View Single Post
07-19-2011, 05:47 PM
Erik Estrada
Registered User
Erik Estrada's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
This write-up on Markov is so ridiculous I don't know where to start...Here it goes:

"The Canadiens signed Markov under the assumption that his last two years could never be repeated" -no
"and that he is still a consistent 50-60 point per season player." -yes, among other things

"That might prove to be true, but this contract only makes sense under that best case scenario."
-why? unless the writer is unfamiliar with the fact Markov eats up first D minutes, plays against the other team's top line, etc...

"You can find examples of this throughout pro sports, where a player has a terrible year or two before his contract expires and a team, seeing his potential, decides to sign him as if those years never happened."
-If by "terrible year" he means "injured", he's right. If by "potential", he means "not injured", he's right again.

"Sometimes it works out, but it seems like most bad contracts are born as a result of someone not adequately weighing the possibility that things might not work out perfectly."
-If the writer thinks there wasn't a discount in consideration "things might not work out perfectly", he's either unfamiliar with the market for an elite puck-moving D that plays in all situation and eats up huge minutes or he's unfamiliar that a healthy Markov falls in that category.

Erik Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote