No Man's Land for the last 20 years

[Adriatic]

No, the San Jose Sharks have been a relatively competitive team since 1993. They've had 6 first-place finishes (us: 2), made 3 appearances in the conference final (us: 1), and won 14 playoff rounds (us: 6).

Think about that. We have an inferior performance record over the past 20 years than a team that had only been in existence for a single season at the time of our last championship. So what the hell is our excuse?

Ya the Sharks GM definitely needs some kind of an award for his job. The way he keeps them competitive after all these years is remarkable. I don't know how many times I've heard dumb reporters say 'well if the Sharks don't win this year it's over'. They just keep coming back year after year with good teams. Wilson and even Lombardi before him are great GM's. Good drafting and good at getting rid of players at the right time.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I understand your reasoning here but I doubt any team is going to make a deal for Markov that provides the Habs with equal replacement value. Either a pick or a prospect.

As it stands right now, the Habs only have 2 legitimate top-4 D on their roster: Subban and Markov. Dealing Markov would mean seriously tanking and IMO, that's not what they need to do.

All the Habs need to do is learn from their mistakes (Briere, Murray, Bouillon) and not make them again. (But the fact that Bergevin and his brain trust made them in the first place does not bode well for the future.)

BTW, the way the Habs are playing lately, you don't need to deal Markov to tank. Last year they were top-6 in 5-on-5 possession, so far this year they're 21st.

I'll reply with an old post (edited) that basically encapsulates my thoughts on Markov.

As far as getting equal replacement value for Markov... we won't. I can tell you that right now. You aren't going to get another Markov back if you trade him. What you would be getting back is a good blueliner who would be in your lineup for a lot longer.

If our window to win was the next two years and we were contenders now... different story. That's the decision we have to make. If we aren't going for it then trade Markov. Otherwise re-sign him and GO FOR IT now.

Hate to break it to you but whether we trade him or not he's probably not going to be the same blueliner in two years that he is now. Either way we're going to be in the same boat. So we can ride it out and try to win now or sell high and try to get something to help us down the road.

Are we going to get another Markov by trading him? No. But we can get something good to help us going forward and plug a hole on the D that's going to be there when Markov would have declined anyway. Like it or not we're going to lose him. Either to age or to a trade. Might as well profit from it.

It's like trading in a sportscar with two or three years worth of life left for a new Accord. The Accord isn't as flashy but it's good and it will be with you longer. It's a practical move. Of course it all depends on what kind of a return we could get...

Some folks say we should hang onto him for sentimental reasons... forget that. We should have one objective and that's the cup. And if Markov wants to come back we could always re-sign him as a free agent this summer.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Barring significant changes to his tactics, I'm still holding out hope for a well-timed slump which would force Bergevin's hand in firing Therrien and bringing aboard Boucher. I have a tendency to clamour for the head of the head coach but there IS NO WAY Boucher is as boring and negative as Jacques Martin or as unsophisticated as Michel Therrien.

MT is here for this year and probably next. I can't see him losing his job this season. I suppose stranger things have happened but I don't see it.

LG I am tired, as you are, too much Christmas stuff, but I stand by my position: Markov is the only aging vet on this team I want to keep for the window. I think he can perform very well into his late 30's. I stated this 2 years ago and I stand by it.

Otherwise my position on age in the NHL is clear, over 30, not good.

Plekanec is the guy we should be dealing this year, for youth, not just picks.

I'd keep Plecs before Markov. I disagree with you on Markov being productive into his late 30s. I think his pairing with Subban makes him look better than he is. Yes, its a symbiotic relationship for sure and Markov DOES make Subban better esp on the PP but Markov needs Subban more than PK needs him. IMO he's already lost a step.

As for Plecs... who takes over the role as checker? Nobody on this team is ready for it. I guess we could try Eller but I'd rather have him as a 2nd line guy. Maybe he doesn't have the talent for it but I don't understand why MT hasn't given him more of a chance.

Bends over backwards to get DD going but Eller can rot with poor man's wingers? Doesn't make any sense at all to me.

That's exactly how I feel and what I meant with my post.

We'd look a lot better if Bergevin had made actual good moves instead of Murray, Brière and Parros. He didn't help the team at all. So it makes it all more complicated now to know what to do for this season.

This offseason was - such a loss for us. With a couple of the right moves I'd love to see how our team would look right now. We wouldn't be contenders but we'd be closer. And with the deadline coming up maybe we really would have a shot with a good move or two.

You're right that trading Markov would put a major hole in our D, but losing Markov is only an issue if we're committing to our Cup window beginning right now. No more "Building through the draft", we have to be already built through he draft. At some point a strong GM stops peddling hope and starts making the bold moves to optimize the team for the present. I see signs that we're ready to take that step, trade picks and roster players for a top-six winger, look to next year's UFAs, whatever is needed to become a real contender.

