View Single Post
07-19-2011, 06:12 PM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
I think his assessment is way off and a little all over the place. Not just on the Markov signing, although I do feel it was a riskier signing than most. He has missed a lot of hockey, but the analysis in this article is strange. He has Gagne at 2 yrs 3.5 per as one of the top signings, but Markov with 1 extra year and 2m more as the worst.

I think it would be safe to assume if both play an entire season, Markov would be worth at least twice as much as Gagne. Just one of many flaws in his article imo. To me the risk with Markov isn't in his play, it will be whether or not he can play all year and if he gets a long term injury, we put him on LTIR and are allowed to spend over the cap to make up the difference, limiting the risk a bit. If he plays, he'll be great, like always.

The only bad part with LTIR is it isn't retroactive, so you can only go over the cap by the amount remaining of Markovs cap hit, so if he gets hurt and takes a month to be properly diagnosed and then placed on LTIR we lose that month towards our spending and the likeliness of someone being available to use the extra money aren't good to begin with, but it does allow a little wiggle room.

At least that's my understand of LTIR, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Last edited by habsjunkie2*: 07-19-2011 at 06:19 PM.
habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote