Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 8)

[DAChampion]

I don't think Galchenyuk was rushed. He produced pretty well out of the gate and just never progressed. Not the Canadiens fault the kid was a meathead.

Galchenyuk dominated the NHL in his first season ... but he only played 11 minutes a game.

He should have been left in the CHL for at least the end of that season, so he would have had the chance to play 20-25 minutes a game including defensively and on faceoffs where he needed work.

Then for the 2013-2014 season they could have started him in a sheltered role, and if that didn't work out, they could have sent him to the AHL for a year in 2014-2015, with strict orders to Lefebvre not to play him with goons.

This is not hindsight. It is what many people advised at the time, including many posters here, including myself lol.

 

[Sorinth]

Galchenyuk dominated the NHL in his first season ... but he only played 11 minutes a game.

He should have been left in the CHL for at least the end of that season, so he would have had the chance to play 20-25 minutes a game including defensively and on faceoffs where he needed work.

Then for the 2013-2014 season they could have started him in a sheltered role, and if that didn't work out, they could have sent him to the AHL for a year in 2014-2015, with strict orders to Lefebvre not to play him with goons.

This is not hindsight. It is what many people advised at the time, including many posters here, including myself lol.

Why should he have played in the CHL? As you said he was dominant at the NHL level so clearly he was ready. The fact he played so little (12:29 a game) is based entirely on the fact that we had a terrible and incompetent coach.

 

[DAChampion]

Why should he have played in the CHL? As you said he was dominant at the NHL level so clearly he was ready. The fact he played so little (12:29 a game) is based entirely on the fact that we had a terrible and incompetent coach.

Galchenyuk dominated the NHL in his sheltered role of privileged even strength minutes. He didn't get PP, PK, or defensive time. He didn't get a lot of ice time period. He would have played 20+ minutes in the CHL and had the responsibility to be the leader.

He also missed his draft year, so he was effectively one of the least developed rookies to ever play in the NHL.

 

[calder candidate]

Agreed. The mid to late 1st are the picks that we missed on for more years than we would like! 1st round picks since 2000... look at the disappointments from 10-30 range? 08-15 years are some very bad drafting!

2000: Hainsey (13th)
2001: Komisarek (7th)
2002: Higgins (14th)
2003: Kostitsyn (10th)
2004: Chipchura (18th)
2005: Price (5th)
2006: Fisher (20th)
2007: McDonagh (12th), Patch (22nd)
2008: No pick
2009: Leblanc (18th)
2010: Tinordi (22nd)
2011: Beauleau (17th)
2012: Galchenyuk (3rd)
2013: McCarron (25th)
2014: Scherbak (26th)

2015: Juulsen (26th)
2016: Sergachev (9th)
2017: Poehling (25th)
2018: Kotkaniemi (3rd)
2019: Caufield (15th)

2020: 16th pick...

Hainsey was a pretty solid pick... If our management knew the rule we wouldn’t have lost him to waivers... the disappointment is that he played well but not in MTL...

 

[Sorinth]

Galchenyuk dominated the NHL in his sheltered role of privileged even strength minutes. He didn't get PP, PK, or defensive time. He didn't get a lot of ice time period. He would have played 20+ minutes in the CHL and had the responsibility to be the leader.

He also missed his draft year, so he was effectively one of the least developed rookies to ever play in the NHL.

Just to be clear are you saying Galchenyuk wasn't ready for the NHL and that's why he only played 12min a game? Because from what I saw it wasn't a case of Galchenyuk not being NHL ready it was a case of an incompetent coach not giving the proper ice time to a young player.

So even though I can see the argument that playing 20min a game in the CHL would've been better then 12min in the NHL those weren't the only options. We could've easily played Galchenyuk 14-15min a game. The problem wasn't Galchenyuk making the NHL the problem was his misuse by a terrible coach once in the NHL.

I also question how much he actually would have learnt in the CHL, yeah he missed a bunch of games but he had 61 points in 33 CHL games that year anyways. I doubt very much he would have learnt much had he played another 30+ games in the CHL. His skill level was such that the CHL wasn't challenging him and it's rare for anyone to learn/develop in an environment that isn't challenging. It's also worth noting he was being played at wing that year in the CHL, so it's not like he would've learnt more about the defensive aspects of being center which was his alleged problem at the NHL level.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Hainsey was a pretty solid pick... If our management knew the rule we wouldn’t have lost him to waivers... the disappointment is that he played well but not in MTL...

