Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 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. I was talking with my roommate about this the other day. We are so afraid of a player declining we don't ever pay attention to the fact that Markov in decline is still a lot better than some of the youngsters we have on a good day. He was saying how it's such a risk to take Marty St. Louis at 38 with a year left when he hasn't had a less than elite year since 2006 and proved this year he could play without Stamkos. Are we going to be that cautious about age? I understand it's fair about Markov with his injury history and trust me, I don't want him on a three year deal either. I agree one or two is best. It's odd people keep thinking Markov will get his three years. If Bergevin has proven anything so far is that he sticks to his damn guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 It's odd people keep thinking Markov will get his three years. If Bergevin has proven anything so far is that he sticks to his damn guns. That is exactly what I was going to say. Anyways this is not about whether Markov retiring a Hab it is about winning a cup. If Andrei feels he needs a 3 year deal at 6 million. More power to him. I snicerely hope and pretty much believe someone will give it to him. Just not MB and the Habs. I personally would put re-signing him as 2nd option, if there are really no takers at a really good return then I would look at signing him. If he sticks to his guns then, the 3rd option, I would let him walk and use cap space to find UFA we need. I really dislike that option. My first priority would be trading him for the absolute best we can get. Building toward a cup run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromage Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 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. cant even compare golf to hockey. Tiger Woods game didn`t decline because he was getting old, else Phil Mickelson or Jack Niklaus wouldn't be competitive at their respective ages. /sarcasm golf isnt even a sport, its a game. but i digress, Markov should be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 cant even compare golf to hockey. Tiger Woods game didn`t decline because he was getting old, else Phil Mickelson or Jack Niklaus wouldn't be competitive at their respective ages. /sarcasm golf isnt even a sport, its a game. but i digress, Markov should be traded. Disagree about what is a sport, but irrelevent. OK, how many 35 + year old NBA players shine? Kobe basically is washed up @35, a la Tiger, injuries catch up when hit old timer age. How many 35+ golfers win majors? few Tiger can barely swing a club without whincing these days and Mickelson needs lots of time off to recoop for his ailments. Imagine same goes for Rugby-Soccer-NFL and almost every pro sport. But, if Markov is willing to take shorter deal, i say sign him, if not ship him somewhere, i would assume some bidding war would occur for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 One thing that I don't understand is that some of the people pushing for Markov to be traded now are the same ones who argued against it when I suggested it in the summer. The team's outlook hasn't changed, the only thing different is that Markov's value is arguably lower now as a rental. I'd only like the trade if it included a very good young player or prospect coming back, but at this point I think it's unlikely that he'll be moved. I'm fine with this, as I see this team as being capable of challenging for the 2-3 seed in the division for the next few years, and all the best players in the system besides Galchenyuk are fully arrived as NHLers (Galch still has a lot of room to improve). On the other hand, there isn't much reason to believe that we're going to take large steps to being a top contender, so I'd be happy if we could get a major piece for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 One thing that I don't understand is that some of the people pushing for Markov to be traded now are the same ones who argued against it when I suggested it in the summer. The team's outlook hasn't changed, the only thing different is that Markov's value is arguably lower now as a rental. I'd only like the trade if it included a very good young player or prospect coming back, but at this point I think it's unlikely that he'll be moved. I'm fine with this, as I see this team as being capable of challenging for the 2-3 seed in the division for the next few years, and all the best players in the system besides Galchenyuk are fully arrived as NHLers (Galch still has a lot of room to improve). On the other hand, there isn't much reason to believe that we're going to take large steps to being a top contender, so I'd be happy if we could get a major piece for the future. I would like to read what you said in the summer, and others but this thread only goes back to Jan of this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 One thing that I don't understand is that some of the people pushing for Markov to be traded now are the same ones who argued against it when I suggested it in the summer. The team's outlook hasn't changed, the only thing different is that Markov's value is arguably lower now as a rental. I'm less pushing for it and considering it a possibility if Bergevin and Markov cannot come to an agreement on a short term contract. Not once did I say I wanted Markov on a three year deal. If he's willing to sacrifice his place on the team for long term security then we have to look elsewhere. This team is better with Markov than without from both an on ice perspective and the development of the players on the team. But if we can't sign him for a year or two? Then we have to decide whether we'd be better treating him as a rental for the post-season or trading him. With the team keeping Beaulieu in the AHL I have my doubts on the team willing to lose Markov and just going with a kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I would like to read what you said in the summer, and others but this thread only goes back to Jan of this year. In trade proposal thread Lovett first hinted in summer and I followed up with Markov trade scenario (till went into Diaz-Markov rathole and dblalr squashed it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I can see if I can find an old Markov trade thread and merge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 In trade proposal thread Lovett first hinted in summer and I followed up with Markov trade scenario (till went into Diaz-Markov rathole and dblalr squashed it) I bet we could have gotten Wayne Simmonds or Chris Stewart for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I bet we could have gotten Wayne Simmonds or Chris Stewart for him. Stewart yes, because 99% of Habs fans don't watch him and don't realize he's the St. Louis Blues version of Rene Bourque. Simmonds no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Stewart yes, because 99% of Habs fans don't watch him and don't realize he's the St. Louis Blues version of Rene Bourque. Simmonds no. I like Simmonds, 42pt/yr average for $4m/yr, not crazy overpayment, but doubt get for a UFA rental in Markov, would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I like Simmonds, 42pt/yr average for $4m/yr, not crazy overpayment, but doubt get for a UFA rental in Markov, would you? Simmonds would look solid is a Habs Jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Simmonds would be great, Stewart, meh, no thanks. I always thought he would be a great addition until I watched a couple Blues games and heard what the "Homies" Blues game commenters had to say, and he was floating around like a cloud, with that blank Bourque look on his face. Shame because both these guys have the tools to be great players. Simmonds, I would take in a heart beat...... Yep, like that Simmonds, he is a hell of a hockey player! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Well, 1 week countdown is on, what are odds #79 is suiting up as a Hab next Sat? I say 90% he is still a Hab in Phoenix next Thursday. With road trip starting Monday in L.A. influence Bergevin's deadline dealing, or irrelevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Bob McKenzie believes the value for Markov as a rental is only a first round pick. Said his age, contract demands and his interest in staying in Montreal are the factors. Teams won't want to give up a lot if they feel Markov will just re-sign in Montreal in the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Bob McKenzie believes the value for Markov as a rental is only a first round pick. Said his age, contract demands and his interest in staying in Montreal are the factors. Teams won't want to give up a lot if they feel Markov will just re-sign in Montreal in the summer. 1st round pick, cap space and open roster spot for younger replacement. Kulikov-Buff-Girardi, or the like. No team will seriously think Markov would resign with Habs, that is very rare I think, has maybe only happened once or twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Interesting to note that, according to that report, his "salary demands" are scaring teams off. This could just mean that interested teams are too close to capped out, but it could also mean that his demands are perceived as too high, period. I would not accept one 1st-round pick for Markov, especially considering that the pick is likely to come from a top-15 team. A serious and close-to-NHL-ready prospect has to be part of the package. What's going on here, anyway - teams are suddenly getting responsible when it comes to deadline time? At the very least, MB should try to create a bidding war and see what we ACTUALLY can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Interesting to note that, according to that report, his "salary demands" are scaring teams off. This could just mean that interested teams are too close to capped out, but it could also mean that his demands are perceived as too high, period. I would not accept one 1st-round pick for Markov, especially considering that the pick is likely to come from a top-15 team. A serious and close-to-NHL-ready prospect has to be part of the package. What's going on here, anyway - teams are suddenly getting responsible when it comes to deadline time? At the very least, MB should try to create a bidding war and see what we ACTUALLY can get. This is an odd year really. 1. Teams are capped out. 2. One contender who could use him is Boston, which unlike Toronto and Kaberle, I sincerely doubt we'd ever send Markov there. Another contender who could use him is Pittsburgh with Letang out but the Penguins have seemed to make it clear they aren't focusing on adding an expensive top four D and instead want a right winger for Crosby. Over in the West there's already a bidding war over Girardi (if he's moved) and MacDonald (who any team could fit due to his very low cap hit). 3. Talent wise, Markov is the best defenceman available. But he's a pure rental in the eyes of teams due to his age and cap hit. Same can't be said for MacDonald and Girardi. 4. The only way Montreal really creates a bidding war is if they take some salary back, which starts to really grind on the idea of trading him at all. If Markov doesn't budge on three years then Montreal would need a perfect storm of Girardi re-signing/getting traded early and MacDonald getting traded early to teams, maybe say Girardi being moved to Tampa for St. Louis (Tampa isn't in the race for Girardi but by going there, that would leave the West teams pushing for him to still push) for Markov's value to get truly inflated. All this, PLUS we can't be sending Markov to a team on his no trade list. Far too many intangibles. Even if the Caps got wacky and sent us Dmitri Orlov and Tom Wilson with a draft pick, Montreal would still have to retain salary just to send Markov there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 retaining salary but not cap dollars? actual money on the table. this wouldn't stop a deal from going through. i also think mckenzie is very wrong on this occasion. markov is going to draw much more then just a single first rounder. but, he isn't going to get dealt anyways. MB is going to add to the lineup... gorges is going to be sacrificed before andrei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Why the best move is to keep him. http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/02/28/markov-habs-biggest-deadline-move-making/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 retaining salary but not cap dollars? actual money on the table. this wouldn't stop a deal from going through. i also think mckenzie is very wrong on this occasion. markov is going to draw much more then just a single first rounder. but, he isn't going to get dealt anyways. MB is going to add to the lineup... gorges is going to be sacrificed before andrei If you retain salary, you automatically retain cap hit as well. You can't retain one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Why the best move is to keep him. http://lastwordonsports.com/2014/02/28/markov-habs-biggest-deadline-move-making/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IN THE HEARTS OF MEN Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yeah, that's a pretty convincing case. I will make two points to qualify it: 1. We don't have to replace Markov with a comparable defender; any top-4 defenceman would allow us to run a "platoon" defence corps, tiding us over for a couple of years until Beaulieu is ready to eat serious NHL minutes. Meanwhile, we'd have added a significant top-6 or top-4, nearly NHL-ready prospect to our system (this being the acceptable return on Markov); 2. I'm heartened by the analysis that we have nearly completed the "core" of a contender within 3 years. But I still think that is questionable, given that this team has almost no top-6 wingers. And even if this analysis is correct, we're looking at arriving as contenders by the time Markov is 38. But just "being a contender" does not mean winning a Cup. If we see Year Three as the "end point," then keep Markov; if we see Year Three as just the beginning of an extended period of being perennial contenders, then we see Markov as a transitional figure unlikely to be integral to a future Cup. In which case, we become more likely to consider dealing him for a prospect who WOULD become integral to that future. All that said, I like this piece and it's convincing enough that I'm not going to be upset if we don't deal Markov. 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.