Markov, it's done!

[beliveau1]

An agents job is to maximize a players earning potential as much as possible - it is in their best interest to have them sign short term deals whenever possible as every good year ensures more leverage at the bargaining table. Short term contracts are a reality of the business as it far more often than not puts the player in the position of leverage. Plain and simply put - Gainey is doing nothing different from most other NHL managers.

[Peter Puck]

Lets use Dany Heatley/Micheal Ryder as an example. If the Habs offered Heatley 1 year deals like Micheal Ryder what would it have cost them over his contract?

Ryder

Year 1 - 63 points (25 goals) Salary - entry level

Year 2 - 55 points (30 goals) Salary - $1M

Year 3 - 58 points (30 goals) Salary - $2.2M

So Ryder's salary is consistently rising even though his production is not. You are telling me that Ryder was so extremely confident in his ability that he would not have excepted anything less than a 1 year deal after his rookie year? What is he going to cost the Habs this year? 2.5M, 3M? So Gainey has raised his salary every year even though his production has not warranted it? What leverage does Ryder have? He is an RFA. When did RFA's start running the game?

What if Ottawa had treated Dany Heatley the same after his initial deal expired?

Year 4 - 103 points (50 goals) - 3.5M

Year 5 - 108 points (50 goals) - 4.5M

Year 6 - 5.5M

Are you telling me that Ottawa would have been able to get Heatley at that price this season or last season? What is the rate for a 50 goal scorer? Is it 4.5M a season?

Ottawa fixed their costs at 4.5M a season. If they offered him 4.5M on a 1 year deal, what would his increase have been after a 50 goal season? 5.5M? 6M?

Now he scores another 50. Now what is he worth? He now has back to back 50 goal years under his belt. Is he worth 6.5M? 7M?

Don't tell me he would not be getting a massive increase, Ryder has and his numbers have plataued. So instead of paying Heatley 13.5M over 3 years it would have cost them 16M - 17M.

In the new NHL that is Preissing or Emery's salary for 3 years. You repeat that mistake for 2-3 players and you are talking a 4.5M player per year.

I understand that it is the agents goal to max out for their client, but there are 6 years from the moment they come into the league until they become a UFA to invest early

and control the costs. Maybe Markov would have turned it down, but it was not offered as far as we know. And you do not know how much Markov wanted to stay.

Neither of us know, but you are the one talking in absolutes. I am suggesting they overpaid and they could have signed him for less if they tried to negotiate earlier.

Get off your high horse. I understand the market. I also understand that a complete Buffoon name Ferguson convinced Kaberle to sign before he hit the market. Something I am sure you would have told me was impossible before it happened for the same reasons you stated in this thread. I also understand that Gainey has consistently overpaid for Theo, Kovalev, Koivu, Ribiero. He overpaid again.

It's fine to say that we should have signed Ryder to a longer term contract after his rookie year but you also have to factor in the risk that he goes bust after 1 good year. Signing long term contracts can be good and it would have been a good decision for Gainey if Ryder would have signed one. But the same sort of thinking would have led to signing Samsonov to a 4 year deal. After all he came with solid credentials and with a good year playing with Kovalev he could easily have racked up big numbers. If that had happened we'd be looking at giving him a big raise and lamenting that we didn't sign him for 4 years when he came over.

[alexstream]

Please, people like you kill me, this is a forum to give opinions. I am asking questions, legitimate questions. It is not my livelihood to specualte and invest in million dollar hockey players.

I come here with opinions for discussion and debate. So does everybody else. As far as Samsonov, if you look at his declining numbers was it really a stretch to see him not being a saviour.

He is still a good hockey player, but Carbonneau's handling of him was a disaster. He will still make an impact somewhere else.

so based on the same reasoning, you have to admit that Sykora was not a good idea last summer... his declining numbers, etc...

However, I'm pretty sure you mentionned that "you would have signed Sykora"...

hindsight seems to be your best friend and you sure know how to use it... for sure, everyone looks stupid and you look the most intelligent with hindsight...

but as far as I know, no GM has a Crystal Ball.

[Wamsley01]

so based on the same reasoning, you have to admit that Sykora was not a good idea last summer... his declining numbers, etc...

However, I'm pretty sure you mentionned that "you would have signed Sykora"...

hindsight seems to be your best friend and you sure know how to use it... for sure, everyone looks stupid and you look the most intelligent with hindsight...

but as far as I know, no GM has a Crystal Ball.

Go find a post where I said Sykora was a good signing. You are placing words in my mouth.

Hindsight is 20/20. BUT THEY DO NOT PAY ME TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS! I am a fan, it is my prerogative to question.

I guess we should not give heat to GMs because they do not know how good these 18 year olds will be. IT IS THEIR JOB TO SPECULATE!!

Gainey is paid to know who is going to be a steal, who just had a career year and will not repeat it, who is overvalued, who is undervalued.

