79 Andrei Markov 06-07

[tmash]

Just as a FYI, I originally took 3 defensemen who were all scheduled to become UFAs who all chose to re-sign with their respective teams a few weeks before Markov signed with the Habs, not wanting to compare apples with oranges with players who signed last year in a different market all together. Whether you guys want to admit it or not, it's a fair comparaison as it related to the same variables of time, position, situation and salaries. Not picking to prove my point, simply making my point with those variables.

Wait who's comparing apples and oranges here? I'm talking about market value, how can you determine this by looking at players who NEVER HIT THE MARKET. Looking at last offseason is the best indicator we can use. And it may have been a different market, but it is probably going to be even better for UFAs this year: there is a very low supply of quality players and I see no reason to think that dmen are less important to GMs, if anything they are probably more. Phillips and Brewer aren't even similar players, Salo gave his team a good deal. Even if they all were the exact same as Markov, that still wouldn't show market value, that just shows that teams are willing to stay for less than market value. The only way to figure out market value is look at UFA bidding, and that's what I'm doing looking at last years UFAs.

Then let him walk instead of overpaying. Haven't we learned anything from the Theodore, Kovalev and Samsonov situations, all of which seemed like a good idea at the time? Why to we need to keep gambling like that? Brian Burke doesn't!

What about Koivu? I'm glad we overpaid for him. How about Huet? We paid a bit much for a guy who has never played more than like 40 games, but I have no problem with it. Bonk? I always thought his salary was a bit high, but I'd sure miss not having him here.

And Brian Burke is going to overpay someone this summer, I can't see how he doesn't unless Selanee decides not to retire and takes a huge pay cut to stay in Anaheim. Besides, for Pronger, Burke overpaid (at the time - not with hindsight) for Pronger in terms of picks and prospects, and he took a gamble on Selanee. Gainey doesn't appear to be willing to do either of these things.

[fourtrax]

Markov has been signed to a contract at fair market value. It is no ones fault that 5.75 is what the market would bare.

He is not over paid, I am quite sure that Meehan told Markov he could make more using the TML signings a year ago.

That is the benchmark every agent for UFA Dmen will use. If McCabe makes that much, Markov is worth more.

To say Markov has been over paid when it comes to what the market will bare is using your heart instead of your head.

Unfortunately, this means Souray may not be offered enough to keep him from looking to get what the market will bare for his services.

This is just life in a Cap world, not a slap in Souray's face.

That's a great post, Miltie.

Also, quality UFA D-men are in short supply this year. The market follows the law of supply and demand. There are many teams in need of a top-pairing defenseman but only a handful of such players available. Therefore their asking price would go up. If there were lots of good, puck-moving UFA defencemen available this year, I'd have questioned Gainey's decision to re-sign Markov at $5.75 million before free agency, since we could have gone out and signed someone else for less. But, and this is the rub, if the market had been saturated with defensemen, Meehan would not have demanded the same money for his client, because he wouldn't have been dealing from a position of strength. Gainey could have said, "You want $5.75 million? Sorry, can't do it. We'll find someone else to form the core of our defense." He wouldn't have been bluffing, and Meehan would have been forced to come down from his initial demands.

But in reality, given the scarcity of top-pairing d-men, it's Markov who's dealing from a position of strength. Meehan knows that Markov could command big money on the open market. There are any number of teams who would drool over the prospect of acquiring a mobile, defensively responsible, puck-moving defenseman who can anchor the power play, get the attack started in transition, match up against top lines, and come out on the plus side of the ledger on most nights. Because there are many teams vying for less players, a bidding war would start, and I firmly believe that $5.75 million would be the minimum Markov would end up signing for, regardless of where he goes.

Finally, in the current market, if we let Markov walk, whom do we get to replace him? That is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Is Markov replaceable right now, in the summer of 2007, on the open market? Is there someone whom we could sign for cheaper who would be willing to come to Montreal and do as good or a better job than Markov in his role? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is no on all counts, which is why Gainey did the right thing in signing him.

This is just the market at work. Sometimes it works for you, and sometimes it smacks you in the face.

[GIJAYNE]

I have been watching this debate go back and forth, and I see need to post my POV since it fits in with one of the sides and the sides keep repeating the same concept.

I would however like to throw in one more curve ball to see what both sides think about it.

