Oh I agree. But on a moral standpoint, Markov didn't concede much of anything and I think he could have given back to the habs a little bit considering how we stuck by him when he was a huge gigantic risk on 1 leg.
Also, while he had the leverage, it's a poorly kept secret that Markov is a guy who is a bit aloof, who can barely speak English, and who likely doesn't want to start over with another team. I think we could probably have played hardball and gotten him to sign anyway. I doubt he would have left if we had put a 2 years 12M deal on the table. But that's speculation on my part.
Teams would have been able to negotiate with Markov starting tomorrow. Agreeing to 2y at 12M means leaving 5.25M off the table. That's a lot, and if he says no only to sign elsewhere, well you just made your D corps much weaker and it was already pretty weak to begin with. There's also no better option on the open market.
The 5.75M hit isn't big, it isn't long, it doesn't prevent us from doing anything.
Compare him to others around the league that's his age, it's a good deal.
Even if he gets slower over the next few years, he's not going to lose his understanding for the game or his puck moving skills on the PP. He will be great for the up and comers.
You also have a player that will have spent his entire career here, going through some of the worst years in franchise history.
Certainly would have been a safer bet had he gotten 2 years, but I think it's entirely normal he got 3. Gill got 2 years here at 34. He got 2 years in Nashville at 37. Streit got 4years at 36 in Philly. 3 years for Markov isn't surprising.
