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

79 Andrei Markov 06-07


jl-1

Recommended Posts

Guest A Semin
As predicted, Markov's contract played a huge part in Timonen's newly signed contract, as it had become the new bargaining bar for 50 points defensemen. Sad really...

You are really, really biaised in all of this.

It's not just the points, it's the defensive play.

Can't say that about Mcabbe and Souray.

And the big contratcs for defensemen were there before Markov and you know it.

What do you think Gainey did when it was about time to sign Markov? He looked at others defensemen contracts and with Kubina, Mcabbe, Jovanosky, and Charea to name a few, it was clear that Markov was at least a 5,75$ defenseman, with a raising roof, a really bad Montreal defense overall and the fact he would have been UFA this summer.

And by the way, Timonen would have sign that huge contract anyway....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
You are really, really biaised in all of this.

It's not just the points, it's the defensive play.

Can't say that about Mcabbe and Souray.

And the big contratcs for defensemen were there before Markov and you know it.

What do you think Gainey did when it was about time to sign Markov? He looked at others defensemen contracts and with Kubina, Mcabbe, Jovanosky, and Charea to name a few, it was clear that Markov was at least a 5,75$ defenseman, with a raising roof, a really bad Montreal defense overall and the fact he would have been UFA this summer.

And by the way, Timonen would have sign that huge contract anyway....

5,75M of course. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
Just because Timonen was signed for something stupid doesn't mean that the Markov signing was good.

What is a good signing or a bad one? You can't decide that just like that,all by yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Miltie01
What do you think Gainey did when it was about time to sign Markov? He looked at others defensemen contracts and with Kubina, Mcabbe, Jovanosky, and Charea ....

More importantly, This is precisely what Markov's agent did.

If I was his agent the first thing I do is point out the contracts that MacCabe and Kubina signed and tell everyone my guy is not signing for less.

Knowing Markov is a better player, and the situation the Habs are in, Bob had no choice.

Markov's signing did not set the bar, the Toronto signings did.

Bob paid market value, if not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is a good signing or a bad one? You can't decide that just like that,all by yourself.

the Tomas Kaberle signing was a good signing, there's no denying that. The Jovo signing, that may have been a bad signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest hatethoseleafs
More importantly, This is precisely what Markov's agent did.

If I was his agent the first thing I do is point out the contracts that MacCabe and Kubina signed and tell everyone my guy is not signing for less.

Knowing Markov is a better player, and the situation the Habs are in, Bob had no choice.

Markov's signing did not set the bar, the Toronto signings did.

Bob paid market value, if not less.

I agree Miltie. The T.O. signings distorted the market last year and with pickings being slim this year for quality UFA D-men, then salaries had no way to go but up. What we paid for Markov is pretty well ball park on what i expected based on developments from last years crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigsby
Well I think he should have, but the reason he didn't was likely keeping Souray was sort of our rental, we were still in a playoff hunt, and Gainey didn't want to just basically say "we're giving up". I assume that's why he didn't deal him, not because of bargaining this offseason. I didn't agree with teh choice, but I understood it.

Anyways, I'm not sure that the 4.5 million rumoured offer was necessarily a result of giving all our money to Markov. I think, and this is just my opinion, but I think that it had more to do with Gainey not wanting to give Souray a lot more than he felt he was worth into a contract that could hurt us now and in the future. Of course, if Markov left, we'd be desperate for Souray, but had Markov gotten a million less, I honestly don't think Souray would be getting a nicer offer. The extra 2 million on top of what he was offered that it would likely take to keep Souray could be spent elsewhere, regardless of how much we signed Markov for.

i agree, i think gainey's non-move made sense. but that's not to say that a little buying wouldn't have helped but that said, what was there to buy that we would have had room for? we were very close to the cap anyway. trading souray if we're buying wouldn't have made sense. and i don't think selling was an option because even if we were on the outside looking in on a playoff spot the point differential wasn't a big enough one for us to give up (but yes, we were not a cup contender at the end of the season).

and while we don't actually have any clue what souray was offered (i've heard so many projected numbers) i also don't think that the markov signing influenced the offer to such an extent that we low-balled souray. i think gainey just had his priorities and new what he was going to offer souray regardless of markov's contract - and i say regardless because i'm pretty sure gainey knew what markov was going to get going into negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, i think gainey's non-move made sense. but that's not to say that a little buying wouldn't have helped but that said, what was there to buy that we would have had room for? we were very close to the cap anyway. trading souray if we're buying wouldn't have made sense. and i don't think selling was an option because even if we were on the outside looking in on a playoff spot the point differential wasn't a big enough one for us to give up (but yes, we were not a cup contender at the end of the season).