But dealing away prospects only makes sense if we can win.

I hate the idea of trading Bealieu or Tinordi away, then not winning anything and watching Markov decline while those two blossom somewhere else.

I don't know man... we're just in a real strange position now. Not good enough to win but not really in rebuild mode. I think it makes sense to wait until the deadline to make this decision.

And keep in mind we could actually deal Markov and re-sign him if he was willing to do this. Then we'd have the best of both worlds.

 

[HABS win CUPS*]

I wouldnt exactly say no-mans land for the last 20 years - thats more like Leafs territory but our teams are just good enough it seems to hurt us at the draft and kill us in the playoffs

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I wouldnt exactly say no-mans land for the last 20 years - thats more like Leafs territory but our teams are just good enough it seems to hurt us at the draft and kill us in the playoffs

No Man's Land seems about right for the last 15. As for the Leafs, they've mostly been in hell for the past decade.

 

[blarneylad]

Bergevin has been involved in two nhl drafts and one trade deadline. Two free agencies.

Maybe everybody should give him some time.

Was the Briere signing a mistake? It would appear so after 30 games.
Desharnais a premature signing? It would appear so, yet he has turned it around.

Was Prust a mistake? I don't think so.
Bringing in Murray on a one year deal a mistake? He was just acquired for two 2nd round picks last year by Pitts. I guess the Pits Gm is incompetent too.

Bergevin had nothing to work with when he came in other than the 3rd round selection. He did a good job there. Could of drafted Forsberg instead.

It's so easy to make NHL 14 trade proposals on a hockey thread. But those deals dont happen in the real world. The other GM wants a good return, the best possible one he can get. So with some youth breaking into the team and others in the pipeline lets relax.

Or even better lets trade Pacioretty our leading goal scorer

 

[blarneylad]

The Habs problem is simple, and has been for a while: they have very very few consistent goal scorers. That's what wins Cups. "Size" is of no consequence. There is absolutely no correlation between how big a team is (or how not "soft") they are, and winning. There is a very strong correlation between having guys in the top twenty in scoring , and winning. It's really as simple as that. The players they've drafted in the hopes that they would become those kinds of players ( Kostitsyn, for instance) have been dissappointments. Fingers crossed on Galchenyuk. Even Paccioretty, though a fine NHLer, is not a top ten scorer kind. Not yet, anyway. But they have not been nearly as big and consistent busts as the Habs constant unending attempts to use their first round picks to get big physical players. Actually sit down and see who they've taken in the first round for the past twenty five years. It's all big guys who don't pan out. That's been the pattern. Getting bigger for its own sake won't help at all.

Awesome post

We can load the team with guys like clowe and penner and we won't win. Or we can bring in bangers like simmonds and though a guy like him would help he isn't that 'one' missing piece.

Habs have guys coming off contract, and Briere's numbers haven't been bad up until he signed here. He can still go on a streak and as always everybody's short term memory will kick in and everybody on here will have a Briere avatar.

 

[Hoople]

I'm guessing that's the standard reason why we lost to Ottawa last year.

Explain to us how Gallagher went from our hottest scorer ending the season to a non-factor in the playoffs.

Feel free to use video highlights of the Ottawa D and Neil targeting him physically throughout the series.

And then throw in Therrien demoting our leading goal scorer, Ryder and relying on Bourque to carry the team.

 

[Universe]

Bergevin has been involved in two nhl drafts and one trade deadline. Two free agencies.

Maybe everybody should give him some time.

Was the Briere signing a mistake? It would appear so after 30 games.
Desharnais a premature signing? It would appear so, yet he has turned it around.

Was Prust a mistake? I don't think so.
Bringing in Murray on a one year deal a mistake? He was just acquired for two 2nd round picks last year by Pitts. I guess the Pits Gm is incompetent too.

Bergevin had nothing to work with when he came in other than the 3rd round selection. He did a good job there. Could of drafted Forsberg instead.

It's so easy to make NHL 14 trade proposals on a hockey thread. But those deals dont happen in the real world. The other GM wants a good return, the best possible one he can get. So with some youth breaking into the team and others in the pipeline lets relax.

Or even better lets trade Pacioretty our leading goal scorer

Pretty much sums it up. Aside from trade deadline deals (which haven't been happening in recent years), it's not easy to build a hockey team. Yeah Evander Kane may look good but you trade away Jared or one of the youngsters and we could easily lose a franchise player from our own system.

We had the third pick in 2012 and have made the playoffs, and are on pace to make the playoffs right after. People need to relax and enjoy the game.

