|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 16, 2014 10:15:15 GMT -5
Markov wants big bucksThat is too rich and too long IMO given his age >35. I say 2 year 10 mill. If Markov sticks to his gune, then I say he gets moved at the draft.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2014 10:22:39 GMT -5
Chatter about this in the keep, re-sign, etc thread. It's own thread is likely a good idea.
Too many years. Too much cash. I'd trade him if he's adamant about both numbers. Get a pick. Move on. Quietly inquire with Boyle's agent about what he's looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 16, 2014 10:28:44 GMT -5
If MB sets him loose, I can see markov going to play with his buddy in Washington.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Jun 16, 2014 10:43:50 GMT -5
Sounds like Markov is done here. Given this and rumours Habs trading a key forward for a top defenseman.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 16, 2014 11:01:53 GMT -5
I don't know if that's a take it or leave it offer, but I would take it. Markov is still a top 4 dman in this league and I have confidence that he can be productive player for at least 2 of the 3 years. You have to put the $6 million in context with the size of the cap, what it would cost to replace that production and what our internal options are.
I'm shocked at how casual people are at the prospect of losing a top 6 winger (Vanek) and a top 4 dman (Markov) as if those goals and production simply grow on trees and can be easily replaced. The fact is we have no replacement for Vanek and no replacement for Markov. Nathan Beaulieu is probably the closest to Markov in terms of abililty but he's a long way off from replicating Markov's savvy and hockey IQ.
I don't know. It's a year longer than I would like, but Markov is still an important piece to the puzzle for next year and thinking we can sign a lesser dman for less money and get the same results is misguided, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 16, 2014 11:25:09 GMT -5
He's obviously a key player for us given the minutes he played. But again, like others, he did not have a strong playoffs. Other question is, what are other teams prepared to pay. I'd be surprised if he got that kind of term but there are some crazy gms out there. Also, despite Markov's knee problems, he's still quite young as a lot of dmen (Chelios, Lindstrom) play into their 40s.
Couple of thoughts: 1) if Markov is worth $6 a year what's PK worth?; and 2) I suspect this is an opening offer as it doesn't sound like Markov is giving much of a hometown discount - thought he wanted to finish his career in Mtl.
Having said all that, I'd rather pay $14 million over two years than $18 over 3. That 3rd year at $6 is asking a lot. Given his age, aren't we on the hook for it even if he is injured or retires?
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 16, 2014 12:06:20 GMT -5
He's obviously a key player for us given the minutes he played. But again, like others, he did not have a strong playoffs. Other question is, what are other teams prepared to pay. I'd be surprised if he got that kind of term but there are some crazy gms out there. Also, despite Markov's knee problems, he's still quite young as a lot of dmen (Chelios, Lindstrom) play into their 40s. Couple of thoughts: 1) if Markov is worth $6 a year what's PK worth?; and 2) I suspect this is an opening offer as it doesn't sound like Markov is giving much of a hometown discount - thought he wanted to finish his career in Mtl. Having said all that, I'd rather pay $14 million over two years than $18 over 3. That 3rd year at $6 is asking a lot. Given his age, aren't we on the hook for it even if he is injured or retires? I agree. Go two years & maybe up the cash. Watching him this year, my general impression is that he has slowed down a lot & is prone to mistakes at inopportune times. One of these days he's just going hit the wall & then you're on the hook for a lot of money because he's over 35.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 16, 2014 12:07:18 GMT -5
Wow, this has been a great news week.
Next up, PK wants 12 million.......
