illWill Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 It's hard to decide who comes off worse in this little spat. I would say that I came off worse at first but he has made a glorious comeback to take the lead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Markov goes nowhere--- not in the cards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I don't think #79 will be traded either - because I think Zoot Suit is committed to a path that will keep us as a middling NHL team for the foreseeable future, under the delusion that he can build a Chicago with 17th overall draft picks. Hopefully I am wrong about this and he has the vision to make the nervy moves that will give us a chance of actually becoming an elite team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 under the delusion that he can build a Chicago with 17th overall draft picks. Hopefully I am wrong about this and he has the vision to make the nervy moves that will give us a chance of actually becoming an elite team. Anyone trading with us for Markov will not be in a position to give us better than a 17th overall pick, so I don't think he'll be looking for those. There's a case to be made for making nervy moves but the reality of the trading market has to be considered. That being said, if someone absolutely is desperate for what Markov brings for their playoff drive and is willing to knock our socks off, whether or not he pulls the trigger is what dictates where MB thinks this ship is sailing. But trading our number 2 defenseman and then having to try to replace him isn't going to happen anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I also believe Markov isn't going anywhere. We'll probably have to sign him to a 3 year extension so we don't lose him to Free agency! I don't see any of the teams that would allow us to get a top 10 overall pick trading for Markov. It makes no sense for those teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I also believe Markov isn't going anywhere. We'll probably have to sign him to a 3 year extension so we don't lose him to Free agency! I don't see any of the teams that would allow us to get a top 10 overall pick trading for Markov. It makes no sense for those teams. I think Markov has a lot more trade value than you realise. But I agree that he probably isn't going anywhere, I just think it is a mistake, and poor use of an asset. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think Markov has a lot more trade value than you realise. But I agree that he probably isn't going anywhere, I just think it is a mistake, and poor use of an asset. if the habs are shopping markov which i hope there not at the deadline. we can surely expect a very significant prospect and a couple substantial picks. markov's value?? just look at the habs win/loss record with him out of the line up during those injuries and there record since returning. not to mention there team PP rank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 if the habs are shopping markov which i hope there not at the deadline. we can surely expect a very significant prospect and a couple substantial picks. markov's value?? just look at the habs win/loss record with him out of the line up during those injuries and there record since returning. not to mention there team PP rank With Subban, Beaulieu on the PP, would Markov's presence be worth more than picks/prospect and extra cap room to sign a younger d-man, or forward? You want to look down the road and not be short sighted (as Habs have been every year cept 2011-12) don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 With Subban, Beaulieu on the PP, would Markov's presence be worth more than picks/prospect and extra cap room to sign a younger d-man, or forward? You want to look down the road and not be short sighted (as Habs have been every year cept 2011-12) don't you? not wanting to move markov is hardly being short sighted. you don't have to move your most influential defender (like i said, look at our record with and without markov) in order to stock pile talent to be a contender.! name me the last contender/champion who has done just that??? thats right zero teams!!!!! Sound trades for needs in the system, savvy free agent acquisitions and strong drafting is all you need. why would we be looking for a younger defence men when we have all these defensive prospects in the pipeline? beaulieau has like zero PP prowess right now and markov is probably a top 3 PP QB in the league at this very moment. putting the 2 lefties on the same PP unit is what id be doing starting this coming tuesday if i was Therrien. markov on the left and beau on the right! as i stated earlier, until tinordi, nathan, pateryn etc. are ready to be in the top 4 of a contending team markov is essential to our teams competitiveness. let the teams natural progression take its course. beaulieau has slowly been integrated into the top 6. now hopefully tinordi can stick as well which will bump out gorges not markov i believe. these kids will need a minimum couple full seasons in the NHL to realize there potential. you sign markov to 3/4 years with no clauses. you move gorges who is signed and also has value ala craig rivet. everyone is looking to win the lottery with markov.... i want to win the CUP..... today not tomorrow. we have carey price and PK subban! with alot of nice pieces around them. i really believe we are a couple smart moves away. with all this said, we are in