This concept of a players market value is sound in practice, however in reality the advent of income taxes plays a role (unless there has been a law waiving all tax liabilities for professional athletes in the province of Quebec).

With that said, in order to be able to compare apples with apples, as the saying goes, one would need to index the salaries to a tax free base (in simple terms what goes in to the players’ pockets).

What does this mean in real terms? It means that someone who claims Markhov is worth 3.5M and is grossly overpaid at 5.75M is in a way contradicting them selves. The players are well aware of the taxes they pay (especially when you’re paying over a million dollars in taxes) and Markhov knows a 5.75M contract in Montreal is the same as a 3.5M contract in Florida.

I don’t know whether this will shifts anyone’s paradigm, but the way I see it as an accountant, by offering him 5.75M Gainey has deemed Markhov’s worth on the open market at around 4M...which I think is reasonable.

[tmash]

That's a great post, Miltie.

Also, quality UFA D-men are in short supply this year. The market follows the law of supply and demand. There are many teams in need of a top-pairing defenseman but only a handful of such players available. Therefore their asking price would go up. If there were lots of good, puck-moving UFA defencemen available this year, I'd have questioned Gainey's decision to re-sign Markov at $5.75 million before free agency, since we could have gone out and signed someone else for less. But, and this is the rub, if the market had been saturated with defensemen, Meehan would not have demanded the same money for his client, because he wouldn't have been dealing from a position of strength. Gainey could have said, "You want $5.75 million? Sorry, can't do it. We'll find someone else to form the core of our defense." He wouldn't have been bluffing, and Meehan would have been forced to come down from his initial demands.

But in reality, given the scarcity of top-pairing d-men, it's Markov who's dealing from a position of strength. Meehan knows that Markov could command big money on the open market. There are any number of teams who would drool over the prospect of acquiring a mobile, defensively responsible, puck-moving defenseman who can anchor the power play, get the attack started in transition, match up against top lines, and come out on the plus side of the ledger on most nights. Because there are many teams vying for less players, a bidding war would start, and I firmly believe that $5.75 million would be the minimum Markov would end up signing for, regardless of where he goes.

Finally, in the current market, if we let Markov walk, whom do we get to replace him? That is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Is Markov replaceable right now, in the summer of 2007, on the open market? Is there someone whom we could sign for cheaper who would be willing to come to Montreal and do as good or a better job than Markov in his role? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is no on all counts, which is why Gainey did the right thing in signing him.

This is just the market at work. Sometimes it works for you, and sometimes it smacks you in the face.

Exactly, there is no doubt in my mind Markov was a 6 million player entering the free agent season. He, Timonen, and Souray would have been the top 3 free agent defenseman, they would have gotten the top dollars.

Another interesting point that reminds me of, for everyone who says Markov would have given us a good deal, why did he hire Meehan? If he really wanted to give a great deal, why not do like Brodeur, save himself the agent fees, just get the contract, hire a lawyer to give the thing a quick look over, and be on his way? Or even go out and get a cheaper agent, Meehan is probably among the most expensive, because he's known as the best. As soon as I saw Meehan was Markov's agent I knew we weren't getting him for any less than 5 million.

[Guest A Semin]

Exactly, there is no doubt in my mind Markov was a 6 million player entering the free agent season. He, Timonen, and Souray would have been the top 3 free agent defenseman, they would have gotten the top dollars.

Another interesting point that reminds me of, for everyone who says Markov would have given us a good deal, why did he hire Meehan? If he really wanted to give a great deal, why not do like Brodeur, save himself the agent fees, just get the contract, hire a lawyer to give the thing a quick look over, and be on his way? Or even go out and get a cheaper agent, Meehan is probably among the most expensive, because he's known as the best. As soon as I saw Meehan was Markov's agent I knew we weren't getting him for any less than 5 million.

Rafalski would probaly have been in front of Souray too.

I think it's pretty funny when people says «I would have signed Markov less than 5,75M». Don't you think Gainey would have like that too? Comon! You have to pay what you have to pay. If Markov did not want 4,75 you have to guive him more. The fact is that we couldn't have him under the market value. It was either 5,75 m or no Markov. Gainey made the good choice with the first option.

4,75 or less for Markov was not an option, if it was Gainey would have done it, don't you think?