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Jun 16, 2014 12:10:41 GMT -5
Markov wants big bucksThat is too rich and too long IMO given his age >35. I say 2 year 10 mill. If Markov sticks to his guns, then I say he gets moved at the draft. It's a million more then what I would want to pay him. BUT, I want no NTC by year three or limited NTC.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2014 12:26:36 GMT -5
I certainly agree that there's nothing in the system presently that replaces him. I just can't justify a raise and 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 16, 2014 12:36:23 GMT -5
Markov wants big bucksThat is too rich and too long IMO given his age >35. I say 2 year 10 mill. If Markov sticks to his guns, then I say he gets moved at the draft. It's a million more then what I would want to pay him. BUT, I want no NTC by year three or limited NTC. I wonder if maybe Bergevin might be interested in Brooks Orpik ... a veteran defender with leadership ... $3/3.5 a year for three years? ... he gives up some offense, sure, but here's another player I'd hate to see in Boston ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 16, 2014 13:35:14 GMT -5
It's a million more then what I would want to pay him. BUT, I want no NTC by year three or limited NTC. I wonder if maybe Bergevin might be interested in Brooks Orpik ... a veteran defender with leadership ... $3/3.5 a year for three years? ... he gives up some offense, sure, but here's another player I'd hate to see in Boston ... Cheers. and he's nasty, he took out Gryba real good iirc.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 16, 2014 13:37:49 GMT -5
It's a million more then what I would want to pay him. BUT, I want no NTC by year three or limited NTC. I wonder if maybe Bergevin might be interested in Brooks Orpik ... a veteran defender with leadership ... $3/3.5 a year for three years? ... he gives up some offense, sure, but here's another player I'd hate to see in Boston ... Cheers. He'd certainly up the physicality. He's a left hand shot though, and I'd like to see any move that removes Markov from the lineup allow Emelin to get back to the left side. Gorges-Subban Emelin-Boyle Tinordi/Beaulieu-Weaver
|
|
|
Post by sjhabsfan on Jun 16, 2014 14:09:31 GMT -5
Obviously this is the start of a negotiation and probably not what he will settle for at the end of the day BUT I think there are a few points worth considering
* What would Andrei fetch on the open market? * What did Kimmo Timmonen just get from Philly for a comparable contribution? * As fans we always look at the dollar value.....and in many cases we are shocked by it. I'm thinking the braintrust in both the players and management circles view contracts more in a % of cap scenario. If you look at the RUMORED contract request as a % of CAP since he signed his last contract......he's taking a paycut. We can argue age, injuries, running out of gas until July 1st but $6M today is less then $5.5M was when Andrei signed his last contract.
I take this as the opening shot and hope to get him signed for 3 years. We know him and I'm not convinced at this point in his career that a Dan Boyle or Brooks Orpik can bring the same contribution 23 to 26 minutes a night.
Seeing Emelin going down against the Rangers I can't imagine how our D would have looked had it been Markov. I don't see who can replace those minutes especially PP
Having a career long HAB who still has a positive impact on the game.....I can't see saving $500k on a Dan Boyle and rolling the dice that he still has enough to fill the void
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 16, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5
* As fans we always look at the dollar value.....and in many cases we are shocked by it. I'm thinking the braintrust in both the players and management circles view contracts more in a % of cap scenario. If you look at the RUMORED contract request as a % of CAP since he signed his last contract......he's taking a paycut. We can argue age, injuries, running out of gas until July 1st but $6M today is less then $5.5M was when Andrei signed his last contract. I've actually been thinking about this for a while now. I wonder if any agents/players think more about cap hit than final $ figure. and if they think "cap hit ahead" [sure it's tight now, but in 3 years the cap will be up so you're getting a deal!]
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 16, 2014 14:27:31 GMT -5
* Andrei Markov. It's just too easy to keep him, to flashy and risky to trade him. It will be dicey, and there will be much panic and hand-wringing in Montreal, but I predict Markov will re-sign here, on June 30th, for three years, $18.75 million. Hey, I thought Markov would actually get more... It's a bad year for free agents, and there are desperate GMs out there. Doesn't matter what he is "worth", this is free agency. Worth ain't got nothing to do with it. Nor, frankly, does common sense. Guys always get more than we think they will. Markov knows this. Berezin knows this. Bergevin knows this. You, me, and 28 other GMs may think that two years, $6 million is a good deal, but all it takes is one... Winter is coming...
|
|
|
Post by sergejean on Jun 16, 2014 14:32:13 GMT -5
3 years for 18M is not that bad. At least its a reasonable starting point to negociate. Ideally I would prefer 2 year at 12M but I could live with 3 years for anywhere between 15M and 16.5M. I would not offer a no-trade clause however.