Hainsey was not a bust but not substantially better than Beaulieu. When did Hainsey become a decent guy on D? In his age 25+ years. He traveled around quite a bit. For the 13th pick, you would expect more than that right? That's the point. At 13th, I don't consider Hainsey a good pick

 

[DAChampion]

Just to be clear are you saying Galchenyuk wasn't ready for the NHL and that's why he only played 12min a game? Because from what I saw it wasn't a case of Galchenyuk not being NHL ready it was a case of an incompetent coach not giving the proper ice time to a young player.

So even though I can see the argument that playing 20min a game in the CHL would've been better then 12min in the NHL those weren't the only options. We could've easily played Galchenyuk 14-15min a game. The problem wasn't Galchenyuk making the NHL the problem was his misuse by a terrible coach once in the NHL.

I also question how much he actually would have learnt in the CHL, yeah he missed a bunch of games but he had 61 points in 33 CHL games that year anyways. I doubt very much he would have learnt much had he played another 30+ games in the CHL. His skill level was such that the CHL wasn't challenging him and it's rare for anyone to learn/develop in an environment that isn't challenging. It's also worth noting he was being played at wing that year in the CHL, so it's not like he would've learnt more about the defensive aspects of being center which was his alleged problem at the NHL level.

I think that Therrien was actually fairly competent his first year. The numbers bore that out, he was coaching differently before returning to old habits later on. He was also dealing with a difficult situation at center between Desharnais, Eller, and Plekanec. Just juggling that was hard, adding Galchenyuk to the mix was a lot.

It's not clear that other coaches would have given Galchenyuk 16+ minutes including special teams. The Habs were a good team that year, and Galchenyuk was one of the least developed players to ever play in the NHL.

He had more to learn in the CHL. THE Habs could have asked how team to play him at center, I'm pretty sure that option was discussed. His 66 points in 31 games came mostly from beating up on bad teams, that was also discussed at the time. He wasn't doing that well against better teams, so he had some growth opportunities there. And he would have had to face them in the memorial cup run, as well as the second half of that season.

 

[calder candidate]

Hainsey was not a bust but not substantially better than Beaulieu. When did Hainsey become a decent guy on D? In his age 25+ years. He traveled around quite a bit. For the 13th pick, you would expect more than that right? That's the point. At 13th, I don't consider Hainsey a good pick

He is still playing and did better than pretty much all player drafted after 13th that year not sure how he disappointed...
The guy played 1132 games, Playing top 4 for all these team, for lot of years, the guy did bounce around has a UFA only got traded when PIT acquired him to make a cup run... not team getting rid of him like Beaulieu... Hainsey would have been a upgrade on who ever we had on our D basically every years since we lost him to reentry waivers...

 

[Sorinth]

I think that Therrien was actually fairly competent his first year. The numbers bore that out, he was coaching differently before returning to old habits later on. He was also dealing with a difficult situation at center between Desharnais, Eller, and Plekanec. Just juggling that was hard, adding Galchenyuk to the mix was a lot.

It's not clear that other coaches would have given Galchenyuk 16+ minutes including special teams. The Habs were a good team that year, and Galchenyuk was one of the least developed players to ever play in the NHL.

Many teams give their young players lots of minutes, and that's not even counting the fact that Galchenyuk in your own words was dominating. You really think most teams who have a young guy dominating the opposition while playing 12min a night don't give him more ice time? I mean we saw it with Suzuki, he was playing great and quickly got up to 16min a night despite being a rookie.

Now I get that Suzuki is really good defensively and that's partly why he got his minutes. But when you look around the league Montreal is one of the few places where young guys have to excellent defensively before being given an important role. And in Galchenyuk's case the fact that Desharnais was being used there is just absurd, he was as bad if not worse defensively then Galchenyuk ever was.

