Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

79 Andrei Markov 06-07


jl-1

Recommended Posts

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... ;)

Okay I'll give you it's a weird argument. I'm just saying that say we had 10th best PP last season (what I'd expect without Souray), same poor 5 on 5, etc. Is Souray the type of player we'd want to bring in?

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.

I don't deny he could have tried to get a better deal, but it would have risked losing, or getting a worse deal, on Markov, and I'm glad he didn't risk it to save half a million.

The thing is though if we lost him, what would we do? We don't have anyone in the system to replace him, and we aren't going to get a better deal on an UFA defensemen. Markov really had us stuck.

I think Koivu is worth his contract.

I wouldn't unload him or anything, and I'm glad we re-signed him, and like Markov, I feel that was the price it took to bring him back, he would of gotten that much from someone else, but i do feel he's slightly overpaid based on what he brings.

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.

You're probably right, but it sounds as though he's retiring, that's when things get interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Huet wasn't an allstar goalie when we signed him. He had two 40 game seasons and a 12 game season. In my mind giving around 3 million for that is too mcuh. Like Koivu, I'm glad we signed him, I'm not saying we should have let him go at that price, I'm just saying that at the time, I felt it was a bit high. I was hoping for something a bit closer to Tim Thomas's deal. I'm certainly not complaining about him, but if Markov's deal is considered overpaying, I'd consider that overpaying as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for nothing, but TSN just released their off-season report on the Devils stating that Rafalski could command as much as $6 million on the open market. Keep in mind that Rafalski put up much the same numbers this past year as Markov, he's 34, he's probably on the downside of his career, and he and Markov are similar types of defenseman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
Not for nothing, but TSN just released their off-season report on the Devils stating that Rafalski could command as much as $6 million on the open market. Keep in mind that Rafalski put up much the same numbers this past year as Markov, he's 34, he's probably on the downside of his career, and he and Markov are similar types of defenseman.

He isn't worth near 6 mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
He isn't worth near 6 mil.

He plays 30 minutes per match, is a 50 points defeneseman who can play at both end. One of the best defensemen in this league. He is worthing 6 millions big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Asterix9
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.

Markov isn't worth 2 million more than Phillips or Salo, sorry...

As for Rafalski, he will benificiate from Markov's new contract in negotiations with New Jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He isn't worth near 6 mil.

Ah, but it's not what he's worth, it's what just ONE GM in the league has to offer him to set the bar! :) I agree that Rafalski is not worth $6 million. However, if someone signs him for that amount, then what would Markov, a similar player but much younger, just entering his prime, have fetched on the open market? Methinks Gainey made the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
He plays 30 minutes per match, is a 50 points defeneseman who can play at both end. One of the best defensemen in this league. He is worthing 6 millions big time.

He's not great defensively, he's not overly physical, and he's 34 years old.

Again, you pay players for what they are GOING to do, not what they have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
Ah, but it's not what he's worth, it's what just ONE GM in the league has to offer him to set the bar! :) I agree that Rafalski is not worth $6 million. However, if someone signs him for that amount, then what would Markov, a similar player but much younger, just entering his prime, have fetched on the open market? Methinks Gainey made the right decision.

Again though, let the lemmngs fall off the cliff. We can go after younger players (and that's what we should be doing anyway) because free agency is a losing game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again though, let the lemmngs fall off the cliff. We can go after younger players (and that's what we should be doing anyway) because free agency is a losing game.

And those younger players would be able to waltz onto our roster and replace Markov's shutdown capability, point production, defensive soundness, PP effectiveness, and puck-moving skills, not to mention his experience? I like youth movements as much as the next person, but you have to have some experienced skilled players around. Otherwise, those kids will have no role models, no mentors, and no standard by which to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Markov isn't worth 2 million more than Phillips or Salo, sorry...

As for Rafalski, he will benificiate from Markov's new contract in negotiations with New Jersey.

I'd have to say I agree on Markov not being worth way more. When I saw Phillips signed at 3.5 I was thinking "If we're really lucky we get him for 4million, if not 5million."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
And those younger players would be able to waltz onto our roster and replace Markov's shutdown capability, point production, defensive soundness, PP effectiveness, and puck-moving skills, not to mention his experience? I like youth movements as much as the next person, but you have to have some experienced skilled players around. Otherwise, those kids will have no role models, no mentors, and no standard by which to improve.

