David Desharnais extended, 4 years, $3.5 mil cap hit

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The thing about Galchenyuk is I believe he can play against men at center and I believe he won't stunt his player growth against harder competition at center. That said, he posted a 42.8% FO in 138 tries in the season and a 36.4% FO in 22 tries in the playoffs. Way too low. That might be acceptable for Edmonton, where Sam Gagner is a 44% faceoff guy but not for a team like Montreal. Plekanec impressed with a 56% rating in the playoffs, better than his 50.6% rating in the season. That's fine for a second line center but not a first. Same goes with Desharnais' 50% and Lars Eller's 49.3% in the season.

You have to be trending closer to 55% (in other words, averaging 52-55%) if you want to be a permanent top six center on the team (Koivu always hovered around or close to 55%). The last two guys to be top six and better than 55%? Trevor Linden and Yanic Perreault.

That's why teams like Toronto are hesitant to give Kadri the number one center distinction, or Buffalo with Hodgson. Boston is so confident with Bergeron and Krejci because Bergeron is the best faceoff man by far in the NHL and Krejci is Top 20. Plekanec just makes the Top 40 while DD and Eller just make the Top 50. If Eller and Galchenyuk want to be our future top centers they have to get better at the dot. We can't keep picking up fourth line faceoff specialists on waivers.

[JoeLassister]

The thing about Galchenyuk is I believe he can play against men at center and I believe he won't stunt his player growth against harder competition at center. That said, he posted a 42.8% FO in 138 tries in the season and a 36.4% FO in 22 tries in the playoffs. Way too low. That might be acceptable for Edmonton, where Sam Gagner is a 44% faceoff guy but not for a team like Montreal. Plekanec impressed with a 56% rating in the playoffs, better than his 50.6% rating in the season. That's fine for a second line center but not a first. Same goes with Desharnais' 50% and Lars Eller's 49.3% in the season.

You have to be trending closer to 55% (in other words, averaging 52-55%) if you want to be a permanent top six center on the team (Koivu always hovered around or close to 55%). The last two guys to be top six and better than 55%? Trevor Linden and Yanic Perreault.

That's why teams like Toronto are hesitant to give Kadri the number one center distinction, or Buffalo with Hodgson. Boston is so confident with Bergeron and Krejci because Bergeron is the best faceoff man by far in the NHL and Krejci is Top 20. Plekanec just makes the Top 40 while DD and Eller just make the Top 50. If Eller and Galchenyuk want to be our future top centers they have to get better at the dot. We can't keep picking up fourth line faceoff specialists on waivers.

I seriously don't give a about faceoffs %. Malkin's last 4 seasons % is around 43% (yes, he even ended one with 38% in the circle). Henrik Sedin had 3 of the last 4 seasons under 50% as well.

Faceoffs % is the most overrated stat in this game. I'd take a 20% faceoffs guy who ends the season with big take away stats + many points over a 57 FO% guy with only decent points.

[JoeLassister]

Fourthly.... Galchenyuk is 19. Yes he has to be transitioned to centre, but that doesn't mean it has to happen overnight..... Claude Giroux was playing wing at 22.

Did you just compare M. Richards, Jeff Carter and/or 2009 Daniel Brière to Desharnais ?!?!?

[Neech]

I seriously don't give a ###### about faceoffs %. Malkin's last 4 seasons % is around 43% (yes, he even ended one with 38% in the circle). Henrik Sedin had 3 of the last 4 seasons under 50% as well.

Faceoffs % is the most overrated stat in this game. I'd take a 20% faceoffs guy who ends the season with big take away stats + many points over a 57 FO% guy with only decent points.

Agreed. It's just one of many stats you can look at - sure, it's nice, but it's certainly not a prerequisite to being a top 6 centre. And the difference between a 50% and a 52% faceoff guy is minimal in the scheme of things - that's one win every game or two. It's ridiculous to think that that's what separates the wheat from the chaff.

