|
Post by christrpn on Feb 16, 2014 10:02:53 GMT -5
He should trade Subban for Hamhuis straight up apparently. Good one. I don't think Gillis will get fleeced twice in the same season. No deal
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Feb 16, 2014 10:40:40 GMT -5
What should MB do? I'd say active weeding, followed by reseeding.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 19, 2014 16:36:14 GMT -5
If Bergevin wants size and effort then maybe he should ask about Arturs Kulda. He's a 2006 late-round pick by the Jets. He's also the guy who took John Tavares out of the tournament with a hard check. Playing for Latvia I'd also say he's very coach-able. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 19, 2014 19:14:11 GMT -5
If Bergevin wants size and effort then maybe he should ask about Arturs Kulda. He's a 2006 late-round pick by the Jets. He's also the guy who took John Tavares out of the tournament with a hard check. Playing for Latvia I'd also say he's very coach-able. Cheers. He was one of the Icecaps best defensemen when he was down here
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 24, 2014 21:54:09 GMT -5
Renaud Lavoie says that Markov wants a three year deal at his current salary, while Bergevin doesn't want to go longer than two years.
Sounds like this one is going to get done and Markov will stay a Hab.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 24, 2014 22:14:21 GMT -5
With the CAP going up, staying at the current salary is almost equivalent to a salary drop. That's a tempting scenario. Two sounds better to me too, even if we up his salary a bit. I just think that 3 years might hold back some of our other young D prospects. Tempting though, if he can stay at this level.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 25, 2014 7:25:13 GMT -5
With the CAP going up, staying at the current salary is almost equivalent to a salary drop. That's a tempting scenario. Two sounds better to me too, even if we up his salary a bit. I just think that 3 years might hold back some of our other young D prospects. Tempting though, if he can stay at this level. I think two years at around $6 million would be a pretty acceptable deal. Three years would fall into the "meh, don't really like that extra year but it's probably not going to cripple us" kind of thing. We were paying Roman Hamrlik pretty much the same money with a MUCH lower cap after all, so I guess we shouldn't complain. Would have been interesting to see if Bergevin could have hit a real homerun with this one though.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 25, 2014 7:30:11 GMT -5
I still say (how many years has it been now??) that we should trade Markov .... He should bring us back some good assets. If I knew Bergevin was going to help the team out at the trade deadline, (obviously by trading others) I might think differently, but I've seen our inactivity to many years now to be fooled again.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 25, 2014 9:12:36 GMT -5
I'd prefer 2 years, but if pushed I'd do 3 years with Markov at or around his current salary. He still has elite skills and is a hard guy to replace. I don't think he will really hurt the development of anyone else and by the time (hypothetically) guys like Beaulieu and Tinordi are commanding higher salaries, Markov will be coming off the books.
I tell you, the guy who is clogging up space IMO is Josh Gorges. A 3rd pair guy who is getting $3.9 million for the next 4 years. I'd much rather move on from him and start breaking in guys like Pateryn, Ellis, or Nygren. I don't mind locking up top 4 guys like PK, Markov, and Emelin to long-term deals, but when it comes to the bottom pair I would rather be flexible and short-term.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Feb 25, 2014 14:52:08 GMT -5
Markov has more value for the Penguins or Bruins than he has to us. I really like him and it depends entirely on the return he would bring, younger, faster stronger higher.
|
|
|
Post by Dschens on Feb 25, 2014 15:33:39 GMT -5
Markov has more value for the Penguins or Bruins than he has to us. I really like him and it depends entirely on the return he would bring, younger, faster stronger higher. For the Ruins??? Please draw the scenario, in which we would trade him to help THEM.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 25, 2014 15:59:34 GMT -5
Markov has more value for the Penguins or Bruins than he has to us. I really like him and it depends entirely on the return he would bring, younger, faster stronger higher. For the Ruins??? Please draw the scenario, in which we would trade him to help THEM. Sure. They send back Lucic, Ericksson, Bergeron and Rielly. I'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by Dschens on Feb 25, 2014 16:35:18 GMT -5
For the Ruins??? Please draw the scenario, in which we would trade him to help THEM. Sure. They send back Lucic, Ericksson, Bergeron and Rielly. I'd do it. Me too, but they must also include the 2011 title.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 25, 2014 17:31:25 GMT -5
Sure. They send back Lucic, Ericksson, Bergeron and Rielly. I'd do it. Me too, but they must also include the 2011 title. The one they stole, yes.
