Permanent Rumour Thread

[habs rule]

because if he dosen't leave MT will continue to use him instead of developing Galchenyuk at center.

And that would be because he is better at center than Chucky right now. Chucky has to prove to Le Genius that he can do it. It is the Le Genius way.

[hab29RETIRED]

It's the chicken, or the egg thing. Is chucky going to sudden become an NHL ready top line centre, without being able to go through the growing pains that are part of being a top line centre?

Is tinordi going to learn to adjust to playing against NHL speed in Hamilton? If he had played in Montreal, would he have made any more mistakes than Gilbert did?

And that would be because he is better at center than Chucky right now. Chucky has to prove to Le Genius that he can do it. It is the Le Genius way.

[habs rule]

It's the chicken, or the egg thing. Is chucky going to sudden become an NHL ready top line centre, without being able to go through the growing pains that are part of being a top line centre?

Is tinordi going to learn to adjust to playing against NHL speed in Hamilton? If he had played in Montreal, would he have made any more mistakes than Gilbert did?

hey I didn't say that I agreed with the coach's philosophy, and most people know I don't, I just said that is the way he does things. It is what will get him fired eventually. He is too damn stubborn to try a different tactic.

[Davehab]

hey I didn't say that I agreed with the coach's philosophy, and most people know I don't, I just said that is the way he does things. It is what will get him fired eventually. He is too damn stubborn to try a different tactic.

I dont think that Chucky is a good fit for the top line but I really think that he can pull off 2nd line Center duties, especially with better wingers. the best chance he has at that is if Desharnias is no longer with the team

[DON]

It's the chicken, or the egg thing. Is chucky going to sudden become an NHL ready top line centre, without being able to go through the growing pains that are part of being a top line centre?

Is tinordi going to learn to adjust to playing against NHL speed in Hamilton? If he had played in Montreal, would he have made any more mistakes than Gilbert did?

Tinordi played 13 games in NHL (and didnt star) this year then suffered couple injuries in AH, so what did they do wrong?

Same for Galchenyuk, was given role at centre and was getting pummelled every game, sucks on faceoffs, so just leave him there till concussion happens or let him add offense from wing as Pacioretty does?

I dont think that Chucky is a good fit for the top line but I really think that he can pull off 2nd line Center duties, especially with better wingers. the best chance he has at that is if Desharnias is no longer with the team

So to just get rid of 5th highest scorer on team to help boost 7th highest scorer; does that make sense?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

They tried Chucky at C and he basically sucked. They will probably do the same again this year, and if he sucks again this year, they will probably revert back to DD once more. Which won't be a bad move.

It's a basic philosophical difference and we're not going to settle it here, but count me among those who prefer that the player actually earn his spot by playing well, rather than having it unconditionally handed to them irrespective of performance.

[hab29RETIRED]

Gilbert played 72 games and didn't star - in fact he sucked and got hurt. I'd rather have further developed Tinordi in the NHL, where he could learn from his mistakes, as opposed to having Gilbert continue making the mistakes he has been making for over over 10 years. I'd also rather have Tinordi in the NHL playing hockey, rather than have him fighting goons in the minors.

Tinordi played 13 games in NHL (and didnt star) this year then suffered couple injuries in AH, so what did they do wrong?

Same for Galchenyuk, was given role at centre and was getting pummelled every game, sucks on faceoffs, so just leave him there till concussion happens or let him add offense from wing as Pacioretty does?

So to just get rid of 5th highest scorer on team to help boost 7th highest scorer; does that make sense?

They tried Chucky at C and he basically sucked. They will probably do the same again this year, and if he sucks again this year, they will probably revert back to DD once more. Which won't be a bad move.

It's a basic philosophical difference and we're not going to settle it here, but count me among those who prefer that the player actually earn his spot by playing well, rather than having it unconditionally handed to them irrespective of performance.

Galchenyuk isn't going to ever become an NHL centre playing wing.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

They tried Chucky at C and he basically sucked. They will probably do the same again this year, and if he sucks again this year, they will probably revert back to DD once more. Which won't be a bad move.

It's a basic philosophical difference and we're not going to settle it here, but count me among those who prefer that the player actually earn his spot by playing well, rather than having it unconditionally handed to them irrespective of performance.

