Why must we always get rid of older players?

[bobholly39]

To listen to the fanbase talk, we should get rid of:

Markov - too old/not worth the price
Gionta - too old/best years behind him
Vanek - not worth the money/won't last 7-8 years
Bouillon - too old/slow/not good enough

What's wrong with keeping players who have performed very good for us, and who will be hard to replace?

Markov - if you don't sign him, you have no one in your organisation who can replace him, and no one as a UFA that can do what he does as good/for better price available. Also always been a loyal Habs player.

Gionta - he is no longer a big time scorer. But as a 3rd line winger, he can produce some offense and play very well defensively. Also, very strong leader (we may not have won the cup with him, but since he's been with the team we have done VERY, VERY well i believe). Don't pay him 6M$ per year, but for a more respcatble number i think keeping him is a good option.

Vanek - Obviously, everyone is disappointed with him in the playoffs. But if at the beginning of the year, we were given the option to trade for this guy and sign him for a 7-8 year pact, i think 95% of fans would have taken that deal. He's going to be the type of players with ups and downs, yet he always produces points and in the long-run will be an offensive powerhouse. He is still the best forward available as a UFA this year, and we have "dibs" on him for now. I think that's a plus.

Bouillion - obviously, not a prime player, but I believe he's played strong/well for us when called up this year. As a depth defenseman, I do like him as an option.


Obviously, i am not advocating that we keep all our players, all the time. I am mostly trying to point out how fickle the fanbase is. It's one thing to argue about getting rid of players who have played very bad (so a case for Vanek can be made), but for players who have done well we should be hoping the Habs manage to keep them all vs getting rid of them all.

Click to read more...

 

[ThaDevilGirl]

New is always better.

 

[PricerStopDaPuck]

Cause we've had the old bull. Now we want the young calf.

 

[eFFeRR]

I listened until you said Boullion played strong/well for us..

 

[Mad Habber]

To listen to the fanbase talk, we should get rid of:

Markov - too old/not worth the price
Gionta - too old/best years behind him
Vanek - not worth the money/won't last 7-8 years
Bouillon - too old/slow/not good enough

What's wrong with keeping players who have performed very good for us, and who will be hard to replace?

Markov - if you don't sign him, you have no one in your organisation who can replace him, and no one as a UFA that can do what he does as good/for better price available. Also always been a loyal Habs player.

Gionta - he is no longer a big time scorer. But as a 3rd line winger, he can produce some offense and play very well defensively. Also, very strong leader (we may not have won the cup with him, but since he's been with the team we have done VERY, VERY well i believe). Don't pay him 6M$ per year, but for a more respcatble number i think keeping him is a good option.

Vanek - Obviously, everyone is disappointed with him in the playoffs. But if at the beginning of the year, we were given the option to trade for this guy and sign him for a 7-8 year pact, i think 95% of fans would have taken that deal. He's going to be the type of players with ups and downs, yet he always produces points and in the long-run will be an offensive powerhouse. He is still the best forward available as a UFA this year, and we have "dibs" on him for now. I think that's a plus.

Bouillion - obviously, not a prime player, but I believe he's played strong/well for us when called up this year. As a depth defenseman, I do like him as an option.


Obviously, i am not advocating that we keep all our players, all the time. I am mostly trying to point out how fickle the fanbase is. It's one thing to argue about getting rid of players who have played very bad (so a case for Vanek can be made), but for players who have done well we should be hoping the Habs manage to keep them all vs getting rid of them all.

We never replaced Lafleur either. Should we get him out of retirement.

It isn't what these guys did in the past, it's what's expected in the future and at what price. If you think Markov is going to be worth $6 million in 3 years, you go ahead and sign him today. That's what he wants. MB has his doubts though and that's why he was offering 1 or 2 years. He'll get his money somewhere, maybe in Montreal, but whichever GM signs him to 3 or more years will regret that 3rd or more years at that price and he won't be able to unload that contract. Think Erik Cole. 4 year contract and Montreal only got their money's worth in the first. Good thing we were able to trade him.