The thing with Markov is that we have absolutely no replacement for him and any suitable top 4 defensemen we would potentially aquire via transaction or free agent would either cost us an asset or equivalent if not more cap room. There is no way MB should let him walk for nothing at this point.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Jun 16, 2014 14:32:33 GMT -5
Markov may be taking less of a cap hit than when he signed his last contract but he will be contributing considerably less to the team. Makes sense that an agent needs to consider cap space, if for no other reason to understand his opponent's position. But ultimately agent just wants the most money he can get. MB will be "educating" Markov and his agent over the next few weeks. No way MB pays 18 over 3.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 16, 2014 14:47:40 GMT -5
Not until next April ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 16, 2014 14:52:36 GMT -5
No way I sign him for 3 years, he lost a few steps this year. It took him half the season to get going, then he died out just before the playoffs. If we do sign him....2 years max, the money I don't have an issue with because IMO he paid his due and should be rewarded. But I can see him playing 3rd pairing before too long.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 16, 2014 14:56:33 GMT -5
Markov may be taking less of a cap hit than when he signed his last contract but he will be contributing considerably less to the team. Makes sense that an agent needs to consider cap space, if for no other reason to understand his opponent's position. But ultimately agent just wants the most money he can get. MB will be "educating" Markov and his agent over the next few weeks. No way MB pays 18 over 3. It was kind of a funny season for Markov, I found, anyway ... he's excellent at the opponents blue line, but it's hit and miss inside his own zone ... an outstanding PP asset, but at the same time I've never seen him get beaten at the line more than I did this year ... even given that, though, we seem to be a better team when he's in the lineup ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 16, 2014 16:54:08 GMT -5
No way I sign him for 3 years, he lost a few steps this year. It took him half the season to get going, then he died out just before the playoffs. If we do sign him....2 years max, the money I don't have an issue with because IMO he paid his due and should be rewarded. But I can see him playing 3rd pairing before too long. He's still a good player and better time management would work to his benefit. Not that I'm espousing 3 year @ $6MM per year, but it will be difficult to replace him this year. Orpik would be better defensively and physically, but no where near offensively. And Orpik will probably get $5MM+.
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jun 16, 2014 17:00:35 GMT -5
He played the better part of his two last contracts on the injured reserve. He was injured with his SECOND knee surgery when we signed him to his current three year contract. If that's not loyalty than I don't know what is. It's Markov's turn to return the favor. 2yrs $10M, take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by sergejean on Jun 16, 2014 19:36:50 GMT -5
He played the better part of his two last contracts on the injured reserve. He was injured with his SECOND knee surgery when we signed him to his current three year contract. If that's not loyalty than I don't know what is. It's Markov's turn to return the favor. 2yrs $10M, take it or leave it. The fact Markov got injured will have no baring on his next contract. These athletes put their health and future well being on the line for their team and this is part of the reason they get paid the big bucks.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 16, 2014 21:28:03 GMT -5
Markov wants big bucksThat is too rich and too long IMO given his age >35. I say 2 year 10 mill. If Markov sticks to his guns, then I say he gets moved at the draft. He's asking for too much and he shouldn't be signed for three years. Since he'll be an impending UFA a few days after the draft, Bergevin wouldn't be able to get anything for him in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Jun 16, 2014 21:31:32 GMT -5
If MB sets him loose, I can see markov going to play with his buddy in Washington. That doesn't worry me. I don't know what he'd had left in him for next season. The Habs could use some young talent as well as more room under the cap.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 17, 2014 6:42:06 GMT -5
I look at it this way;
Last year Brian Gionta had a cap hit of $5 million, against a $64.3 million salary cap. Gionta's cap hit represented 7.8% of the total cap, give or take a few percentage points. No doubt this was an overpayment. Gionta did not "earn" his cap hit percentage, I think we can all agree on that. But was Gionta an albatross? Did Gionta's contract prevent Bergevin from doing something he wanted to do, but didn't have the cap room? No. Nobody was dumped because they needed the cap room to keep Gionta, and in fact Bergevin was even able to go out and get the $7 million rental in Thomas Vanek. Gionta's contract, while an over payment in that final year, really had no impact on anything else other than Geoff Molson's bottom line. Which I care nothing about.
So let's consider Markov at $6 million. I think most people agree that Markov is still pretty close to a $6 million a year player, when compared to guys like Gonchar, or Streit, or Campbell, or so on. An over-payment perhaps, but not a Scott Gomez over-payment. Markov still had over 40 points and averaged over 25 minutes a game. He is still a key member of the blueline, most certainly our #2 defenseman and a pretty good argument could be made he's still #1. He helps the team now, and most certainly for the next couple of years. So I think just about everybody thinks that a two year deal would be perfect, nobody would complain too much about that. It's really just the third year that would be a problem. But how big of a problem would it really be? Will Markov, in three years, be a WORSE player than Gionta was last year? Gionta was not great, but he was still pretty effective. And I think that's where Markov will be in three years. Next year the cap is supposed to be around $71 million. Markov's cap hit then would be 8.5% of the cap, which isn't all that far off of Gionta's non-factor cap hit of last year. If the cap continues to go up, as I believe it will, then that effect is even less.
Markov will be over-paid on a three year deal. No doubt about it. I don't think anybody would argue that. But he will not be grossly over-paid in my opinion, and I think he will still be a reasonably effective player, and will not HURT the team. On the other hand, losing Markov will most certainly HURT the team next year, and probably the year after as well. So our options are to *maybe* hurt the team three years from now (but probably not) or DEFINITELY hurt the team next year, and maybe the year after as well.
Seems like an easy choice to me. If you can get him to accept two years then great. But otherwise I don't see it as being a crippling deal to sign him for three.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2014 7:06:52 GMT -5
and if his start to the negotiations is 3@18 then the contract he signs might be for a bit less.
and it's all good as he mentors the young ones for three years and retires a Hab.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2014 7:24:40 GMT -5
I look at it this way; Last year Brian Gionta had a cap hit of $5 million, against a $64.3 million salary cap. Gionta's cap hit represented 7.8% of the total cap, give or take a few percentage points. No doubt this was an overpayment. Gionta did not "earn" his cap hit percentage, I think we can all agree on that. But was Gionta an albatross? Did Gionta's contract prevent Bergevin from doing something he wanted to do, but didn't have the cap room? No. Nobody was dumped because they needed the cap room to keep Gionta, and in fact Bergevin was even able to go out and get the $7 million rental in Thomas Vanek. Gionta's contract, while an over payment in that final year, really had no impact on anything else other than Geoff Molson's bottom line. Which I care nothing about. So let's consider Markov at $6 million. I think most people agree that Markov is still pretty close to a $6 million a year player, when compared to guys like Gonchar, or Streit, or Campbell, or so on. An over-payment perhaps, but not a Scott Gomez over-payment. Markov still had over 40 points and averaged over 25 minutes a game. He is still a key member of the blueline, most certainly our #2 defenseman and a pretty good argument could be made he's still #1. He helps the team now, and most certainly for the next couple of years. So I think just about everybody thinks that a two year deal would be perfect, nobody would complain too much about that. It's really just the third year that would be a problem. But how big of a problem would it really be? Will Markov, in three years, be a WORSE player than Gionta was last year? Gionta was not great, but he was still pretty effective. And I think that's where Markov will be in three years. Next year the cap is supposed to be around $71 million. Markov's cap hit then would be 8.5% of the cap, which isn't all that far off of Gionta's non-factor cap hit of last year. If the cap continues to go up, as I believe it will, then that effect is even less. Markov will be over-paid on a three year deal. No doubt about it. I don't think anybody would argue that. But he will not be grossly over-paid in my opinion, and I think he will still be a reasonably effective player, and will not HURT the team. On the other hand, losing Markov will most certainly HURT the team next year, and probably the year after as well. So our options are to *maybe* hurt the team three years from now (but probably not) or DEFINITELY hurt the team next year, and maybe the year after as well. Seems like an easy choice to me. If you can get him to accept two years then great. But otherwise I don't see it as being a crippling deal to sign him for three. I'd add one thing to all this: LTIR. Long-term injury reserve. Yes, as an over-35 contract if he retires his cap hit remains, but fact is, he's unlikely to retire unless he's badly hurt, and badly hurt means long-term injury reserve, something the league made up because Philly is well-connected. That being said, LTIR is probably much more complicated than we realise, with multiple independent doctors and the like, but really, if Markov's knee (or some other body part) just gives out, we'll be ok. If he just gets old and awful, then we'll be in trouble. I expect by year 3 he'll be a 3d pairing PP specialist, though. And before signing him, I'd do a lot of Excel spreadsheets, to make sure re-signing Gallagher, Galchenyuk and anyone else who's contract expires over those 3 years won't be an issue, even if the cap stagnated.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 17, 2014 8:40:36 GMT -5
Markov is already gone! The 28 year old Markov who could skate, pass, shoot and defend is no longer there. We are now talking about an ageing savy veteran who is trying to keep up for a few more pay checks, wonky knees, injury prone, unable to rush back for pucks dumped in the corner. As a defenseman he backs up too deep from the blue line to avoid speedy forwards getting around him. His offensive smarts are still there, but his production will decline sharply. He can still contribute, but not for three more years.
|
|