Habs re-sign Alex Galchenyuk to three-year, $14.7 million deal
- Thread starter hairnova
- Start date
Sal_Butera
Well-known member
Neither do I other than I expect Galchenyuk gone this summer or next.
Very similar , neither player had a solid footing to be retained long term and had question marks about fit.
BTW is there an age limit for trade clauses ?
worm
Well-known member
Was not serious but hard to trade with an unknown contract
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
UWHabs
Well-known member
In fact, isn't this contract now a positive when you talk about bridge deals? His last contract was a bridge deal, and I'm positive that 2 years ago we would not be able to sign him for a 5 year deal worth a hare over 20M, which is what his last contract plus this one pays him.
Giving a very talented player a short term deal rather than a long term deal. He either gets a massive raise in 3 years or he walks. And that's if Bergevin doesn't really **** up and trade him in the next year.
one can only assume he intends to trade him, it is the Bergevin way, or he will grind him something fierce, tell us January 2020 that he isn't McDavid, and then hold the line hard on a contract with no replacement, only to watch him walk
Sounds about right.
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
I am not sure why I don't have you on ignore, your posts always depress me
to be safe, put the current Habs on ignore and re-watch the glory 1970s on DVD
GrandWazoo
Well-known member
Actually most GMs would rather negotiate their own contracts rather than inherit them.
GrandWazoo
Well-known member
Ironically the bridge deal kinda worked this time with Galchenyuk. We probably would have had to pay him 5M+ for 5+ years had we not given him a bridge deal the last time.
Last deal he would have taken 5 x $4.1 which would have basically been what this worked out to. I'd rather lock him up long term and show him some confidence on and off the ice.
GrandWazoo
Well-known member
You know that how?
I don't know for sure. I just figure that if he took $2.8m per for 2 years then if he could have got $4.1m a year for 5 years he'd have taken it. And probably would have taken $5.4 x 8. No way to know for sure... but and extra $1.3m per season for 3 more years seems very tempting. Especially if he was only selling off one year of free agency.
GrandWazoo
Well-known member
He had no leverage on the 2 years deal so he was pretty much forced to take whatever was offered, which is not the same for a longer deal. I think it would have cost us around 5M had we wanted a longer contract.
We disagree. That's a pretty damn big gap. Neither of us can prove it either.