But I remember Gainey saying something about building for 2009 (I may be wrong ; I may have been dreaming). Trading Souray and getting a big-time return would have been a big step in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigsby
But I remember Gainey saying something about building for 2009 (I may be wrong ; I may have been dreaming). Trading Souray and getting a big-time return would have been a big step in that direction.

i remember him saying he had faith in this team to make the playoffs. i guess neither worked out but i hope he's not building for 2009 - there's a season in between that i'd like to concentrate on - not that i wouldn't love to win the cup for the centennial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
It doesnt justify the money but it prooves that there are other GM's out there willing to dish out those huge amounts if you dont step up and make your own deal.If we had not offered Markov the bucks then rest assured we would be looking for a replacement at this time.

I agree with that. But saying its a good deal is a whole other story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
Well a player's market value is what the teams are willing to pay. How do we define "overpay"?

I think you make that judgement yourself. Some are easier to see than others. Jovo is ridiculously overpaid at 7 million and I don't think too many people will disagree.

Personally I think the Markov deal is much harder to judge. I think we overpaid slightly for him though. Not enough to kill us but I still think we could've done better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
What is a good signing or a bad one? You can't decide that just like that,all by yourself.

Why can't I decide all by myself? I don't need anyone to tell me what to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
Why can't I decide all by myself? I don't need anyone to tell me what to think.

Not what I mean. You need to compare with other defensemen salaries and take the circunstances in consideration. This is what the agent of Markov (Meehan) and Gainey did. The salary is not just base on feelings. If you say a guy should get this or that, you need to explain why.

Because if I would base what I think without market and circunstances, there is not one single hockey player who would make more than 100 000$ and the tickets prices would not be that hight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really, really biaised in all of this.

It's not just the points, it's the defensive play.

Can't say that about Mcabbe and Souray.

And the big contratcs for defensemen were there before Markov and you know it.

What do you think Gainey did when it was about time to sign Markov? He looked at others defensemen contracts and with Kubina, Mcabbe, Jovanosky, and Charea to name a few, it was clear that Markov was at least a 5,75$ defenseman, with a raising roof, a really bad Montreal defense overall and the fact he would have been UFA this summer.

And by the way, Timonen would have sign that huge contract anyway....

How is this biased? Markov is NOT the same type of defenseman as McCabe, Jovanovski and Chara, those players are more along the lines of Sheldon Souray. Because they all play defense doesn't make them comparable for that reason alone! Markov is in the mold of Sami Salo in Vancouver, Kaberle in Toronto or Timonen in Philadelphia. Solid defensively with some offensive upside, not huge, but good, second tier in NHL defensemen.

I disagree.

Same here. Timonen highly benificiated with Markov's contract. Similar players, similar seasons, same position...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the contract issue (regarding Timonen and Markov) works both ways. Timonen's contract was padded by the fact that Markov's was already out there, regardless of whether Markov's deal is good or not.

As predicted, Markov's contract played a huge part in Timonen's newly signed contract, as it had become the new bargaining bar for 50 points defensemen. Sad really...

I really don't think that was the case.

For one thing, Markov's deal wasn't all that groundbreaking. Taking UFA salaries from past seasons, cap inflation, and other factors into account, it was more or less where I expected it to be.

Furthermore, I really can't see Philli saying "okay we'll set aside 4 million and try to nab Timonen, then see Markov's deal, and go "actually now we're willing to spend 6 million on the same player".

There is no way to prove or disprove this, but I honestly don't think Markov's deal had a thing to do with this. Unrestricted free agents always get deals higher than what we expected, this was simply a case of that. Now even if you think Markov's deal did significantly raise the value of dmen like him, do you honestly not think it would have happened with someone else? Had we not offered Markov 5.75 million, someone would have offered him or Timonen that same amount. It's free agent season, the same thing would have happened as every other season. Markov's deal will affect restricted free agents more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lafleurs Guy
Not what I mean. You need to compare with other defensemen salaries and take the circunstances in consideration. This is what the agent of Markov (Meehan) and Gainey did. The salary is not just base on feelings. If you say a guy should get this or that, you need to explain why.

