News Article: Contract talks with the Gallys

[ottawa]

I don't really care for bringing Gallagher to free agency. Who knows what condition he'll be in by the time he hits 26. The other option would be to bridge him and lock him up longterm but I'm not sure I'd be willing to lock him up longterm considering the type of game he plays.

And again, I am talking about Gallagher only. Signing Galchenyuk for 4 years would be a disaster.

It's not about locking him up longterm, its about getting the best value out of him. If we don't like what he brings in 2-3 years, we can trade him as an RFA with higher value. If you sign him to 4 years then it would be hard to trade him during and at the end of his contract.

 

[Smokey Thompson]

It's not about locking him up longterm, its about getting the best value out of him. If we don't like what he brings in 2-3 years, we can trade him as an RFA with higher value. If you sign him to 4 years then it would be hard to trade him during and at the end of his contract.

Fair point. In that case I'd go for 3 years.

 

[lou4gehrig]

After Subban's $9M contract, I'm not so sure it'll be policy anymore.

Why? Underpaying players doesn't make them happy. Sometimes overpaying and making them a core player makes them better. I'd rather give him them two years to develop and reach full potential and lock them into good contracts where they will be happy here for a long time.

This whole sentiment of locking guys in at bargain contracts when they are young is insulting to the players. This isn't NHL 15. This is real life where players have a sense of their own value.

 

[Monctonscout]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/yakupov-or-galchenyuk-did-oilers-get-right-one/

 

[tinyzombies]

Why? Underpaying players doesn't make them happy. Sometimes overpaying and making them a core player makes them better. I'd rather give him them two years to develop and reach full potential and lock them into good contracts where they will be happy here for a long time.

This whole sentiment of locking guys in at bargain contracts when they are young is insulting to the players. This isn't NHL 15. This is real life where players have a sense of their own value.

They ended up paying back salary to PK anyway (big time) for what he was underpaid in previous years. Might as well just pay the kid properly the first time around. Galchenyuk is the real thing. Gallagher, not sure what he should be paid yet.. I'm still not convinced he's a second liner.

 

[CanadianLover]

They ended up paying back salary to PK anyway (big time) for what he was underpaid in previous years. Might as well just pay the kid properly the first time around. Galchenyuk is the real thing. Gallagher, not sure what he should be paid yet.. I'm still not convinced he's a second liner.

I think PK was paid for what he was worth and in context of the Roger Deal and his 6 UFA years. Back salary would have included at least another 500 000$ per year IMO. That's why I think Bergevin totally won the negociation. That deal was too fair for the Montreal Canadian after they forced a ridiculous bridge deal on a franchise player. Anyway it's in the past.

For Gallagher, I think he should get a bridge 5M/2 years. As for Galchenyuk 9M/3 years should do it because Bergevin is hard when he negociates. But you never know; he tends to overpay middle class players...

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I think Gallagher is a bridge deal type of player. He'll be worth more than he'll get, but in this cap age and under the terms of the CBA, he's the type of player you screw,if you will, with a bridge.

I've just watched the Columbus Blue Jackets just completely botch a contract situation with their franchise player. The deal which they gave Ryan Johansen was simply toxic. It was unfair to him and it did about the worst job of protecting club interests as is possible. They signed him to a 3 year deal ($3m/$3/$6m) which essentially is a 4 year deal. Johansen can go straight to arbitration in year 4 with a minumum qualifying offer of $5.15 million and take whatever he gets and he will become a UFA the following season-the earliest possible UFA time frame for him. He'll likely get something like $7-9 million for year 4 and then the insane bidding will begin. The only hometown discount Johansen might be inclined to give when the bidding starts will be to Vancouver.

If Bergevin goes this route with Galenchuk (if #27 is as good as you guys seem to think he is), then you'll need another GM

 

[Brainiac]

I don't really care for bringing Gallagher to free agency. Who knows what condition he'll be in by the time he hits 26. The other option would be to bridge him and lock him up longterm but I'm not sure I'd be willing to lock him up longterm considering the type of game he plays.

And again, I am talking about Gallagher only. Signing Galchenyuk for 4 years would be a disaster.

You guys worry way too much about that. And most of you seriously take the 'management' perspective waayyy too far.

It's not about 'assets' and having control of them. They're human beings, not shares in a company.

If a guy doesn't want to play here, he'll be gone as soon as he can. He can always request a trade, hold out etc. And you can't do anything about it. If Chuckie wants to play elsewhere, he's gone next year, basically. And whatever we get in return isn't worth it.

So, the disaster is not if we sign Galchenyuk for X years or whatever, the disaster would be to treat him unfairly.

Let's say you give him a crappy two years contract and he's not happy about it. You really think an unhappy RFA Galchenyuk will be more likely to sign for 8 years after that? He might still (see Subban), but he might not.

You guys talk like players are constantly trying to run away and thus, it's important to "keep control of our assets". It doesn't work that way. The guys have to be treated fairly, they have to feel this is the best place for them etc.

I honestly don't care about the length of Galchenyuk's next contract. I'm sure he'll be here for a long time and it's all that matters.