I'm not talking about Markov man... I'm talking about Rafalski. The lemmings are going to be sore after signing him for 6 mil. There's much better value out there.

Markov is with us and I'm glad for that. I just wish we could've got him for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caperns
And those younger players would be able to waltz onto our roster and replace Markov's shutdown capability, point production, defensive soundness, PP effectiveness, and puck-moving skills, not to mention his experience? I like youth movements as much as the next person, but you have to have some experienced skilled players around. Otherwise, those kids will have no role models, no mentors, and no standard by which to improve.

Would that be like the team that won the AHL league title this year. Who were there role models.

Professional hoackey players play the game there whole lives and most have had to deal with the pressure of winning and losing and what it takes anyway.They become there own role models.

However if you really want a role model just look at Koivu.

You don't have to pay someone 6 million dollars to be a role model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that be like the team that won the AHL league title this year. Who were there role models.

Professional hoackey players play the game there whole lives and most have had to deal with the pressure of winning and losing and what it takes anyway.They become there own role models.

However if you really want a role model just look at Koivu.

You don't have to pay someone 6 million dollars to be a role model.

Huh, his point was that you can't have a team of all rookies.

But, besides, who on that AHL championship team could replace Markov? Two of their main dmen are UFAs, that leaves basically O'Bryne, and he is a huge leap from Markov. We basically had to sign Markov, unlike other positions, there is absolutely no one available to replace hm, and this team would be horrible if we didn't replace him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, his point was that you can't have a team of all rookies.

But, besides, who on that AHL championship team could replace Markov? Two of their main dmen are UFAs, that leaves basically O'Bryne, and he is a huge leap from Markov. We basically had to sign Markov, unlike other positions, there is absolutely no one available to replace hm, and this team would be horrible if we didn't replace him.

I prefer risking to lose Markov than repeating history in overpaying yet another player... at some point we must learn from our mistakes. Theodore seemed like a good idea at the time, so did Kovalev, and the same can be said about Samsonov... enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChriS_HigGinS#1
I prefer risking to lose Markov than repeating history in overpaying yet another player... at some point we must learn from our mistakes. Theodore seemed like a good idea at the time, so did Kovalev, and the same can be said about Samsonov... enough is enough.

There is way less risk involved in signing Markov because of how consistent he has been over the years and being watched by our scouts, AHL coaches and now the entire NHL. He was a top d-man at the Worlds and had an outstanding season at both ends of the ice this year. IMO, this signing was expensive but far from overpaying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer risking to lose Markov than repeating history in overpaying yet another player... at some point we must learn from our mistakes. Theodore seemed like a good idea at the time, so did Kovalev, and the same can be said about Samsonov... enough is enough.

I don't really see Kovalev as being overpaid, at least when we signed him it was fine. A variety of factors made his performance this season less than 4.5 million, but at the time we weren't overapaying him in my mind.

Samsonov was a mistake, but where that situation differs from Markov is that we had similar players to Sammy in our system, we don't have any remotely like Markov. But even so, I think that was moreso bad judgement on Gainey's part on the type of player we needed than simply overpaying. If he did what he did everywhere else, he really wouldn't have been overpaid.

Theo is the one I still don't know what to think. With hindsight, it was a bad deal, at the time it was questionable to say the least. That one was similar to Markov in the sense since we felt stuck and gave him what he wanted. But the difference there is that it wasn't a matter of maybe paying 750k more than we wanted to. With Theo it was a purely risk type deal. If he played how he had in some seasons, the deal would be a bargain, but there was the risk he'd play downright horrible. With Markov, I don't see that similarity, he is as steady as they come, he'll probably never be a bargain like Theo could have been, but the other side of that is worst case we're paying him less than a million extra a season than what we'd prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see Kovalev as being overpaid, at least when we signed him it was fine. A variety of factors made his performance this season less than 4.5 million, but at the time we weren't overapaying him in my mind.

