Trade offer: Markov for Vinny, would you?
View Single Post
01-23-2009, 09:45 AM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Originally Posted by
If you noticed, I said I would do the deal.....if we can get a Kaberle in another trade. So you gain Kaberle-Lecavalier for Markov and whoever else can be in a Kaberle trade. I'm not underestimating Markov's value. But I also believe that we are underestimating the importance of having some big physical centermen in our lienup, guys that can not only be the go-to-guys offensively but could also be better in a lot of other aspects in hockey, protecting the puck, helping your D'S, winning battles...anyway, we are talking here about replacing Plekanec with Lecavalier....that's a pretty big gap and the difference would obviously be really clear.....probably just as clear as losing Markov on D.
Again, I wouldn't lose Markov and get nothing in return...I mean Brisebois cannot be a top 4 here....But then isn't it what it's all about? Markov is THAT important to the team 'cause we don't have any other puckmoving d-man on our team? If by some kind of miracle you end up having some puckmoving d-men in the lineup, could losing Markov be less dramatic?
So, I wasn't saying, based on last year, trade him. But Markov has been in 4 playoffs with us so far and never was a factor, at least never was the factor that he was during the respective regular season. And I'm not solely talking about points here.
I don't know...I have trouble justifying a team that's currently sitting 4th in the Eastern Conference (despite key injuries and underachieving from key players) trading it's #1 defensman (Markov), adding a #1 center(Vinny), then trading other pieces (i.e. Higgins + prospects + picks) for another #1 defenseman(Kaberle, who IMO, isn't the defensman Markov is all around).
It doesn't make sense...you're disrupting the whole chemistry of the team by overhauling it, when IMO, you only need to tweak it. Not to mention the albatross contract that follows the acquisition of Vinny. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe on PS3 it does, but not in the real world.
I agree, the Habs need to add a big center...we've been saying this for years but to trade our #1 dman and IMO, best player to acquire that big center, we'll just be sitting here a few weeks later complaining that we need a #1 defensman.
As for Markov's performance in the playoffs...yes he did struggle, but so did the whole team and if i'm not mistaken, Markov wasn't 100%. Also, the playoffs are a weird thing, before the Wings won the Cup last year, Datsyuk wasn't considered a playoff player either. But what happened? The Wings got hot and they won the Cup and Datsyuk was a key member.
I think people put too much stock into playoff performances...the playoffs are an extension of a regular season, to have success and win a Cup or at least go to the Finals, you have to have a lot of things go right for you and get hot at the right time. For example, if the the playoffs were the last 25 games or so of this present season, then technically, the Bruins would be Cup champions, but does that mean come April/May/June it will still be the case? There's no recipe, what center did the Wings have last year who was over 6' feet tall? Is their goalie Chris Osgood some kind of benchmark for goaltenders?
The Habs could get hot in the playoffs and that could carry them to a Cup win...then during the offseason everyone is going to be saying how the way to win a Cup is to build your team like the Habs did. It's always the same story every year...People always think that to have success in the playoffs, you're team has to have some pre-set parameters, I just don't agree with that.
The Habs need to add pieces, not add by substraction.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by 417