[fourtrax]

With that said, in order to be able to compare apples with apples, as the saying goes, one would need to index the salaries to a tax free base (in simple terms what goes in to the players’ pockets).

What does this mean in real terms? It means that someone who claims Markhov is worth 3.5M and is grossly overpaid at 5.75M is in a way contradicting them selves. The players are well aware of the taxes they pay (especially when you’re paying over a million dollars in taxes) and Markhov knows a 5.75M contract in Montreal is the same as a 3.5M contract in Florida.

I don’t know whether this will shifts anyone’s paradigm, but the way I see it as an accountant, by offering him 5.75M Gainey has deemed Markhov’s worth on the open market at around 4M...which I think is reasonable.

Good point, HLD. Here's another thought: the players are paid in U.S. dollars, and the cost of living in Montreal is cheap even compared to other Canadian cities. So even though you pay more money in income tax, the money you make goes a longer way in this city: things cost less, and they cost Canadian dollars to boot. Does the average player know this, I wonder?

[tmash]

Good point, HLD. Here's another thought: the players are paid in U.S. dollars, and the cost of living in Montreal is cheap even compared to other Canadian cities. So even though you pay more money in income tax, the money you make goes a longer way in this city: things cost less, and they cost Canadian dollars to boot. Does the average player know this, I wonder?

I'm not sure Montreal specifically, but the whole thing about making US dollars and living in Canada has actually reversed now. Because even though the Canadian dollar is still less (not much), stuff is cheaper int he States. Stuff was always cheaper there, but it used to be that Canadians in the States had no reason to buy stuff because any good price was negated by the exchange rate. But now it's at the point now where if Canadians buy stuff in the States, even factoring in the exchange rate, it is a better deal. There are also less sales taxes there, so saving even more tax.

I'm not sure exactly how cheap it is to live in Montreal, but I see no way a player financially comes out ahead by signing here for the same amount as somewhere else.

[Guest JL]

Wait who's comparing apples and oranges here? I'm talking about market value, how can you determine this by looking at players who NEVER HIT THE MARKET. Looking at last offseason is the best indicator we can use. And it may have been a different market, but it is probably going to be even better for UFAs this year: there is a very low supply of quality players and I see no reason to think that dmen are less important to GMs, if anything they are probably more. Phillips and Brewer aren't even similar players, Salo gave his team a good deal. Even if they all were the exact same as Markov, that still wouldn't show market value, that just shows that teams are willing to stay for less than market value. The only way to figure out market value is look at UFA bidding, and that's what I'm doing looking at last years UFAs.

What about Koivu? I'm glad we overpaid for him. How about Huet? We paid a bit much for a guy who has never played more than like 40 games, but I have no problem with it. Bonk? I always thought his salary was a bit high, but I'd sure miss not having him here.

And Brian Burke is going to overpay someone this summer, I can't see how he doesn't unless Selanee decides not to retire and takes a huge pay cut to stay in Anaheim. Besides, for Pronger, Burke overpaid (at the time - not with hindsight) for Pronger in terms of picks and prospects, and he took a gamble on Selanee. Gainey doesn't appear to be willing to do either of these things.

Apples with apples. Like Brewer, Phillips and Salo, Markov never HIT THE MARKET.

I have been watching this debate go back and forth, and I see need to post my POV since it fits in with one of the sides and the sides keep repeating the same concept.

I would however like to throw in one more curve ball to see what both sides think about it.

This concept of a players market value is sound in practice, however in reality the advent of income taxes plays a role (unless there has been a law waiving all tax liabilities for professional athletes in the province of Quebec).

With that said, in order to be able to compare apples with apples, as the saying goes, one would need to index the salaries to a tax free base (in simple terms what goes in to the players’ pockets).

What does this mean in real terms? It means that someone who claims Markhov is worth 3.5M and is grossly overpaid at 5.75M is in a way contradicting them selves. The players are well aware of the taxes they pay (especially when you’re paying over a million dollars in taxes) and Markhov knows a 5.75M contract in Montreal is the same as a 3.5M contract in Florida.

I don’t know whether this will shifts anyone’s paradigm, but the way I see it as an accountant, by offering him 5.75M Gainey has deemed Markhov’s worth on the open market at around 4M...which I think is reasonable.

Sami Salo and Chris Phillips also signed in Canada.

