Kings extend Toffoli

[blny]

3 years with $4.6 million aav

After a 31g 58 points season two years ago, TT slipped this year and missed time due to injury. Does this sort of contract impact what Galchenyuk signs for?

[folatre]

I think it probably does contribute to setting any relevant range for Galchenyuk.

Toffoli is two years older, averages .597 points per game, and accepted a deal that took away one UFA year since he would be 27 years old before the third year of the 3-yr deal. Galchenyuk is younger (and I would say more talented), averages .607 points per game, and if he accepted a deal of equal length he gives up one UFA year.

The deal is informative in sense that if Toffoli is 4.6 AAV, then Galchenyuk cannot be less than 4.75 AAV for equal length deal. And if Canadiens organization wants to buy more term as hedge against Pacioretty being too expensive in two seasons, then things get more expensive. For instance, I would imagine a six year deal would cost Montreal at least 36 million since buying four UFA years for a guy with plenty of interest league wide is expensive proposition.

[blny]

Jun 7, 2017 22:20:02 GMT -5 folatre said:

I think it probably does contribute to setting any relevant range for Galchenyuk.

Toffoli is two years older, averages .597 points per game, and accepted a deal that took away one UFA year since he would be 27 years old before the third year of the 3-yr deal. Galchenyuk is younger (and I would say more talented), averages .607 points per game, and if he accepted a deal of equal length he gives up one UFA year.

The deal is informative in sense that if Toffoli is 4.6 AAV, then Galchenyuk cannot be less than 4.75 AAV for equal length deal. And if Canadiens organization wants to buy more term as hedge against Pacioretty being too expensive in two seasons, then things get more expensive. For instance, I would imagine a six year deal would cost Montreal at least 36 million since buying four UFA years for a guy with plenty of interest league wide is expensive proposition.

Most of the centers if Alex's peer group signed for 6 and roughly $6 million per. Forsberg, a winger who can dabble, signed for that sort of amount too. I had always contended that this would be the bench mark on a long term deal.

If it's a short deal, I think TT becomes the bench mark.

[The Habitual Fan]

If they can tell him he is a winger then 5 years at 5 million per would be good for both sides I think.

[folatre]

Hockey is debatable and perhaps I am being pessimistic, but 5 years - 25 million seems unlikely. I say this because from Galchenyuk perspective why give up three UFA years for so little?

If now there is a marker in the marketplace that shows he will get close to five million per in a three-year deal, then what is the point of handing Montreal two more years at nearly the same rate?

The whole issue about is Galchenyuk better suited to play than wing than centre is neither here nor there. Montreal has Danault, Plekanec, Mitchell, and McCarron. In reality, that is two third line centres and two fourth liners. The organisation cannot tell Galchenyuk with a straight face this summer to prepare to play wing when the cupboard is bare and the GM is unlikely to find a better alternative. Julien is hopefully telling him hey your side of the deal is be positive and work your butt off, my side of the deal is play you with talented guys and coach you through mistakes.

[Willie Dog]

Jun 8, 2017 17:06:00 GMT -5 folatre said:

Hockey is debatable and perhaps I am being pessimistic, but 5 years - 25 million seems unlikely. I say this because from Galchenyuk perspective why give up three UFA years for so little?

If now there is a marker in the marketplace that shows he will get close to five million per in a three-year deal, then what is the point of handing Montreal two more years at nearly the same rate?

The whole issue about is Galchenyuk better suited to play than wing than centre is neither here nor there. Montreal has Danault, Plekanec, Mitchell, and McCarron. In reality, that is two third line centres and two fourth liners. The organisation cannot tell Galchenyuk with a straight face this summer to prepare to play wing when the cupboard is bare and the GM is unlikely to find a better alternative. Julien is hopefully telling him hey your side of the deal is be positive and work your butt off, my side of the deal is play you with talented guys and coach you through mistakes.

I hope you right or else Galchy is gone.

[folatre]

Willie, man, I wish to be right but expect a less favorable scenario come to be real.

Obviously there are many permutations of unfavorable asset management scenarios possible here. For simplicity of argument, maybe it is two generalized negative scenarios that exist, I think.

In one less favorable scenario Bergevin goes against the overwhelming trend in league over last decade and decides I know best and I am not handing 5-6 year deal to 23 years old punk who only score 30 goals one time and probably hangs out with friends after Habs lose. It is movie seen before with Subban. Next chapter in story Galchenyuk plays entire season with Lehkonen and Radulov and goes for 35 goals and 70 points and Habs end up paying 7 million per.

Another unfavorable scenario is Bergevin spending the entire summer trying to trade Galchenyuk for an "elite" centre. In this case the problem is twofold.

First, there are no top shelf centres available in the marketplace. I know we talk about Tavares in another thread but frankly I do not believe he is open to signing in Montreal. So in reality Bergevin is dial in on guys like Matt Duchene, or maybe guys Claude Giroux and Logan Couture. Are these guys elite centres? Giroux most certainly was for nice period of his career but he is six years older than Galchenyuk, productivity is declining, and the contract is scary. Would a club trade their veteran captain signed long term? Ask Nashville. And it is not like Flyers are close to contending for anything. I know people will say how in world would San Jose trade Couture when Joe Thornton is almost 40 years old and Couture (28 years old) was their good two-way second line centre during their nice stretch last 2 or 3 seasons. Well, maybe Doug Wilson sees an era is ending and there is necessity to rebuild and compile younger talent. And Duchene, well at least he is only three years older than Galchenyuk but he played very unlike a #1 let alone a genuine #1 centre over last three seasons.

Second, I always ask where are we negotiating from. Everyone is hockey world knows that Bergevin does not have a good relationship with Galchenyuk (just like Poile and everyone knew the situation with Subban) and thus Bergevin will again be negotiating from a position of weakness. So even though objectively a few metrics would suggest that Montreal should not add much if anything (considering age, talent, and contracts) to a deal for any of these three guys. It would not surprise me at all that he would part with Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2018 #3 pick for Couture; Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2017 #1 pick for Giroux or Duchene.

I do not say these are as crazy as Houle trading Roy for three barely above average NHL players. But this just the kind of short-sighted, poor asset management deal that hurt an organisation if it is serious about winning. And these are kind of deals that leave the "lucky" next GM of Canadiens with increasingly dire balance sheet to reckon with.

[Willie Dog]

Jun 10, 2017 21:29:00 GMT -5 folatre said:

Willie, man, I wish to be right but expect a less favorable scenario come to be real.

Obviously there are many permutations of unfavorable asset management scenarios possible here. For simplicity of argument, maybe it is two generalized negative scenarios that exist, I think.

In one less favorable scenario Bergevin goes against the overwhelming trend in league over last decade and decides I know best and I am not handing 5-6 year deal to 23 years old punk who only score 30 goals one time and probably hangs out with friends after Habs lose. It is movie seen before with Subban. Next chapter in story Galchenyuk plays entire season with Lehkonen and Radulov and goes for 35 goals and 70 points and Habs end up paying 7 million per.

Another unfavorable scenario is Bergevin spending the entire summer trying to trade Galchenyuk for an "elite" centre. In this case the problem is twofold.

First, there are no top shelf centres available in the marketplace. I know we talk about Tavares in another thread but frankly I do not believe he is open to signing in Montreal. So in reality Bergevin is dial in on guys like Matt Duchene, or maybe guys Claude Giroux and Logan Couture. Are these guys elite centres? Giroux most certainly was for nice period of his career but he is six years older than Galchenyuk, productivity is declining, and the contract is scary. Would a club trade their veteran captain signed long term? Ask Nashville. And it is not like Flyers are close to contending for anything. I know people will say how in world would San Jose trade Couture when Joe Thornton is almost 40 years old and Couture (28 years old) was their good two-way second line centre during their nice stretch last 2 or 3 seasons. Well, maybe Doug Wilson sees an era is ending and there is necessity to rebuild and compile younger talent. And Duchene, well at least he is only three years older than Galchenyuk but he played very unlike a #1 let alone a genuine #1 centre over last three seasons.