Sucked is a strong word. He looked great at first and Pacioretty and Gallagher looked great with him, but as games worn on he lost a step. The team also fell apart behind Price (this was a stretch where Price was playing insane in early January), we lost two straight and Therrien shuffled Plekanec to the top line to get something going. We scored three powerplay goals against the Blue Jackets and Therrien kept Plekanec and Pacioretty together for most of the rest of the season, save for a few games of trying Desharnais there. It started on the Beliveau tribute night on December 9 and ended around January 14. Chuck had four goals (three in a hat trick game) and six assists in 13 games. Eight of the 12 games his faceoff percentage was over 50%. He was still playing centre when we played Ottawa and lost 4-1 and he went an abysmal 0-6 before getting moved to the wing.

He should have received another shot on the top line but Therrien decided that Patches and Plek had too much chemistry to break up, and that's probably the right call. Maybe he wasn't right for top line duties but even if we agree with that, the club could go with:

Pacioretty - Plekanec - Gallagher

Semin - Galchenyuk - Kassian

Desharnais - Eller - Weise

De La Rose - Mitchell - Smith-Pelly

That way he gets favourable matchups at home and on the road, teams focus more on the top line to still give him secondary defensive shutdown lines. Either way, we know DD's ceiling and Eller's looks pretty clear too. Galchenyuk should probably get half a season to show whether he's right for the middle of the ice or if he's gonna solidify us as having the best LW pair in the game. Either way, he should be tried down the middle in exhibition and if Bergevin trades DD or Eller, that'll force Therrien's hand.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Sucked is a strong word. He looked great at first and Pacioretty and Gallagher looked great with him, but as games worn on he lost a step. The team also fell apart behind Price (this was a stretch where Price was playing insane in early January), we lost two straight and Therrien shuffled Plekanec to the top line to get something going. We scored three powerplay goals against the Blue Jackets and Therrien kept Plekanec and Pacioretty together for most of the rest of the season, save for a few games of trying Desharnais there. It started on the Beliveau tribute night on December 9 and ended around January 14. Chuck had four goals (three in a hat trick game) and six assists in 13 games. Eight of the 12 games his faceoff percentage was over 50%. He was still playing centre when we played Ottawa and lost 4-1 and he went an abysmal 0-6 before getting moved to the wing.

He should have received another shot on the top line but Therrien decided that Patches and Plek had too much chemistry to break up, and that's probably the right call. Maybe he wasn't right for top line duties but even if we agree with that, the club could go with:

Pacioretty - Plekanec - Gallagher

Semin - Galchenyuk - Kassian

Desharnais - Eller - Weise

De La Rose - Mitchell - Smith-Pelly

That way he gets favourable matchups at home and on the road, teams focus more on the top line to still give him secondary defensive shutdown lines. Either way, we know DD's ceiling and Eller's looks pretty clear too. Galchenyuk should probably get half a season to show whether he's right for the middle of the ice or if he's gonna solidify us as having the best LW pair in the game. Either way, he should be tried down the middle in exhibition and if Bergevin trades DD or Eller, that'll force Therrien's hand.

Good analysis for sure. I too want Galy to succeed at C, but I don't think it's a given that he will - and certainly I'm not keen on trading a serviceable C (DD) without some sort of grounds for confidence that Galchenyuk is ready to do it (if he ever will be). No question, though, GMs *do* trade players now and then in order to 'force a coach's hand,' as you say, and if MB really thinks Galy is equipped to succeed as an NHL C and is being held back by Therrien, then I wouldn't be surprised to see him pull the trigger. My own preference would be that Galchenyuk forces Therrien's hand, however - by making a strong case from day one of camp that he is ready to be an effective offensive C.

[Davehab]

So to just get rid of 5th highest scorer on team to help boost 7th highest scorer; does that make sense?

Its not a question of who scores more points right now that will determine this decision.

As MB is fond of saying "its all about balance".....and right now we have too many NHL caliber center men and not one of them is a first line center. The only one with any potential to reach that status is Galchenyuk.

you have to ask some questions

1. Can a trade be made to make the team better with one of the other centers we have?
2. Will Galchenyuk develop into the center we need if playing on the wing?
3. Who is the most expendable?

if there is a team out there right now that is willing to give up a good but not great prospect or a 2nd round pick for Desharnais you make the deal, simply because you may never have that opportunity again. I'm not bashing him, I like him as a player but on this team he is expendable, we have lots of younger players in St.Johns that will be able to contribute for a fraction of his cost.

plus how sweet would this lineup be

Patches-Pleks-Gallagher

Semin-Galchenyuk-Kassian (if this works it could be great)

DSP-Eller-Larose

Plug-Plug-Weiss

Hudon, McCarron, Sherbak, and Carr get the injury call ups

[DON]

Again I say, simply because Habs need a big #1 centre, shouldn't mean you force Galchenyuk into that role.