Because if I would base what I think without market and circunstances, there is not one single hockey player who would make more than 100 000$ and the tickets prices would not be that hight.

I've explained it for about five pages now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1970 Habs
Not what I mean. You need to compare with other defensemen salaries and take the circunstances in consideration. This is what the agent of Markov (Meehan) and Gainey did. The salary is not just base on feelings. If you say a guy should get this or that, you need to explain why.

Because if I would base what I think without market and circunstances, there is not one single hockey player who would make more than 100 000$ and the tickets prices would not be that hight.

Have to agree with you here. I could not have said it better (especially the second para).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Habsfan_11
As predicted, Markov's contract played a huge part in Timonen's newly signed contract, as it had become the new bargaining bar for 50 points defensemen. Sad really...

The same argument could be used to say that Markov was worth 5.75 mil based on Kubina, McCabe and co.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Points that Timonnen and Markov put up are just extra bonuses to add to the fact they are very good defensively. So rather than say Markov raised the worth of a 50 point D-man, its more like Markov set the bar for 50 point scoring d-men who are very good defensively. and aside from Markov and Timo, there was no one else on par with them in that department on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I remember Gainey saying something about building for 2009 (I may be wrong ; I may have been dreaming). Trading Souray and getting a big-time return would have been a big step in that direction.

Yea, BG really flubbed there.

I was all for trading Souray at the deadline. We coulda made out like Bandits!

Keeping Markov was a good step though, but not trading Souray was a big, big mistake. He's going to walk and the only realy talented d-man we'll have is Markov...

..Which is better than nothing I guess :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Semin
Yea, BG really flubbed there.

I was all for trading Souray at the deadline. We coulda made out like Bandits!

Keeping Markov was a good step though, but not trading Souray was a big, big mistake. He's going to walk and the only realy talented d-man we'll have is Markov...

..Which is better than nothing I guess :)

We traded Komisarek? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigsby
I really don't think that was the case.

For one thing, Markov's deal wasn't all that groundbreaking. Taking UFA salaries from past seasons, cap inflation, and other factors into account, it was more or less where I expected it to be.

Furthermore, I really can't see Philli saying "okay we'll set aside 4 million and try to nab Timonen, then see Markov's deal, and go "actually now we're willing to spend 6 million on the same player".

There is no way to prove or disprove this, but I honestly don't think Markov's deal had a thing to do with this. Unrestricted free agents always get deals higher than what we expected, this was simply a case of that. Now even if you think Markov's deal did significantly raise the value of dmen like him, do you honestly not think it would have happened with someone else? Had we not offered Markov 5.75 million, someone would have offered him or Timonen that same amount. It's free agent season, the same thing would have happened as every other season. Markov's deal will affect restricted free agents more than anything.

i completely agree.

not to mention that timonen signed before he became an ufa. i don't think markov raised the bar, i think the bar was already high and these teams had to sign players knowing what offers were waiting for them after july 1. they were the most valuable defenseman in the market. six years though...wow. markov did not set the bar that high. the flyers did that on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i completely agree.

not to mention that timonen signed before he became an ufa. i don't think markov raised the bar, i think the bar was already high and these teams had to sign players knowing what offers were waiting for them after july 1. they were the most valuable defenseman in the market. six years though...wow. markov did not set the bar that high. the flyers did that on their own.

Right. I agree, but whether the bar was already raised or not really isn't the issue. Because the way spending works is that the current philosophy is spend to the cap. When spending on UFAs you spend what a player is worth to you (aka what percentage of the cap). Had it not raised with Markov, it would have raised with Timonen

To put it another way, Souray is going to get over 6 million, but it's not because of Mccabe or Jovo or anyone. We use those contracts because it helps us judge what a player is worth. But once they hit the market, GMs pay what they think that player is worth to them, not what similar players are making. If Mccabe, Jovo, etc. were making 2 million a piece, Souray would still be getting over 6 million because when you are a UFA it isn't what you are worth arbitrarily, it is what you are worth to one team.

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...