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

79 Andrei Markov 06-07


jl-1

Recommended Posts

Guest Renko
Actually 3/4 of the team :P

Of the 7 player not in a " minus " ; one isn't coming back and 2 are UFA and probably not coming back :D

Thats actually kind of scary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how we expect Souray to sign at a discount

Who are you referring to? I can't think of anyon who expects him to sign for that much. Basically everyone knows he's leaving, and it's not like people are blaming him for it.

There's a difference between not being willing to offer someone market value and expecting someone to sign for below market value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Renko
But I can see value in Souray too! Just not as much value as Markov. At the end of the day, Markov is more valuable to our team than Souray, so he should be paid more than Souray. There, I'm making my stance as plain as can be. :)

It's not so much that Souray's plus-minus means HE is a bad player defensively. It's that the difference between his -28 and Markov's +3 is so noticeable that you really can't help but acknowledge that Markov is a better defenseman, especially given that it was Markov, not Souray, who lined up against other teams' top lines night after night.

To put it another way, Souray's -28 doesn't diminish his value, but Markov's +3, on a team like ours with so many bad plus-minus figures, sure raises his value.

Go into Columbus Bluejackets and look at Anders Ericksson. He's UFA and I think he could be a great steal.

+12 on that dismal team. He's their Andrei Markov and I think we could have him for 1M or less. Sorry Mods, I know this has nothing to do with Markov. Weeping's mention of a respectable +/- on our dismal team reminded me of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you referring to?

Those wanting or expecting Souray to sign for $4.5 million or less than Markov.

If we got close to (or over in my opinion) to market value with Markov, and most here agree that Souray could fetch between $6-7 million on the open market, then it is insulting (even ridiculous) to even offer him between $2½-3½ million UNDER market value. That's what I'm referring to. I would have prefered we didn't offer him a contract instead of doing what we did. A simple hand shake, or ask Souray's agent what it will take to keep him here, anything would have been better. That's not how you thank a guy for his long time services with the organization, but that's just my two cents worth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those wanting or expecting Souray to sign for $4.5 million or less than Markov.

If we got close to (or over in my opinion) to market value with Markov, and most here agree that Souray could fetch between $6-7 million on the open market, then it is insulting (even ridiculous) to even offer him between $2½-3½ million UNDER market value. That's what I'm referring to. I would have prefered we didn't offer him a contract instead of doing what we did. A simple hand shake, or ask Souray's agent what it will take to keep him here, anything would have been better. That's not how you thank a guy for his long time services with the organization, but that's just my two cents worth...

Well I guess it depends how you look at it. Personally, I feel that we offered him what we thought he was worth to us but basically said with the offer "we want you, but can't afford to pay you what others will". Is that better than just giving him a handshake? I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess it depends how you look at it. Personally, I feel that we offered him what we thought he was worth to us but basically said with the offer "we want you, but can't afford to pay you what others will". Is that better than just giving him a handshake? I guess that's just a matter of opinion.

I'd rather have a handshake than a slap in the face personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather have a handshake than a slap in the face personally.

I really don't think it's a slap in the face. It's still 4.5 million dollars, that still shows he is important to us. I'd rather have that good, although low, offer than what Ninimaa and Aeby are going to recieve (the no offer handshake). This is a business, I'm sure Souray understands that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no doubt that Markov is superior to Souray defensively and I will never deny that, but Souray is superior to Markov offensively by a large margin, especially now that he's finally gained confidence and his wrist seems to be at 100%.

For one thing, Souray had 64 points to Markov's 49. That's a significant gap, but not an enormous one. Also, we're comparing apples and oranges. Souray generates offense in a completely different way from Markov. Souray's offense comes on the power play: he either scores goals or gets assists because his crazy shot creates rebounds that our forwards put in. Markov generates points by setting Souray up on the power play, AND by making that first good pass out of the zone. The latter never shows up on the stat sheet, but it should, because he's our only puck-moving defenseman and he is, without question, responsible for a lot of goals we score at even strength even if his name never shows up on the stat sheet.

