Crapshoot on picks/prospects: Agreed that drafts are always crapshoots. However, your odds are a lot higher in a deeper draft at finding a solid player who will contribute to the team. Let alone if you can pick up a solid prospect who has had some development in the AHL. That crapshoot gave us Gorges AND Pacioretty. Not saying that you will get that kind of quality back, you might, but you have a chance at getting some good players for a guy who will not be around much longer.
Mentor: We have Gorges, Cube, right now. Keep in mind there are always vet defenseman available on the FA market who can play a mentor role as a top 6 or even a 7th dman. Mentors are not hard to find.
The risks of a potential Markov trade outweigh those of the Rivet for Gorges and Pac trade. Back then, we still had Streit, Markov and Souray, three very liable defensemen who could put up points and were the soul and heart of the powerplay. If we trade Markov now, we put tons of pressure on the returning Subban to produce in the offensive zone. You can also waive goodbye to Diaz's production. We got lucky with how Gorges and Pac turned out to be, and I'm not saying it can't happen again, but the risks are much more higher with a potential Markov departure.
As for mentors, yes, there are many veteran defensemen who could help the up-and-coming youngsters. But how many of them produced multiple Norris-candidate seasons and have the smarts of The General? And, oh, Cube isn't a mentor. He'll be a goner by the time Tinordi and Beaulieu reach the major league.
I think the difference between the Habs with Markov in the line up is enough to say that he is the straw that stirs the drink. He does everything for the Habs and is loyal to the team. Unless we can get another #1 defensman or a top prospect like Hamilton, Jones etc (which would never happen) than what would be the purpose and who would take his spot?
It was about as easy as you can put it... Wasn't rude and I provided an example. Sorry your thong is riding up.
It was dumb on your part. And like I said... relax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DekeLikeYouMeanIt
Any player is available dependant on the return. Having said so, I don't think it will happen because mgmt is so focused on winning culture that they won't trade currents for futures.
Mgmt won't do it if we're even close to the playoffs much less a top seed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kassian
The risks of a potential Markov trade outweigh those of the Rivet for Gorges and Pac trade. Back then, we still had Streit, Markov and Souray, three very liable defensemen who could put up points and were the soul and heart of the powerplay. If we trade Markov now, we put tons of pressure on the returning Subban to produce in the offensive zone. You can also waive goodbye to Diaz's production. We got lucky with how Gorges and Pac turned out to be, and I'm not saying it can't happen again, but the risks are much more higher with a potential Markov departure.
No doubt the risk it greater but so is the reward. And let's not forget that Markov's knee represents a risk on its own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kassian
As for mentors, yes, there are many veteran defensemen who could help the up-and-coming youngsters. But how many of them produced multiple Norris-candidate seasons and have the smarts of The General? And, oh, Cube isn't a mentor. He'll be a goner by the time Tinordi and Beaulieu reach the major league.
Markov being a mentor is great, no doubt about it. But it's not important enough that you turn down a great deal that would benefit you in the long run.
Do you know what is one of the most under rated things to have in pro sports....great mentors.
That is exactly what Markov will be to the young guys mentioned in this thread. Why do you think Diaz has as many points as he has? Why do you think Emelin has stepped up his game as much as he has this year? Now I am not saying that it is all Markov's doing but I am sure that it has had an effect on the both of them.
Rememeber what happened when we traded a player and their stock was at their highest? Jaroslav Halak brought the Habs Lars Eller who looks like to be a career third liner and Ian Schultz who has no NHL future. Trading high does not always work out.
Now with that being said if some team offers something that you can not refuse then you have to trade him. If Wayne Gretzky can be traded in the prime of his career than Andrei Markov sure can.
If Markov can stay healthy he has another 5 years left of being an above average blueliner. Nothing we get for Markov is going to be as good as Markov.
I would like to open up a discussion on a subject that may be too sensitive for some,a subject that might illicit knee jerk reactions, but one which I think needs to be at least explored.
IF Markov continues his excellent play AND stays healthy, should we consider trading The General?
Here is my rationale for considering this move:
A) Even if we are in a playoff position this season, we are not likely going to be making the cup finals (let alone winning).
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
If we are in a playoff position this season come trade deadline, we keep Markov 100% sure... Anything can happen. We absolutely need Markov... There's nothing sentimental about this decision. If it would be a better decision for the Habs to trade Markov, I would. It's not. Case closed.
If Markov can stay healthy he has another 5 years left of being an above average blueliner. Nothing we get for Markov is going to be as good as Markov.
And if he blows out his knee we've wasted a great asset...
If Markov can stay healthy he has another 5 years left of being an above average blueliner. Nothing we get for Markov is going to be as good as Markov.
Et le but, I think exactly like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy
And if he blows out his knee we've wasted a great asset...
It's worth at least considering.
Look at the team now that Markov is back. We are winning! If we are missing a point at the end of the 3th, it almost as we expect that we may get the goal. Like it or not, Markov is more than helping the team to win. That what Hockey is about... Winning! Why trading a player that is making the team win? To get "potential"... he is the real thing...
Beside, we may not get what Markov is worth to the hab, (injury, age, etc.) so why even trying...
Look at the team now that Markov is back. We are winning! If we are missing a point at the end of the 3th, it almost as we expect that we may get the goal. Like it or not, Markov is more than helping the team to win. That what Hockey is about... Winning! Why trading a player that is making the team win? To get "potential"... he is the real thing...
Beside, we may not get what Markov is worth to the hab, (injury, age, etc.) so why even trying...