Gionta isn't worth $5M anymore. He was 7th in scoring for the Habs this year. He was 3rd or 4th in his first two years. Bouillon is just done. And Vanek, dibs or not, still wants to test the market. Nothing we can do about that.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Shiny new toys > veterans.

The problem is people overestimate how easy it is to replace the veterans. Gionta isn't a star, but he isn't a player that you can just get rid of without replacing, 40 points with the kind of matchups his line had is valuable, and there aren't too many replacements available as UFA's. Ideally we can upgrade but Gionta isn't just a spare part and there isn't anyone in the system as a replacement. Bouillion is a depth guy now and I think we're better off long term with Beaulieu/Tinordi on the team than bringing back Bouillion. Wouldn't be upset to have him as depth but I'd be unhappy if he was playing ahead of Beaulieu/Tinordi consistently.

Vanek is a money thing, I'd be happy to have him back next year at 8M, but the problem is you have to commit to 6 more after that. I don't think Vanek is a player who will be worth 8M for much longer which is the problem. If we signed him to a big contract I'd still be excited for next year, because I think he still has a few more years left at a high level and the team is stronger with him than without him. It's just tough to commit that kind of money when you know he's going to fall off pretty quickly and I don't think anyone wants to be paying a 37 year old Vanek 8M.

I think there's just an overestimation of how easy it is to replace guys with UFA's. We let Markov walk and save 6M in cap space...and then what? The other thing is you get people who want to "get bigger" or think the roster is too old and think letting old/short guys will be addition by subtraction. It's fine to want to get bigger but if it means Gionta's spot is taken by Dale Weise then I'll stick with the smurfs.

 

[Le Tricolore]

I don't want to get rid of Bouillon or Gionta because of their age.

 

[Richiebottles]

Bouillon needs to be off the team because of him age and his level of play. Same goes for Gionta.

Markov and Vanek I would keep but not at inflated prices.

 

[snakeye]

Didn't the non renewal, and hence retiring of aging core players in the 80s, lead to the demise of the dynasty, which could also be said to have paved the way for the dark age?

 

[samsquanch9*]

because they ****ing suck? because we're supposed to be a fast team and theyre slow? plus they want too much money for too long. maybe youre remembering the good old days with no salary cap but you cant pay vanek 8 million until hes 38.. its just a recipe for disaster. markov isnt worth 6 million for 3 years, he cant play like a #1D for the whole season + playoffs and he shouldnt be paid like one. gionta is a black hole that kills the play every single time he touches the puck, plus hes overrated defensively and gives up on plays. i dont even need to say anything about bouillon...

 

[PuckSeparator]

Markov - It's more a question of cost-benefit analysis. At 6m per for 3 years that's a pretty serious gamble we would be taking which would also send the message that the organization believes they can win with him in a key role(#2 defensemen). A serious case was made these POs that we aren't winning the cup playing Markov 25 mins in the post season, he just doesn't have it anymore and that's the kind of role he would play if he is brought back (Therrien leans HEAVILY on his vets, more so at crunch time). At a lesser price it becomes more interesting but we still have to keep in mind that developmental time will be taken away from our 3 rooks which are all big and have good skill.

Gionta and Bouillon are DONE and Vanek wasn't coming back in the first place so there's not much to talk about. I do find it surprising you left out Weaver who I'm pretty sure a pretty large chunk of this fanbase would welcome back with open arms.

 

[bobholly39]

Shiny new toys > veterans.

The problem is people overestimate how easy it is to replace the veterans. Gionta isn't a star, but he isn't a player that you can just get rid of without replacing, 40 points with the kind of matchups his line had is valuable, and there aren't too many replacements available as UFA's. Ideally we can upgrade but Gionta isn't just a spare part and there isn't anyone in the system as a replacement. Bouillion is a depth guy now and I think we're better off long term with Beaulieu/Tinordi on the team than bringing back Bouillion. Wouldn't be upset to have him as depth but I'd be unhappy if he was playing ahead of Beaulieu/Tinordi consistently.

