Rumor: LA Kings looking at Markov

[calder candidate]

May I remember you that we got Pacioretty and Gorges out of him. And that Markov is better than Rivet.

I wish we had trade Komi, Streit and Sourray before they left as UFA...
Add 3 prospects and 3 1st round pick
Mtl probably look a lot better and maybe we wouldn't be talking about trading Markov now.

 

[Scotianhab]

Toffoli is a pure sniper that we lack. I'd do Markov for Toffoli & Muzzin.

 

[Chfan]

Before we pack his bags and drive him to the airport i have one question to ask.
Who will we replace him with?
It's easy to say send me the prospects and the picks etc, but who will replace him as our #2 Dman? who will be the general on the PP?
Do we get someone from free agency? sure? WHO? name them

Its easy to fall in love with the sexy return on assets but you will still have a hole to fill and there is no one on the current roster or farm that can step up or in

You can't really replace Markov, if we could, he wouldn't be a trade asset. It will probably mean that Subban-Beaulieu would be the first PP pairing and Bouillon and Gorges gets back in on the 2nd. laugh

If you're talking long term, then I'd try to go get a guy who has a good first pass, doesn't have to be elite.

 

[Chfan]

Toffoli is a pure sniper that we lack. I'd do Markov for Toffoli & Muzzin.

If it was Bob Gainey the other way maybe.

 

[habsterr]

Habs stated they are building through the draft acquiring good young players and a first rounder help make the habs a contender in the future. Without Markov it gives another prospect a chance to play in the NHL and get some playoffs experience.

 

[S Bah]

Me too, but mainly because they have a lot of big forward prospects like Kerdiles, Noesen, DSP, Rackell, Etem. They also have a lot of good young players on their team like Silfverberg, Palmieri, Sbisa, Maroon and Bonino. If we managed to snag pretty much any pair of the above mentionned plus a pick, I'd have to rate Bergevin's work a strong 11/10.Unfortunately, I don't think.Anaheim needs Markov.



Can't say that I'm high on Elliott. He doesn't seem to have translated his offensive prowess from the dub to the AHL.

The Habs could up the ante and ask for Seimens, McGuinn and a 1st. They still have 3 out of 4 defencemen from the old Saskatoon Blades then. Having Seimens, Thrower, Deitz alongside Tinordi, Beaulieu and Subban would make a very nasty defence with Didier as a 7th dman.

 

[Habsawce]

Parenteau, McGinn, & 1st round pick 2014

Andrei Markov & Rene Bourque

go go go

 

[nyhabsfan]

Toffoli is a pure sniper that we lack. I'd do Markov for Toffoli & Muzzin.

I wish but unfortunately Gainey is not the GM in LA, they have a real GM who manages assets well.

I'd take either one of them for Markov who is a rental, but if I were LA I'd be all over Vanek and get his family to fall in love with LA and then resign him. They have a good D group but need scoring up front

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Should've traded him years ago.

 

[DAChampion]

Should've traded him years ago.

You are vindicated.

 

[S Bah]

Parenteau, McGinn, & 1st round pick 2014

Andrei Markov & Rene Bourque

go go go

Say no to Parenteau, add Bourque for Seimens, as upgrade from Elliot. Take McGuinn, Seimens and a 1st for Markov & Bourque that's pretty much lateral worth each way. Possible SC for Colorado again with Roy courtesy of Habs.

 

[SherbrookeW]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

 

[SquiddFX]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

So let him walk for nothing? Hockey is a business first. If the team can get assets for the future to help improve the franchise, you do it. That has been a huge problem in the past. We let Kovy, Koivu, Souray, Streit, Komisarek, etc, all walk for nothing and look where we are now.

 

[AntonCH]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

As much as I agree with you it was a much different game back then
A lot more players played for one team their entire careers
Some spent it with two tops, then when they would be traded they wouldn't report and retired or their heart wasn't in it and they went quickly down the slippery slope.
Today's players try to hang on a lot longer making it more difficult for them to stay with one organization.

 

[AntonCH]

So let him walk for nothing? Hockey is a business first. If the team can get assets for the future to help improve the franchise, you do it. That has been a huge problem in the past. We let Kovy, Koivu, Souray, Streit, Komisarek, etc, all walk for nothing and look where we are now.