Second, I always ask where are we negotiating from. Everyone is hockey world knows that Bergevin does not have a good relationship with Galchenyuk (just like Poile and everyone knew the situation with Subban) and thus Bergevin will again be negotiating from a position of weakness. So even though objectively a few metrics would suggest that Montreal should not add much if anything (considering age, talent, and contracts) to a deal for any of these three guys. It would not surprise me at all that he would part with Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2018 #3 pick for Couture; Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2017 #1 pick for Giroux or Duchene.

I do not say these are as crazy as Houle trading Roy for three barely above average NHL players. But this just the kind of short-sighted, poor asset management deal that hurt an organisation if it is serious about winning. And these are kind of deals that leave the "lucky" next GM of Canadiens with increasingly dire balance sheet to reckon with.

If he does either of those trades he should be fired.

[CentreHice]

Yep, I'm worried about another poor asset-management mess....along the lines of the condition in which Gainey left us.

We end up with highly-paid "names" whose best years are behind them.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Jun 10, 2017 21:29:00 GMT -5 folatre said:

Willie, man, I wish to be right but expect a less favorable scenario come to be real.

Obviously there are many permutations of unfavorable asset management scenarios possible here. For simplicity of argument, maybe it is two generalized negative scenarios that exist, I think.

In one less favorable scenario Bergevin goes against the overwhelming trend in league over last decade and decides I know best and I am not handing 5-6 year deal to 23 years old punk who only score 30 goals one time and probably hangs out with friends after Habs lose. It is movie seen before with Subban. Next chapter in story Galchenyuk plays entire season with Lehkonen and Radulov and goes for 35 goals and 70 points and Habs end up paying 7 million per.

Another unfavorable scenario is Bergevin spending the entire summer trying to trade Galchenyuk for an "elite" centre. In this case the problem is twofold.

First, there are no top shelf centres available in the marketplace. I know we talk about Tavares in another thread but frankly I do not believe he is open to signing in Montreal. So in reality Bergevin is dial in on guys like Matt Duchene, or maybe guys Claude Giroux and Logan Couture. Are these guys elite centres? Giroux most certainly was for nice period of his career but he is six years older than Galchenyuk, productivity is declining, and the contract is scary. Would a club trade their veteran captain signed long term? Ask Nashville. And it is not like Flyers are close to contending for anything. I know people will say how in world would San Jose trade Couture when Joe Thornton is almost 40 years old and Couture (28 years old) was their good two-way second line centre during their nice stretch last 2 or 3 seasons. Well, maybe Doug Wilson sees an era is ending and there is necessity to rebuild and compile younger talent. And Duchene, well at least he is only three years older than Galchenyuk but he played very unlike a #1 let alone a genuine #1 centre over last three seasons.

Second, I always ask where are we negotiating from. Everyone is hockey world knows that Bergevin does not have a good relationship with Galchenyuk (just like Poile and everyone knew the situation with Subban) and thus Bergevin will again be negotiating from a position of weakness. So even though objectively a few metrics would suggest that Montreal should not add much if anything (considering age, talent, and contracts) to a deal for any of these three guys. It would not surprise me at all that he would part with Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2018 #3 pick for Couture; Galchenyuk, Beaulieu and 2017 #1 pick for Giroux or Duchene.

I do not say these are as crazy as Houle trading Roy for three barely above average NHL players. But this just the kind of short-sighted, poor asset management deal that hurt an organisation if it is serious about winning. And these are kind of deals that leave the "lucky" next GM of Canadiens with increasingly dire balance sheet to reckon with.

Good post, folatre ...

Cheers.