IT IS HIS JOB!

If you invest in your broker and he says to you after he pisses all your money away "How was I supposed to know? Hindsight is 20/20." What would you say to him?

Give me a break. If you absolve all blame for mistakes by saying 20/20 then you must remove credit for gems like Carey Price.

When did everybody's standard's for a GM drop? When did medocrity become acceptable?

What is Sam Pollock did not act like he owned a crystal ball? Guy Lafleur would be some superstar who played with the Golden Seals.

They man was 5 steps ahead of the league. Bryan Colangelo in Toronto is blazing a trail in the NBA, why because he is creative and

is willing to trust his instincts.

Good GMs see things that others do not. Otherwise we would all be sitting in GM offices. I am glad that the city of Montreal has accepted

the fact that a first round victory is cause for a parade and that we should not expect our GMs to pull rabbits out of their ass.

But I want a progressive risk taking GM. I thought Gainey was that. The jury is still out, but I am not as convinced as I once was.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Wamsley01

[beliveau1]

Go find a post where I said Sykora was a good signing. You are placing words in my mouth.

Hindsight is 20/20. BUT THEY DO NOT PAY ME TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS! I am a fan, it is my prerogative to question.

I guess we should not give heat to GMs because they do not know how good these 18 year olds will be. IT IS THEIR JOB TO SPECULATE!!

Gainey is paid to know who is going to be a steal, who just had a career year and will not repeat it, who is overvalued, who is undervalued.

IT IS HIS JOB!

If you invest in your broker and he says to you after he pisses all your money away "How was I supposed to know? Hindsight is 20/20." What would you say to him?

Give me a break. If you absolve all blame for mistakes by saying 20/20 then you must remove credit for gems like Carey Price.

When did everybody's standard's for a GM drop? When did medocrity become acceptable?

What is Sam Pollock did not act like he owned a crystal ball? Guy Lafleur would be some superstar who played with the Golden Seals.

They man was 5 steps ahead of the league. Bryan Colangelo in Toronto is blazing a trail in the NBA, why because he is creative and

is willing to trust his instincts.

Good GMs see things that others do not. Otherwise we would all be sitting in GM offices. I am glad that the city of Montreal has accepted

the fact that a first round victory is cause for a parade and that we should not expect our GMs to pull rabbits out of their ass.

But I want a progressive risk taking GM. I thought Gainey was that. The jury is still out, but I am not as convinced as I once was.

Paraphrasing the legendary Islander's GM Bill Torrey who once said it best..... the draft is at best a crap shoot?

Edited May 29, 2007 by beliveau1

[dark_faerie87]

If Phaneuf is a RFA, why not offer him a 4 year $23M deal? If Calgary does not match (Calgary is cheap town) then HAbs have to give up draft choices. This guy is going to be another Pronger Type, but offensively gifted. Just my 2cents....

First off, when I said RFA, I didn't mean that he has an expiring contract this off-season, as I frankly don't know. What I meant is that he's not old enough to be a UFA and that it's really not fair to use him as an example...yet.

[Wamsley01]

Paraphrasing the legendary Islander's GM Bill Torrey who once said it best..... the draft is at best a crap shoot?

Maybe, but if that is true why do some GMs seem to consistently get lucky?

Luck eventually evens out. Pollack, Sather, Torre, Holland, Lamierello must have about 10-20 years of mishaps awaiting them.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Wamsley01

[beliveau1]

Maybe, but if that is true why do some GMs seem to consistently get lucky?

Luck eventually evens out. Pollack, Sather, Torre, Holland, Lamierello must have about 10-20 years of mishaps awaiting them.

Obviously it's more than luck - but the fact is there have been a lot of so called sure bets that have gone bust, as well as some last minute gambles that have paid big dividends. Judging talent is not a pure science and you have to get lucky to an extent. To be honest a close look at each of these men's careers shows that most if not all of them has had their share of busts.

Is the name Robyn Sadler familiar to anyone?

[Wamsley01]

Obviously it's more than luck - but the fact is there have been a lot of so called sure bets that have gone bust, as well as some last minute gambles that have paid big dividends. Judging talent is not a pure science and you have to get lucky to an extent. To be honest a close look at each of these men's careers shows that most if not all of them has had their share of busts.

Is the name Robyn Sadler familiar to anyone?

When you pick 10 players a season it is impossible to not have busts. But it is not a crapshoot. Plenty of GMs with mittfuls of top 5 picks

find ways to blow it. When was the last time Detroit had a top ten pick? Hard work, good research and a smart GM limits your failures.

My point is that if you waited for things to materialize before making your moves you will undoubtably lag behind the field.

Dumb GMs do get lucky, but sooner or later they do something foolish. Proactive not Reactive.

[JoeLassister]

Please, people like you kill me, this is a forum to give opinions. I am asking questions, legitimate questions. It is not my livelihood to specualte and invest in million dollar hockey players.

I come here with opinions for discussion and debate. So does everybody else. As far as Samsonov, if you look at his declining numbers was it really a stretch to see him not being a saviour.

He is still a good hockey player, but Carbonneau's handling of him was a disaster. He will still make an impact somewhere else.

Well, people like you kill me, people who think a GM job is the easiest job in the world and they always know how what would have been the thing to do once the season ends...

[beliveau1]

When you pick 10 players a season it is impossible to not have busts. But it is not a crapshoot. Plenty of GMs with mittfuls of top 5 picks

find ways to blow it. When was the last time Detroit had a top ten pick? Hard work, good research and a smart GM limits your failures.

My point is that if you waited for things to materialize before making your moves you will undoubtably lag behind the field.

Dumb GMs do get lucky, but sooner or later they do something foolish. Proactive not Reactive.

Sorry, but if one of the best managers at the NHL level believes it a crap shoot at best, I won't argue with his opinion.....

(p.s. and I said lucky to an extent - not always. They are just raw kids with potential written all over them. After all one can never be assured that they will bring it to the next level?)

Edited May 29, 2007 by beliveau1

[Fanpuck33]

Hehe, I'm hanging out on a Wings board today after coming across it while looking for info about the new jerseys. They're blaming the Leafs and Habs for driving up the price of D-men in the NHL. Many of them also think Souray is some kind of God, while Markov is a nobody.

[alexstream]

Hehe, I'm hanging out on a Wings board today after coming across it while looking for info about the new jerseys. They're blaming the Leafs and Habs for driving up the price of D-men in the NHL. Many of them also think Souray is some kind of God, while Markov is a nobody.

yup, Markov is worth more money than he'd "appear" to be worth from an outsider's perspective...

he's low profile but was still our MVP and best player two years in a row (I rate him way way way higher than Huet.... actually, I won't start on Huet ... it's a slippery slope, just like his slippery glove )

[brobin]

Hehe, I'm hanging out on a Wings board today after coming across it while looking for info about the new jerseys. They're blaming the Leafs and Habs for driving up the price of D-men in the NHL. Many of them also think Souray is some kind of God, while Markov is a nobody.

They are partially right. We and the leafs overpaid (as did Boston). Souray has more value then markov, so if Markov is worth almost $6M, what is Souray worth?

While people knock Souray all the time, there are plenty of teams coveting a top scoring defenseman like Souray. They would partner him with a good stay at home defenseman and play Souray to his strengths. Markov is a very good, reliable defenseman, but he is hardly an elite defenseman. He is not a top scoring defenseman. He is not a physical defenseman. He is not a top "defensive specialist", etc. He is a very good all around defenseman, of which there is a larger supply in the NHL then there is a supply of "scoring defensemen".

Long winded, so I apologize, but Markov was paid a premium to sign in Montreal, he would not have gotten that much on the open market, imo.

[Fanpuck33]

yup, Markov is worth more money than he'd "appear" to be worth from an outsider's perspective...

he's low profile but was still our MVP and best player two years in a row (I rate him way way way higher than Huet.... actually, I won't start on Huet ... it's a slippery slope, just like his slippery glove )

Oh, I agree completely. It's the same argument I'm trying to make those boneheads understand, hehe. They can't fathom how an often invisible guy like Markov can be more important than a Souray.

[MAK]

Oh, I agree completely. It's the same argument I'm trying to make those boneheads understand, hehe. They can't fathom how an often invisible guy like Markov can be more important than a Souray.

hey it's not like lidstrom was the flashiest player. he's mighty efficient, though. same thing with Markov but at a lesser level.

[BTH]

OUCH!

He's worth the money but

OUCH!

[Bullsmith]

They are partially right. We and the leafs overpaid (as did Boston). Souray has more value then markov, so if Markov is worth almost $6M, what is Souray worth?

While people knock Souray all the time, there are plenty of teams coveting a top scoring defenseman like Souray. They would partner him with a good stay at home defenseman and play Souray to his strengths. Markov is a very good, reliable defenseman, but he is hardly an elite defenseman. He is not a top scoring defenseman. He is not a physical defenseman. He is not a top "defensive specialist", etc. He is a very good all around defenseman, of which there is a larger supply in the NHL then there is a supply of "scoring defensemen".

Long winded, so I apologize, but Markov was paid a premium to sign in Montreal, he would not have gotten that much on the open market, imo.

The thing is there are a few other teams in Montreal's position- desperate for a smart mobile defenseman who can play big minutes on any unit and isn't a liability in any way. Like Wade Reddon. Just as some teams are willing to pay huge for Souray or McCabe's rare but narrow skills, other teams are willing to pay large sums of money for rare defensemen like Andrei Markov, especially when they are UFA at 28 years old (!!!) Imo he would've gotten minimum 5.5 from someone like Edmonton or Dallas. Minimum.