Samsonov was a mistake, but where that situation differs from Markov is that we had similar players to Sammy in our system, we don't have any remotely like Markov. But even so, I think that was moreso bad judgement on Gainey's part on the type of player we needed than simply overpaying. If he did what he did everywhere else, he really wouldn't have been overpaid.

Theo is the one I still don't know what to think. With hindsight, it was a bad deal, at the time it was questionable to say the least. That one was similar to Markov in the sense since we felt stuck and gave him what he wanted. But the difference there is that it wasn't a matter of maybe paying 750k more than we wanted to. With Theo it was a purely risk type deal. If he played how he had in some seasons, the deal would be a bargain, but there was the risk he'd play downright horrible. With Markov, I don't see that similarity, he is as steady as they come, he'll probably never be a bargain like Theo could have been, but the other side of that is worst case we're paying him less than a million extra a season than what we'd prefer.

And I think that the three were bad deals. We agree to disagree. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
I prefer risking to lose Markov than repeating history in overpaying yet another player... at some point we must learn from our mistakes. Theodore seemed like a good idea at the time, so did Kovalev, and the same can be said about Samsonov... enough is enough.

If you don't take any risk, you won't go anywhere. And at as we speak, I still feel that the deal is a good one. If you let Markov walks its at least a 5 years set back if you take a look at our prospects on defense, maybe more.

But I have to admit, if we let Markov walks, we are the favorite to draft Tavares!! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think that the three were bad deals. We agree to disagree. ;)

Did you say that at the time though? With hindsight, they are bad deals, no question about it. But for it to be a mater of Gainey knowingly overpaying, they had to be bad deals at the time.

Personally, the only one I found somewhat questionable at the time was Theo's. Kovalev's I thought was great, Sammy's I didn't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you say that at the time though? With hindsight, they are bad deals, no question about it. But for it to be a mater of Gainey knowingly overpaying, they had to be bad deals at the time.

Personally, the only one I found somewhat questionable at the time was Theo's. Kovalev's I thought was great, Sammy's I didn't mind.

No, and that's what I'm saying. Those deals seemed to be good at the time and turned out to be busts in each case... this deal may seem fair to some, but I'm concerned, due to our recent history, that it could potentially come back to bite us in the behind like the others. As a matter of fact, it already has as I doubt that we'll be able to keep Souray who's just as valuable to the team (in a different way) because of that contract to Markov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about Markov man... I'm talking about Rafalski. The lemmings are going to be sore after signing him for 6 mil. There's much better value out there.

Markov is with us and I'm glad for that. I just wish we could've got him for less.

I know you're talking about Rafalski. My point is that if lemmings will pay Rafalski more than he's worth, then lemmings will also pay Markov more than he's worth, so wishing we could have gotten him for less is, practically speaking, a waste of time. And if you play hardball, like you said earlier, and refuse to budge on salary and let Markov walk, whom do you get to fill his shoes? You can't seriously tell me that you expect Ryan O'Byrne or any of our defensive prospects to walk in and perform Markov's job at the same level, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
I know you're talking about Rafalski. My point is that if lemmings will pay Rafalski more than he's worth, then lemmings will also pay Markov more than he's worth, so wishing we could have gotten him for less is, practically speaking, a waste of time. And if you play hardball, like you said earlier, and refuse to budge on salary and let Markov walk, whom do you get to fill his shoes? You can't seriously tell me that you expect Ryan O'Byrne or any of our defensive prospects to walk in and perform Markov's job at the same level, can you?

Bouillon would do the job! :P:P:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, and that's what I'm saying. Those deals seemed to be good at the time and turned out to be busts in each case... this deal may seem fair to some, but I'm concerned, due to our recent history, that it could potentially come back to bite us in the behind like the others. As a matter of fact, it already has as I doubt that we'll be able to keep Souray who's just as valuable to the team (in a different way) because of that contract to Markov.

But wasn't yor point with Markov that you found it too high when it was signed?

Because those other guys you listed were all (other than maybe Sammy) matters of guys getting deals that were fine at the time, but then they went downhill in one sense or another. I just can't see this happening with Markov, he is very steady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...