Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Rumour] Gallagher Extension talks at Impasse


Provost
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Provost said:

... but the report from the agent was that the offers from Montreal kept getting smaller as they signed two other RW players, until the talks completely broke off.  The state of things two weeks ago isn't very relevant to today in that context.

A deal can still get done, but if Montreal spent all that money in the intervening time... maybe they aren't willing to go nearly as far to re-up Gallagher as they were a couple weeks ago.  That is actually what the agent is saying.  Why would Gallagher agree to ever reducing offers if he is a pending UFA?  If his agent just says they will go test the market, what does Montreal do?  Do they let that happen or are they proactive and move Gallagher for a decent return?  Either possibility is reasonable, so it can't be dismissed as just posturing.

 

Both sides might have to just step away for a while from the negotiations.  It's going to be a long off-season.  Players probably also have to wrap their head around that the big payday they were hoping for might not happen.  Will they test a market that might not necessarily pay them more or stay with their team. 

 

This was his interview from today.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gallagher is 29 next summer.  Benning was reluctant to sign his own UFA's this summer to long term deals.  I highly doubt next summer will be any different.  Gallagher will want to get paid with term next summer, at 29 and with the style he plays I'm not sure it's a good idea to go after him.  Also, next summer we will need all of our extra cap space to sign Petey and Huggy as well as Demko.  I don't think we will have $5 million+ in extra funds to sign Gallagher or any other UFA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass on Gallagher.   Love the player - but the circumstances make no sense for us.

 

I would not re-sign him next offseason - not near the kind of terms being thrown around - and terrible timing regardless.

For one year of Gallagher - with the asset prices being proposed here - hard no.

 

Now Danault on the other hand - I would kick tires at minimum.   Bigger guy, heavier game, a center, and good faceoff guy - I'd target him over a RW, no question.

 

If the Habs are considering moving Gallagher - and are looking for a 20 goal scoring LW - in a separate deal I'd consider a Pearson/Danault as principals deal  - or alternatively - imo they are relatively small and soft top to bottom at LW - I'd also offer a Roussel + future type deal for Danault - depending on what the Habs intend to acquire in those separate deals (ie if they target a LW for Gallagher, they could still probably stand to improve, get harder to play against in their bottom 6.

 

It looks like a multi-stage set of deals they 'should' make, so the first won't have to accomplish the goal in the end.

 

I think the Habs 'should' move Drouin, as well - but I doubt they do - they'll probably hope to uptick him as a playmaker to Anderson/Toffoli...

 

In any event, Danault would be my target, not Gallagher (as much as I love the guy).

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I don't think Vancouver has the room to trade a Dman. Also there's 0 way Montreal takes that.

 

Virtanen Sutter prospect pick is a bit more realistic

Not remotely realistic. They moved Domi because they have depth at C. Sutter is a pure cap dump to them. Virtanen doesn’t supplant Armia (who is far more defensively responsible). 
 

Bergevin tends to do 1 for 1 deals.  He doesn’t like to give up quality for quantity.  The one exception was the Pacioretty desl where he got 3 pieces back. Tatar, Suzuki and a 2nd.   Gallagher isn’t the goal scorer that  Pacioretty is, but his value would still be sky high.  Vancouver scraps won’t get him. Want him? It’ll cost a piece that legitimately hurts to give up 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, qwijibo said:

 But if they go they’ll get a substantial return.

couldn't possibly pick a worse time to try to sell a player like this.

 

Read the market.    Look at how many good players are on the market at borderline neutral value - simply because there are so many buyer's options in a heavily tilted buyer's market.

 

Gallagher is a great player - but he's not young, he does not play one of the critical 'battery' positions, he has one year of term and then requires a re-up in the wake of a cap stall....

 

I would not expect teams to line up to give you a substantial return for him - I think you might need to tone down your expectations...

I would, for example, at first suggestion of a 'substantial return', peel off in a second to take Palat/Killorn off Tampa's hands, instead....

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

couldn't possibly pick a worse time to try to sell a player like this.

 

Read the market.    Look at how many good players are on the market at borderline neutral value - simply because there are so many buyer's options in a heavily tilted buyer's market.

 

Gallagher is a great player - but he's not young, he does not play one of the critical 'battery' positions, he has one year of term and then requires a re-up in the wake of a cap stall....

 

I would not expect teams to line up to give you a substantial return for him - I think you might need to tone down your expectations...

I would, for example, at first suggestion of a 'substantial return', peel off in a second to take Palat/Killorn off Tampa's hands, instead....

 

 

They aren’t in a position where they have to move him.  They’re $300 k over the cap (which is easily dealt with). If someone comes with a crap offer they can afford to wait.  There would be several teams lining up to make a hockey deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rekker said:

Would love to see him in our the top six. Doubt it happens because some salary would have to go back. But if they have interest in Roussell + maybe something could be worked out. 

Why would they have interest in Roussel in return for a top line winger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

They aren’t in a position where they have to move him.  They’re $300 k over the cap (which is easily dealt with). If someone comes with a crap offer they can afford to wait.  There would be several teams lining up to make a hockey deal. 

A hockey deal is probably all that would be possible / or that would make sense.

Otherwise - why bother moving him?   Putting him on the seller's market right now is probably as inopportune as it gets - unless they are looking to one for one swap him to a team where he's a better fit - ie for a 20 goal scoring LW....

They don't really have a bottleneck at RW in any event imo - Anderson on the 3rd line is an excellent option - guys like Toffoli, Tatar, Byron, Lekhonen can move side to side....

 

It's unfortunate if a rift develops over the Anderson deal and Toffoli signing...but if they have to repeat a Domi/Anderson type swap that may be the only type of thing that makes sense under the circumstances...

 

From a Canucks point of view though, Gallagher makes much less sense than Danault imo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rekker said:

Part return. He would replace some of the edge that Gallagher brings. Obviously not one for one. Probably picks added. 

Bergevin does 1/1 deals. Roussel doesn’t even get him to pick up the phone.  He’s a disposable player that every team has in the system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...