[tmash]

Apples with apples. Like Brewer, Phillips and Salo, Markov never HIT THE MARKET.

I was talking about his value as a UFA, but anyways ...

Where are you going with this? Yes those guys (who I don't even consider that comparable - but whatever) signed for a lower price, but even if a player is the exact same player as Markov and signs for whatever value, that doesn't mean that's what similar players are all of a sudden worth, it just means they have a "bad" deal. When a player is becoming a UFA, some are willing to take a big pay cut to help their team, most aren't. The fact that Salo did doesn't change Markov's value.

Either Markov just wasn't willing to accept a big pay cut, either that, or Gainey should resign tomorrow. Because if he gave a player a 5.75 million deal when he would have easily accepted 4, he is completely incompetent for the job. Markov hiring Meehan alone tells me he wanted a good paycheque, and Gainey gave him similar to what he would have recieved on the open market (being a pending UFA, his market value is what he would have recieved on the open market: this can not be deteremined from any of the players you listed, even if they were the exact same player). He could have played hardball, and I'm guessing may have come out of it worse. So he played a low risk game by giving Markov a deal comparable to what he'd be offered in a months time.

[Guest JL]

Where are you going with this? Yes those guys (who I don't even consider that comparable - but whatever) signed for a lower price, but even if a player is the exact same player as Markov and signs for whatever value, that doesn't mean that's what similar players are all of a sudden worth, it just means they have a "bad" deal. When a player is becoming a UFA, some are willing to take a big pay cut to help their team, most aren't. The fact that Salo did doesn't change Markov's value.

If I was comparing one player, I'd say maybe, but there are 3 players in a very similar situation. I don't think that all 3 had a "bad deal"... I think that Markov got a "sweet" deal...

[Guest MTL_RULES]

Good point, HLD. Here's another thought: the players are paid in U.S. dollars, and the cost of living in Montreal is cheap even compared to other Canadian cities. So even though you pay more money in income tax, the money you make goes a longer way in this city: things cost less, and they cost Canadian dollars to boot. Does the average player know this, I wonder?

The dollar is very close now, and Canadian taxes are MUCH higher in Canada than in the US, especially in Quebec where they have the HIGHEST income tax in the country. When you're in the highest tax bracket that most professional athletes fall into, your taxes are bordering the low range of 50%. So that 5.75 mil contract is worth roughly 3. The cost of living may be lower in Montreal than it is in LA, but I doubt its 2 million dollars more a year.

[tmash]

If I was comparing one player, I'd say maybe, but there are 3 players in a very similar situation. I don't think that all 3 had a "bad deal"... I think that Markov got a "sweet" deal...

But 2 of those players aren't even the same sort of player as Markov. Salo is the only one comparable one there. Aren't the other two more or less stay at home defensemen with like half as many points? Maybe they'd make a good comparison if we still had Rivet, but Markov is really as valuable for his offense as he is for his defense.

I found the post where you explained why you chose those 3

Weep, I'm not picking on you but it's painfully obvious that I'm not expressing myself clearly here. Here are the reasons why I compared Chris Phillips, Eric Brewer and Sami Salo to Markov:

* All are defensemen

* All play big roles on their teams and arguably their best defenseman

* All were scheduled to become UFAs on July 1st 2007

* All made the decision to stay with their respective team instead of testing the free agents market

In that case any UFA defenseman isn't worth much more than those 3 guys. Other than Salo, I just don't even see how their values can be compared, as they are completely different players.

[Guest A Semin]

Markov is way more valuable than Philips. This is a very, very bad example. I think it's the same for Brewer. The offensive side of Markov is more important than those too. As for Salo, maybe it would make some sens if Salo was not always out of the line-up because he always get injured. Markov is a lot more valuable than those guys and he deverses at least 2 millions more than those 3.

If someone wants an exemple,take Brian Rafalski. It makes more sens. Problem is Rafalski did not sign yet, but if he hits the market, you will have a better idea of the value of Markov.

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

They are still overpaying players. But no their stars aren't overpaid, but, as I said, they paid the price in draft picks and prospects to get Pronger. If you want to get, or even keep, good players you need to be willing to shell out the money, or else look for players who signed their deals 2 years ago (due to cap inflation these will normally be good deals by todays standards), and pay the price to trade for them.