And you know he will be given the opportunity at centre at some point this year, dosent mean you should let him struggle for a long stretch no matter what.

He is improving and contributing at wing; if never plays at centre again and scores 30-35goals on the wing, does that mean he is a bust or less important.

No one would even consider thinking that of Pacioretty and consider him the stud of the forward group, why so fixated on moving him to a much tougher position, matching up vs the Toews/Getzlaf's of the league.

Is not like the Habs arnt winning with the centres they presently have. But typical for HabFans, finishing #2 in NHL seems quite meaningless with no cup win.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Again I say, simply because Habs need a big #1 centre, shouldn't mean you force Galchenyuk into that role.

And you know he will be given the opportunity at centre at some point this year, dosent mean you should let him struggle for a long stretch no matter what.

He is improving and contributing at wing; if never plays at centre again and scores 30-35goals on the wing, does that mean he is a bust or less important.

No one would even consider thinking that of Pacioretty and consider him the stud of the forward group, why so fixated on moving him to a much tougher position, matching up vs the Toews/Getzlaf's of the league.

Is not like the Habs arnt winning with the centres they presently have. But typical for HabFans, finishing #2 in NHL seems quite meaningless with no cup win.

The question that none of these "trade DD" people are asking is: what if Galchenyuk is not ready to become an impact NHL centreman? What if he is never ready to become an NHL centreman? What if he is better suited to play W at this level?

I'll trust whatever Bergevin decides to do on this file. But certainly in watching Galy, I don't see a guy whose game screams 'centreman.' He has a huge tendency to default to the individual play and pointlessly try to deke out the whole team. Seems to me that C work best when they use their linemates, see the whole ice, etc.. (Indeed, many of us have criticized Plekanec for his failure to do this over the years; but Pleks has a strong two-way game that Galchenyuk understandably lacks).

Now, this isn't to say that he will never become an impact C. What I'm saying is basically what Bergy said at the season-ending press conference: there's legitimate grounds for doubt.

The ideology of some on this board seems to be that if you deploy a player to be X, he will automatically become X. So we still hear complaining that Tinordi, who patently was NOT ready from prime-time last season, was sent down; as though if we just threw him in the NHL he would automatically become a successful NHLer. Similarly, if he just throw Galchenyuk to C, he will automatically become the stud #1 C we all crave. Once you reject the logic, the whole argument falls apart.

[JoeLassister]

You want X so you draft a player.

Then you play him Y because you feel he is not ready to be X.

Now, at some point, YES, please deploy a player to be X in order for him to be X one day.

You don't become automaticaly a successful X by being a Y all the time.

I totaly refuse to accept the concept that a player will go from shaky to stud without playing his position (Galchenyuk) or facing adequate opposition (Tinordi).

It takes time and if you want the potential X that you drafted to become that X, then you play him like a future X in the making, not like a "could one day possibly be a" future X.

[habs rule]

You want X so you draft a player.

Then you play him Y because you feel he is not ready to be X.

Now, at some point, YES, please deploy a player to be X in order for him to be X one day.

You don't become automaticaly a successful X by being a Y all the time.

I totaly refuse to accept the concept that a player will go from shaky to stud without playing his position (Galchenyuk) or facing adequate opposition (Tinordi).

It takes time and if you want the potential X that you drafted to become that X, then you play him like a future X in the making, not like a "could one day possibly be a" future X.

This I agree with. As habs 29 says , how is he going to learn to play center if he plays wing? Yes he has to earn it but you have to give him the "opportunity " to do so. I don't think there is any question about his work ethic, so how does he earn it? Maybe he should have spent some time in Hamilton learning to play center but that is water under the bridge now. Le Genius needs to give him a shot. More than 10 games. Make him the center for the first 1/2 if he can't cut it then back to wing. And go get a real centerman. I am not in the trade DD at all costs camp, I think he has value, and should remain here during the Chucky experiment. If Chuck can't do it then we can fall back on DD. He can play wing so that is not a problem. But eventually yes I would like an upgrade on wee Davie.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I have been suggesting moving Desharnais to third line left wing. If Galchenyuk can't pull it off, you have options.

He has yet to shave off his playoff beard. I like that.

[habs rule]

He has yet to shave off his playoff beard. I like that.