OUCH!

He's worth the money but

OUCH!

I defend it, but at the same time I'm reeling in shock. Ouch indeed.

[Wamsley01]

Well, people like you kill me, people who think a GM job is the easiest job in the world and they always know how what would have been the thing to do once the season ends...

Who said it was the easiest job in the world?

This is not hindsight. I think he overpaid. We will see if he did. If I posted retain Markov at any cost, Gainey did just that and then Markov played like shit and I criticized Gainey that is one thing. I have not criticized Gainey;s moves in hindsight. I have criticized them at the moment. If I am wrong, so what. I am not claiming to know everything.

This is a forum for opinions. You don't like it. so what. I don't like the fact that you take a criticism towards Gainey and suggest I go do his job.

Same as when I criticize Kovalev and somebody says why don't you go play in the NHL. Mindless drivel. You lace on the skates, or become a GM you are open

to criticism. People like you will not stop me from displaying my opinion on a board that was created for people to spout their opinion.

Read it or don't. Your choice.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Wamsley01

[Wamsley01]

Sorry, but if one of the best managers at the NHL level believes it a crap shoot at best, I won't argue with his opinion.....

(p.s. and I said lucky to an extent - not always. They are just raw kids with potential written all over them. After all one can never be assured that they will bring it to the next level?)

Obviously it is tought to tell if an 18 year old will dominate at the next level. Do they have the mental toughness, do they want it bad enought, will their body develop etc etc.

But would you like Rejean Houle and his scouts drafting your team at the crapshoot, or Bob Gainey and Trevor Timmins representing you at the crapshoot?

There is obviously an edge that some GMs and scouts are exploiting. Or Gord Stellick would still be a GM in the NHL.

[Wamsley01]

Oh, I agree completely. It's the same argument I'm trying to make those boneheads understand, hehe. They can't fathom how an often invisible guy like Markov can be more important than a Souray.

Markov is more valuable than Souray and he is the Habs best defenceman, but when was the last time a non physical or non scoring d-man demanded that type of contract?

He is 17th in scoring among D-Men. Not bad, but usually not numbers that get you top 5 coin.

I love the guy. I just thought they would get him for 4-4.5M. It never crossed my mind that he would get close to 6M.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Wamsley01

[BTH]

My Predictions:

1) Souray re-signs for less money than Markov got.

2) Fans call Markov selfish and greedy.

3) Markov plays a couple of bad games at the start of the year.

4) Fans call Markov another overpaid lazy Russian who was only trying for the money.

5) Fans blame Gainey for yet AGAIN overpaying a Russian bum.

6) Markov finishes off the season awesomely.

7) The same fans say Markov is elite.

8) Same fans call Gainey a genius.

[OneSharpMarble]

yup, Markov is worth more money than he'd "appear" to be worth from an outsider's perspective...

he's low profile but was still our MVP and best player two years in a row (I rate him way way way higher than Huet.... actually, I won't start on Huet ... it's a slippery slope, just like his slippery glove )

Awww you were doing so well until your shat it all away on that last statement. Ahwell.

I am gonna agree with Wamsley here, Gainey has done little to impress, hell he hasnt even addressed our biggest problem that has plagued this team for years. He adds a few role players to keep the masses pleased but then sits on his hands and pretends to do something by doing nothing.

This next season will decide it all I think.

[cfposi]

My Predictions:

1) Souray re-signs for less money than Markov got.

2) Fans call Markov selfish and greedy.

3) Markov plays a couple of bad games at the start of the year.

4) Fans call Markov another overpaid lazy Russian who was only trying for the money.

5) Fans blame Gainey for yet AGAIN overpaying a Russian bum.

6) Markov finishes off the season awesomely.

7) The same fans say Markov is elite.

8) Same fans call Gainey a genius.

LOL! Eerily poignant!

[beliveau1]

Obviously it is tought to tell if an 18 year old will dominate at the next level. Do they have the mental toughness, do they want it bad enought, will their body develop etc etc.

But would you like Rejean Houle and his scouts drafting your team at the crapshoot, or Bob Gainey and Trevor Timmins representing you at the crapshoot?

There is obviously an edge that some GMs and scouts are exploiting. Or Gord Stellick would still be a GM in the NHL.

Obviously you want the better talent anywhere in your organization - the draft table included. I think that that was implied by the fact I said lucky to an extent. And I'm not referring to a spin the wheel type of good fortune when I say luck! Drafting any young player is a calculated risk. What you want is a manager and scouting staff that spends more time calculating than just playing pick up sticks on draft day.....

Torrey's comment intimated the fact that no matter how good they were at the Junior level, it was always tough to predict just how good they would be at the next one.

Edited May 30, 2007 by beliveau1