 

[odishabs]

Gallagher: 4 years, 4,000,000 per
Galchenyuk: 6 years, 5,250,000 per

 

[Etienne]

It makes no sense to give Galchenyuk a long term deal until we can see what he can do at center for a full season. That is what he was drafted to be, Habs' #1 center for the decade to come. Give him a 3 years deal and DD's ice time/role next season. If he develops into the center Timmins hoped he could be, a long term contract with no discount like Subban's is acceptable. Not great, but acceptable and the offense will have its go-to guy for the next 10 years. If Galchenyuk doesn't become the center Habs wish for then at least they wont be handcuffed to his contract the way Tampa did with Vinny.

 

[Blackshad]

where did you get the idea Subban would have agreed to 6X8 ???

I mean, you have some sources or you're just making that up ???

would have agreed to 6X8 ???

Who knows, he agreed to a 2 year deals when he wanted more. Bergevin could have negotiated with him a longer deal that he wanted.


I mean, you have some sources or you're just making that up

You don't have to have first hand account or an insider input to analyze a situation.

Should the NYI signed Dipetrio to a bridge deal instead of a long term contract? Of course! Do I have sources for my conclusion.. what kind of question is that. Look at the numbers. Would he have signed a bridge contract? Maybe, maybe not.. but the GM that signed him long term should learn from this experience. That is exactly what i am saying for Bergevin with the Subban signing.

 

[habs03]

Gallagher: 4 years, 4,000,000 per
Galchenyuk: 6 years, 5,250,000 per

Sign Gally to a deal that takes him right to UFA....

Also signing Chucky to a deal that makes him a UFA at what 27?

If you have a star player you either sign him to a bridge deal that ends while he is still an RFA so between 1-3 years after his ELC then try to sign him for a max 8 year deal, and if you don't want to do a bridge deal then you sign him to the max 8 years right away, none of this 4-5 years deals that makes the, UFA at like 27.

would have agreed to 6X8 ???

Who knows, he agreed to a 2 year deals when he wanted more. Bergevin could have negotiated with him a longer deal that he wanted.


I mean, you have some sources or you're just making that up

You don't have to have first hand account or an insider input to analyze a situation.

Should the NYI signed Dipetrio to a bridge deal instead of a long term contract? Of course! Do I have sources for my conclusion.. what kind of question is that. Look at the numbers. Would he have signed a bridge contract? Maybe, maybe not.. but the GM that signed him long term should learn from this experience. That is exactly what i am saying for Bergevin with the Subban signing.

Subban and his camp wanted a 5 year deal, none of the hockey insider every said anything about a 8+ year deal. They kept saying Mtl wanted a bridge deal and Subban wanted a 5 year deal.

Signing Subban to a bridge deal was better than signing him to a 5 year deal which woulld have made him a UFA at 28.

 

[ECWHSWI]

would have agreed to 6X8 ???

Who knows, he agreed to a 2 year deals when he wanted more. Bergevin could have negotiated with him a longer deal that he wanted.


I mean, you have some sources or you're just making that up

You don't have to have first hand account or an insider input to analyze a situation.

Should the NYI signed Dipetrio to a bridge deal instead of a long term contract? Of course! Do I have sources for my conclusion.. what kind of question is that. Look at the numbers. Would he have signed a bridge contract? Maybe, maybe not.. but the GM that signed him long term should learn from this experience. That is exactly what i am saying for Bergevin with the Subban signing.

you analyze a situation based on a "who knows", seriously...

it's a damn simple question to someone who like to spout that Habs would have saved X or Y amount, while in reality -> who knows ?

 

[DAChampion]

You guys worry way too much about that. And most of you seriously take the 'management' perspective waayyy too far.

It's not about 'assets' and having control of them. They're human beings, not shares in a company.

If a guy doesn't want to play here, he'll be gone as soon as he can. He can always request a trade, hold out etc. And you can't do anything about it. If Chuckie wants to play elsewhere, he's gone next year, basically. And whatever we get in return isn't worth it.

So, the disaster is not if we sign Galchenyuk for X years or whatever, the disaster would be to treat him unfairly.

Let's say you give him a crappy two years contract and he's not happy about it. You really think an unhappy RFA Galchenyuk will be more likely to sign for 8 years after that? He might still (see Subban), but he might not.

You guys talk like players are constantly trying to run away and thus, it's important to "keep control of our assets". It doesn't work that way. The guys have to be treated fairly, they have to feel this is the best place for them etc.

I honestly don't care about the length of Galchenyuk's next contract. I'm sure he'll be here for a long time and it's all that matters.

Interesting hypothesis: we should treat the players like human beings.

 

[Camio]

8x6m would be ideal imo

Ask the Oilers. They made that mistake 3 times in a row. Of course, with pathetic management, its no surprise.

Ideal scenario would be a bridge deal followed by a max lenght deal.

 

[Camio]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/yakupov-or-galchenyuk-did-oilers-get-right-one/

We're talking about the Oilers...

 

[Blackshad]

you analyze a situation based on a "who knows", seriously...

it's a damn simple question to someone who like to spout that Habs would have saved X or Y amount, while in reality -> who knows ?