The difference between the two isn't as much as some want to beleive otherwise, why would the market value lean so heavily towards players like Jovanovski, Chara, McCabe and Souray? Because high quality QB's for the PP are few and far between and much harder to find than defensive defenseman, including defensemen like Markov, Timonen, Salo and company who aren't bad offensively.

JL, look at the teams that threw big money at Jovo, Chara and McCabe: Phoenix (I believe), Boston, and Toronto. Did they make the playoffs last year? ;)

Jovo is injury-prone and overpaid. McCabe is a power-play specialist and overpaid. Chara gives more value for his dollar because he is much better in his own end than Jovo, McCabe, or Souray.

If you want real return on your dollar, the d-man you sign to that big contract has to be versatile. He can't just be a one-trick pony. The Ducks wouldn't have won the Cup if Niedermayer and Pronger could only score goals on the power play. Both those guys are stud defensive defensemen who can play half an hour per game easily against the best forwards in the league and come out on the plus side most nights. Souray is not that player and never will be. If some teams want to throw $7 million at him, so be it, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of GMs are going to look at what he's asking for, examine his skill set, and conclude that while they'd love him at $4.5 million or maybe $5 million, they aren't interested in shelling out $6 million or more for a power-play specialist who sports one of the worst plus-minuses in the league and who has a tendency to get exploited by speedy forwards in open ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1970 Habs
For one thing, Souray had 64 points to Markov's 49. That's a significant gap, but not an enormous one. Also, we're comparing apples and oranges. Souray generates offense in a completely different way from Markov. Souray's offense comes on the power play: he either scores goals or gets assists because his crazy shot creates rebounds that our forwards put in. Markov generates points by setting Souray up on the power play, AND by making that first good pass out of the zone. The latter never shows up on the stat sheet, but it should, because he's our only puck-moving defenseman and he is, without question, responsible for a lot of goals we score at even strength even if his name never shows up on the stat sheet.

JL, look at the teams that threw big money at Jovo, Chara and McCabe: Phoenix (I believe), Boston, and Toronto. Did they make the playoffs last year? ;)

Jovo is injury-prone and overpaid. McCabe is a power-play specialist and overpaid. Chara gives more value for his dollar because he is much better in his own end than Jovo, McCabe, or Souray.

If you want real return on your dollar, the d-man you sign to that big contract has to be versatile. He can't just be a one-trick pony. The Ducks wouldn't have won the Cup if Niedermayer and Pronger could only score goals on the power play. Both those guys are stud defensive defensemen who can play half an hour per game easily against the best forwards in the league and come out on the plus side most nights. Souray is not that player and never will be. If some teams want to throw $7 million at him, so be it, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of GMs are going to look at what he's asking for, examine his skill set, and conclude that while they'd love him at $4.5 million or maybe $5 million, they aren't interested in shelling out $6 million or more for a power-play specialist who sports one of the worst plus-minuses in the league and who has a tendency to get exploited by speedy forwards in open ice.

I have to disagree. I feel Souray's market value in the NHL is in the $6-7M range. I felt this way at the end of the season.

After the past few days I believe even more that there are teams out there who will offer him that, though Montreal is not one of them. I guess we will see after 1 July.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. I feel Souray's market value in the NHL is in the $6-7M range. I felt this way at the end of the season.

After the past few days I believe even more that there are teams out there who will offer him that, though Montreal is not one of them. I guess we will see after 1 July.

I don't think weeping ever said that wasn't hist market value, he just said most GMs wouldn't give that much. But market value doesn't depend on most, it only depends on 1 GM.

Anyways, weeping, great post. I was going to try and say Souray isn't superior to Markov offensively, but couldn't think of how to word it - you got it though. Souray has a superior shot, physical presence, and leadership. He is also more valuable on the PP and statistically more solid offensively. But defensemen's offensive skills cannot be judged just by points. For example, a guy who's name I've thrown around a lot - Brad Stuart - got like 20 points last season. Now this alone is horrible for an offensive defenseman; using points, Mark Streit (even when playing D) is superior to Stuart - yet I'd be willing to shell out probably 3-4 million for Stuart in a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think weeping ever said that wasn't hist market value, he just said most GMs wouldn't give that much. But market value doesn't depend on most, it only depends on 1 GM.

Anyways, weeping, great post. I was going to try and say Souray isn't superior to Markov offensively, but couldn't think of how to word it - you got it though. Souray has a superior shot, physical presence, and leadership. He is also more valuable on the PP and statistically more solid offensively. But defensemen's offensive skills cannot be judged just by points. For example, a guy who's name I've thrown around a lot - Brad Stuart - got like 20 points last season. Now this alone is horrible for an offensive defenseman; using points, Mark Streit (even when playing D) is superior to Stuart - yet I'd be willing to shell out probably 3-4 million for Stuart in a second.

But...

That's the same argument we're hearing to justify Markov's fat contract... why does it work for one and not the other? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigsby
For one thing, Souray had 64 points to Markov's 49. That's a significant gap, but not an enormous one. Also, we're comparing apples and oranges. Souray generates offense in a completely different way from Markov. Souray's offense comes on the power play: he either scores goals or gets assists because his crazy shot creates rebounds that our forwards put in. Markov generates points by setting Souray up on the power play, AND by making that first good pass out of the zone. The latter never shows up on the stat sheet, but it should, because he's our only puck-moving defenseman and he is, without question, responsible for a lot of goals we score at even strength even if his name never shows up on the stat sheet.

JL, look at the teams that threw big money at Jovo, Chara and McCabe: Phoenix (I believe), Boston, and Toronto. Did they make the playoffs last year? ;)

Jovo is injury-prone and overpaid. McCabe is a power-play specialist and overpaid. Chara gives more value for his dollar because he is much better in his own end than Jovo, McCabe, or Souray.

If you want real return on your dollar, the d-man you sign to that big contract has to be versatile. He can't just be a one-trick pony. The Ducks wouldn't have won the Cup if Niedermayer and Pronger could only score goals on the power play. Both those guys are stud defensive defensemen who can play half an hour per game easily against the best forwards in the league and come out on the plus side most nights. Souray is not that player and never will be. If some teams want to throw $7 million at him, so be it, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of GMs are going to look at what he's asking for, examine his skill set, and conclude that while they'd love him at $4.5 million or maybe $5 million, they aren't interested in shelling out $6 million or more for a power-play specialist who sports one of the worst plus-minuses in the league and who has a tendency to get exploited by speedy forwards in open ice.

well put and i agree.

out of curiousity was it ever confirmed what the habs' offer to souray was? i've heard a lot of speculation but nothing concrete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...

That's the same argument we're hearing to justify Markov's fat contract... why does it work for one and not the other? ;)

What argument? That intangibles are worth money?

If that's it, well it's because not all intangibles are equal. When I look at Souray's total package, and Markov's total package, including both tangibles and intangibles, I simply think Markov brings more to the table overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What argument? That intangibles are worth money?

If that's it, well it's because not all intangibles are equal. When I look at Souray's total package, and Markov's total package, including both tangibles and intangibles, I simply think Markov brings more to the table overall.

No, justifying a salary with the market value. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, justifying a salary with the market value. :P

Well what i said, and have said all along, is you can't just give every player of yours market value, you have to pick and choose. In my opinion, in Markov's case, that contract was a necessary evil, he was a player that I really felt we had to pay market value to keep. With Souray, I don't think it is worth it, I'm willing to lose Souray.