Keeping him might very well be the right idea. If he's healthy he's probably got a window of another three maybe four years of solid play. I figured our window for winnining wouldn't start until Galchenyuk established himself in a couple of years but he seems to be establishing himself right now so maybe our window for winning is closer than expected.
As for winning... yes he's helping us win now. But is he going to be able to win a cup with us? Moreover, would the return on what we got for him still be with us helping us to win cups ten years from now?
There are definitely reasons for trading him. Most notably his age and injury risk. Nobody denies his talent or that he makes a team better. If he wasn't good he wouldn't garner any interest to begin with. Galchenyuk's early emergence makes it a more difficult question for me than it was but absolutely I'd want to see what clubs would be willing to offer for him.
And for all the talk of if he's healthy... well what if he's not? What if we dealt him away and got something great out of it and he went down with another injury?
Depends on the window of winning and it depends on the return.
Markov makes the whole team better. In addition to being a role model for the young up and coming defensemen on the team, his transition game and vision on the power play will help the development of our young forwards like AGally and BGally as well. Keep him.
Im sorry, I love the guy, but if we can get something that drops our jaws to the floor i'd be obliged to say yes.
Otherwise, no.
This seems to be the common-sense view, almost but not quite a consensus here.
The only thing is, I can't see anyone trading for Markov that is not going for the Cup. So even if we get a first round draft pick, it will be a late pick. After the first 3 or 4 picks, top-end talent is a low-percentage try, especially when selling top-end talent that is on the ice.
The Rivet trade was very different. He had declined, his best was never Markov level, and in fact he was a healthy scratch a couple of times before the trade. We lucked out a bit with Pacioretty, after all, he went AFTER Eller for instance. And Gorges was very much a rare find. Sam Jose had no idea they were giving up a great prospect in Gorges. They were just desperate for a RH shooting D that year.
So while in theory I would be willing to entertain offers for anyone, including a healthy and productive Markov, I don't see anyone that would be willing to offer a high enough return. Contenders won't give up assets that are performing in the NHL now, and bottom feeders have their priorities elsewhere than picking up a good but older vet at the expense of young assets.
I would like to open up a discussion on a subject that may be too sensitive for some,a subject that might illicit knee jerk reactions, but one which I think needs to be at least explored.
IF Markov continues his excellent play AND stays healthy, should we consider trading The General?
Here is my rationale for considering this move:
A) Even if we are in a playoff position this season, we are not likely going to be making the cup finals (let alone winning).
B) If Markov keeps his great season going, his stock is never going to be higher than it will be this trade deadline for a cup contending team. remember, he isn't getting younger
C) Subban and Diaz are likely considered our "future" offensive "go to" guys from the blue line, moving Markov opens up those roles for them to finish the season. This also gives these guys the knowledge over the summer that they will be expected to run the show, which will hopefully give them added motivation to come into camp in great shape and ready to go for next season
D) Giving Markov to a cup contender could net us a strong return since vetran offensive generals like Markov are an always sought commodity. Few years back we traded away Rivet for Gorges and a 1st that turned into Pac. Markov should be able to give us a solid return as well.
E) This is considered a very deep draft year. Snagging at least another 1st round pick could have many advantages
Just to be clear, I am a fan of Markov and I have no problems keeping him going forward as having a healthy Markov on our team makes us better short term. I just think the idea of moving Markov should be at least explored.
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
I hope he retires as a hab, that's all I'm gonna say.
if he continues playing this way, and stays healthy, then you extend him, not trade him.
he'll be 35 when his contract expires... if he's playing this way until then, showing that his injury woes are behind him, no reason not to use the familiarity to get a favorable contract set up, securing him for 2-4 more years at something less than a player of his ability would get as a ufa.
Markov
Subban
Gorges
Diaz
Emelin
that is a pretty good top-5 to have in place for the next 3-5 years... emelin and Diaz should be relatively to keep within cap needed contracts, markov and subban being the big deals.
this way, one of beaulieu/tinordi/ellis can still earn an NHL role, but our "log jam" allows us to keep the others (along with thrower/dietz/bennett developping in hamilton for several years.
not that keeping/moving markov alone changes all that, but having a dman of that level (25+min) to go with a Subban (25+) and then backing them up with a gorges/diaz/emelin (all 20+), means you don't need much more than either a depth youngster or veteran role player to round out the defensive unit. that's a good situation to have for the next 3-5 years.
replacing the 25+min role Markov can play is not easy, even if Diaz and others are improving.
Nobody is going to agree with this but yes, we should consider dealing him.
The better he plays though, the higher the return price should be. We shouldn't just give him away.
Not this year though. His value just won't be that good come trade deadline having played 36 games only (that is if he plays them all).
Next year could be a different story though. If he has a successful and healthy season, with pretty good POs (if we make them), and follows it up with a good start next year, then his value goes up big time. He would also be a rental so, at the deadline, teams would be outbidding each other for the chance of adding a guy like Markov.
So, I think we should wait to next year, and then possibly consider it but that's only depending on the return.
Markov brings a lot to this club, so it would really have to be a big return.
Not this year though. His value just won't be that good come trade deadline having played 36 games only (that is if he plays them all).
Next year could be a different story though. If he has a successful and healthy season, with pretty good POs (if we make them), and follows it up with a good start next year, then his value goes up big time. He would also be a rental so, at the deadline, teams would be outbidding each other for the chance of adding a guy like Markov.
So, I think we should wait to next year, and then possibly consider it but that's only depending on the return.
Markov brings a lot to this club, so it would really have to be a big return.
Its silly to argue semantics. We can go back and forth on his value all day long. All that matters is that if we got a good offer for him then great, take the deal.