Besides, watch Anaheim this offseason. They either need to re-sign Selanee or replace him (it sounds like he'll retire), and I have a feeling they'll be overpaying someone. And just wait until this current core's contracts are up. This year was very weird and we can't just cross our fingers and hope it happens to us.

They have a lot of flexibility because they aren't overpaying their players. They've been smart about how they've gone about things (and got lucky too as Pronger is underpaid). The point is that overpaying doesn't produce winners and it never has. Sure, teams make the odd mistake (Marchant for example) but when you take the attitude that "we have to overpay or else..." then you're pretty much hurting yourself in the future. If the guy isn't worth the money don't pay it.

We really need Souray right? That doesn't mean we should fork over 6 mill, to keep him because in the long run it will hurt us.

In Tampa's case, overpaying isn't their problem, it's having 3 superstars. If you took 2 - 3 million away from Richards, they'd all be paid fairly, and would that maximum 3 million really solve their goaltending and depth crisis?

Overpaying IS their problem. Those 3 guys aren't worth the money their making because Richards is overpaid by 2.5- 3 million dollars. If it was Crosby, Lecavalier and St. Louis making that money they'd be winning a lot more hockey games. Ditto if you replaced Richards with Niedermayer for Richards' contract.

But Tampa decided they "had" to overpay so...

Why? Looking at Kubina and Kaberle's contracts (somewhat similar players), and taking all factors into account, Markov's deal wasn't anything groundbreaking.

Kaberle is underpaid and Kubina is NOWHERE near the player Markov is. Kubina could be the worst contract in the league actually.

No Markov's contract isn't groundbreaking but that doesn't mean he isn't somewhat overpaid.

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

Because Souray isn't hte type of player we need. If Souray wasn't on our team and we're looking forward to the offseason and asking "what should be go out and get", no one is going to say a PP specialist dman. We only want to re-sign him because he's already here. There is a big difference between overpaying for a player just because he's here and overpaying for the type of player who will really help your team.

Nobody would say we need a PP dman because we already have the best in the league.

Besides, if you prefer not to overpay at all, what happens this offseason if Ryder gets tough in negotiations, and if things really break down, he goes to arbitration? Say he's demanding an amount we don't like, and the arbitrator gives and amount we don't like (say maybe 4 - 4.5 million), do we just lose our top scorer for nothing over 1 million dollars?

Saying not to overpay anyone is a lot easier said than done.

I let Ryder walk or I pay up and trade him like Ottawa did with Hossa. Sure its easier said than done but some teams overpay and others don't. Those that don't are usually more successful.

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

Wait who's comparing apples and oranges here? I'm talking about market value, how can you determine this by looking at players who NEVER HIT THE MARKET. Looking at last offseason is the best indicator we can use. And it may have been a different market, but it is probably going to be even better for UFAs this year: there is a very low supply of quality players and I see no reason to think that dmen are less important to GMs, if anything they are probably more. Phillips and Brewer aren't even similar players, Salo gave his team a good deal. Even if they all were the exact same as Markov, that still wouldn't show market value, that just shows that teams are willing to stay for less than market value. The only way to figure out market value is look at UFA bidding, and that's what I'm doing looking at last years UFAs.

Again though, market value is a relative term. Some idiot was willing to give Jovo 7 million dollars a year so I guess that's his market value.

Does that mean we should do it too? Let the lemmings drop off the cliff, don't join them for the ride.

What about Koivu? I'm glad we overpaid for him. How about Huet? We paid a bit much for a guy who has never played more than like 40 games, but I have no problem with it. Bonk? I always thought his salary was a bit high, but I'd sure miss not having him here.

And Brian Burke is going to overpay someone this summer, I can't see how he doesn't unless Selanee decides not to retire and takes a huge pay cut to stay in Anaheim. Besides, for Pronger, Burke overpaid (at the time - not with hindsight) for Pronger in terms of picks and prospects, and he took a gamble on Selanee. Gainey doesn't appear to be willing to do either of these things.

Neither Koivu nor Huet are overpaid for what they bring to the table. Koivu is making 3 million less than Richards for similar production and Huet won games by himself for months at a time.

And who's to say Burke will overpay? He's never been one to overpay in the past. If Selanne gets a raise to say 5.5 million, that's pretty reasonable for a guy who scores 50 goals. If Selanne demands 7.5 million, Burke will probably let him walk.