Just this year here's the rookie forwards who played over 15min a game (Excluding a few guys who played very few games) and their ppg
Olofsson 18:23|0.78
Suzuki 15:59|0.58
Hughes 15:52|0.34
Mikheyev 15:35|0.59
Batherson 15:34|0.43
Steel 15:33|0.34
Zadina 15:10|0.54

Galchenyuk's 0.56 ppg puts him near the top of that list but he didn't get anywhere near the ice time those guys got. And let's not pretend that many of them aren't also weak defensively.

In Galchenyuk's rookie year he was 20th in ice time for rookie forwards who played at least 24 games, yet he was 6th in points per game and 2nd in +/-.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that on a different team Galchenyuk would have gotten way more ice time.

Now it's true there was a logjam at center, but the idea that Therrien handled it competently is ridiculous.

• Desharnais was the worst center yet got the top role.
• The young big 2-way center that we've lacked for since ever was breaking out in a big way, and yet Therrien doesn't give him a sniff of the powerplay and his ozone starts are below 50%
• You would think the rookie with sheltered minutes would actually be at the top of those ozone starts like how in Kotkaniemi's rookie year he was 9% higher then the next center, right? I mean the whole icetime argument is based around the fact the fact that we couldn't play him more without giving him a less sheltered role. But nope Desharnais is ahead by almost 4%.

Therrien being a better coach that first year is a myth. He had an abbrievated training camp and a condensed schedule (Which meant less practice days) so couldn't really implement his "system" but the team got off to a strong start and so he basically sat back and tried to do as little as possible because if it ain't broke don't fix it. But the signs were all there that he hadn't changed and he proved it the next year.

He had more to learn in the CHL. THE Habs could have asked how team to play him at center, I'm pretty sure that option was discussed. His 66 points in 31 games came mostly from beating up on bad teams, that was also discussed at the time. He wasn't doing that well against better teams, so he had some growth opportunities there. And he would have had to face them in the memorial cup run, as well as the second half of that season.

What incentive does Sarnia have to follow Montreal's lineup suggestions?

And I'll need some evidence that his points were mostly beating up on bad teams and that he was more guilty of it then other players. Because to me it's pretty normal that if you produce a ton of points a lot of those points will be against the weaker teams. If it wasn't the case I'd probably think the player goes into games against the weaker teams and doesn't really try as hard since they think it will be an easy game.

But I'll just clarify, yes there was things he COULD have learnt at the CHL level, but had we sent him down I very much doubt he WOULD have learnt them. Galchenyuk didn't really have that attitude where everyday he tries to learn and be better then the day before, so it's unlikely he would have focused on the things he could have improved on. It's much more likely he would've simply relied on his superior skills to put up a bunch of points, and Sarnia likely would've wanted him to do exactly that since they needed his production way more then they needed him to play defensively.

 

[DAChampion]

Many teams give their young players lots of minutes, and that's not even counting the fact that Galchenyuk in your own words was dominating. You really think most teams who have a young guy dominating the opposition while playing 12min a night don't give him more ice time? I mean we saw it with Suzuki, he was playing great and quickly got up to 16min a night despite being a rookie.

Now I get that Suzuki is really good defensively and that's partly why he got his minutes. But when you look around the league Montreal is one of the few places where young guys have to excellent defensively before being given an important role. And in Galchenyuk's case the fact that Desharnais was being used there is just absurd, he was as bad if not worse defensively then Galchenyuk ever was.

Just this year here's the rookie forwards who played over 15min a game (Excluding a few guys who played very few games) and their ppg
Olofsson 18:23|0.78
Suzuki 15:59|0.58
Hughes 15:52|0.34
Mikheyev 15:35|0.59
Batherson 15:34|0.43
Steel 15:33|0.34
Zadina 15:10|0.54

Galchenyuk's 0.56 ppg puts him near the top of that list but he didn't get anywhere near the ice time those guys got. And let's not pretend that many of them aren't also weak defensively.

In Galchenyuk's rookie year he was 20th in ice time for rookie forwards who played at least 24 games, yet he was 6th in points per game and 2nd in +/-.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that on a different team Galchenyuk would have gotten way more ice time.

Now it's true there was a logjam at center, but the idea that Therrien handled it competently is ridiculous.

• Desharnais was the worst center yet got the top role.
• The young big 2-way center that we've lacked for since ever was breaking out in a big way, and yet Therrien doesn't give him a sniff of the powerplay and his ozone starts are below 50%
• You would think the rookie with sheltered minutes would actually be at the top of those ozone starts like how in Kotkaniemi's rookie year he was 9% higher then the next center, right? I mean the whole icetime argument is based around the fact the fact that we couldn't play him more without giving him a less sheltered role. But nope Desharnais is ahead by almost 4%.

Therrien being a better coach that first year is a myth. He had an abbrievated training camp and a condensed schedule (Which meant less practice days) so couldn't really implement his "system" but the team got off to a strong start and so he basically sat back and tried to do as little as possible because if it ain't broke don't fix it. But the signs were all there that he hadn't changed and he proved it the next year.



What incentive does Sarnia have to follow Montreal's lineup suggestions?

And I'll need some evidence that his points were mostly beating up on bad teams and that he was more guilty of it then other players. Because to me it's pretty normal that if you produce a ton of points a lot of those points will be against the weaker teams. If it wasn't the case I'd probably think the player goes into games against the weaker teams and doesn't really try as hard since they think it will be an easy game.

But I'll just clarify, yes there was things he COULD have learnt at the CHL level, but had we sent him down I very much doubt he WOULD have learnt them. Galchenyuk didn't really have that attitude where everyday he tries to learn and be better then the day before, so it's unlikely he would have focused on the things he could have improved on. It's much more likely he would've simply relied on his superior skills to put up a bunch of points, and Sarnia likely would've wanted him to do exactly that since they needed his production way more then they needed him to play defensively.

1) I don't have the stats on hand, and I'm not going to go through the 2013 CHL rankings, box scores, etc. It was something that we discussed on the forum at the time, Galchenyuk was beating up on bad teams but his performance against good teams needed improvement. The production ratio was like 2:1 or more.

I remember he played one game against the team of the younger Josh Ho Sang and didn't do very well. It concerned some people on this forum, but it was excused on the basis that Ho Sang was a greater greater talent who would go 1st in his draft year. He went 28th.

2) The Habs' ability to make requests of Sarnia was discussed at the time.

3) Guys like 2020-season Nick Suzuki, Zadina, and Jack Hughes are not comparable to rookie Galchenyuk. Galchenyuk was one of the least developed players to ever make it to the NHL, as he missed his draft year. He also emerged on a team which was not garbage and missing depth, but an elite team which was 1st in the conference. He had the benefit of sharing ice time with guys like Eller, Subban, Markov, and Diaz. Opposition coaches would ignore him to focus on Pacioretty, Gionta, etc.

I'm glad that the Habs seem to have picked up a clue. They sent Kotkaniemi to the AHL. They didn't rush Suzuki, they're not rushing Caulfield. Good stuff.

 

[Sorinth]

1) I don't have the stats on hand, and I'm not going to go through the 2013 CHL rankings, box scores, etc. It was something that we discussed on the forum at the time, Galchenyuk was beating up on bad teams but his performance against good teams needed improvement. The production ratio was like 2:1 or more.

I remember he played one game against the team of the younger Josh Ho Sang and didn't do very well. It concerned some people on this forum, but it was excused on the basis that Ho Sang was a greater greater talent who would go 1st in his draft year. He went 28th.

2) The Habs' ability to make requests of Sarnia was discussed at the time.

3) Guys like 2020-season Nick Suzuki, Zadina, and Jack Hughes are not comparable to rookie Galchenyuk. Galchenyuk was one of the least developed players to ever make it to the NHL, as he missed his draft year. He also emerged on a team which was not garbage and missing depth, but an elite team which was 1st in the conference. He had the benefit of sharing ice time with guys like Eller, Subban, Markov, and Diaz. Opposition coaches would ignore him to focus on Pacioretty, Gionta, etc.

I'm glad that the Habs seem to have picked up a clue. They sent Kotkaniemi to the AHL. They didn't rush Suzuki, they're not rushing Caulfield. Good stuff.

1) I don't recall those discussions but I don't put much weight on what this board discusses anyways. Pacioretty faced similar criticism on this board however when it was brought up that guys like Ovechkin have the same sort of track record it's ignored. For example, this past season Ovechkin scored 1.03 goals per game against the bottom 14 teams, and 0.49 goals per game against the rest of the league.

2) I don't recall, but even if it was discussed Sarnia didn't listen since they played him at wing anyways.

3) Claiming he's the least developed player is a cool phrase but it's meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Can we really say Joe Thornton was more developed his rookie year considering he managed a whopping 7 points as a rookie. And let's not pretend like Galchenyuk's play wasn't one of the reasons that the team was actually elite.

4) If next year Suzuki struggles you can be sure people will claim he was rushed.

 

[DAChampion]

1) I don't recall those discussions but I don't put much weight on what this board discusses anyways. Pacioretty faced similar criticism on this board however when it was brought up that guys like Ovechkin have the same sort of track record it's ignored. For example, this past season Ovechkin scored 1.03 goals per game against the bottom 14 teams, and 0.49 goals per game against the rest of the league.

2) I don't recall, but even if it was discussed Sarnia didn't listen since they played him at wing anyways.

3) Claiming he's the least developed player is a cool phrase but it's meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Can we really say Joe Thornton was more developed his rookie year considering he managed a whopping 7 points as a rookie. And let's not pretend like Galchenyuk's play wasn't one of the reasons that the team was actually elite.

4) If next year Suzuki struggles you can be sure people will claim he was rushed.

1) I don't agree with you on Ovechkin and Pacioretty. In his career, his playoff production is 126 points in 131 games, a modest 15% less than his regular season production. When Pacioretty was on the Habs the production decline was 23%. The difference would work out to 11 playoff points over Ovechkin's career.

Pacioretty is a better playoff performer with Vegas, where he's not required to be the franchise forward.

2) Even of Galchenyuk had spent the rest of the year on wing he still would have benefited from improving defensively.

3) Galchenyuk is one of the least developed players to ever make it to the NHL, at least for the modern era. That is accurate regardless of how Joe Thornton was developed. As for Galchenyuk's contributions in 2013, he was likely the difference between a 1st and 2nd place a team, not between a 1st and last-place team.

4) Nick Suzuki was not rushed. Suzuki played 308 games in the CHL, 1 in the AHL and 5 in the WJC. Galchenyuk played 107 games in the CHL, 0 in the AHL, and 7 in the WJC. There is no comparison between the two.

I also reject your assumption that we should treat rushed vs non-rushed as a dichotomy. I think it's a continuum. So even if we assume that Suzuki was rushed, he was rushed much less than Galchenyuk.

 

[Sorinth]

1) I don't agree with you on Ovechkin and Pacioretty. In his career, his playoff production is 126 points in 131 games, a modest 15% less than his regular season production. When Pacioretty was on the Habs the production decline was 23%. The difference would work out to 11 playoff points over Ovechkin's career.

Pacioretty is a better playoff performer with Vegas, where he's not required to be the franchise forward.

2) Even of Galchenyuk had spent the rest of the year on wing he still would have benefited from improving defensively.

3) Galchenyuk is one of the least developed players to ever make it to the NHL, at least for the modern era. That is accurate regardless of how Joe Thornton was developed. As for Galchenyuk's contributions in 2013, he was likely the difference between a 1st and 2nd place a team, not between a 1st and last-place team.

4) Nick Suzuki was not rushed. Suzuki played 308 games in the CHL, 1 in the AHL and 5 in the WJC. Galchenyuk played 107 games in the CHL, 0 in the AHL, and 7 in the WJC. There is no comparison between the two.

I also reject your assumption that we should treat rushed vs non-rushed as a dichotomy. I think it's a continuum. So even if we assume that Suzuki was rushed, he was rushed much less than Galchenyuk.

1) So you don't agree that this past season Ovechkin scored goals at a 2:1 ratio against bad teams? I mean I had to manually add everything up so maybe I made a mistake somewhere but even logically it makes sense that players are going to put up a lot of points against bad teams, it's why they are bad.

2) The real question is WOULD he have improved defensively if he spent the rest of the year in the CHL. And I doubt very much he would have.

3) Except development != games played. Galchenyuk was actually much more developed then most players his age, if he wasn't he wouldn't have been picked where he was and he wouldn't have had the success he did. It's pretty safe to say Galchenyuk developed more then most everyone his age group from years 5-16. It's why he was as good as he was.

4) Suzuki basically skipped the AHL and went straight to the NHL. Many say Price was rushed to the NHL because he only played 20ish games in the AHL playoffs. Too often being "rushed" is just something people claim in hindsight for a player struggling. We saw it with Kotkaniemi, there was talk about being rushed at the start of his rookie year, then he did well and nobody talked about him being rushed anymore, and then last year he struggled and everybody comes out of the woodwork and talks about how he was rushed. I can guarantee you that if Suzuki struggles people will talk about how we rushed him to the NHL and that he would've been better served playing a year or two in the AHL.

 

[DAChampion]

The discussion of whether or not Alex Galchenyuk was rushed has been split into a lot of different strands and is thus harder for others to follow. I will try to streamline it, @Sorinth.

I think that Galchenyuk was rushed. He was one of the least developed players to ever play in the modern NHL, he was not ready for the NHL, and this may have undermined his development.

Galchenyuk entered the NHL with 109 CHL games played and 7 WJC games played. He only played 8 games in his draft year, as he suffered a significant knee injury. Moreover, during that time, he would have had to train less. While his peers were developing their strength and their skating, in addition to his hockey sense, he was doing physiotherapy and applying ice packs to his knees, while no doubt losing strength.

If we look at some comparable, Brenden Gallagher, who was a rookie teammate on the Habs, played 280 games in the CHL including two deep memorial cup runs. Nick Suzuki got 308 games in the CHL, including two substantial memorial cup runs, including one where he was the leader. Sidney Crosby, a vastly greater talent than Galchenyuk, got 143 games of CHL experience, and a greater number of WJC games. Jonathan Toews, who was the comparable for Galchenyuk in his draft year, played 42 WCHA games in his draft year, 34 WCHA games in the year after that, and got to play in 2 rather than 1 WJC.

Alex Galchenyuk simply didn't get as much time in overall play before making the NHL, nor did he get to simmer and dominate for an extended period, nor did he get to lead his team against greater competition, either at the WJCs or in a memorial cup run. He just didn't get to do any of that. He was rushed to the NHL, perhaps out of a perverse old school belief that he should be allowed to "make the team out of camp", or perhaps to help the Habs make the playoffs.

Galchenyuk came into the NHL lacking strength, lacking skating ability, and lacking defensive awareness. He was not trusted to play on special teams. He did exceedingly well at 5on5 -- a skill that he would lose later on in his career -- but he did so in limited and massaged minutes, playing with Gallagher and Eller on the 3rd line, and having guys like Markov, Subban, and Diaz feeding him the puck. He never got to progress after that.

To say that Galchenyuk was rushed is not hindsight, as many of us including myself were calling it at the time. It is also not valid to say that other players have been incorrectly labelled as rushed, as Galchenyuk is one of the the least developed rookies in the history of the modern NHL. I've written this in multiple posts, and you have not been able to bring up several comparisons. I'm guessing it's because there aren't many.

You did bring up Joe Thornton as a counterexample, but that fails. Thornton had 120 games of CHL experience, he played 50 games in the WOHL, and he was a 1st overall talent who went on to a hall of fame career.

 

[Sorinth]

The discussion of whether or not Alex Galchenyuk was rushed has been split into a lot of different strands and is thus harder for others to follow. I will try to streamline it, @Sorinth.

I think that Galchenyuk was rushed. He was one of the least developed players to ever play in the modern NHL, he was not ready for the NHL, and this may have undermined his development.

Galchenyuk entered the NHL with 109 CHL games played and 7 WJC games played. He only played 8 games in his draft year, as he suffered a significant knee injury. Moreover, during that time, he would have had to train less. While his peers were developing their strength and their skating, in addition to his hockey sense, he was doing physiotherapy and applying ice packs to his knees, while no doubt losing strength.