There's a number of factors that determine if the player signs or not. That's why I say who knows, there is no guarantees. There is a possibility that Subban would not have accepted a long term deal.

There is also the possibility that he would in fact signed a long term contract. If he did, the Montreal Canadiens would have saved lots of money in the long run. That is why I was saying that Bergevin should do the same if he sees that Galchenyuk will pan out like Subban and not like Dipietro.

Often you determine your strategy not based on ultimate facts because you don't have them. You determine it by predictions, risk, probability, possible outcome,possible loss and reward.

The bridge deal placed Subban in a strong position to negotiate a higher contract which was not beneficial for the Montreal Canadiens. Now that's a fact.

If Bergevin gives a bridge contract to Galchenyuk, there is a risk that after 2 years, Galchenyuk seeks more than what you would signed long term now. That risk to me is high. Very probable, high impact on the salary cap.

There is also the risk of signing Galchenyuk now to a long term contract and not panning out, or becoming a "Bust". That risk to me is low. Not likely, but still a not negligible impact on the salary cap.

In the end, Bergevin will have to make the call. I'm just expressing my opinion here.

 

[Lebowski]

Ask the Oilers. They made that mistake 3 times in a row. Of course, with pathetic management, its no surprise.

Ideal scenario would be a bridge deal followed by a max lenght deal.

Mistake? As far as I know, Hall is one of the biggest bargain in the league, and RNH's contract will be worth it soon enough.

I agree there's not many options for Bergevin regarding both these guys. It's either a short-term bridge deal or a max term contract.

 

[Camio]

Mistake? As far as I know, Hall is one of the biggest bargain in the league, and RNH's contract will be worth it soon enough.

I agree there's not many options for Bergevin regarding both these guys. It's either a short-term bridge deal or a max term contract.

All 3 got paid too soon. By paying 1 this soon, the other asked for the same deal, then the 3rd one simply knew that deal was coming his way.

There's smart management, and there's the Oilers. With all the success they'd had since a decade, the spots they drafted, how they drafted (this one hurts the most actually), its no surprise.

But hey, Lowe knows best "I won rings in this league, I know how to do things".

 

[ECWHSWI]

There's a number of factors that determine if the player signs or not. That's why I say who knows, there is no guarantees. There is a possibility that Subban would not have accepted a long term deal.

There is also the possibility that he would in fact signed a long term contract. If he did, the Montreal Canadiens would have saved lots of money in the long run. That is why I was saying that Bergevin should do the same if he sees that Galchenyuk will pan out like Subban and not like Dipietro.

Often you determine your strategy not based on ultimate facts because you don't have them. You determine it by predictions, risk, probability, possible outcome,possible loss and reward.

The bridge deal placed Subban in a strong position to negotiate a higher contract which was not beneficial for the Montreal Canadiens. Now that's a fact.

If Bergevin gives a bridge contract to Galchenyuk, there is a risk that after 2 years, Galchenyuk seeks more than what you would signed long term now. That risk to me is high. Very probable, high impact on the salary cap.

There is also the risk of signing Galchenyuk now to a long term contract and not panning out, or becoming a "Bust". That risk to me is low. Not likely, but still a not negligible impact on the salary cap.

In the end, Bergevin will have to make the call. I'm just expressing my opinion here.

still, all that you said here doesnt change the fact your 6X8 idea is 100% made up.

 

[Blackshad]

still, all that you said here doesnt change the fact your 6X8 idea is 100% made up.

Of course it is. That's my idea!

 

[RJJ]

2 years for both of them.
Galchenyuk 3 million per.
Gally 2-2.5 million per.

If you give Chucky 8 years right away he is a UFA at the mere age of 29. He will be offered a king's ransom. 2 years now and then 8 years after ensure we have him till 31.

Gallagher 2 year deal because the way he plays he could be LTIR at any time.

Edit: 2 years also cause they will still be RFA's. Crucial point.

 

[Brainiac]

Interesting hypothesis: we should treat the players like human beings.

I know! Sounds crazy at first, but then you realize there may be something underneath.

 

[ottawa]

2 years for both of them.
Galchenyuk 3 million per.
Gally 2-2.5 million per.

If you give Chucky 8 years right away he is a UFA at the mere age of 29. He will be offered a king's ransom. 2 years now and then 8 years after ensure we have him till 31.

Gallagher 2 year deal because the way he plays he could be LTIR at any time.

Edit: 2 years also cause they will still be RFA's. Crucial point.

Honestly I think Galchenyuk will improve enough in 2 years that he'll get a King's ransom then too

 

[RJJ]

Honestly I think Galchenyuk will improve enough in 2 years that he'll get a King's ransom then too

Good point. It would have to be an eight year deal then. So what would you offer him if you were Bergevin. Keeping in mind that it would eat up 4 of his UFA years and lets assume his agent is a bright guy and knows Galchenyuk will be the Habs best forward for most of those 8 years if he isn't already. What do you offer? What do they accept? 8 at 6 per year or 8 at 7 per year???? Cause it ain`t gonna be cheap.