Players' salaries tend to increase, not decrease, with age. There comes a point at which the return is not sufficient to justify the investment. In addition, there's a need to accommodate up and coming younger players. That's not to say that all players above a certain age should be cut. However, Bouillon isn't capable of playing like a top four Dman. There are younger, bigger, faster players who could take his place, so why hold on to a relic just because he's experienced? The NHL is not the civil service.
Why must we always get rid of older players?
- Thread starter bobholly39
- Start date
Players' salaries tend to increase, not decrease, with age. There comes a point at which the return is not sufficient to justify the investment. In addition, there's a need to accommodate up and coming younger players. That's not to say that all players above a certain age should be cut. However, Bouillon isn't capable of playing like a top four Dman. There are younger, bigger, faster players who could take his place, so why hold on to a relic just because he's experienced? The NHL is not the civil service.
But if we thought like that all the time when would young players get the chance to prove themselves? Unless you can sign a UFA that's better or trade for a superior player the answer is generally going to be YES; unless you take into consideration the opportunity cost of Beaulieu, Tnordi, and Pateryn sitting on the sidelines for another season. This line of thinking also leads to teams holding on for too long to their rapidly declining vets and thus delaying the inevitable rebuild.
Our vets proved this year that they are not good enough to get the job done. Markov proved that if we rely on him as #2 we are TOAST against teams with speed. Do we keep an aging, declining Markov with a coach that will stubbornly play him above his level or take a gamble on some of our very promising youth?
Beaulieu and Tinordi with over 40-50 games played next season are going to be very important to the long term success (and even short term) of this team. I'm not sure they get that kind of experience with Markov signed.
With that said, I'm for signing him as long as it's to a reasonable contract and hope that Therrien changes his attitude towars him and also the appropriate playing time to his young D - take some of his ice time away and don't be afraid to rest him at different points in the season. I'm not confident it's going to happen but I can hope.
Team_Spirit
95% Elliotte
- Jul 3, 2002
- 37,752
- 17,654
Gionta is done. 1 goal in the playoffs and nothing else to speak of. Give that spot to Bournival and Weise they deserve a shot and the Habs save millions in the process.
Smokey Thompson
Registered User
Losing Markov will be a huge blow to this team. Beaulieu is already promising offensively, but Markov played tough minutes every game and there is no way Beaulieu can even be considered a replacement. Markov also happens to be the best UFA defenseman, so there is no free agent replacement available either... Unless you're under the impression that Markov's an OFD like Niskanen...
As for Gionta, as frustrating as he can be offensively, he remains our best two-way winger. His defensive awareness is really great. He can read the play and has always has his stick in the right place to intercept / deflect a pass. He's also very useful on the PK and really helped Lars out down the stretch and in the first 2 rounds. If we can keep him at 2.5-3m, I'd do it.
And saying we're too small on the wing is a cop out. Doesn't really matter if u have 2 smallish right wingers. What can really kill you is having 3 centers who measure 5'6, 5'9, and 5'10.
As for Gionta, as frustrating as he can be offensively, he remains our best two-way winger. His defensive awareness is really great. He can read the play and has always has his stick in the right place to intercept / deflect a pass. He's also very useful on the PK and really helped Lars out down the stretch and in the first 2 rounds. If we can keep him at 2.5-3m, I'd do it.
And saying we're too small on the wing is a cop out. Doesn't really matter if u have 2 smallish right wingers. What can really kill you is having 3 centers who measure 5'6, 5'9, and 5'10.
MrNasty
Registered User
It has been this way on this forum and others for as long as I remember (25 years). For some reason people always assume propects are better than veterans...it is pure hope and nothing else. The reason Montreal had their best playoff run in 20 years is because Bergevin and Therrien know better. Veteran leadership, experience and depth are crucial to the success of a team over a long playoff run. That is not to say there shouldn't be some kids in the line-up. They should but only a few and only if they are truly ready for it. Anyone that says Therrien doesn't value the younger players should look no further than Tokarski and Beaulieu.
You would think fans would learn from the previous management that rushed and ruined prospects such as LeBlanc and Latendresse.
The only thing worse on hockey discussion boards in the gross overevaluation of most prospects. Go back to any year and you will see posts "predicting the teams line-up in a few years". These are always full of mock lines of players that never made the NHL.
You would think fans would learn from the previous management that rushed and ruined prospects such as LeBlanc and Latendresse.
The only thing worse on hockey discussion boards in the gross overevaluation of most prospects. Go back to any year and you will see posts "predicting the teams line-up in a few years". These are always full of mock lines of players that never made the NHL.
NobleSix
High Tech Low-Life.
Gionta and Bouillon are done.
Markov and Vanek would be accepted gladly if they were signed for what they are worth.
You're logic is flawed. It's not the age of the players that matter, it's how able/unable they are at performing their roles.
Markov and Vanek would be accepted gladly if they were signed for what they are worth.
