Jump to content
Fanpuck33

Permanent Rumour Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think Gallagher is probably looking with an annual salary starting with a seven - most likely around $7.5m. I’m also betting he is looking for Max term.  I really would not give him anymore than 5 years at the most (depending on salary), but would prefer 4 years ...

 

My numbers were only intended to illustrate my point about the choice I believe he will have to make between term and money ... but while I agree BG may want $7.5 there is no way I see that he can get that from the Habs or on the market ... unless it is for one year as a UFA (doesn't likely fit the Habs cap ... unless he spikes his goals to nearer 40).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas looking to dump salary ... Hockey30 suggested the possibility of Gallagher for Marchessault? ... Habs add $1.25M and acquire another RH-shot who is listed as a LW/RW ... JM signed for 4 yrs @ $5M, likely less than what it will take to re-sign BG ... if he would agree to the trade, Reilly Smith might be another option (2yrs@$5M) ... given they are looking to move $$$ and getting a slighter better player (IMO) I would expect VGK also have to kick-in a little extra 

 

Would ONLY consider this if the BG talks seem seriously poisoned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Vegas looking to dump salary ... Hockey30 suggested the possibility of Gallagher for Marchessault? ... Habs add $1.25M and acquire another RH-shot who is listed as a LW/RW ... JM signed for 4 yrs @ $5M, likely less than what it will take to re-sign BG ... if he would agree to the trade, Reilly Smith might be another option (2yrs@$5M) ... given they are looking to move $$$ and getting a slighter better player (IMO) I would expect VGK also have to kick-in a little extra 

 

Would ONLY consider this if the BG talks seem seriously poisoned.

Nothing will happen this year with contract talks. Next year if he's not resigned I can see them trading him by the trade deadline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan Gallagher will be 29 when his contract expires. There will be a lot of miles on his body by then. If he is looking for 6 years or more in his contract then I think he is being unrealistic. It was his decision to sign a 6 year contract 5 years ago, it turned out great for the Habs but it could have gone the other way if Gallagher ended up being just a 4th line energy guy scoring 12-15 goals a year.  There is risk on both sides when a long term contract is signed. What makes Gallagher such a great player is his heart and determination, those same qualities will make him a tough negotiator for his next contract.  I think 5 years at around 6.5 - 7 million a year is the highest MB can go. I hope they work it out as I love Gallagher as a Hab but I am not optimistic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Everyone loves Gallagher and we all want him to be signed but would anyone here be good with an 8 year contract? At 7.5 million no less?

 

I love him but if he thinks he is worth almost what Pietrangelo got then he is crazy. Based on the contracts that we have seen over the last week then Gallagher has no hope of getting anywhere near that even on the open market.

 

Either money or term needs to be drastically reduced or we should trade him

I don’t want him for 8 years.

 

the last 2 or 3 years of price and Weber ‘a contracts could be ugly.  The last year of Petry may be ugly -how many guys can you sign long term into their late 30’s and still be able to pay your young guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

He can point all he wants, that's not a good comparison. Skinner has four equal/better years the Gallagher in points, and three in goals. He was coming off a 40 goal season and the market was totally different. There's a big difference in money between a 30 goal scorer and a 40 goal scorer.

Skinner has had 1 49 goal year - his UFA years, otherwise he’s flipped feom

being a 30 something to 20 something for the most of his career and has dipped below that as well. Last 2 years Gallagher’s put up 30. Not saying I’d give him Skinner, money and definitely wouldn’t give him Skinner term. But that’s what he’ll be looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Skinner has had 1 49 goal year - his UFA years, otherwise he’s flipped feom

being a 30 something to 20 something for the most of his career and has dipped below that as well. Last 2 years Gallagher’s put up 30. Not saying I’d give him Skinner, money and definitely wouldn’t give him Skinner term. But that’s what he’ll be looking for.

 

If that's the type of money he wants, he's not signing with anyone.  Skinner's deal is an extreme outlier for players with that production.  There are more (and frankly better) comparable players in the $6.5M to $7M range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Skinner has had 1 40 goal year - his UFA years, otherwise he’s flipped feom

being a 30 something to 20 something for the most of his career and has dipped below that as well. Last 2 years Gallagher’s put up 30. Not saying I’d give him Skinner, money and definitely wouldn’t give him Skinner term. But that’s what he’ll be looking for.