desperate need of 1/2 more right handed defenders. after watching canada and price MB should be trying to build the best top 6 defence possible to play in front of this guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 not wanting to move markov is hardly being short sighted. you don't have to move your most influential defender (like i said, look at our record with and without markov) in order to stock pile talent to be a contender.! name me the last contender/champion who has done just that??? thats right zero teams!!!!! Sound trades for needs in the system, savvy free agent acquisitions and strong drafting is all you need. why would we be looking for a younger defence men when we have all these defensive prospects in the pipeline? beaulieau has like zero PP prowess right now and markov is probably a top 3 PP QB in the league at this very moment. putting the 2 lefties on the same PP unit is what id be doing starting this coming tuesday if i was Therrien. markov on the left and beau on the right! as i stated earlier, until tinordi, nathan, pateryn etc. are ready to be in the top 4 of a contending team markov is essential to our teams competitiveness. let the teams natural progression take its course. beaulieau has slowly been integrated into the top 6. now hopefully tinordi can stick as well which will bump out gorges not markov i believe. these kids will need a minimum couple full seasons in the NHL to realize there potential. you sign markov to 3/4 years with no clauses. you move gorges who is signed and also has value ala craig rivet. everyone is looking to win the lottery with markov.... i want to win the CUP..... today not tomorrow. we have carey price and PK subban! with alot of nice pieces around them. i really believe we are a couple smart moves away. with all this said, we are in desperate need of 1/2 more right handed defenders. after watching canada and price MB should be trying to build the best top 6 defence possible to play in front of this guy Couple smart moves? You need capspace to get a RH d-man. Build a top 6, so you think shipping out picks/prospects is the way forward? And not trading old upcoming UFA d-man? None of Bulldog d-men should be asked to play 20+minutes, which is why need a younger Markov-type. Too bad you think while being a long shot and winning today is all important and screw the future mentality. It still seems short-sighted and unrealistic, but hey everyone has an imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Couple smart moves? You need capspace to get a RH d-man. Build a top 6, so you think shipping out picks/prospects is the way forward? And not trading old upcoming UFA d-man? None of Bulldog d-men should be asked to play 20+minutes, which is why need a younger Markov-type. Too bad you think while being a long shot and winning today is all important and screw the future mentality. It still seems short-sighted and unrealistic, but hey everyone has an imagination. do you feel the need to pick my post apart?? and make up things I'm not even saying? this is why i very rarely post but just read the threads over the last almost 10 years I've been around habsworld. (under 400 posts but over 400,000 reads) where did i say screw the future?? I'm pretty sure not once did i say lets dump picks and prospects. in fact i said the opposite!!! so don't put words in my mouth thanks. - i still think were closer then you think -signing jagr would of been smart on a RW thats very small right now. (also creates more tradeable assets) -signing murray was smart. another asset with trade value -trading gorges for a pick and prospect is a smart move. you want cap space?? here is 3.2 million in cap space. for a soft stay at home defender with an overrated voice in the dressing room. yes he'll be the first to block a shot and lose a fight for you but he can't move the puck or clear the net all that well! insert tinordi. save cap space gain 2 assets lose 1. -signing markov is a smart move. stats don't lie! facts are we win way more then we lose when he is in the line up. just look at our record from 2007'08 to the current olympic break. since his return last year we are 61-35-11. you'll see our win loss record is staggeringly better with the russian general then with out. You don't want the kids playing 20+ minutes a game? just another reason to sign him to a 3/4 year deal! tinordi and beaulieau will not be replacing markov anytime soon. not in minutes, not on the PP or PK, not in plus minus not in playing against the best opposition the other team has to offer..... but they can replace gorges, bouillon, drewskie as of yesterday! these are just small subtle smart moves that can help re shape us not only on the back end but up front. my imagination runs wild with ideas! I'm an imagination mover!! but un realistic and short sighted i am not. like i said........ you don't need to trade arguably the teams most valuable player of the last 5-10yrs at the deadline on a team thats in the playoffs right now to move forward in the future! no elite clubs are ever really sellers why would we want to be. sign markov to 3/4 years with zero clauses and move gorges like we did rivet. open a roster spot on the left side of the blue line for tinordi in a role he can surely do better then gorges i believe. i'll save trade proposals for the appropriate threads but.............. sound trades for system needs, savvy pick ups and good drafting..... let the kids push the vets for there spots! thats what i said!