Vanek is a money thing, I'd be happy to have him back next year at 8M, but the problem is you have to commit to 6 more after that. I don't think Vanek is a player who will be worth 8M for much longer which is the problem. If we signed him to a big contract I'd still be excited for next year, because I think he still has a few more years left at a high level and the team is stronger with him than without him. It's just tough to commit that kind of money when you know he's going to fall off pretty quickly and I don't think anyone wants to be paying a 37 year old Vanek 8M.

I think there's just an overestimation of how easy it is to replace guys with UFA's. We let Markov walk and save 6M in cap space...and then what? The other thing is you get people who want to "get bigger" or think the roster is too old and think letting old/short guys will be addition by subtraction. It's fine to want to get bigger but if it means Gionta's spot is taken by Dale Weise then I'll stick with the smurfs.

I agree with this a lot. It's basically what I was saying. People are grossly underestimating how difficult it will be to replace some of these guys.

Bouillon may not be the most loved player on these forums, but as a depth-defenseman i like him a lot. He scored some important goals for us in the playoffs.


I'm not necessarily advocating we keep all our veterans of UFAs, I just think that the mentality of fans is wrong. Basically, in a debate of "should we keep or replace Markov", here is what fans seem to be thinking most of the time, vs what they should be thinking:

Fans are thinking: "Is he worth 6M$ a year? Will he be worth 6M$ in his 3rd year? If no, then get rid of him".


What fans SHOULD be thinking: "If I get rid of Markov, who can take-over his spot on the roster? Is it someone in our organisation, on a UFA? Will they be as good, more/less expensive? DO I HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT WINNING WITH MARKOV, OR WITH SAID REPLACEMENT?" If that's the criteria, than I believe you have to resign Markov, no questions asked.

I think as fans, we forget sometimes that that's how we should be thinking. Because if that's how I evaluate Markov, I am keeping him. I'd even go as far as to say, even if I were to think that he'll only be good for 2 years and suck in the 3rd year, it's still worth keeping him. We'll carry his salary in the 3rd year against our cap if it allows us to remain highly competetive for 2 yrs.

 

[Uber Coca]

Veterans are needed but they're unpopular over here. The balance between veterans and younger players is essential for the success of a team. The inexperienced posters who just started watching hockey will present you the famous roster filled with rookies. The most experienced posters will tell you the Giontas and Markovs are needed (or they could be replaced by other veterans).

 

[FlyingKostitsyn]

Theres always a balance, you do need older veterans. I think players that are 30-35 are usually grossly underestimated on HFboards. However keeping vets should not interfere with the devellopment of new players. More ice time to Gallagher, less to Gionta. More ice for Tinordi&Beaulieu, less for Bouillion and Murray. Since there are only so many spots on the team, choices must be made.

As for our vets, I think we need to keep Markov, but Bouillon is finished. Maybe keep Gionta if he agrees to sign a very cheap short term deal.

 

[JLP]

They smell funny

 

[Habs 4 Life]

Because this is hockey's FUTURE!!!!

 

[JoelWarlord]

because they ****ing suck? because we're supposed to be a fast team and theyre slow? plus they want too much money for too long. maybe youre remembering the good old days with no salary cap but you cant pay vanek 8 million until hes 38.. its just a recipe for disaster. markov isnt worth 6 million for 3 years, he cant play like a #1D for the whole season + playoffs and he shouldnt be paid like one. gionta is a black hole that kills the play every single time he touches the puck, plus hes overrated defensively and gives up on plays. i dont even need to say anything about bouillon...

Gionta- 18G 22A
Gallagher- 19G 22A

Clearly Gionta is done. BLACK HOLE.

This is exactly what I was talking about. It's just a vague argument that Gionta isn't good enough but no reasonable way to improve the team. Where do you just find guys that can put up 40 points with the matchups Pleks' line gets? Markov apparently isn't worth 6M but no suggestions to improve on him. It's all about what the players can't do rather than what they can do. What matters to a team going forward is finding players who can do more than what your players can do now. Players at Markov's calibre don't grow on trees and to get them as UFA's you're going to be paying tons of money anyway.

As an aside I think the other issue is people haven't adjusted their mental picture of the salary cap. The cap has nearly doubled since the 2005-06 season but people still haven't changed their idea of value on the cap. I'm just waiting for the crying when Subban signs for 9M or something.

 

[Surge101]

Because none of them can perform to the contract they would get if they stayed.

 

[Sterling Archer]

All those "old" players were young once and replaced "old" players when they came into the NHL.

It's the cycle of life. Younger, hungrier players get the ice time away from older players who get fat and lazy (figurativelt speaking) or when they begin to break down.

Don't feel bad for them. Their multi million dollar bank accounts help keep them warm at night

 

[Nicko999]

Because in these boards, any player under 25 is the next Gretzky in terms of potential.

Tinordi is the next Kasparaitis
Beaulieu is the next Markov
Galchenyuk is the next Kopitar

And so on.

No offense, but people here have no ****ing idea how to build a winning team. We want our team to win but want everyone over 35 out.

An HF team will end up like the Edmonton Oilers.

 

[TennisMenace]

Old is slow and small means we will fall.

 

[walsy37]

Because in a cap world where you can no longer just store your older contracts in the minors, every million counts, every one way contract counts. We can't just pay these guys because of the past, we need to manage the cap effectively so we don't end up a player or piece away but unable to get them because of too much bad money.

When entering into any contract now, you need to evaluate 2 parts. Is it worth the money over the length in the contract and is it worth the dead money and roster spot at the end. Using Markov - he wants 18 million over three years, 6 per year.

If the Habs get 2 excellent years and one bad year, they could very well get 18 million worth of play, but at the third year his taking up 7.5% of the cap could be a killer even though the Habs got there money's worth. Same problem with Vanek - I think everyone on this board would be OK with 5 years and 35-40 million, The issue is years 6 and 7. Even if they get there money's worth in years 1 through 4 with enough monetary value to cover declines in years 5 through 8, it is not just a money thing but opportunity cost for having that salary on the cap those years.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Didn't the non renewal, and hence retiring of aging core players in the 80s, lead to the demise of the dynasty, which could also be said to have paved the way for the dark age?

That's the problem, we ran them into the dirt and got nothing for them and hence had nobody coming into the system to help replace them

The biggest reason given to re-sign Markov is we have nobody to replace him - a player drafted 16 years ago and no foresight that one day he would needed to be replaced and now we'll be on the hook for a bad contract or let him walk

It's ok to have old players if they're not your core, Rivet for Gorges and Pacioretty is one we did right but something we haven't done enough of

 

[the]

Markov and Vanek sure...I think we need to sign them. Bouillon made me laugh a couple of times this season, love him but he's clearly not needed. I can't wait to get rid of Gionta.

The classic example that we can use imo is Jaromir Jagr. The last couple of years a handful of fans didn't want to sign him here because of his age and year after year he would prove everyone wrong.

Veterans are needed, we just need to keep the right one. Gionta and Bouillon aren't the right option.

 

[Beendair Donedat]

It's a question of the make up of the team and what they need to do to improve, keep their cap hit reasonable and still stay competitive as a cup contender in the near future....

Gionta isn't something we need now or down the road.... He's a good veteran, but the right side is littered with small guys. He was making too much at 5 million and his production will only be going down as he ages... His playoff performance was sub par on many levels.

Markov is still a good player but he was exposed in the playoffs as having lost a ton of foot speed. He's had operations on his knees and while he can still quaterback a powerplay with the best of him, are the team's dollars better spent here or on acquiring some top line players and signing a stop gap and playing the rookies? Markov shouldn't be offered anything longer than a 2 year deal, and I would prefer a 1 year deal.... 3 years isn't an option (in my opinion). You can't keep paying a guy for past accomplishments.

Vanek is another guy that has elite scoring and playing ability but he's already made it quite clear he's a mercenary and he's going to Free Agency. You can't stop a guy with that mind set....