I think it's more important for a bottom 6 guy to win faceoffs. The purpose of those lines is to defend and eat ice, so you want them gaining possession. (Of course you want your top lines to do so as well, but if they're racking up points like Malkin or Sedin then it's not a big concern).

[BlueKross]

'Untradeable' is overstated, but fair to say the return on him would probably be pretty modest. That's a different matter, however. This deal is not a cap millstone, and as for the idea that we'll have to move some players eventually in order to stay under the cap - probably. But that's what real cap management is, not systematically underpaying all your players (which is impossible anyway).

I think you have defined it pretty close to the truth. Unless for some reason he gets moved, we may never know the answer. i would say this---- There will never be a huge demand for 5'6" mediocre (non-goalie)at any salary.

[Habsy]

I think you have defined it pretty close to the truth. Unless for some reason he gets moved, we may never know the answer. i would say this---- There will never be a huge demand for 5'6" mediocre (non-goalie)at any salary.

I think you both nailed it. Untradeable might be too strong a word, and not much demand, if any. We saw the same thing with Kaberle. Some so called experts said he'd never be traded. Then people bent over backwards with statistics to prove that was wrong, as though they didn't actually watch him play. We all know how that played out. DD certainly has more upside than Kaberle, but does anyone believe other GM's have inquired about him? No way of knowing of course. And the fantasy GM's on this site, would you trade for him? I'd guess not. He's here to stay, not sure why people are troubled by that. He has a wonderful chance to prove people wrong.

[Commandant]

I seriously don't give a ###### about faceoffs %. Malkin's last 4 seasons % is around 43% (yes, he even ended one with 38% in the circle). Henrik Sedin had 3 of the last 4 seasons under 50% as well.

Faceoffs % is the most overrated stat in this game. I'd take a 20% faceoffs guy who ends the season with big take away stats + many points over a 57 FO% guy with only decent points.

Agreed, the difference between Boston and the worst team in the NHL is ~6 faceoffs per game (based on percentages and how many faceoffs there are in a game).

I'm more worried about Galchenyuk being ready to take the defensive responsibility of a centre than his faceoff numbers. At 19 its something to ease into.

Did you just compare M. Richards, Jeff Carter and/or 2009 Daniel Brière to Desharnais ?!?!?

No, I said that a 19 year old can be eased into the role of centre and doesn't have to do it this year if he's not ready.

[JoeLassister]

No, I said that a 19 year old can be eased into the role of centre and doesn't have to do it this year if he's not ready.

Ok. But it has to be taken into account that Giroux, at the time, was behind 3 "big" names at C. Much bigger names than Plekanec, Desharnais and Eller.

[Commandant]

Regardless of who is or isn't in front of him, the goal should be to develop him correctly.

If that means baby steps....

1) first you play in the NHL

2) then you get top 6 minutes

3) then you move to centre when defensively ready.

Etc....

For a 19 year old, there is nothing wrong with that.

The goal is to make Galchenyuk into the superstar who leads this team, and the thing to avoid is giving him too much too soon.

[DON]

Agreed. It's just one of many stats you can look at - sure, it's nice, but it's certainly not a prerequisite to being a top 6 centre. And the difference between a 50% and a 52% faceoff guy is minimal in the scheme of things - that's one win every game or two. It's ridiculous to think that that's what separates the wheat from the chaff.

I think it's more important for a bottom 6 guy to win faceoffs. The purpose of those lines is to defend and eat ice, so you want them gaining possession. (Of course you want your top lines to do so as well, but if they're racking up points like Malkin or Sedin then it's not a big concern).

100% disagree, all top centres do well on faceoffs and is a big plus to be able to run Bergeron or Toews out there for every important faceoff is part reason both teams made the finals. And Habs failure on faceoffs killed em in playoffs. To be a top all round centre, yes you do need to be 50+%.

[JoeLassister]

100% disagree, all top centres do well on faceoffs and is a big plus to be able to run Bergeron or Toews out there for every important faceoff is part reason both teams made the finals. And Habs failure on faceoffs killed em in playoffs. To be a top all round centre, yes you do need to be 50+%.

