Should the Habs go after Daniil Markov?

[TheAussiePosse]

Jim Rutherford is having a tad bit of trouble signing him.

If we can get rid of Dykhuis/Brisebois/both, there should be space for him.

Although I think he's a RD, sooooooo...

http://www.forecaster.ca/demo/hockey/player.cgi?0559

Sounds a bit like Kasparitis in the way he can take himself out of the play to dish out a big hit... and that's not a good thing.

Also he is plagued by injuries, but we can change that.

We're more than efficient depthwise, but he would be a good asset because:

a.) Under 2 million, especially if we tie in a 'minimum games played' clause (like with Lindros)

b.) He can work the powerplay, and would be a good rolemodel for Komisarek (when in the lineup). I see similarites with Souray. Maybe they can exchange spots. Ones injured, the other plays, the first guy recovers and plays, the other get injured... nah, we don't want that

c.) A Russian for our Markov. You can imagine what it'd be like with Markov-Markov on the PP and 1st line...

:clap:

Only problem is, how would we aquire him? CAR would want a prospect or a quality winger.

Maybe Hossa, or Souray, or Brisebois.

Oh well. Discuss

[sakiqc]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=47380

well, another player gone for Russia

another russian problem... another time a player who was not earning enough money :eyes:

lol, carolina just gave Tanabe for him

[Edited on 2003-7-15 by sakiqc]

[Habs77]

I swear... at the first hint a European player will threaten to go back to Europe in contract negotiations I'd trade him. (yes, that includes Zednik)

And I'd avoid Russians altogether... they seem to be the worst.

But anyway, about going after Markov... why?

At right D we already have Breezer/Rivet/Komi/Quintal... only if we get rid of 2 could we entertain the though of going after Markov, and his request for 3M per in a longterm deal.

[un_habitant]

Originally posted by TheAussiePosse

Jim Rutherford is having a tad bit of trouble signing him.

If we can get rid of Dykhuis/Brisebois/both, there should be space for him.

Although I think he's a RD, sooooooo...

http://www.forecaster.ca/demo/hockey/player.cgi?0559

Sounds a bit like Kasparitis in the way he can take himself out of the play to dish out a big hit... and that's not a good thing.

Also he is plagued by injuries, but we can change that.

We're more than efficient depthwise, but he would be a good asset because:

a.) Under 2 million, especially if we tie in a 'minimum games played' clause (like with Lindros)

b.) He can work the powerplay, and would be a good rolemodel for Komisarek (when in the lineup).  I see similarites with Souray.  Maybe they can exchange spots.  Ones injured, the other plays, the first guy recovers and plays, the other get injured...  nah, we don't want that

c.) A Russian for our Markov.  You can imagine what it'd be like with Markov-Markov on the PP and 1st line...

:clap:

Only problem is, how would we aquire him?  CAR would want a prospect or a quality winger.  

Maybe Hossa, or Souray, or Brisebois.  

Oh well.  Discuss

re: a)theres no reason to have a games played clause for markov....hes not on the brink of retirement from a single hit. broken bones arent the sign of an injury-prone player.

re: B) maekov is not a #1 pp qb. he is a point man but hey so was juneau. he has no similarities in his game to souray.....moreover, he is not the same type of player as komisarek; markov is a gritty, hard nosed d-man who will dig and hit along the boards and make the first play in moving the puck out of the defesnive zone; hardly a komi mold theyre physical in different ways.

re: c) why have a markov-markov tandem? just beacuse their names are the same? d. markov isnt a #1 pp type of guy....i really dont know where you are getting your info from. :?-

d markov is still rounding out his game. he started molding it just before he was traded to phoenix as an smallish in-your-face-d-man in toronto. he has only had one season of average offensive numbers with 36 pts in 01-02--so, again, the notion of #1 pp qb is unfounded.