[tmash]

They have a lot of flexibility because they aren't overpaying their players. They've been smart about how they've gone about things (and got lucky too as Pronger is underpaid). The point is that overpaying doesn't produce winners and it never has. Sure, teams make the odd mistake (Marchant for example) but when you take the attitude that "we have to overpay or else..." then you're pretty much hurting yourself in the future. If the guy isn't worth the money don't pay it.

I agree the Ducks position looks good, but are we going to get that lucky with Niedermyer wanting to come here? If we don't get lucky and get a great deal on a player we want, would you rather we just let the cap space sit there wasting away. I'd rather use it, even if the pricetag is a bit much. The Ducks were lucky, and it's going to be hard to repeat

We really need Souray right? That doesn't mean we should fork over 6 mill, to keep him because in the long run it will hurt us.

I've said time and time again Souray isn't the type of player we should be overpaying for.

Overpaying IS their problem. Those 3 guys aren't worth the money their making because Richards is overpaid by 2.5- 3 million dollars. If it was Crosby, Lecavalier and St. Louis making that money they'd be winning a lot more hockey games. Ditto if you replaced Richards with Niedermayer for Richards' contract.

What? Richards is overpaid by maximum 3 million, and that 3 million wouldn't make them winners. I don't think saying "if Crosby was there" proves anything, because they didn't ever have the option of Crosby.

Kaberle is underpaid and Kubina is NOWHERE near the player Markov is. Kubina could be the worst contract in the league actually.

No Markov's contract isn't groundbreaking but that doesn't mean he isn't somewhat overpaid.

I never said he wasn't overpaid, but he was going to get overpaid if he held out until July 1st.

[tmash]

Nobody would say we need a PP dman because we already have the best in the league.

I said if Souray didn't exist, if he wasn't here, would we be saying that? Somehow I doubt it, we have more urgent needs

I let Ryder walk or I pay up and trade him like Ottawa did with Hossa.

Alright at least you're up front about this.

[tmash]

Again though, market value is a relative term. Some idiot was willing to give Jovo 7 million dollars a year so I guess that's his market value.

Exactly. I consider market value, what you get on the market. If you are a UFA, your market is all 30 teams, and it only takes 1 idiot.

Does that mean we should do it too? Let the lemmings drop off the cliff, don't join them for the ride.

When the other option may be lose Markov and make it impossible to replace him, yes I think we should. As bad as overpaying sounds, to me it's a lot better than the team getting a whole lot worse and having left over cap space.

Neither Koivu nor Huet are overpaid for what they bring to the table. Koivu is making 3 million less than Richards for similar production and Huet won games by himself for months at a time.

For one, you're comparing Koivu to what I consider one of the worst forwards contracts in the league. Yes, Richards is more overpaid, but I consider both to be. Besides, Richards has had a 90 point season (over PPG), has a Conn Smythe, puts up a few more goals, etc. Overall this does deserve somewhat more. I'm glad we have Koivu, but 5 million for a player who hasn't once hit a point per game does seem like overpaying.

Huet turned out okay I think, but at the time I think giving #1 goaltender money to a goalie who started the season as a backup, had never played more than half a season, just broken out, and still wasn't a lock to be our #1 goaltender, seemed a little excessive. I'm glad we paid it, I didn't want to lose him, but I'd still consider that overpaying a bit. Look at another goalie who had a breakout season that year and similar stats: Tim Thomas - signed for 1.1 million. That was probably a bit low, but still I think Huet was a bit overpaid

And who's to say Burke will overpay? He's never been one to overpay in the past. If Selanne gets a raise to say 5.5 million, that's pretty reasonable for a guy who scores 50 goals. If Selanne demands 7.5 million, Burke will probably let him walk.

Selanee is likely to retire, and replacing 50 goals isn't easy. We'll see what happens.

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

I agree the Ducks position looks good, but are we going to get that lucky with Niedermyer wanting to come here? If we don't get lucky and get a great deal on a player we want, would you rather we just let the cap space sit there wasting away. I'd rather use it, even if the pricetag is a bit much. The Ducks were lucky, and it's going to be hard to repeat

True, but look at the past winners. I can't really think of guys who were way overpaid leading the way. Some were expensive yes, but they were worth the coin.

