Is it time to trade Markov?

[sim.on]

I think Buff is overrated. personally I want no part of him on our team.

As for trading Markov, it really depend what the return is (obviously).
For a while we wouldent have a true number 2 D. The way I see it is if Markov is traded you have:

Georges PK
Beaulieu Emelin
Tinordi Murray

This would mean that our defence is probably a little worse next year, even though Markov can be a liability with poor foot speed and bad pinches, he is still better than Tinordi atm although they obviously play different games.

This all said, even if next years defence is inferior to this years it could potentially result in a better overall team if we get a valuable forward in return. The trade would also make room for Tinordi, who if it all goes to plan will be better than Markov in 2 years time as he gets better and Markov continues to decline and hopefuly the trade has netted us a good young forward who is still going strong. It is also possible that MB signs a UFA to bolster the backend and replace Murray, possibly Andrew McDonald.

It also is hugely impacted by the contract Markov is looking for, is there any chance he would sign for something like 10 Mil over the next two years, key part being no more that 2 years?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

If we do trade Markov, we will need to add a top-4 defenceman either as a UFA or via trade. I think that much is tolerably clear. Hell, even with Markov, we need to add a top-4 defenceman, really.

[DON]

What are you trading to get Byfuglien?

Probably similar assets (or even more given age and contract status) that you just acquired for Markov.

Isn't this chasing your tail to some extent?

And Byfuglien isn't as good as Markov.

Markov and Byfuglien are apples/oranges and I would easily pay $5m/yr to #33Jet and would be 50-50 on the old Russian with wonky knees.

'Better' is very subjective term and more personal opinion.

(and if you toss out some fancystats and funky graphs to back your statement I will get mad )

[Commandant]

If we do trade Markov, we will need to add a top-4 defenceman either as a UFA or via trade. I think that much is tolerably clear. Hell, even with Markov, we need to add a top-4 defenceman, really.

Exactly... my point isn't about Byfuglien, that was just one example Don gave.

My point is that if you trade markov, you have no one capable of being the number 2 defenceman on this team and filling his role next season. That will need to be replaced.

Looks at the free agent list of defencemen, it sucks.

So that means you have to make a trade.

Now trading for a number 2 defenceman is probably gonna cost similar assets to those you just acquired for markov (maybe more since the new guy won't be a rental).

In the end, you are chasing your tail in terms of assets gained and assets lost. No improvement to the team is made, and you've given up your 2nd best defenceman for the stretch run and playoffs.

Better off to just keep Markov and re-sign him.

[DON]

Exactly... my point isn't about Byfuglien, that was just one example Don gave.

My point is that if you trade markov, you have no one capable of being the number 2 defenceman on this team and filling his role next season. That will need to be replaced.

Looks at the free agent list of defencemen, it sucks.

So that means you have to make a trade.

Now trading for a number 2 defenceman is probably gonna cost similar assets to those you just acquired for markov (maybe more since the new guy won't be a rental).

In the end, you are chasing your tail in terms of assets gained and assets lost. No improvement to the team is made, and you've given up your 2nd best defenceman for the stretch run and playoffs.

Better off to just keep Markov and re-sign him.

Of course may be better off standing pat, but boring and I just am worried every time ol #79 goes into a corner and knocked down. Which of course is dumb logic and whether trading Eller for Big fellow is good in long run, I don't know but he is just so "anti-smurf/hobbit" that seems attractive to me.

So sick of hearing size critics, which I know is also dumb, but so gall darn irritating.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Commandant: good argument.

DON: the issue with us being "smurfs" doesn't lie in critics, it lies in the chronic and unending fact that the Habs have too many tiny forwards. Until that changes, well, we'll keep hearing about it.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

And as I've brought up before, the biggest Habs team in history was one of the worst Habs teams in history.

Of the 42 players to play for the 2000-2001 Montreal Canadiens, only two were under 70 inches in Oleg Petrov and Saku Koivu while 11 were 75 inches or taller. This year out of the 31 that have played, seven are under 70 inches and only five are 75 inches or taller (three of which were Nattinen, Tinordi and Bludnen).

This is why for me, skill is first priority. After that we can talk about whether the player has tenacity or not.

[sim.on]

Exactly... my point isn't about Byfuglien, that was just one example Don gave.

My point is that if you trade markov, you have no one capable of being the number 2 defenceman on this team and filling his role next season. That will need to be replaced.

Looks at the free agent list of defencemen, it sucks.

So that means you have to make a trade.

Now trading for a number 2 defenceman is probably gonna cost similar assets to those you just acquired for markov (maybe more since the new guy won't be a rental).

In the end, you are chasing your tail in terms of assets gained and assets lost. No improvement to the team is made, and you've given up your 2nd best defenceman for the stretch run and playoffs.

Better off to just keep Markov and re-sign him.

About chasing the tail, what if the goal is not necessarily to be better next year but in the long run?