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Feb 25, 2014 18:28:25 GMT -5
Tony Marinaro broke with a tweet saying MB offered Markov a one year $6M contract, which, in my opinion, is very reasonnable. Mb wants to go year by year. Markov wants a three year deal. Now this is all rumors and Markov denies everything. Given his age, his cap hit stick throughout the contract.. Injured or retired. I hope MB sticks to his guns and if Markov really doesn't want a one year deal, shop him and take highest bidder.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Feb 25, 2014 23:40:42 GMT -5
No way he gets 3 years. There are some dumb gms out there but who's giving 3 years at that price to markov given his knee and age. Can't see any gm giving him that term unless the salary comes down. too much risk if he can't or doesn't want to play later. Markov knows that. As well, Markov loves Mtl. Can't see him passing up another year in Mtl. for the hope of getting two more somewhere else when he knows if he can still play he will be welcome to stay on after next year. i have no doubt this deal gets done. He's staying!
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 26, 2014 21:18:42 GMT -5
Tony Marinaro broke with a tweet saying MB offered Markov a one year $6M contract, which, in my opinion, is very reasonnable. Mb wants to go year by year. Markov wants a three year deal. Now this is all rumors and Markov denies everything. Given his age, his cap hit stick throughout the contract.. Injured or retired. I hope MB sticks to his guns and if Markov really doesn't want a one year deal, shop him and take highest bidder. Just heard McKenzie say that Markov's initial demand is 4 years which is way too much. They can't go more than 1-2 with him.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 26, 2014 21:27:21 GMT -5
Tony Marinaro broke with a tweet saying MB offered Markov a one year $6M contract, which, in my opinion, is very reasonnable. Mb wants to go year by year. Markov wants a three year deal. Now this is all rumors and Markov denies everything. Given his age, his cap hit stick throughout the contract.. Injured or retired. I hope MB sticks to his guns and if Markov really doesn't want a one year deal, shop him and take highest bidder. Just heard McKenzie say that Markov's initial demand is 4 years which is way too much. They can't go more than 1-2 with him. he had also said something about bonuses based on games played as a possibility. I'd go 2 years; if he wants 3 then it is low salary with bonus for gp . . . i just don't trust his knee to last 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 27, 2014 10:38:49 GMT -5
Just heard McKenzie say that Markov's initial demand is 4 years which is way too much. They can't go more than 1-2 with him. he had also said something about bonuses based on games played as a possibility. I'd go 2 years; if he wants 3 then it is low salary with bonus for gp . . . i just don't trust his knee to last 3 years. The thing is somebody probably will offer him four years *cough Philadelphia cough New Jersey*. What to do, what to do...
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 27, 2014 10:49:55 GMT -5
"Bonuses based on games played" leads me to cynicism. How likely is it that such a player doesn't go full-out--in an effort to avoid injury and get those bonuses?
Too many guarantees, promises, NTCs in this league...especially when your management isn't up to snuff.
That's something Pollock didn't have to face...at least not to anywhere near today's extent.
With today's rules back then, Mickey Redmond likely would've had some sort of clause in place that would've hindered the Frank Mahovlich trade. Or the Big M would've had a NMC...although he likely would've agreed to join his brother and get off that mediocre Wings team.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 27, 2014 11:39:56 GMT -5
he had also said something about bonuses based on games played as a possibility. I'd go 2 years; if he wants 3 then it is low salary with bonus for gp . . . i just don't trust his knee to last 3 years. The thing is somebody probably will offer him four years *cough Philadelphia cough New Jersey*. What to do, what to do... If pushed, I would go 3 years. Markov hasn't missed a game since he got back. Yes, he has slowed down but I think he looks stronger this year than he did last year. And guys with his smarts and savvy can find a way to be effective. Lidstrom played until he was 40, Chara is 36 and still has 4 years left on his deal at almost $7 million. Markov at this point is a real asset. He's good enough to play at a top 4 level, he helps keep us competitive in the short run, and helps provide a bridge to replacements like guys like Beaulieu, Nygren, etc. He's not holding up anyone's development like Doug Murray is with Jared Tinordi. I would be looking to move Gorges. Emelin I just have to believe that he is struggling to get his game, strength, timing, and confidence back and that he will be the player we love next season. I hope. So trade any of the following: Gionta, Gorges, Briere, Bourque, Beaulieu, picks, prospects. Keep Markov. Otherwise we just need to go out and find a replacement for him in the summer. Beaulieu isn't close to being ready to stepping up to that role and he's the closest player we have in the system to Markov. The idea is to move surplus assets to fill holes, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 27, 2014 11:44:51 GMT -5
he had also said something about bonuses based on games played as a possibility. I'd go 2 years; if he wants 3 then it is low salary with bonus for gp . . . i just don't trust his knee to last 3 years. The thing is somebody probably will offer him four years *cough Philadelphia cough New Jersey*. What to do, what to do... four years is just too iffy. three? grit my teeth and bear it depending on the $ involved.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 27, 2014 11:51:57 GMT -5
The problem is that unless Bergevin threatens Markov with a trade in the next week - and actually means it - then Markov has all the leverage. If he is NOT traded within the next week what is Bergevin going to do?
"We will give you two years." "No. Four years." "Okay, we will give you three years." "No. Four years."
Then what? Markov can sit and wait until the end of the year because there is a good chance that he will get that four year offer from somebody else, and unless Bergevin is a hard-a** that will cut off his own nose to spite his face then that three year offer from Montreal is still going to be there July 1st. So he doesn't HAVE to accept that two or three year deal right now, because Bergevin's only leverage after the trade deadline will be "we'll let you walk for nothing." Markov may indeed want to stay hereā¦ but I would bet you that his desire is much, much smaller than Bergevin's fear of losing him for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 27, 2014 11:57:31 GMT -5
The problem with a trade is that the trading partner will likely want Markov ONLY for a rental. No interest in re-signing him to the 4 years he's reportedly stuck on getting.
And so, the trading partner isn't going to want to give up much just for a rental. Bergevin's only leverage in that case is, "How much is a Cup worth to you?"
Delicate situation....but Markov can't be allowed to walk for nothing at the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Feb 27, 2014 12:58:01 GMT -5
I think there's enough history and good will between Markov and the Habs and the city that I wouldn't be too scared about going into the offseason with a risk that he won't be signed before the start of free agency. I believe Markov truly wants to stay in Montreal and work out a deal that makes sense for both sides.
But good will can disappear quickly. If true, I found Bergevin's offer of a 1-year deal to be an insult to Markov. This isn't Frankie Bouillon. This is a guy who has been an All Star, a longtime Hab, and despite the injuries, is still only 35 and has played in every single game since he came back from the knee injury. He has more than 1 year left in the tank. Heck, Danny Briere got 2 years from Berg and he's older than Markov.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Feb 27, 2014 13:34:09 GMT -5
Gotta start somewhere negotiable, BH. From 1 you can go up to 2....but if you start at 2 and Markov wants 4....you'll end up at 3.
IMO, management has to look at what's best asset-wise for our team. Will Markov, at 36-37, bring more to the table than anybody we could get for him now?
Players have to know that reality. It truly is nothing personal. Berg wouldn't be doing his due diligence if he didn't examine all the options.
Besides, Markov has a Modified NTC. He could pull a "Sundin" on us....or greatly reduce Berg's options/return, and I wouldn't blame him. He'd simply be living up to his contract....nothing personal.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 27, 2014 14:22:41 GMT -5
If I'm MB, I'm calling Vancouver about Edler. Rumours continue to surface that he's available (along with Kesler). 27 years old, signed long term to $5 million per, good size and skill. His play has dipped, but I think it's a good time to buy lower. He's not the only one in Vancouver who's play has dipped. A new city might just be what the Doctor ordered.
He replaces Markov, for less money, and he's just into his prime. Start with Beaulieu and a pick/prospect. It may take 3 pieces, but start with two. Then you can move Markov to a contender and replace some of what you sent to Vancouver.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Feb 27, 2014 15:28:20 GMT -5
I think there's enough history and good will between Markov and the Habs and the city that I wouldn't be too scared about going into the offseason with a risk that he won't be signed before the start of free agency. I believe Markov truly wants to stay in Montreal and work out a deal that makes sense for both sides. But good will can disappear quickly. If true, I found Bergevin's offer of a 1-year deal to be an insult to Markov. This isn't Frankie Bouillon. This is a guy who has been an All Star, a longtime Hab, and despite the injuries, is still only 35 and has played in every single game since he came back from the knee injury. He has more than 1 year left in the tank. Heck, Danny Briere got 2 years from Berg and he's older than Markov. I'm pretty sure Markov has played out the season without a new contract before. If the Habs season ends around April 30th they still have 2 months to work something out or trade his rights.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 27, 2014 19:15:09 GMT -5
If I'm MB, I'm calling Vancouver about Edler. Rumours continue to surface that he's available (along with Kesler). 27 years old, signed long term to $5 million per, good size and skill. His play has dipped, but I think it's a good time to buy lower. He's not the only one in Vancouver who's play has dipped. A new city might just be what the Doctor ordered. He replaces Markov, for less money, and he's just into his prime. Start with Beaulieu and a pick/prospect. It may take 3 pieces, but start with two. Then you can move Markov to a contender and replace some of what you sent to Vancouver. If Kesler is available, I'd hope Bergevin makes an honest effort to get him
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 3, 2014 7:44:57 GMT -5
Hypothetically, if Berg decides to go all in and buy, which I don't think he will, who should he target?
|
|