What? Richards is overpaid by maximum 3 million, and that 3 million wouldn't make them winners. I don't think saying "if Crosby was there" proves anything, because they didn't ever have the option of Crosby.

I never said he wasn't overpaid, but he was going to get overpaid if he held out until July 1st.

You argued that it was the fact that 3 forwards were taking up that much space that was the problem.

That isn't the problem, the problem is that they're overpaying the forwards they have. And 3 million is a lot of money, it would have given them some flexibility to hang on to guys like Stillman... moreover, they could've used it to hang on to Khabibulin.

The point is, overpaying doesn't work if you want to build a winner.

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

I said if Souray didn't exist, if he wasn't here, would we be saying that? Somehow I doubt it, we have more urgent needs

But if he didn't exist, we wouldn't have had the best PP in the league last year, so its kind of a weird argument to make.

BTW, if a defenseman falls in the forest...

[Guest Lafleurs Guy]

Exactly. I consider market value, what you get on the market. If you are a UFA, your market is all 30 teams, and it only takes 1 idiot.

When the other option may be lose Markov and make it impossible to replace him, yes I think we should. As bad as overpaying sounds, to me it's a lot better than the team getting a whole lot worse and having left over cap space.

At 5.75.... man, I don't know. Personally I think we should've been able to do better. Would I have let him walk away if he drew a line in the sand at that amount though?

I really have to think about that one. I'm not sure that I would but I'd be tempted to. And I do think that Gainey should've done better here.

For one, you're comparing Koivu to what I consider one of the worst forwards contracts in the league. Yes, Richards is more overpaid, but I consider both to be. Besides, Richards has had a 90 point season (over PPG), has a Conn Smythe, puts up a few more goals, etc. Overall this does deserve somewhat more. I'm glad we have Koivu, but 5 million for a player who hasn't once hit a point per game does seem like overpaying.

I think Koivu is worth his contract.

Huet turned out okay I think, but at the time I think giving #1 goaltender money to a goalie who started the season as a backup, had never played more than half a season, just broken out, and still wasn't a lock to be our #1 goaltender, seemed a little excessive. I'm glad we paid it, I didn't want to lose him, but I'd still consider that overpaying a bit. Look at another goalie who had a breakout season that year and similar stats: Tim Thomas - signed for 1.1 million. That was probably a bit low, but still I think Huet was a bit overpaid

Selanee is likely to retire, and replacing 50 goals isn't easy. We'll see what happens.

I don't see how anyone can say Huet is overpaid. The guy is a bargain at that price.

As for Selanne, don't expect him to make more than 6 if he returns. And I think they'll get him for less. We'll have to see on this.

[Guest Keith]

The way I feel is, like others, and as much as I like Souray, we can't overpay to keep him. I also believe such is the case however with Markov, and I'd prefer (Please don't give me the whole "Markov can play defence" story you revolutionarys) Souray because he commands alot of authority and upholds our team alot.

I feel the team should build from strengths such as a number one powerplay, not simply scrap it and try to salvage 5-on-5 play, because if that doesn't work and we lose Souray, we're most likely a worse team.

[Guest JIMVINNY]

Huet turned out okay I think, but at the time I think giving #1 goaltender money to a goalie who started the season as a backup, had never played more than half a season, just broken out, and still wasn't a lock to be our #1 goaltender, seemed a little excessive. I'm glad we paid it, I didn't want to lose him, but I'd still consider that overpaying a bit. Look at another goalie who had a breakout season that year and similar stats: Tim Thomas - signed for 1.1 million. That was probably a bit low, but still I think Huet was a bit overpaid

I know this isn't the place to dispute this, but giving 3 mil a year for an allstar goalie, especially after we were giving theo an average of 5.5, well, to say that is overpaying? give me a break.

[Guest MAURICESAVARD]

Rafalski would probaly have been in front of Souray too.

I think it's pretty funny when people says «I would have signed Markov less than 5,75M». Don't you think Gainey would have like that too? Comon! You have to pay what you have to pay. If Markov did not want 4,75 you have to guive him more. The fact is that we couldn't have him under the market value. It was either 5,75 m or no Markov. Gainey made the good choice with the first option.

4,75 or less for Markov was not an option, if it was Gainey would have done it, don't you think?

my thoughts exactly... give markov anything he wants... pretty much... this guy will be an all-star calibre d-man for at least 5 more years