If we look at some comparable, Brenden Gallagher, who was a rookie teammate on the Habs, played 280 games in the CHL including two deep memorial cup runs. Nick Suzuki got 308 games in the CHL, including two substantial memorial cup runs, including one where he was the leader. Sidney Crosby, a vastly greater talent than Galchenyuk, got 143 games of CHL experience, and a greater number of WJC games. Jonathan Toews, who was the comparable for Galchenyuk in his draft year, played 42 WCHA games in his draft year, 34 WCHA games in the year after that, and got to play in 2 rather than 1 WJC.

Alex Galchenyuk simply didn't get as much time in overall play before making the NHL, nor did he get to simmer and dominate for an extended period, nor did he get to lead his team against greater competition, either at the WJCs or in a memorial cup run. He just didn't get to do any of that. He was rushed to the NHL, perhaps out of a perverse old school belief that he should be allowed to "make the team out of camp", or perhaps to help the Habs make the playoffs.

Galchenyuk came into the NHL lacking strength, lacking skating ability, and lacking defensive awareness. He was not trusted to play on special teams. He did exceedingly well at 5on5 -- a skill that he would lose later on in his career -- but he did so in limited and massaged minutes, playing with Gallagher and Eller on the 3rd line, and having guys like Markov, Subban, and Diaz feeding him the puck. He never got to progress after that.

To say that Galchenyuk was rushed is not hindsight, as many of us including myself were calling it at the time. It is also not valid to say that other players have been incorrectly labelled as rushed, as Galchenyuk is one of the the least developed rookies in the history of the modern NHL. I've written this in multiple posts, and you have not been able to bring up several comparisons. I'm guessing it's because there aren't many.

You did bring up Joe Thornton as a counterexample, but that fails. Thornton had 120 games of CHL experience, he played 50 games in the WOHL, and he was a 1st overall talent who went on to a hall of fame career.

So do you also think Crosby was an underdeveloped player when he came into the NHL? Because that sounds crazy to me. It makes me think you and I have very different definition of what development actually is. Crosby was as good as he was as a rookie because he was actually highly developed. This is why using games played is a terrible way to measure development, Crosby developed at a much faster rate then all of his peers which is why he became so good.

So the reason I haven't brought up counter examples to your "most underdeveloped player" is because how you classify who is developed and who isn't is complete bullshit. With your logic Suzuki entered the NHL as a more developed player then Crosby. It's simply a insane statement to make.


Players who are rushed, who are underdeveloped, who can't handle it simply don't do well, and you can point to sheltered minutes all you want but it's the same with everyone. Young guys almost universally get sheltered minutes unless they are absolute studs from day 1.

And things like he wasn't trusted by the coaches are equally meaningless, those same coaches didn't trust Subban to kill penalties despite the fact he had been doing an elite job at it for the 2 years before then. This same brain trust who didn't trust Galchenyuk because of his defensive flaws did trust Desharnais. Any case built on what Therrien thought/thinks is going to be garbage.

But it's ironic that in your defence of Thornton not being rushed you include his games in the WOHL when he was 15 but don't include Galchneyuk's games as a 15 year old. But the icing on the cake is that Thoronton had a hall of fame career, does having a HoF career have any relevance to whether a player was rushed to the NHL before they were ready?

 

[Whitesnake]

Who the f*** is this guy!!!!!!....


WTF!!!!......f*** YOU TIMMINS

Bulls shit Timmins pick!!!!

typical left field pick, we just wasted a high 2nd round pick, we’re doomed!!!!

Hes never coming over, using Bergevin as leverage for a better KHL contract

Sound familiar

Sorry, not you, just in general

He, Suzuki and Weber my favourite players on the team.

Yeah 'cause surely, we never right about anything else. Timmins was always right with all of his picks. But hey, let's take Romanov, CLEARLY an exception and let's try to make it the norm.

Try again.

Every Single one of Timmins out of left field/WTF picks weren't even good enough to be on the field. Except, maybe, this one.

 

[jaffy27]

Yeah 'cause surely, we never right about anything else. Timmins was always right with all of his picks. But hey, let's take Romanov, CLEARLY an exception and let's try to make it the norm.

Try again.

Every Single one of Timmins out of left field/WTF picks weren't even good enough to be on the field. Except, maybe, this one.