You're logic is flawed. It's not the age of the players that matter, it's how able/unable they are at performing their roles.
did you watch any games this year or just look at stats? gionta has played with our best centre for 2 years, always had one of the most amounts of ice time among forwards, always gets put on the powerplay.. he should be getting way more than that when hes making 5 million and gallaghers on a rookie salary. but just look at the numbers then
Smokey Thompson
Registered User
Did you watch the second half of the season? He got sent down to the 3rd line and played a solid two-way checking game. He was a staple on our PK which was a bright spot this year. He does everything you can ask of from a 3rd line RW and can still put up 15 - 20 goals.
He would have to be at least average offensively to be an effective two-way winger. I agree he's solid defensively. But for him to make an impact in the top 6 he needs to chip in offensively, which he can't do at this point.
That means you could play him in the bottom 6, but who wants a 5'7" checking line winger? Nobody - and so I don't want Gio back - at any price. We can always find another guy to play the PK.
When it comes to Vanek and Markov, I think the OP is right. How a player is going to perform immediately is always more important than the possibility they will trail off in a couple of years. When you're talking 5+ years down the line? Believe me, no NHL GM is too concerned about the 2019 season right now.
That doesn't mean you can totally mortgage the future, but with UFAs especially, you're competing with other teams for these players. Somebody will give Markov that extra year - it's the price you need to pay.
capebretoncanadien
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 3,946
- 0
Gionta I like as a third line tough minutes with no PP but as much PK as he can handle effectively. I would take him back for two years with say a 3.5m salary?
Boullion- DONE......his legs, puck handling and toughness abilities are still there at his advanced age but his decision making and positioning are just wretched at this point. Time to make him a legacy appt. as assistant lead advisor for player excellence or something LOL.
Markov- We NEED Markov back at a reasonable price. It's gotta be between 5-6 at a two or three year term (preferably two) People that want him gone (though few) are delusional.
Vanek- I love what he COULD bring to the team. He showed some absolutely top level abilities in the latter part of the season and at points in the playoffs but overall left a mediocre impression on me. I'd like to give him another look but the Habs will be likely outbid.
There's no ageism here at least among the more intelligent fans. We want effective and successful players signed to reasonable deals.
Boullion- DONE......his legs, puck handling and toughness abilities are still there at his advanced age but his decision making and positioning are just wretched at this point. Time to make him a legacy appt. as assistant lead advisor for player excellence or something LOL.
Markov- We NEED Markov back at a reasonable price. It's gotta be between 5-6 at a two or three year term (preferably two) People that want him gone (though few) are delusional.
Vanek- I love what he COULD bring to the team. He showed some absolutely top level abilities in the latter part of the season and at points in the playoffs but overall left a mediocre impression on me. I'd like to give him another look but the Habs will be likely outbid.
There's no ageism here at least among the more intelligent fans. We want effective and successful players signed to reasonable deals.
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
Keeping old players for sentimental reason is why Toronto sucked ass for 10 years, why Calgary has sucked ass for the last 5 years, and why Vancouver will suck for the next 5 years.
I don't see why you want to follow that blueprint.
I don't see why you want to follow that blueprint.
EXACTLY. I wish i had though of Jagr's name when making this thread
It was Pejorative Slured listening to fans talk about Jagr when he first came back to the NHL. "oh ya Mtl should sign him! 3mil for 2 years, or maybe 2mil for 1 yr" Are you kidding me? This is Jaromir Jagr. Pay him 5 or even 6mil a year and he'll be worth it
That's my issue. Fans are always so ficle and underevaluating veterans (whether on our team, or not).
DoctorPurple
Registered User
I'm all for keeping veterans. As long as you give way for the youngsters to improve.
Case in point, Gallagher can only go up, Gionta down. Put Gallagher on the top line, Gionta on the checking 3rd.
Same for Bouillon. Sure, as a 7th D I think we could do worse, but let Beaulieu and Tinordi play!
Average veterans get you to the playoffs, Youngsters with potential can get you farther.
Case in point, Gallagher can only go up, Gionta down. Put Gallagher on the top line, Gionta on the checking 3rd.
Same for Bouillon. Sure, as a 7th D I think we could do worse, but let Beaulieu and Tinordi play!
Average veterans get you to the playoffs, Youngsters with potential can get you farther.
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.
That. How many around here predicted that the Oilers would be cup contenders in 2014?
No I just ran a simulation in Excel at the start of the year and didn't watch any hockey after that.
He played with our best center against the best players in the world in very tough defensive minutes and was only bested by 1 point compared to Gallagher who spent the year on the top line with our best forward. Not trying to rag on Gallagher here either, but people are severely underrating Gionta.
What is the relevance of what Gionta did last year being paid 5 million? He won't be getting that if he's back here next year. Hard to complain about the value he provided over the term of his contract either, a year or two where the guy is overpaid is the cost of signing UFA's.
Kimota
ROY DU NORD!!!
First because hockey in 2014 is a young man's game.
Secondly cause most our vets are average.
Thirdly, cause an hockey club must upgrade from time to time. If not by rebuilding by slowly inserting young guys in there so they can progress.
Fourth to change the chemistry of a team.
Secondly cause most our vets are average.
Thirdly, cause an hockey club must upgrade from time to time. If not by rebuilding by slowly inserting young guys in there so they can progress.
Fourth to change the chemistry of a team.
