|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 17, 2014 8:49:15 GMT -5
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. Thank you, BC. I agree that it's the 3rd year that bugs people, but that's what happens in free agency. If Berg had signed Markov to a 2-year, $12 million deal I think we'd all be happy. Maybe people would have preferred 2 years, $10 million but in the context of a growing salary cap the difference is virtually meaningless. Markov is still a top 4 dman. He's slowed down, but I thought he was a FAR better player this past year than he was the first year coming back from his injuries. And he's been durable too, playing in all 48 games last year and 81 games this year. I think he's a savvy enough player to be effective as a 35+ year old guy, but you want to monitor the minutes of a guy like that. Markov and Subban on the PP is still a lethal combination, one of the best in the league. Add to that the absence of a suitable alternative and the fact that Vanek looks to be gone and it's a no brainer, IMO. Gotta sign him.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 17, 2014 9:02:05 GMT -5
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. Thank you, BC. I agree that it's the 3rd year that bugs people, but that's what happens in free agency. If Berg had signed Markov to a 2-year, $12 million deal I think we'd all be happy. Maybe people would have preferred 2 years, $10 million but in the context of a growing salary cap the difference is virtually meaningless. Markov is still a top 4 dman. He's slowed down, but I thought he was a FAR better player this past year than he was the first year coming back from his injuries. And he's been durable too, playing in all 48 games last year and 81 games this year. I think he's a savvy enough player to be effective as a 35+ year old guy, but you want to monitor the minutes of a guy like that. Markov and Subban on the PP is still a lethal combination, one of the best in the league. Add to that the absence of a suitable alternative and the fact that Vanek looks to be gone and it's a no brainer, IMO. Gotta sign him. The problem is that it will be MT monitoring his minutes, so I expect markov to play approx 25+ minutes a game. The team needs to start using Beaulieu on the 2nd PP unit and then if he excels, move him to the first and put Markov on the 2nd. I would like 2 defensive PP units, each with 1 minute of PP time. PK/Beau and Markov/Emelin (he has a very good shot from the point, imo)
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Jun 17, 2014 9:14:59 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. Markov's production has already declined. 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 12 52 64 2009-10 Montreal Canadiens NHL 45 6 28 34 2010-11 Montreal Canadiens NHL 7 1 2 3 4 2011-12 Montreal Canadiens NHL 13 0 3 3 2012-13 Montreal Canadiens NHL 48 10 20 30 2013-14 Montreal Canadiens NHL 81 7 36 43 If we exclude 2010-11 and 2011-12, and project the two half seasons over two full seasons, we get: 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 12 52 64 2009-10 Montreal Canadiens NHL 82 11 50 61 2012-13 Montreal Canadiens NHL 82 17 34 51 2013-14 Montreal Canadiens NHL 81 7 36 43 That's almost 1/3 of his production already gone. And it's only going to go down even faster in the next year or 2. I just don't see how he's worth $18M for the next 3 years. We can't count on him getting better. We can't even count on him keeping up his same level of play as this year. After all those injuries, his decline will be too hard and too fast. We may be better off going with Beaulieu in his spot as soon as next year. There'll be some growing pains, but with a rotating foursome of Tinordi, Beaulieu, Pateryn and Nygren, we should get there. Sign Weaver and Subban, that'll give us 8 defensemen. We can pick up a rental D at the deadline. If Ottawa doesn't make the playoffs, Marc Methot is a UFA the next year, so that's an option. Andrej Sekera is another. Salvador, Zidlicky.
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Jun 17, 2014 9:26:06 GMT -5
Thank you, BC. I agree that it's the 3rd year that bugs people, but that's what happens in free agency. If Berg had signed Markov to a 2-year, $12 million deal I think we'd all be happy. Maybe people would have preferred 2 years, $10 million but in the context of a growing salary cap the difference is virtually meaningless. Markov is still a top 4 dman. He's slowed down, but I thought he was a FAR better player this past year than he was the first year coming back from his injuries. And he's been durable too, playing in all 48 games last year and 81 games this year. I think he's a savvy enough player to be effective as a 35+ year old guy, but you want to monitor the minutes of a guy like that. Markov and Subban on the PP is still a lethal combination, one of the best in the league. Add to that the absence of a suitable alternative and the fact that Vanek looks to be gone and it's a no brainer, IMO. Gotta sign him. The problem is that it will be MT monitoring his minutes, so I expect markov to play approx 25+ minutes a game. The team needs to start using Beaulieu on the 2nd PP unit and then if he excels, move him to the first and put Markov on the 2nd. I would like 2 defensive PP units, each with 1 minute of PP time. PK/Beau and Markov/Emelin (he has a very good shot from the point, imo) In the third year of this new contract, Markov will not be a top 4 defenseman. I'm not sure that he'll be a top 6. As I shown in the post above, he's already declined and at his age and his injury history, he'll just decline faster and faster. He's just going to get hit more with time. Slow goons can chase him and win foot races with him now. I think it's time we bid adieu to Marky and move in another direction. Either pickup another Weaver-like veteran D, or go with the rotating 4 rookies where 2 of them are in the lineup every night. 3 years at $18M is just way too much. 3 years at 6-5-4 may still be too much.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 17, 2014 9:52:22 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. He has a few shortfalls but Markov is still one of the few d-men I've seen who can complete a backhanded, tape-to-tape pass on the fly ... Subban learned how to do that from Markov, actually (he had it down during the lockout season) ... he's an offensive dynamo ... and, I dare say, his defensive game that was once a liability, wasn't too bad in the playoffs ... the only negative I case from Markov this year was how many times he was caught flatfooted at the blue line by opposition forwards ... and it seemed to be the same kind of play every time ... I'm just wondering whether he has trouble moving certain ways since his knee injuries ... that's about the only negative (he's an instigator too, but who cares other than Lucic) ... I think you could be right, though, HFLA insomuch as, I think Markov could be gone ... I suspect there are several teams who'd pay Markov's price if Bergevin doesn't ... #itsuptomarkovCheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2014 9:53:04 GMT -5
The problem is that it will be MT monitoring his minutes go with the rotating 4 rookies where 2 of them are in the lineup every night. but as WD said, MT will be monitoring his minutes . . . and the minutes of the rookies . . . and the minutes of the non-rookies such as Tinordi. that means that PK will play 45 minutes a game -- and be berated constantly for making the mistakes he'll make because he is worn out. any vet coming in will command big $ as well, and will be older and worn/wearing out too. I don't think that anyone would disagree with you, but his market rate will be between the two. I fear that without him the next two years we'll be stepping back to mere mediocrity, and Price will have to carry the team even more . . . wearing him out and ending his career earlier.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 17, 2014 10:05:08 GMT -5
While I freely admit there's no one to replace him in the system, I'd be reluctant to go beyond 2 years at $5 million per. I can budge on the dollar figure, but I'd be firm at 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2014 10:16:54 GMT -5
I'm the other way . . . I'm [sort of] OK with 3 but less money overall for that because he isn't going to be top 2 or even top 4 by the last year.