Would it not make sense to move Markov who at this point is only going decline for a forward who is up and coming? That way one or two of our young defencemen would then grow into being #2 and 3 quality Dmen (Beaulieu and Tinordi) replacing Markove but now we would have a good young forward hitting their peak. This is a long term plan and would almost certainly make us worse next year but better off in the long run, is that not the way to go? If you keep him he will continue to help the team but as time passes and he eventually retires then you still need to replace him and you are also left without the good young talent we could have acquired for him.

in 5 years...

Markov 40

Subban 29

Patches 30

Plek 36

Price 31

Gallagher 26

Galchenyuk 24

Eller 29

Georges 34

Emelin 32

Beaulieu 26

Tinordi 26

I think the core of this team that will be here for our cup window is

Price , Subban, Galchanyuk, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Eller, Emelin

On the fringe; Georges, Plek

I dont believe we can truly contend until Galchenyuk developes into the player we hope he will. He is only 19 and doing really well so far but what not going to have properly accurate picture of his future for another 3 years. In three years time I dont think Markov will be a #2 or #3 quality Dman so although trading him would leave with a big hole on D and we we still need to replace him I think it helps the team more in the long run (assuming the young player we receive in return pans out).

[Machine of Loving Grace]

There is two arguments about contending.

Either you don't think we're good enough to be a powerhouse in the league (which is true) or you don't think we're good enough in our own conference to go somewhere (which isn't true).

The East is absolutely atrocious right now and if Bergevin got crafty, Montreal could get their crap together and take advantage of it. We add a Ryan O'Reilly, clear out some of the deadweight, we could get to the Easter Conference final easily and then it'd be a seven game series against Pittsburgh or Boston more than likely. Or we could sit on the team while we're just better than average and wait for everyone to get older. If you "go for it" now, we might have a much easier time attracting a Marian Hossa type free agent to go over the top. Otherwise we're relying on high offers, hometown dreams and get lucky signings.

[habs rule]

There is two arguments about contending.

Either you don't think we're good enough to be a powerhouse in the league (which is true) or you don't think we're good enough in our own conference to go somewhere (which isn't true).

The East is absolutely atrocious right now and if Bergevin got crafty, Montreal could get their crap together and take advantage of it. We add a Ryan O'Reilly, clear out some of the deadweight, we could get to the Easter Conference final easily and then it'd be a seven game series against Pittsburgh or Boston more than likely. Or we could sit on the team while we're just better than average and wait for everyone to get older. If you "go for it" now, we might have a much easier time attracting a Marian Hossa type free agent to go over the top. Otherwise we're relying on high offers, hometown dreams and get lucky signings.

That was well put. If we look at the list above one guy stands out as being too old to help. that is Markov at 40 (he may not even be playing) We need to trade him now while we get some value. What he will sign for is of little consequence, he can only be part of the solution by bringing us assets that will help in 3 years, when we win the cup. It is sad but true and this is a business.

[illWill]

That was well put. If we look at the list above one guy stands out as being too old to help. that is Markov at 40 (he may not even be playing) We need to trade him now while we get some value. What he will sign for is of little consequence, he can only be part of the solution by bringing us assets that will help in 3 years, when we win the cup. It is sad but true and this is a business.

Why are we talking about contending in 5 years? Our window is actually much closer than most think with this group we have, if it happens at all. We have a Vezina and Norris candidate, it doesn't get much better than that. You can't plan for a cup years down the road, it's about a good team putting everything together over a couple month period, getting some breaks and facing opposition that is ideal for their particular team. We aren't going deep anytime soon without Markov, I don't know about you guys, but I'd like go for it.

[Commandant]

About chasing the tail, what if the goal is not necessarily to be better next year but in the long run?

Would it not make sense to move Markov who at this point is only going decline for a forward who is up and coming? That way one or two of our young defencemen would then grow into being #2 and 3 quality Dmen (Beaulieu and Tinordi) replacing Markove but now we would have a good young forward hitting their peak. This is a long term plan and would almost certainly make us worse next year but better off in the long run, is that not the way to go? If you keep him he will continue to help the team but as time passes and he eventually retires then you still need to replace him and you are also left without the good young talent we could have acquired for him.

in 5 years...

Markov 40

Subban 29

Patches 30

Plek 36

Price 31

Gallagher 26

Galchenyuk 24

Eller 29

Georges 34

Emelin 32

Beaulieu 26

Tinordi 26

I think the core of this team that will be here for our cup window is

Price , Subban, Galchanyuk, Gallagher, Beaulieu, Tinordi, Eller, Emelin

On the fringe; Georges, Plek

I dont believe we can truly contend until Galchenyuk developes into the player we hope he will. He is only 19 and doing really well so far but what not going to have properly accurate picture of his future for another 3 years. In three years time I dont think Markov will be a #2 or #3 quality Dman so although trading him would leave with a big hole on D and we we still need to replace him I think it helps the team more in the long run (assuming the young player we receive in return pans out).

We are waiting 5 years?

Are we tanking again? And we spend how many seasons without a player capable of being a #2?