Didn't you contradict yourself there?
If hockey is a business (which i do believe) then its not only about the assets its also about the income that comes with the playoff appearances. The owner is in it to make money.
If your battling for a playoff spot there is no way that any owner would let the players being used to get them to the playoffs go.

But this is beaten to death by fans how we should've traded this or that asset, makes for great conversation and hyperbole but EVERY free agent that's signed someone lost. It seems to me that there's a lot of that going around

 

[SpeedyPotato]

They won't trade him, not this year. If we were in a situation like we were 2 year ago maybe...

 

[AmeriHab]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

I agree to a point, but let's consider Markov does want to go to a contender to try to win.

 

[SquiddFX]

Didn't you contradict yourself there?
If hockey is a business (which i do believe) then its not only about the assets its also about the income that comes with the playoff appearances. The owner is in it to make money.
If your battling for a playoff spot there is no way that any owner would let the players being used to get them to the playoffs go.

But this is beaten to death by fans how we should've traded this or that asset, makes for great conversation and hyperbole but EVERY free agent that's signed someone lost. It seems to me that there's a lot of that going around

And that part of the business is what screwed the organization. We snuck into 7-8th in the conference great. How did we do? We had that magical run in 2010 but have had frequent early exits. As much of a contradiction as it sounds, if Molson wants to make playoff money, a prolonged run is what would benefit him.

 

[Habruti!]

SAM pollock never had to deal with a salary cap, ufa and had a local talent pool that was sort of restricted. Different erra ...

Trading Markov would be a bold move... very bold. You are talking about one of our leaders for the past 10 years, yet we never went really far in the last 10 years. At this point our PP is not producing and can't really get any worst. However we need to drastically improve our play 5 on 5.

Guys like Toffoli would boost our top 6 significantly; which in turn would help us 5 on 5.

I personnaly would only trade Markov if we can significantly improve our top 6 (in not now in the short term) with a young player that fits the team that MB is trying to build or if it is clear that Markov will not re-sign with us next season.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

Actually, trading Markov is exactly a move that Pollock would have done if he saw a future asset he could acquire. Although he didn't trade for Lafleur directly with Ralph Backstrom, he traded Backstrom to the Kings so that they would be strengthened and the Habs would get the #1 overall pick since the Oakland Seals would finish dead last. Under your standards, those glory years with Lafleur were truly ill-gotten gains.

 

[S Bah]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

Hardly the purpose of teams to give veterans a chance to win a SC ring, like Markov could going to a Contender. While still having the right to resign him in the summer like lots of teams have with their vets. It's about time the Habs get a return for their output also, IMHO!

 

[deandebean]

Trading Markov is a bush move -- Sam Pollock would never have considered it. You don't give up your best and most productive players over a ten year span for a dubious gain. It sends a terrible, destructive message to the rest of the organization: no matter what you do for us, the moment we think we can get some advantage, we'll send your exhausted carcass right out of town. That's what bad organizations do.

Sam Pollock recommended Irving Grundman over Scotty Bowman as a GM. So yes Sam was prone to mistakes too.

 

[S Bah]

Sam Pollock recommended Irving Grundman over Scotty Bowman as a GM. So yes Sam was prone to mistakes too.

A lot of water has flowed under that bridge since and now the Bowman vs Grundman is totally considered the final KO given the Habs after 30 years of greatness!

 

[cjbhab*]

If they trade Markov, it sends the wrong message to the room and the fans.

To be honest, I don't know that much about Pearson and Clifford.

Previous reports talked about Toffoli for Markov.

I think its the other way around. I'm a fan, and i think not trading Markov sends me the wrong message.
I want to win the Stanley Cup, i've been a fan since 95 and all I ask for is one cup in my life. I don't care if you have to rebuild for 3 years, do it.

not trading him shows me that management is ****ed in the head .

If bergevin has the opportunity to trade markov for a prospect and a first and he doesn't take it, thats a fireable offense.

 

[Nico Cauzuki]

Sam Pollock was in a different era,hockey is a much more different business nowadays.Who knows maybe Markov agrees to go to a contender team to finish the year ( hopefully win a stanley cup ) and then re-signs with the habs in the offseason i remember it happening with someone not too long ago but forgot who,has much as i love Markov we have to think what would be best for our Habs and Andrei aint in hes prime ne more.If the right offer comes then you pull the trigger