2 at 6 per 3 at 5 per. 4 at no freakin' way.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jun 17, 2014 10:20:49 GMT -5
I'm the other way . . . I'm [sort of] OK with 3 but less money overall for that because he isn't going to be top 2 or even top 4 by the last year. 2 at 6 per 3 at 5 per. 4 at no freakin' way. My budging wouldn't be far. $5.5 million or so. I think Dan Boyle can be had for 2 years and less than $6 million given his age - especially if he thinks he's going to a contending team. The Isles traded for his rights a couple of weeks ago now, and not a peep. They can offer him all the cash in the world, but not much chance of the playoffs. Boyle may well like the idea of an Eastern contender. Less travel time, perceived easier road through the conference.
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Jun 17, 2014 10:45:35 GMT -5
I think you need to put Markov's declining production in context with the average offensive production at the position over the same time period. My guess is it's gone down significantly with the rest of the offense in the NHL (Crosby was the only player this year with more than 100 points AND the only player with more than 90 points!). I don't know what the league average was for dmen, but Markov's 43 points was good for 18th best in the NHL, the same total as Ryan McDonagh and Ryan Suter, and better than the likes of Brent Seabrook, Mike Green, and even Drew Doughty. You think of 30 teams each with top 4 dmen and that puts Markov among the top 15% of points by defensemen. Will that number go down over the next 2-3 years? Possibly, although I think Markov can just about put up 40 points in his sleep. It's his defense that would concern me more, but again, I think those minutes can be managed a bit better. I still think he's worth it and the lack of better options makes it even more important to keep him.
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Jun 17, 2014 11:13:10 GMT -5
go with the rotating 4 rookies where 2 of them are in the lineup every night. but as WD said, MT will be monitoring his minutes . . . and the minutes of the rookies . . . and the minutes of the non-rookies such as Tinordi. that means that PK will play 45 minutes a game -- and be berated constantly for making the mistakes he'll make because he is worn out. any vet coming in will command big $ as well, and will be older and worn/wearing out too. I don't think that anyone would disagree with you, but his market rate will be between the two. I fear that without him the next two years we'll be stepping back to mere mediocrity, and Price will have to carry the team even more . . . wearing him out and ending his career earlier. My fear is that with him, we will be stepping back to mediocrity as Markov slows down more and more and MT plays him virtually the same. This may not happen next year, but in two years, yes. There will be a big difference between the Markov of 2016 and the Markov of 2014. And if we have a 3rd year added to this at $6M, we'll be talking buy out. Markov looked fine on the PK and on the PP. Plays that don't require speed or much movement. He is soon to become a specialist. But on the transition, defensively, we are short-handed. There is a big gaping hole on the left side where opposing forwards just fly by him. And it will only get worst. Teams like Edmonton and the New York Islanders are ready and willing to give him that contract he wants. But he won't get that from a contender.
|
|
|
Post by habsask on Jun 17, 2014 18:16:18 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. Dammit HA stop reading my mind! Unfortunately Markov & his agent know the spot the Habs are in. If only we Gainey hadn't traded Mcdonagh!! It will take years for the Habs defense to recover from that frigging trade....if they ever do over the next 10-12 years. Hands trembling....must think nicer thoughts.... ....nope, can't do it....
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Jun 17, 2014 18:29:52 GMT -5
We have to ask ourselves how long do we want an aging Markov taking a young defensemans spot. Subban was thrust into the spotlight in the playoffs. We endured the growing pains and now look at what we have. I understand that Subban has almost unbreakable confidence, the principal stays the same. Throw Beaulieu and Tinordi in the mix. Tell them they are top 6 and it's theirs to lose. Manage the minutes so that they are not overwhelmed. A la Galchenyuk. You can't do that if you pay Markov for three yrs. I don't care how much they give him, as long as it's not too long. 1 year is ideal, 2 if we have to, 3 Bye Bye Markov.
|
|