He is waiting for the new contract so he can afford some new blades. I hear he wanted MB to throw some in but that is just a nonstarter.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This I agree with. As habs 29 says , how is he going to learn to play center if he plays wing? Yes he has to earn it but you have to give him the "opportunity " to do so. I don't think there is any question about his work ethic, so how does he earn it? Maybe he should have spent some time in Hamilton learning to play center but that is water under the bridge now. Le Genius needs to give him a shot. More than 10 games. Make him the center for the first 1/2 if he can't cut it then back to wing. And go get a real centerman. I am not in the trade DD at all costs camp, I think he has value, and should remain here during the Chucky experiment. If Chuck can't do it then we can fall back on DD. He can play wing so that is not a problem. But eventually yes I would like an upgrade on wee Davie.

Certainly Chucky should get a serious look at C. No doubt about that. 40 games seems quite extravagant if the kid keeps struggling, though. 15 games seems a fair litmus test in my book; the key being that he'd have to show enough in those 15 games to warrant another 15. That sort of thing.

The flaw in Joe's argument is the assumption that if you draft a player to be X, then it is written in the stars for all time that he is destined to become X. I can say that we drafted Galchenyuk to be a PPG all-star player. It doesn't follow that he will become that. I can say that we drafted Komisarek to be a league-feared shutdown defenceman. It doesn't follow that he will become that either. You have to look at the player you ACTUALLY have once he's in the NHL. But again, many fans here have this magical thinking that if we just throw a Tinordi out there for 25 minutes a night, he will automatically become a 25 minute per night defenceman. I don't see it myself.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Certainly Chucky should get a serious look at C. No doubt about that. 40 games seems quite extravagant if the kid keeps struggling, though. 15 games seems a fair litmus test in my book; the key being that he'd have to show enough in those 15 games to warrant another 15. That sort of thing.

The flaw in Joe's argument is the assumption that if you draft a player to be X, then it is written in the stars for all time that he is destined to become X. I can say that we drafted Galchenyuk to be a PPG all-star player. It doesn't follow that he will become that. I can say that we drafted Komisarek to be a league-feared shutdown defenceman. It doesn't follow that he will become that either. You have to look at the player you ACTUALLY have once he's in the NHL. But again, many fans here have this magical thinking that if we just throw a Tinordi out there for 25 minutes a night, he will automatically become a 25 minute per night defenceman. I don't see it myself.

If you think about it, Carbonneau did just that with Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Komisarek. They got top line time pretty early in their careers. Komisarek got slotted with Markov and it hid all of his defensive inabilities so once he left Montreal, he ended up exposed as the guy Markov carried to success. Plek looked great, then bad, then held himself up. Kostitsyn had one great rookie year on the top line and has never surpassed it.

Sometimes throwing a player to the fire can lead to that player excelling. Other times, they can't take the heat. Or, they look like they are a success when in reality other players are making them look good (this is why Bozak and Zajac are paid a ton of money over their actual skillset) and you end up overpaying for a player that can't support themselves.

I think that's why Therrien has been patient with Galchenyuk. He wants him able to play top lines and put in his own contribution before gifting him the top centre spot. I do feel, however, placing him on the second line at centre for the whole season, through ups and downs, is a good idea. We have the wingers to support him. He wouldn't play top competition until ready. If he's absolutely awful and going 0 for at the dot, we can move him back to the wing. His career has been a good progression to do so:

12-13: Top Nine LW

13-14: Top Nine LW into a Top Six LW

14-15: Top Six LW with 15 games at C

15-16: Top Six C

We're in a situation where we have been working three centres. One is a defensively responsible centre capable of 60 points on the top line with one year left in his deal. Another is an offensive sparker capable of 60 points but more likely in between 40-50 and disappears in the playoffs. The third is a defensive forward assumed to be better than his constant 30 points per season performances who falls apart in the top six. It's time for something to change, and we don't have to trade for it.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

If you think about it, Carbonneau did just that with Plekanec, Kostitsyn and Komisarek. They got top line time pretty early in their careers. Komisarek got slotted with Markov and it hid all of his defensive inabilities so once he left Montreal, he ended up exposed as the guy Markov carried to success. Plek looked great, then bad, then held himself up. Kostitsyn had one great rookie year on the top line and has never surpassed it.

Sometimes throwing a player to the fire can lead to that player excelling. Other times, they can't take the heat. Or, they look like they are a success when in reality other players are making them look good (this is why Bozak and Zajac are paid a ton of money over their actual skillset) and you end up overpaying for a player that can't support themselves.

I think that's why Therrien has been patient with Galchenyuk. He wants him able to play top lines and put in his own contribution before gifting him the top centre spot. I do feel, however, placing him on the second line at centre for the whole season, through ups and downs, is a good idea. We have the wingers to support him. He wouldn't play top competition until ready. If he's absolutely awful and going 0 for at the dot, we can move him back to the wing. His career has been a good progression to do so:

12-13: Top Nine LW

13-14: Top Nine LW into a Top Six LW

14-15: Top Six LW with 15 games at C

15-16: Top Six C

We're in a situation where we have been working three centres. One is a defensively responsible centre capable of 60 points on the top line with one year left in his deal. Another is an offensive sparker capable of 60 points but more likely in between 40-50 and disappears in the playoffs. The third is a defensive forward assumed to be better than his constant 30 points per season performances who falls apart in the top six. It's time for something to change, and we don't have to trade for it.

Yep, I wouldn't dispute most of that. Throwing a young player into the fire sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't; all I'm rejecting is the logic that maintains religiously that it will automatically work for every single young player that fans on this board hug close to their breast. I agree with letting Galy go through some 'ups and downs,' but if the downs are getting out of hand, then it becomes in the interest of all concerned to move him off C, at least for a while.

Carbo and the '07 team is an interesting case; but what I'll say is that handing everything to those kids probably didn't turn out to be the best idea, given how the dressing room melted down eventually. The danger of entitlement, especially in Montreal where these guys are treated like gods every time they leave the house, is arguably part of what is informing MT's approach of insisting that you earn it.

And this gets to what I think is a key point: I have a higher degree of trust in the player-development acumen of our current managerial/coaching staff than many people hereabouts seem to. If you think Therrien has an irrational man-crush on Desharnais, and has also made it his mission in life to hold back every young player we have just for the hell of it, then you're going to be a LOT more agitated than I am. (By contrast, the gradual overall progression you document in Galchenyuk seems to me to be a reason to trust, rather than mistrust, MT's general handling of the file).

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The DD/Therrien stuff is so confusing after last season. Desharnais hardly played with Pacioretty after March aside playing with him in spurts on PP. They played maybe two games together in the playoffs when things were going badly for us? Heck Therrien even re-united the EGG line in the playoffs to get anything going. His point versus Tampa was assisted by Chuck. His two assists versus Ottawa were on a Pacioretty PP goal and a Subban goal also assisted by Smith-Pelly with PAP on the ice.

DD points and linemates

April regular season: PAP and Smith-Pelly

March: PP with Pacioretty, Chuck-PAP on some points, Chuck-Weise, only two points with Pacioretty at ES (early in month)

February: Patches and Gally and Patches and Weise, early month with Galchenyuk-Weise and Prust-Weise

January: Commonly with Galchenyuk

December: Got a goal as a LW against the Islanders. Commonly with Galchenyuk when Chuck wasn't with Plekanec. Prior to that was the Patches/DD/Gally line.

I see just as many points centering Patches in 2015 as I do centering Galchenyuk. Either way he had a strong LW by his side for most of his points. Looking at the games, Therrien lost confidence in DD/Patches together to produce at even strength but still considered them a good duo on the powerplay. This idea of Patches and DD being attached at the hip is pretty much over.

[JoeLassister]

Where I disagree with your argumentation CC, and I always were in disagreement with this, is the approach to take with a bluechip prospect.

I respect your opinion about how a player should earn his spot, but I totally disagree that every player start on the same starting line.

IMO, it is not because Smith-Pelly or Weise or any low-ceiling player (or old veteran that reached his ceiling long ago, ie Desharnais) gets more points than Galchenyuk today on 1st line that Galchenyuk has to produce more than these guy to surpass them and play on the 1st line.

This approach, IMO, only serves the short term, and this is not how I want the Habs to manage their team.

___

You seem to assume that I (many) believe that a player will go straight from his rookie level to a total stud when you give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

Of course I don't believe that.

But what I firmly believe though, is that you won't get that stud if you don't give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

You don't build a 1st line/pair player without giving him 1st line/pair duty. Stints don't count IMO. A player just don't turn ultra good overnight (unless he's a Crosby-Ovechkin-Tavares-Stamkos)

Sure, the guy might suck for a bit, maybe even for a long stretch. But in the end, more the player has a high potential, more the chances that he will reach this potential are great.

Keeping a bluechip prospect like Galchenyuk on the 2nd line will never make him a 1st line player.

IMO, you don't play him on the 1st line only when he dominates on the 2nd line, in the NHL, it will never happen.