It's okay to pay market value for players (which almost always involves overpaying), but they have to be the players you truly need right now. Ottawa did it with Redden/Chara, we're doing it with Markov/Souray. Aeby's market value is probably 750k, does that mean we have to offer him that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markov's first-pass ability and defensive prowess aren't intangibles. The definition of 'intangible' in this context is 'difficult or impossible to understand; vague and abstract'. There is nothing difficult to understand about a defenseman who can make a crisp, accurate, fast first pass out of the zone. It's a hard skill to estimate, because number of first-pass attempts, difficulty level of first passes attempted, and first-pass success ratios aren't tracked as stats, but it is by no means intangible. We all know that launching the attack from your zone is crucial to a team's offense.

Similarly, Markov's positional soundness, which translates into his plus-minus to some degree, is very tangible. As is his shutdown capability: the fact that he can line up against the Ovechkins of the league and limit their productivity on most nights. I'd actually like to see a new stat: a percentage probability of how likely you are to be on the ice when a goal is scored against your team, and also who scores it.

This is part of why I think Markov is more valuable to the team than Souray, though I love both players. There are far less intangibles in Markov's package. What he brings is both very important and very easy to identify. What Souray brings beyond his thunderous shot and power-play production, on the other hand, is quite intangible: character, leadership, etc. Can you identify character on game film? I certainly can't. And we have no idea, really, of the extent of his leadership. We get that impression from media soundbytes and our own willingness to put Souray in that role. And again, on the ice, how does one identify leadership?

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as intangibles are great, we've made a bad habit in recent years of overpaying for things that aren't measurable in game terms. Let's start keeping and rewarding players for quantifiable, measurable results, not ephemeral qualities whose presence or absence in any player is difficult to guess. So as much as I like Souray, when I compare what he brings, in tangible terms, to what Markov brings, in tangible terms, Markov is not only the more valuable player, but should be paid more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Miltie01
Markov's first-pass ability and defensive prowess aren't intangibles. The definition of 'intangible' in this context is 'difficult or impossible to understand; vague and abstract'. There is nothing difficult to understand about a defenseman who can make a crisp, accurate, fast first pass out of the zone. It's a hard skill to estimate, because number of first-pass attempts, difficulty level of first passes attempted, and first-pass success ratios aren't tracked as stats, but it is by no means intangible. We all know that launching the attack from your zone is crucial to a team's offense.

Similarly, Markov's positional soundness, which translates into his plus-minus to some degree, is very tangible. As is his shutdown capability: the fact that he can line up against the Ovechkins of the league and limit their productivity on most nights. I'd actually like to see a new stat: a percentage probability of how likely you are to be on the ice when a goal is scored against your team, and also who scores it.

This is part of why I think Markov is more valuable to the team than Souray, though I love both players. There are far less intangibles in Markov's package. What he brings is both very important and very easy to identify. What Souray brings beyond his thunderous shot and power-play production, on the other hand, is quite intangible: character, leadership, etc. Can you identify character on game film? I certainly can't. And we have no idea, really, of the extent of his leadership. We get that impression from media soundbytes and our own willingness to put Souray in that role. And again, on the ice, how does one identify leadership?

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as intangibles are great, we've made a bad habit in recent years of overpaying for things that aren't measurable in game terms. Let's start keeping and rewarding players for quantifiable, measurable results, not ephemeral qualities whose presence or absence in any player is difficult to guess. So as much as I like Souray, when I compare what he brings, in tangible terms, to what Markov brings, in tangible terms, Markov is not only the more valuable player, but should be paid more.

The intangables have a very definate effect on the outcome of games, that is why you have to pay a price for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intangables have a very definate effect on the outcome of games, that is why you have to pay a price for them.

