Andrei Markov tribute thread - officially not back

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Looks like Christmas came early for AK Bars... Fitting jerseys.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Markov wearing the C in Russia but never in Montreal really bugs me.

[DON]

Why? He obviously didn't like dealing with English media and that is part of a captain's role. Now he likely feels "at home", does not have to struggle with language, so wouldn't read a lot into it, but I think almost every Hab fans would of been pleased if he had of been Habs captain for past decade.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

18 hours ago, DON said:

Why? He obviously didn't like dealing with English media and that is part of a captain's role. Now he likely feels "at home", does not have to struggle with language, so wouldn't read a lot into it, but I think almost every Hab fans would of been pleased if he had of been Habs captain for past decade.

 

Markov did not want to be captain in Montreal. Can't blame the organization for that. 

 

My enduring memory of Markov's leadership is his calming down a hyper-active Subban early in the Boston series. Clearly, he liked to exert leadership - just not playing the silly PR role that the Habs' captaincy demands.

[Toronthab]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Markov did not want to be captain in Montreal. Can't blame the organization for that. 

 

My enduring memory of Markov's leadership is his calming down a hyper-active Subban early in the Boston series. Clearly, he liked to exert leadership - just not playing the silly PR role that the Habs' captaincy demands.

 

Good points from both of you. I'd have loved to see Markov in the position, isolated from its PR function, he was viewed to already have. I'm sure gonna miss this great gentleman and hockey player. He was always the captain at the level that counts. God bless you Andre and thank you so very much for sharing your good self with us all these many years.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, Toronthab said:

Good points from both of you. I'd have loved to see Markov in the position, isolated from its PR function, he was viewed to already have. I'm sure gonna miss this great gentleman and hockey player. He was always the captain at the level that counts. God bless you Andre and thank you so very much for sharing your good self with us all these many years.

 

Well, it was never clear to me that there was anything wrong with the 'quadruple A, no C' model. Arguably that model was perfect for Montreal, where the captaincy is so fraught with politics. Too innovative for Team Hidebound to sustain, I suppose.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

37 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Well, it was never clear to me that there was anything wrong with the 'quadruple A, no C' model. Arguably that model was perfect for Montreal, where the captaincy is so fraught with politics. Too innovative for Team Hidebound to sustain, I suppose.

Too innovative for Team Hidebound just like it is too innovative for 29-30 other teams. It's not like we didn't do it for a period of time or anything. Of course it is 'arguable' but I think not having a captain can be a distraction of its own. It's basically saying that we don't have anyone "good enough" for the role. What I see from your argument is that we should basically have our players fear being thrown into captaincy due to the political rammafictions of being in the position and I don't see the postive innovation of that at all. If anything, not having a captain would be another "innovative" ideology similar to our unique stance of having only a francophone speaking coach. Something else to complain about. 

[Toronthab]

The whole idea of captain does raise interesting lines of thought. What "is" a captain? I kinda get captain Beliveau. I think its a useful thing and probably necessary in human organization.  

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

21 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Too innovative for Team Hidebound just like it is too innovative for 29-30 other teams. It's not like we didn't do it for a period of time or anything. Of course it is 'arguable' but I think not having a captain can be a distraction of its own. It's basically saying that we don't have anyone "good enough" for the role. What I see from your argument is that we should basically have our players fear being thrown into captaincy due to the political rammafictions of being in the position and I don't see the postive innovation of that at all. If anything, not having a captain would be another "innovative" ideology similar to our unique stance of having only a francophone speaking coach. Something else to complain about. 

 

Quite possibly - and no doubt fans complain about nearly everything. One thing I do know is that when we had the 4 As, all we heard about was the great chemistry and the great young core. A year later, with the captaincy settled, management was bitching about 'leadership.' Now I'm sure the primary issue with internal chemistry in 2016 was the injury to Price. But still, if the chemistry was good, why muck with it? Anyway, it's no huge deal. 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

6 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Quite possibly - and no doubt fans complain about nearly everything. One thing I do know is that when we had the 4 As, all we heard about was the great chemistry and the great young core. A year later, with the captaincy settled, management was bitching about 'leadership.' Now I'm sure the primary issue with internal chemistry in 2016 was the injury to Price. But still, if the chemistry was good, why muck with it? Anyway, it's no huge deal. 