Tell that to Evgeny Malkin then.

[DON]

Tell that to Evgeny Malkin then.

you mean the #5 faceoff and zero Penalty kill guy for Pitt? Maybe him even taking faceoffs was part of reason they didnt win cup, even when they had sold the farm for this playoff run and had a loaded offensive team?

[JoeLassister]

you mean the #5 faceoff and zero Penalty kill guy for Pitt? Maybe him even taking faceoffs was part of reason they didnt win cup, even when they had sold the farm for this playoff run and had a loaded offensive team?

Take Bergeron man. I'll give Malkin a shot to build my franchise around.

[hab29RETIRED]

you mean the #5 faceoff and zero Penalty kill guy for Pitt? Maybe him even taking faceoffs was part of reason they didnt win cup, even when they had sold the farm for this playoff run and had a loaded offensive team?

Malkin did win the conn smythe

[Machine of Loving Grace]

When the Penguins won the Cup in 2009, Malkin was fourth in faceoffs taken in the Cup run. Crosby and Staal took the majority of faceoffs on the team. As a matter of fact, Crosby and Staal were the top two faceoff men for the Penguins for years until they traded Jordan Staal. So last year, did Malkin take over Staal's spot? Nope. Now Brandon Sutter takes the second most faceoffs on the team because he's a 50% faceoff man unlike Malkin.

Malkin is quite protected in a lot of ways. Doesn't change the fact mind you he's an elite offensive player.

[JoeLassister]

I know all that. I just find it ridiculous to claim that Malkin isn't a top center in this league because his faceoffs percentage is 47% instead of 55%.

Same goes for Henrik Sedin.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I know all that. I just find it ridiculous to claim that Malkin isn't a top center in this league because his faceoffs percentage is 47% instead of 55%.

Same goes for Henrik Sedin.

I think both are top centers who have such extraordinary skills that they can be bad at faceoffs and still be top centers. That's called an exception to the rule. Henrik's inability to win a faceoff consistently has been a problem for the Canucks on many occasions in the past few years. I say past few years because he used to be a 50% centerman.

If Galchenyuk ends up a sub 50% centerman but wins Hart Trophies and Art Ross trophies, hey great I'll let it slide. We're not there yet. Until we get there, Galchenyuk should get better at the dot. My favourite player as a kid was Vinny Damphousse and he sucked at the dot because he was a natural left winger who transitioned to center at the half way point of his career. In hindsight he should have stayed on the wing and we should have kept Turgeon.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Draws are important...but let me be naive for a second. If a C is getting piles of points (and especially if his +/- is good), while having a mediocre faceoff %, then his weakness on the draw is obviously not hurting the team when he's on the ice. Right? If he is outscoring whoever he's up against, who cares whether he's at 48% or 52%?

So maybe there's something to be said for being old-school about it and just looking at how many damned points the guy puts on the board.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

So maybe there's something to be said for being old-school about it and just looking at how many damned points the guy puts on the board.

I absolutely agree in the right situation. Of course, you just said that in the David Desharnais thread.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I absolutely agree in the right situation. Of course, you just said that in the David Desharnais thread.

Well, the argument is harder to sustain as a player's limitations pile up. The point isn't to defend totally one-dimensional players.

You're right about Damphousse at C. It was nice experiment for a while, but to trade Turgeon to "make room" for Vinny and Saku down the middle was just typical of the addle-pated lunacy of the Houle years. The whole problem would have been solved by putting Vinny back at his natural position. For God's sake!!! Just thinking about it gets me upset...if anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.

[DON]

Malkin did win the conn smythe

I thought Kane did?

[JoeLassister]

I thought Kane did?

Both won it.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Well, the argument is harder to sustain as a player's limitations pile up. The point isn't to defend totally one-dimensional players.

You're right about Damphousse at C. It was nice experiment for a while, but to trade Turgeon to "make room" for Vinny and Saku down the middle was just typical of the addle-pated lunacy of the Houle years. The whole problem would have been solved by putting Vinny back at his natural position. For God's sake!!! Just thinking about it gets me upset...if anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.