You play him on the 1st line whenever he starts showing great flashes on the 2nd line game in and game out.

And that, I've seen it from Galchenyuk many times last season. But we kept prefering him Plekanec or Desharnais.

Sure, we won games. But in the end, what did we really win?

[KoRP]

Where I disagree with your argumentation CC, and I always were in disagreement with this, is the approach to take with a bluechip prospect.

I respect your opinion about how a player should earn his spot, but I totally disagree that every player start on the same starting line.

IMO, it is not because Smith-Pelly or Weise or any low-ceiling player (or old veteran that reached his ceiling long ago, ie Desharnais) gets more points than Galchenyuk today on 1st line that Galchenyuk has to produce more than these guy to surpass them and play on the 1st line.

This approach, IMO, only serves the short term, and this is not how I want the Habs to manage their team.

___

You seem to assume that I (many) believe that a player will go straight from his rookie level to a total stud when you give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

Of course I don't believe that.

But what I firmly believe though, is that you won't get that stud if you don't give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

You don't build a 1st line/pair player without giving him 1st line/pair duty. Stints don't count IMO. A player just don't turn ultra good overnight (unless he's a Crosby-Ovechkin-Tavares-Stamkos)

Sure, the guy might suck for a bit, maybe even for a long stretch. But in the end, more the player has a high potential, more the chances that he will reach this potential are great.

Keeping a bluechip prospect like Galchenyuk on the 2nd line will never make him a 1st line player.

IMO, you don't play him on the 1st line only when he dominates on the 2nd line, in the NHL, it will never happen.

You play him on the 1st line whenever he starts showing great flashes on the 2nd line game in and game out.

And that, I've seen it from Galchenyuk many times last season. But we kept prefering him Plekanec or Desharnais.

Sure, we won games. But in the end, what did we really win?

Great analysis and post!

[Machine of Loving Grace]

You play him on the second line until he turns the second line into the first line because he's on it.

[habs rule]

Where I disagree with your argumentation CC, and I always were in disagreement with this, is the approach to take with a bluechip prospect.

I respect your opinion about how a player should earn his spot, but I totally disagree that every player start on the same starting line.

IMO, it is not because Smith-Pelly or Weise or any low-ceiling player (or old veteran that reached his ceiling long ago, ie Desharnais) gets more points than Galchenyuk today on 1st line that Galchenyuk has to produce more than these guy to surpass them and play on the 1st line.

This approach, IMO, only serves the short term, and this is not how I want the Habs to manage their team.

___

You seem to assume that I (many) believe that a player will go straight from his rookie level to a total stud when you give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

Of course I don't believe that.

But what I firmly believe though, is that you won't get that stud if you don't give him prime minutes or prime opposition.

You don't build a 1st line/pair player without giving him 1st line/pair duty. Stints don't count IMO. A player just don't turn ultra good overnight (unless he's a Crosby-Ovechkin-Tavares-Stamkos)

Sure, the guy might suck for a bit, maybe even for a long stretch. But in the end, more the player has a high potential, more the chances that he will reach this potential are great.

Keeping a bluechip prospect like Galchenyuk on the 2nd line will never make him a 1st line player.

IMO, you don't play him on the 1st line only when he dominates on the 2nd line, in the NHL, it will never happen.

You play him on the 1st line whenever he starts showing great flashes on the 2nd line game in and game out.

And that, I've seen it from Galchenyuk many times last season. But we kept prefering him Plekanec or Desharnais.

Sure, we won games. But in the end, what did we really win?

Yeah CC I

You play him on the second line until he turns the second line into the first line because he's on it.

I like that!

got to go with Joe on this one. I think he has nailed it from my point of view.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

You play him on the second line until he turns the second line into the first line because he's on it.

Nice! I love this scenario.

Now then. Since I am NOT saying 'don't play Galy at C,' all we're really arguing about is gradually easing a player in, versus throwing him into the deep end no matter what happens or how he performs. The whole 'he won't learn unless he does it' argument is somewhat beside the point, since the first question is simply whether he should go from 0 to 100, or whether he should gradually amp it up - assuming he has it in him.

And to this I'd add an awareness of the possibility that a player we hoped would be X (a 'stud' C or whatever) may not turn out to be that no matter how much we wish it were otherwise. That's the second question. It is possible that Galchenyuk won't turn out to be our fantasy Big #1 All Star C. It is possible that he will be better as a W for his entire career. Labelling him 'blue chip' makes no difference to the reality, whatever it may turn out to be.