??

 

I admit the details of the exact quotes on this leadership issue are fuzzy to me but as much as I think leadership and intangibles are qualities that can make or break a team, I think it's an overblown statement when it comes to the Habs. I think we have had some locker room issues in the past without throwing out any names but I don't see leadership as having been an issue for us in the recent past. That sounds like a really easy explanation to a more complicated problem. I do agree that I think Price getting injured was the main issue in 2016 and there's no words inside a locker room that can help overcome such a drastic problem.

 

As you said, it's a debateable topic and I've seen people completely disagree with this point of view but as much as our chemistry may have been great, I personally think a team without a captain has issues of its own. There's usually some good candidates for the position on any contending team in my opinion. There's also no evidence that our chemistry was good because we had four A's and no captain. The only thing that would cause such a rift in my opinion would be if there were other players who thought Pacioretty wasn't deserving of the position. Since the players apparently voted themselves, I can't see that being the case. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

14 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

??

 

I admit the details of the exact quotes on this leadership issue are fuzzy to me but as much as I think leadership and intangibles are qualities that can make or break a team, I think it's an overblown statement when it comes to the Habs. I think we have had some locker room issues in the past without throwing out any names but I don't see leadership as having been an issue for us in the recent past. That sounds like a really easy explanation to a more complicated problem. I do agree that I think Price getting injured was the main issue in 2016 and there's no words inside a locker room that can help overcome such a drastic problem.

 

As you said, it's a debateable topic and I've seen people completely disagree with this point of view but as much as our chemistry may have been great, I personally think a team without a captain has issues of its own. There's usually some good candidates for the position on any contending team in my opinion. There's also no evidence that our chemistry was good because we had four A's and no captain. The only thing that would cause such a rift in my opinion would be if there were other players who thought Pacioretty wasn't deserving of the position. Since the players apparently voted themselves, I can't see that being the case. 

 

Hey, if you ask me, the whole 'leadership' thing is mostly a canard - often reflecting lazy thinking and irrational personal biases by ossified old-school types. It's often code for acting in ways that management likes, irrespective of any link to performance, team chemistry, or winning hockey games.

 

But obviously there are times when it matters. You look at the 2009 team, it seems to have been full of immature party animals - they needed a greater number of responsible veterans to show them the way (instead, they got Kovalev ?). The other thing that happens is less about leadership than chemistry, i.e., you get a team divided into cliques that hate each other. That's what happened under the ill-starred co-captaincy of Chelios and Carbo.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say that both PK and Patches thought of themselves as team beta males, second after Price's alpha. Dangling the captaincy as a prize that would eventually be awarded may have compounded internal tensions once Price got hurt. If so, then perhaps sticking with 4 As might have prevented the issue. But this is, obviously, sheer speculation.

[DON]

1g- 6pts in 4games, for a certain new KHL captain.

[Guest Stogey24]

5 games

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, DON said:

1g- 6pts in 4games, for a certain new KHL captain.

 

Is this any surprise? Was there any reason at all for thinking Markov couldn't still play?

 

The final tale of the tape has yet to be told; if someone on our current blueline other than Weber gets 40 points this season, or if those cap savings end up being spent in a way that substantially improves the team, then letting him walk was defensible. Otherwise, it's just another stupid move.

[Link67]

3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Is this any surprise? Was there any reason at all for thinking Markov couldn't still play?

 

The final tale of the tape has yet to be told; if someone on our current blueline other than Weber gets 40 points this season, or if those cap savings end up being spent in a way that substantially improves the team, then letting him walk was defensible. Otherwise, it's just another stupid move.

 

 

You get the feeling we are heading for a "yep, stupid move" scenario? lol

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, Link67 said:

 

 

You get the feeling we are heading for a "yep, stupid move" scenario? lol

 

 

 

Yeah...since I believe that offence starts from the back end, and that none of the guys brought in this summer - except possibly the wild care Jarabek - add any offence whatsoever, I still can't see the sense in letting Markov walk (barring future moves with that cap space). However, the fact that he's playing in Europe should mitigate some of the pain, as it relieves us of the scenario of #79 getting 40 points in another NHL jersey, even as our team supplies its usual pratfallen joke of an offence.

[Link67]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Yeah...since I believe that offence starts from the back end, and that none of the guys brought in this summer - except possibly the wild care Jarabek - add any offence whatsoever, I still can't see the sense in letting Markov walk (barring future moves with that cap space). However, the fact that he's playing in Europe should mitigate some of the pain, as it relieves us of the scenario of #79 getting 40 points in another NHL jersey, even as our team supplies its usual pratfallen joke of an offence.

 

 Radulov I was able to move on from, we replaced him with a better and younger player, It would have been nice to have both, but there is ultimately no need to overpay for a 31 year old player long term if you have Drouin in the Hen house. Markov though, that one has bugged me since the first hour, and continues to bug me, we don't have an adequate replacement on that front, and we have done nothing with the cap up to this point anyway so why not give it to him for another year. It would have bought Jerabek a season to learn and adapt to the NHL, and hopefully adequately replace Markov at the end of his journey, properly.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

For the seventh time, we didn't replace Radulov with Drouin. We traded Sergachev for Drouin. Furthermore, even after the move, Bergevin stated that it was still the intention to sign at least one of Radulov or Markov on a first come, first serve basis.

 

As a fan, it becomes easy to justify that we replaced Radulov with a younger player with more potential but I don't understand the purpose in doing so when it clearly wasn't our GM's intention. He did not trade for Drouin as a result of Radulov leaving. That's just not the way it happened.

 

With that being said, at face value, I was about 10 times more upset at letting Radulov go than Markov the moment I heard the news. The reason being that he has more years in the tank (sure the lengthier contract can be spun in a negative manner as well) as well as the fact that with Radulov and Drouin on the team, I think we go from having a relatively weak offense to potentially one of the more dangerous ones in the league. Perhaps we did  still get better on offense but as good as Drouin is, it's not by much due to the fact that we also lost some effective pieces.

 

After the dust settled, however, I do agree that letting Markov go becomes the bigger "mistake". I believe that Radulov and his agent were being tough in negotiations whereas from what I understand Markov was willing to bend and sign a one year contract. If anyone thinks we have a better chance at a cup without Markov and all this cap space, then I wouldn't be able to agree with them. I can't gel with the mentality of not icing the best team possible now unless we are a completely rebuilding team. 

 

I'm usually very positive and think we still have a decent team but I don't think that it's the best team we could have had. Still some time to change that mentality but that's the positive in me coming out again. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

For the seventh time, we didn't replace Radulov with Drouin. We traded Sergachev for Drouin. Furthermore, even after the move, Bergevin stated that it was still the intention to sign at least one of Radulov or Markov on a first come, first serve basis.

 

As a fan, it becomes easy to justify that we replaced Radulov with a younger player with more potential but I don't understand the purpose in doing so when it clearly wasn't our GM's intention. He did not trade for Drouin as a result of Radulov leaving. That's just not the way it happened.

 

With that being said, at face value, I was about 10 times more upset at letting Radulov go than Markov the moment I heard the news. The reason being that he has more years in the tank (sure the lengthier contract can be spun in a negative manner as well) as well as the fact that with Radulov and Drouin on the team, I think we go from having a relatively weak offense to potentially one of the more dangerous ones in the league. Perhaps we did  still get better on offense but as good as Drouin is, it's not by much due to the fact that we also lost some effective pieces.

 

After the dust settled, however, I do agree that letting Markov go becomes the bigger "mistake". I believe that Radulov and his agent were being tough in negotiations whereas from what I understand Markov was willing to bend and sign a one year contract. If anyone thinks we have a better chance at a cup without Markov and all this cap space, then I wouldn't be able to agree with them. I can't gel with the mentality of not icing the best team possible now unless we are a completely rebuilding team. 

 

I'm usually very positive and think we still have a decent team but I don't think that it's the best team we could have had. Still some time to change that mentality but that's the positive in me coming out again. 

 

We do have a decent team - just like last year's. It was MB's job to improve markedly on a team that was exposed rather obviously as a non-contender, despite being in perfect health for the playoffs, a rare event unlikely to be repeated. He didn't do that, unless an upgrade on Emelin while losing Markov constitutes 'marked improvement.' And the price for all this lateral movement - MB's specialty - was merely our organization's only elite prospect Sam Pollock he ain't.