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 do you feel the need to pick my post apart?? and make up things I'm not even saying? this is why i very rarely post but just read the threads over the last almost 10 years I've been around habsworld. (under 400 posts but over 400,000 reads) where did i say screw the future?? I'm pretty sure not once did i say lets dump picks and prospects. in fact i said the opposite!!! so don't put words in my mouth thanks. - i still think were closer then you think -signing jagr would of been smart on a RW thats very small right now. (also creates more tradeable assets) -signing murray was smart. another asset with trade value -trading gorges for a pick and prospect is a smart move. you want cap space?? here is 3.2 million in cap space. for a soft stay at home defender with an overrated voice in the dressing room. yes he'll be the first to block a shot and lose a fight for you but he can't move the puck or clear the net all that well! insert tinordi. save cap space gain 2 assets lose 1. -signing markov is a smart move. stats don't lie! facts are we win way more then we lose when he is in the line up. just look at our record from 2007'08 to the current olympic break. since his return last year we are 61-35-11. you'll see our win loss record is staggeringly better with the russian general then with out. You don't want the kids playing 20+ minutes a game? just another reason to sign him to a 3/4 year deal! tinordi and beaulieau will not be replacing markov anytime soon. not in minutes, not on the PP or PK, not in plus minus not in playing against the best opposition the other team has to offer..... but they can replace gorges, bouillon, drewskie as of yesterday! these are just small subtle smart moves that can help re shape us not only on the back end but up front. my imagination runs wild with ideas! I'm an imagination mover!! but un realistic and short sighted i am not. like i said........ you don't need to trade arguably the teams most valuable player of the last 5-10yrs at the deadline on a team thats in the playoffs right now to move forward in the future! no elite clubs are ever really sellers why would we want to be. sign markov to 3/4 years with zero clauses and move gorges like we did rivet. open a roster spot on the left side of the blue line for tinordi in a role he can surely do better then gorges i believe. i'll save trade proposals for the appropriate threads but.............. sound trades for system needs, savvy pick ups and good drafting..... let the kids push the vets for there spots! thats what i said!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Lmfao!@ all this.... Completely covered Markov situation, we can all relax now, because none of us will change our minds anyway If the return for Markov is a knock out prospect, a roster player in the mold of what we need most(size and skill at RW) and a 1st rounder, maybe we trade him? I know I would in light of age factor, we ARE rebuilding, trade value is as high as it will ever be..... However.... Habs can't expect to replace what he brings in any deal for him, and hell yeah our defense isn't better without him, nor will it be this season, and we are in a great position to make the playoffs, trading him would all but ensure we wouldn't go far this season....Tough decision for Bergevin for sure, he would look pretty bad by trading Markov if we tanked and missed the playoffs, or went out first round. He would look equally inept if he doesn't trade Markov, and signs him to the term Markov wants, then his knee gets blown out, and once again we fail to ensure anything for the future, the now, or the salary cap issues by making the wrong decision. Luck of the draw on a decision that is of this magnitude, I think all of you that discussed this here have great points, and each of you could be absolutely right, but only time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 At the risk of further compounding the aggravation, it really does depend on return. I doubt that most of the "keep Markov" crowd are saying we have to keep him under any circumstances. It's more that they doubt the return will be sufficiently impressive to warrant the damage to the blueline. And I doubt that the "trade Markov" crowd are saying to dump him no matter what. For instance, I for one would expect a serious prospect back, not just picks. As for replacing Markov, my thought is that we shouldn't think in terms of a comparable replacement, but rather a top-4 defenceman of nearly any profile, as long as they can reliably play top-4 minutes. Doesn't have to be an elite defender, just a competent one. You don't replace Markov's exact contribution, but you still have a useful D by committee. But that's just a thought. EDIT: the Markov-St Louis scenario...now THAT is the exact opposite of the direction I'd advocate. Although it would be lots of fun to see St Louis in Montreal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Markov apparently turned down 6 mill for 1 year wants 3 years. There is no way under the sun that we should be commiting to a a 35 year old on the downhill slide with 2 bad knees for three years. Imho (as we all know) the time to trade is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Markov apparently turned down 6 mill for 1 year wants 3 years. There is no way under the sun that we should be commiting to a a 35 year old on the downhill slide with 