While nothing beats the stupidity of the Roy trade, I consider the Turgeon trade to be number two. Even worse than the Gomez trade. With the Gomez trade Montreal gave up a UFA second line winger who was already downtrending, a Russian defenceman we had a bit of hope for to make the NHL and a first round pick defenceman who turned into a blue chip 25+ minute eater for a centerman we got one good season out of and then had to buy out down the road plus some scrubs attached (though I like Tom Pyatt and thought we dropped him too quick). Turgeon was giving up a first line forward who the coach was having issues with and giving up a solid hard working centerman (Craig Conroy) along with him and only getting back an overrated Shayne Corson who sure he had some good chemistry with Koivu but heck if they turned Damphousse back into a winger on Turgeon's line you would have been running Damphousse - Turgeon - Recchi / Rucinsky - Koivu - Bure which would have been excellent fire power in the East. Of course though, Houle traded Valeri Bure for BIG BODY JONAS HOGLUND and over the hill Zarley Zalapski.

There were other pieces in the Turgeon deal but the stupidity of it is just so enormous. We forced ourselves in a situation of need. Truth was in the late 90s Houle was obsessed with building a big, strong, oversized team back then. Dainus Zubrus, Jonas Hoglund, Trevor Linden, Shayne Corson, the team always having like six goons on the squad. Ugh.

*kicks a can*

[hankhab]

The fact is, a center can get by if he's not great at faceoffs, but it sure is an advantage to have one who is great on the draw. You can argue all day, but it sure is easier starting each play with the puck than scrambling to get it back. Especially in the playoffs, many games are decided by a last minute faceoff win.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

While nothing beats the stupidity of the Roy trade, I consider the Turgeon trade to be number two. Even worse than the Gomez trade. With the Gomez trade Montreal gave up a UFA second line winger who was already downtrending, a Russian defenceman we had a bit of hope for to make the NHL and a first round pick defenceman who turned into a blue chip 25+ minute eater for a centerman we got one good season out of and then had to buy out down the road plus some scrubs attached (though I like Tom Pyatt and thought we dropped him too quick). Turgeon was giving up a first line forward who the coach was having issues with and giving up a solid hard working centerman (Craig Conroy) along with him and only getting back an overrated Shayne Corson who sure he had some good chemistry with Koivu but heck if they turned Damphousse back into a winger on Turgeon's line you would have been running Damphousse - Turgeon - Recchi / Rucinsky - Koivu - Bure which would have been excellent fire power in the East. Of course though, Houle traded Valeri Bure for BIG BODY JONAS HOGLUND and over the hill Zarley Zalapski.

There were other pieces in the Turgeon deal but the stupidity of it is just so enormous. We forced ourselves in a situation of need. Truth was in the late 90s Houle was obsessed with building a big, strong, oversized team back then. Dainus Zubrus, Jonas Hoglund, Trevor Linden, Shayne Corson, the team always having like six goons on the squad. Ugh.

*kicks a can*

Craig Conroy...another one of Houle's lunatic "throw ins," e.g., Mike Keane (as if Roy wasn't enough). Conroy, Bure, Tucker, Never has so much young talent been so relentlessly squandered. I won't even get into less egregious errors like letting Turner Stevenson walk so they could keep Patrick Poulin or shipping out heart-and-soul defender Odelein for erratic marshmallow Richer.

Totally agree on the Turgeon trade - "forced" by the "fact" that Damphousse had a good season at C the previous year and therefore we "couldn't" move him back to his natural f****ng position. Just preposterous. And, ultimately, probably Mario Tremblay's fault for not simply shifting Vinny back to LW rather than trying to force Pierre Turgeon to be a third line centreman (!). At that point, Houle either has to make a deal or fire his coach. But of course he didn't make a particularly impressive deal. In any case, it's not even the players involved that drives me batty so much as the sheer pig-headed artificiality of the dilemma the Habs created for themselves.

With Turgeon gone, everything depended on Koivu not getting hurt. Once he did, it was all over.