you better hope that we fall flat on our face this year and next. Otherwise, I am not sure how it goes down in the next two seasons. The good news is it's two more years to evaluate the prospects and their development... especially the age 20 and under guys today. It's all tracking to major decisions in the 21 off season if you ask me

It projects better if you keep danault & Gally, but add what we'd get in prospects from trading Tatar and Petry.

If we trade those 2, we're sure to also draft very high for at least two seasons, two seasons where we'll be in no man's land otherwise.