I'm not saying intangibles don't have an effect on the game. But point out to me a clear instance where a player's 'character' helped score a goal. It is an extremely difficult thing to isolate and measure, and the criteria vary pretty dramatically. For example, I'd say a guy like Markov who plays the same excellent game night and night out without fanfare, does his job with a minimum of fuss, doesn't crave the spotlight, and elevates whoever he's paired with, has a ton of character. It's not wrapped up in a fan-friendly "good ol' Canadian boy" package, it's not accompanied by good looks, magnetic personality, or a smooth touch with the media, but it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bigsby
I'm not saying intangibles don't have an effect on the game. But point out to me a clear instance where a player's 'character' helped score a goal. It is an extremely difficult thing to isolate and measure, and the criteria vary pretty dramatically. For example, I'd say a guy like Markov who plays the same excellent game night and night out without fanfare, does his job with a minimum of fuss, doesn't crave the spotlight, and elevates whoever he's paired with, has a ton of character. It's not wrapped up in a fan-friendly "good ol' Canadian boy" package, it's not accompanied by good looks, magnetic personality, or a smooth touch with the media, but it's there.

i agree. i'd say markov's 'intangibles' are just as valuable to our team. while he may not have the soundbytes we crave, his on-ice leadership, in terms of helping players improve their game (also an unquanifiable stat), has a significant impact on our team. he may not be the go-to guy in the lockerroom but he certainly is on the ice - and that, to me, is very important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markov's first-pass ability and defensive prowess aren't intangibles. The definition of 'intangible' in this context is 'difficult or impossible to understand; vague and abstract'. There is nothing difficult to understand about a defenseman who can make a crisp, accurate, fast first pass out of the zone. It's a hard skill to estimate, because number of first-pass attempts, difficulty level of first passes attempted, and first-pass success ratios aren't tracked as stats, but it is by no means intangible. We all know that launching the attack from your zone is crucial to a team's offense.

Similarly, Markov's positional soundness, which translates into his plus-minus to some degree, is very tangible. As is his shutdown capability: the fact that he can line up against the Ovechkins of the league and limit their productivity on most nights. I'd actually like to see a new stat: a percentage probability of how likely you are to be on the ice when a goal is scored against your team, and also who scores it.

This is part of why I think Markov is more valuable to the team than Souray, though I love both players. There are far less intangibles in Markov's package. What he brings is both very important and very easy to identify. What Souray brings beyond his thunderous shot and power-play production, on the other hand, is quite intangible: character, leadership, etc. Can you identify character on game film? I certainly can't. And we have no idea, really, of the extent of his leadership. We get that impression from media soundbytes and our own willingness to put Souray in that role. And again, on the ice, how does one identify leadership?

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as intangibles are great, we've made a bad habit in recent years of overpaying for things that aren't measurable in game terms. Let's start keeping and rewarding players for quantifiable, measurable results, not ephemeral qualities whose presence or absence in any player is difficult to guess. So as much as I like Souray, when I compare what he brings, in tangible terms, to what Markov brings, in tangible terms, Markov is not only the more valuable player, but should be paid more.

Good point. I was using tangibles more as direct points on the board, but you're right, they could very well include other things that can be judged on the ice.

The intangables have a very definate effect on the outcome of games, that is why you have to pay a price for them.

Well on top of what weeping said, you also need to consider that intangibles are somewhat easier to replace. When you lose a leader, someone else steps up. The team isn't going to go into a tailspin because there is no leadership.

And while intangibles have some value, it is limited in my mind. Begin has every intangible you could want out of a player, but really how much more than the minimum contract is he worth? If I were re-signing him I'd give him maybe minimum + 500k (about 1 million) maximum.

True intangibles are great, but I think of them more as "bonuses" you get with players, not things you should be spending millions of dollars for. If we want a leader, we could go out and offer Mike Keane 500k. Instead, I'd rather we get the players we need and then see who steps up as the leaders on that team.

Does Markov's quietness, lack of toughness on the ice (sticking up for teammates), and lack of English really hurt his value? In my mind, very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm late to the party here... but how happy I was when we finally re-signed him! lol... Markov's our best defenseman, one of the best in the league and at times (often) our best and most important player period. I love the contract, good length and it's money he deserves. Not an overpayment if you look at the market and consider what he really brings to the table.

It's great not having to worry about losing him for a fairly long time. He is our general on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest spankydriscoll

hmm rafalski 30 mil over 5. markov 23 mil over 4. just goes to show we didn't really go too far off the deep end.

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...