2 bad knees for three years. Imho (as we all know) the time to trade is now. i'd do 2 years for $10M ($6M/$4M) or even $12M for 3 YEARS ($6M/$4M/$2M), as long as it doesn't come with a complete NMC/NTC Personally, i see Markov playing until 39 or 40, but do expect a decline in the later years. If Gonchar fan get the money he's getting, Markov should still be movable at the reduced actual salary to teams trying to reach the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 i'd do 2 years for $10M ($6M/$4M) or even $12M for 3 YEARS ($6M/$4M/$2M), as long as it doesn't come with a complete NMC/NTC Personally, i see Markov playing until 39 or 40, but do expect a decline in the later years. If Gonchar fan get the money he's getting, Markov should still be movable at the reduced actual salary to teams trying to reach the floor. This reminds me a lot of Sundin and his last contract with the Leafs. Fans wanted the home town discount and the assets for trading him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm not suggesting we move him in a year or 2. What I'm saying is that if his play drops off dramatically we need to have the flexibility to move him. I hate NMC ant NTC - particularly when players are getting $ and term. Personally, I'd like to see Markiv retire a hab and think he does have 2 good and at least one decent years left in him. This reminds me a lot of Sundin and his last contract with the Leafs. Fans wanted the home town discount and the assets for trading him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I think that, if your plan relies on "cap floor" teams being willing to take on washed-up overpaid players, it's not a good plan. Remember how Gomez was supposed to be tradable to such teams? If you don't believe Markov will be worth anywhere near $5 mil per season three years from now, then don't agree to pay him $5 mil three years from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 At the risk of further compounding the aggravation, it really does depend on return. I doubt that most of the "keep Markov" crowd are saying we have to keep him under any circumstances. It's more that they doubt the return will be sufficiently impressive to warrant the damage to the blueline. And I doubt that the "trade Markov" crowd are saying to dump him no matter what. For instance, I for one would expect a serious prospect back, not just picks. This is the perhaps the most logical post in this entire thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Not sure exactly what would be appropriate compensation for ol #79? Oduya was traded for 2nd & 3rd picks Gaustad + 4th for a 1st Penner for 1st-3rd and d -prospect. Similar to what Kings shelled out for Penner maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm not suggesting we move him in a year or 2. What I'm saying is that if his play drops off dramatically we need to have the flexibility to move him. I hate NMC ant NTC - particularly when players are getting $ and term. Personally, I'd like to see Markiv retire a hab and think he does have 2 good and at least one decent years left in him. I hate those clauses as well. All i am saying is that if you expect him to give you a home town discount to stay, you have forfeited your right to move him. To me, Markov should remain a Hab and just have a reduced role as his production dictates. An example would be SY in Detriot. That is what should have happened with Koivu. I do however see the merits of moving him, i just don't think it will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 i'd do 2 years for $10M ($6M/$4M) or even $12M for 3 YEARS ($6M/$4M/$2M), as long as it doesn't come with a complete NMC/NTC Personally, i see Markov playing until 39 or 40, but do expect a decline in the later years. If Gonchar fan get the money he's getting, Markov should still be movable at the reduced actual salary to teams trying to reach the floor. The rumblings out there seem to be that Markov is seeking comparable or slightly higher money than he's getting now on a 3 year pact. Knowing that, it would take more than a $5 M cap hit to get him for two years though I agree that term is probably ideal. Your three year proposal wouldn't fly, it's too rapid of a decline to fit the new CBA requirements. At a first year salary of $6 M, the lowest his salary can drop to in any year is $3 M (and no, 6/3/3 also doesn't work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 If Markov goes to market he's the best defenceman available and who would get the biggest return. Only Dan Girardi going to market could possibly fetch more due to his age. Of course, that should also be reminding people we're trading a top pairing (declining but still) defenceman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 If Markov goes to market he's the best defenceman available and who would get the biggest return. Only Dan Girardi going to market could possibly fetch more due to his age. Of course, that should also be reminding people we're trading a top pairing (declining but still) defenceman. We know. But what age did Tiger Woods game drop to that of a mere mortal..35. It is no surprise many pro athletes best days are behind them at 35 and small minority still do well. And those with multiple knee surgeries, must be even slimmer crowd? One or two year deal is fine by me; but, I would guess he will get his 3 year deal and only time will tell if smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.