[sim.on]

We are waiting 5 years?

Are we tanking again? And we spend how many seasons without a player capable of being a #2?

I stated in my post why we are waiting, which was that we wont be able to contend till / if Galchenyuk becomes our number 1 C.

When and if that happens, say 2 years hypothetically (when he is 21) there is a good chance Markov will no longer be a #2 quality Dman on a team that is good enough to contend. We will be very lucky if he doesent decline further over the next 2 years what with the knee injuries compounding natural aging. In two years time it is not unrealistic imho that Beaulieu and possible also Tinordi have surpassed Markov in terms of value they bring to the team and can slot in as strong # 2 and #3 dmen.

The way I see it is that we dont have the horses to win now and if you have to trade quality to get quality then trading our young quality for other young quality is chasing our tail. Why I suggest trading Markov is that we trade quality player now for someone who will be a quality player later while the D in our system grow into his shoes.

If you dont trade markov then you re just building though the draft which is a long process and somewhat of a crapshoot. And if you dont want to trade good players you probably wont get anyone that significant in return.

Do you recommend resigning markov and letting him slowly decline and retire as a hab?

[Commandant]

I don't anticipate he'll decline as rapidly as you do.

Yes, he had injuries... but he hasn't missed a single game in the last two years.

He may actually age slower, as he's had two years of no hockey, no wear and tear on the rest of his body, no absorbing hits, blocking shots, etc....

This idea that he's going to be some shell in 2 years is speculation, not fact. Defencemen of his style (offensive) usually age gracefully, unlike the shot blocker/hitter type.

[DON]

I don't anticipate he'll decline as rapidly as you do.

Yes, he had injuries... but he hasn't missed a single game in the last two years.

He may actually age slower, as he's had two years of no hockey, no wear and tear on the rest of his body, no absorbing hits, blocking shots, etc....

This idea that he's going to be some shell in 2 years is speculation, not fact. Defencemen of his style (offensive) usually age gracefully, unlike the shot blocker/hitter type.

Like Gonchar at his age, never a All Star again but can still put up some offense and move the puck as well as ever.

[illWill]

Do you recommend resigning markov and letting him slowly decline and retire as a hab?

That's what I'd do

[habs rule]

That's what I'd do

It's called poor asset management.

[JoeLassister]

If we're too far from the playoffs at trade deadline, I'd definitely shop Markov for a 1st and try to re sign him on UFA market.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

If we're too far from the playoffs at trade deadline, I'd definitely shop Markov for a 1st and try to re sign him on UFA market.

We have five games until the trade deadline with one of them on the deadline. Let's call it six.

It's pretty unlikely. We're five points from being outside wildcard position. We're only a point behind 2nd place Tampa Bay while tied for 3rd with Toronto in the division. If the playoffs began we'd have home advantage against Toronto.

This is why I try to keep reminding people of how bad the Eastern Conference is. Pittsburgh has a 17 point lead on the New York Rangers. There are only two teams that really look strong right now and the rest are all middle of the road. If Montreal made a significant move or two they could break themselves out of the pack and have a serious shot of winning a few rounds. People keep obsessing over the West but guess what, we wouldn't play the West until the Cup finals.

[JoeLassister]

We have five games until the trade deadline with one of them on the deadline. Let's call it six.

It's pretty unlikely. We're five points from being outside wildcard position. We're only a point behind 2nd place Tampa Bay while tied for 3rd with Toronto in the division. If the playoffs began we'd have home advantage against Toronto.

This is why I try to keep reminding people of how bad the Eastern Conference is. Pittsburgh has a 17 point lead on the New York Rangers. There are only two teams that really look strong right now and the rest are all middle of the road. If Montreal made a significant move or two they could break themselves out of the pack and have a serious shot of winning a few rounds. People keep obsessing over the West but guess what, we wouldn't play the West until the Cup finals.

Damn you're right. We'd need a 5 games losing streak for my scenario to happen and even then... FAWK !!!

Gotta go with keeping Markov and trying to re-sign him for the same as what he's got.

[IN THE HEARTS OF MEN]

It's called poor asset management.

others call it loyalty

[DON]

Damn you're right. We'd need a 5 games losing streak for my scenario to happen and even then... FAWK !!!

Gotta go with keeping Markov and trying to re-sign him for the same as what he's got.

I wouldn't be too upset realizing Habs doing fine and "likely" will make playoffs, but are a lot of games in March so could collapse, but doubt it.

[DON]

others call it loyalty

Loyalty 2-way street eh!

He sat at home for most of 2 or 3 years cashing big cheques watching soap operas. He should be financially set for life, if semi-smart.

[illWill]

It's called poor asset management.

Keeping a proven player who is still one of the premier point men in the game instead of trading for future maybes is poor asset management? Throw in the fact that this team is fighting for home ice advantage going into the playoffs...

[Neech]

If the playoffs began we'd have home advantage against Toronto.

Actually, we'd be on the road in Tampa, and play the winner of the Boston-Detroit series in the second round.