 

Gallagher's been in the league for 8 years and never topped 33 goals or 55 points. That's a career that warrants a good deal, but not a mega deal. He's unlikely to get much over 6 million a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all keep saying that Gallagher is going to break down. 

 

Why?

 

Fleury was small, played that style and had a long career. Same with Pat Verbeek. 

 

I see the bigger power forwards as the ones who have broken down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Commandant said:

We all keep saying that Gallagher is going to break down. 

 

Why?

 

Fleury was small, played that style and had a long career. Same with Pat Verbeek. 

 

I see the bigger power forwards as the ones who have broken down. 

I don't think he'll break down. Just think if he's asking for over 7mil a year Bergevin won't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Commandant said:

We all keep saying that Gallagher is going to break down. 

 

Why?

 

Fleury was small, played that style and had a long career. Same with Pat Verbeek. 

 

I see the bigger power forwards as the ones who have broken down. 

 

I don't think we "all" keep saying that. But, yes, many people are saying that having him under contract until age 37 is very risky. I'd say the same for Anderson and Toffoli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomh009 said:

 

I don't think we "all" keep saying that. But, yes, many people are saying that having him under contract until age 37 is very risky. I'd say the same for Anderson and Toffoli.

 

Im not saying 8 year deal, but I'd give him 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six years would take him to 35. Less risk, but still pretty long. Of course it also depends on what kind of AAV we'd be dealing with.

 

The worst-case scenario is that we can't agree on a deal with him and he walks next summer, for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8-7-or 6yrs is fine by me for Gallagher.

How much will he want/get?  $6 to 7m/yr? 8yr@6m 6yr@7m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as the Habs got Anderson I figured Gally was likely expendable and on his way out. 

 

12 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The worst-case scenario is that we can't agree on a deal with him and he walks next summer, for nothing.

 

I'm now worried that the worst case scenario might have just happened.  i.e. disgruntled player that didn't get the contract they wanted and it becomes a huge distraction in their final year with the team. 

 

I hated how Gainey wouldnt do contract talks if a player still had time on his contract.  However, when its a real negotiation like with Gally, it is better idea to not  have any talks before the last year of the existing contract. 

 

Petry was totally different, because he's older, he has made more money, really wanted to be there, and probably said something to MB so it was a quick easy resign.  It's known that Gally would want a big raise and a long term that would have to be hammered out.  

 

On a similar note, Toffoli likely replaces Tatar.  Thats basically how I view those 2 deals.  i.e. MB has already replaced 2 players that will be UFAs next year with bigger and cheaper guys that can put up similar numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched TSN and Dreger and Seravalli think Gally could be moved.. also mentioned Montreal might be interested in Hoffman.

 

I wonder what the return could be for #11.

Not that I want him traded.. just curious. 
 

Maybe a trade similar to Pacs where we get a prospect and a pick. (Vancouver would be interested - could we get Podkolzin and a pick? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DON said:

8-7-or 6yrs is fine by me for Gallagher.

How much will he want/get?  $6 to 7m/yr? 8yr@6m 6yr@7m?

 

I just think 8 years is just  too much,  betting on Gallagher to be productive at age 37 is high risk in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 6 year deal is fair for both parties (a bit more than the Habs want and a bit less than Gallagher wants I'm sure).

 

What $ value though? $6 million per year?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say Danault and Tatar is gone as UFAs/deadline traded. If that enough capspace to resign prospects + Gally? What about Allen? New backup or resign him cheaper?

 

Feels like there is risk of us losing one whole line in Tatar Danault Gally to UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read about this Gallagher/cap problem, the more I wish we didn’t sign Edmunson. Kulak would have been just fine there and we’d have an extra 3+ mill to play with.

 

Its not that I think Edmunson will be bad, I just think he creates a bigger problem than he solves 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

image.png

 

What does Vancouver have that would entice us?

As far as roster players that would fit under the cap (which the Habs are already over by a little less than 500K) goes, I don't see much that Vancouver would likely be willing to part with.  Podkolzin is probably the only prospect that I would be remotely interested in, but I would want Bergevin to try and replace Gallagher on the roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

image.png

 

What does Vancouver have that would entice us?


Juolevi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:


Juolevi?

Just say NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much space does Edmonton have? Puljujarvi and Bouchard? Or Puljujarvi and Broberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...