[illWill]

10 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

And the price for all this lateral movement - MB's specialty - was merely our organization's only elite prospect Sam Pollock he ain't.

 

I disagree with this type of narrative and wish it would go away. The Drouin/Radulov transactions were independent of each other. He bolstered the offense (which we begged him to do) by trading said elite prospect, and then Radulov chose to sign elsewhere for more money. That doesn't bother me near as much as Markov leaving with more than enough money to have signed him. That being said, the team is still quite good as it sits right now, and I think that we are underestimating the power of all the cap space that we have. The team should be in the playoff mix all season long and then will be able to absorb pretty much any contract at any point. Does anybody actually think that MB won't spend to the max this season? 

[DON]

2 hours ago, illWill said:

 

I disagree with this type of narrative and wish it would go away. Sorry, too many cynics here for that to happen.. Does anybody actually think that MB won't spend to the max this season? Of course not, Mike Milbury he aint!

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

3 hours ago, illWill said:

 

I disagree with this type of narrative and wish it would go away. The Drouin/Radulov transactions were independent of each other. He bolstered the offense (which we begged him to do) by trading said elite prospect, and then Radulov chose to sign elsewhere for more money. That doesn't bother me near as much as Markov leaving with more than enough money to have signed him. That being said, the team is still quite good as it sits right now, and I think that we are underestimating the power of all the cap space that we have. The team should be in the playoff mix all season long and then will be able to absorb pretty much any contract at any point. Does anybody actually think that MB won't spend to the max this season? 

 

You mean, the type of narrative that looks at the actual results of MB's decisions - ?

[illWill]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

You mean, the type of narrative that looks at the actual results of MB's decisions - ?

 

I mean the narrative that he made a lateral move, or as you call it "MB's specialty". 

 

He acquired an offensively gifted 22 year old that has proven he can play in the NHL and has the potential to be a star for a 19 year old defensive prospect who hasn't proved anything yet but also has the potential to be a star. Where exactly is the lateral move in that transaction involving a forward and a defenseman? 

 

Are you mad that MB didn't put a gun to Radulov's head to force him to sign a deal in Montreal? There was an offer on the table and he didn't take it, he's a grown man and makes decisions for his own life. He got more money after taxes to go to Dallas, he avoids Montreal winters and gets to play with some elite forwards. Sad to see him go but I don't blame him at all. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

50 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

I mean the narrative that he made a lateral move, or as you call it "MB's specialty". 

 

He acquired an offensively gifted 22 year old that has proven he can play in the NHL and has the potential to be a star for a 19 year old defensive prospect who hasn't proved anything yet but also has the potential to be a star. Where exactly is the lateral move in that transaction involving a forward and a defenseman? 

 

Are you mad that MB didn't put a gun to Radulov's head to force him to sign a deal in Montreal? There was an offer on the table and he didn't take it, he's a grown man and makes decisions for his own life. He got more money after taxes to go to Dallas, he avoids Montreal winters and gets to play with some elite forwards. Sad to see him go but I don't blame him at all. 

 

The bottom line is that this team doesn't seem to be any better than last year's manifestly inadequate squad. And, we're now depleted of any elite prospects whatever. Call me unimpressed, as has generally been the case under MB.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

Assessing this off season as having been lateral  is not so far off the mark. What CC was saying is the squad isn't clearly much better than last season and to end up where we are, we had to get rid of our only elite prospect. 

 

If you're going to trade Sergachev for Drouin, then you had better sign Markov with the cap space you have left over. 

 

It's September 5th and we're supposed to expect that Bergevin will actually spend up to the cap limit this season? Which team is going to throw this 8 million dollar player at us? Every day that passes once the season starts, the cap hit that player takes up lessens and so even if we did manage to trade for an 8 million dollar star at say the deadline, it still wouldn't put us to the cap limit.

 

Everyone seems to agree that letting Markov go leaves a negative taste in their mouth and yet that reality is ready to be overlooked with a quick snap of the finger simply in order to continue to be a defender.