Try again...nah, pretty comfortable with my statement thank you very much

 

[FrankMTL]

Yeah 'cause surely, we never right about anything else. Timmins was always right with all of his picks. But hey, let's take Romanov, CLEARLY an exception and let's try to make it the norm.

Try again.

Every Single one of Timmins out of left field/WTF picks weren't even good enough to be on the field. Except, maybe, this one.

Mark Streit was kind of out of left field too.

I agree though, I still get heartburn looking at our 2008 to 2015 drafts...ugh.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I wouldn't say that considering he spent quite some time in the K, but let's not act like the Habs haven't rushed a few players in the last few years, mainly KK and Mete.

Louis Leblanc
Jarred Tinordi
Jacob De La Rose
Cayden Primeau (should have never seen a NHL game)
Ryan Poehling
Michael McCarron

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Louis Leblanc
Jarred Tinordi
Jacob De La Rose
Cayden Primeau (should have never seen a NHL game)
Ryan Poehling
Michael McCarron

Those were all less extreme cases though, but I agree, most of those were also rushed.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Those were all less extreme cases though, but I agree, most of those were also rushed.

I would say DLR and MM are big examples of it.. they got called up literally every time they started to produce in the AHL. They were never given time to really take off.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I would say DLR and MM are big examples of it.. they got called up literally every time they started to produce in the AHL. They were never given time to really take off.

Agreed but the depth in the system was poor for many years due to bad drafting. We lacked options and are only now starting to get in a position where we can keep guys like Poehling, Brook, Fleury, Ylonen in the AHL. Even Kotkaniemi was rushed because they needed a 3C and he "didn't look out of place" as a 18 year old.... a few months after we drafted him as a long term prospect.

Habs are guilty of it for sure but there is some context at play there.

- No replacement for Pleky and..... KK is our 3C as a 18 year old all of a sudden
- Horrible back-up goalies for many years now and.... Primeau gets some starts.

Honestly, It's a combo of both the Habs being premature and lack of depth in the pool from 08-15. Should be interesting to see how they manage this in the coming years cause our current pool has both quality and quantity

 

[WeThreeKings]

Agreed but the depth in the system was poor for many years due to bad drafting. We lacked options and are only now starting to get in a position where we can keep guys like Poehling, Brook, Fleury, Ylonen in the AHL. Even Kotkaniemi was rushed because they needed a 3C and he "didn't look out of place" as a 18 year old.... a few months after we drafted him as a long term prospect.

Habs are guilty of it for sure but there is some context at play there.

- No replacement for Pleky and..... KK is our 3C as a 18 year old all of a sudden
- Horrible back-up goalies for many years now and.... Primeau gets some starts.

Honestly, It's a combo of both the Habs being premature and lack of depth in the pool from 08-15. Should be interesting to see how they manage this in the coming years cause our current pool has both quality and quantity

There's plenty of ways to mitigate this. They had plenty of AHL veterans they could have called up and let the young kids continue to simmer in the AHL rather than throw kids on the fourth line and chip + chase in the NHL. It was detrimental and stupid.

 

[26Mats]

Yeah, Poehling is far from being a bust, only has played 27 games in the NHL and is 21 years old.

But people are right to be worried when almost no prospects panned out as a legit impact player in the last, what, 12 yrs? Absymal.

Timmins has been on a 10 year streak of drafting an NHLer each draft.

2010 - Gallagher
2011 - Beaulieu
2012 - Galchenyuk
2013 - Lehkonen
2014 - Evans
2015 - Juulsen
2016 - Sergachev, Mete
2017 - Poehling, Fleury, Brook, Primeau
2018 - KK, Ylonen, Romanov, Harris, Hillis, ...
2019 - Caufield, Struble, Norlinder, ...

Seems he's on a ten year steel of getting at least 1 legit NHLer and highly likely on a 4 year streak of getting at least 2.

 

[Whitesnake]

Mark Streit was kind of out of left field too.

I agree though, I still get heartburn looking at our 2008 to 2015 drafts...ugh.

That late of the draft, everybody is left field. So that was not what i was talking about. Actually, Mark Streit was the type of player that are now signed UFA because there's less rounds.