 

[Cole Caulifield]

Explain to us how Gallagher went from our hottest scorer ending the season to a non-factor in the playoffs.

For one I wouldn't say Gallagher was our hottest player. Galchenyuk was.

Secondly, Gallagher wasn't a non-factor he scored 2 goals in 5 games. Fine production for a young rookie whose linemates were injured/slumping/playing at 50%.

 

[dutchy29]

No Man's Land seems about right for the last 15. As for the Leafs, they've mostly been in hell for the past decade.

You guys need to lighten up a bit, I can't even believe this thread made it to this many posts. I guess say something negative and everyone will jump on board. anyway I think this thread is an insult to some of the great seasons and playoff runs we have had in the past 20 years. Maybe management hasn't put our club in the best situation to win a cup in the past 20 years but some of our great playoff upsets in 2002 and 2010 were monumental.

 

[bipolarhabfan]

The Habs problem is simple, and has been for a while: they have very very few consistent goal scorers. That's what wins Cups. "Size" is of no consequence. There is absolutely no correlation between how big a team is (or how not "soft") they are, and winning. There is a very strong correlation between having guys in the top twenty in scoring , and winning. It's really as simple as that. The players they've drafted in the hopes that they would become those kinds of players ( Kostitsyn, for instance) have been dissappointments. Fingers crossed on Galchenyuk. Even Paccioretty, though a fine NHLer, is not a top ten scorer kind. Not yet, anyway. But they have not been nearly as big and consistent busts as the Habs constant unending attempts to use their first round picks to get big physical players. Actually sit down and see who they've taken in the first round for the past twenty five years. It's all big guys who don't pan out. That's been the pattern. Getting bigger for its own sake won't help at all.

I agree with this. Team win championships by having players on offense with skill and talent. The Habs have not had two or three players with an abundance of these qualities in forever.

Lets look at our team's history in the last 20 years, which will show us how anemic our team really has been. The last player to score 40+ goals for us was Damphousse (1994) with Richer being the last player to score 50+, which was in 1988, during the Cold War. Mats Naslund was the last player to score 100+ points (1986) and Pierre Turgeon and Vincent Damphousse were the last players to score 90+ points (1996). Since then, we have had a handful of offensively capable forwards who put up 80+ and 70+ points but not on a consistent basis: Damphousse (81 pts in 1997); Recchi (80 pts in 1997); Recchi (74 pts. in 1998); Koivu (71 pts in 2003); Koivu (75 pts in 2007); Kovalev (84 pts in 2007); and, Plekanec (70 pts in 2010). What this means is up to conjecture but it is no coincidence that our struggles in the last 15 years or so is correlated with our lack of scoring.

 

[Corncob]

Explain to us how Gallagher went from our hottest scorer ending the season to a non-factor in the playoffs.

Feel free to use video highlights of the Ottawa D and Neil targeting him physically throughout the series.

There are lots of points you can come back onto this. But it mainly falls down when you actually look and realise that Gallagher scored more goals per game in the playoffs (ridiculously small sample size obviously, but it's the one you insist on using) than in either of the last two months of the regular season. He scored 2 goals in five games in the playoffs and 2 goals in the last five games of the regular season. 4 goals in the last ten games of the regular season. There's not even an artificial point you can pick that makes your statement true. So the 'explanation' is that it's not true. It's just another thing you made up.

 

[rafal majka]

I'll reply with an old post (edited) that basically encapsulates my thoughts on Markov.

As far as getting equal replacement value for Markov... we won't. I can tell you that right now. You aren't going to get another Markov back if you trade him. What you would be getting back is a good blueliner who would be in your lineup for a lot longer.

If our window to win was the next two years and we were contenders now... different story. That's the decision we have to make. If we aren't going for it then trade Markov. Otherwise re-sign him and GO FOR IT now.

Hate to break it to you but whether we trade him or not he's probably not going to be the same blueliner in two years that he is now. Either way we're going to be in the same boat. So we can ride it out and try to win now or sell high and try to get something to help us down the road.

Are we going to get another Markov by trading him? No. But we can get something good to help us going forward and plug a hole on the D that's going to be there when Markov would have declined anyway. Like it or not we're going to lose him. Either to age or to a trade. Might as well profit from it.

It's like trading in a sportscar with two or three years worth of life left for a new Accord. The Accord isn't as flashy but it's good and it will be with you longer. It's a practical move. Of course it all depends on what kind of a return we could get...

Some folks say we should hang onto him for sentimental reasons... forget that. We should have one objective and that's the cup. And if Markov wants to come back we could always re-sign him as a free agent this summer.

That's a pretty patronizing introduction to NHL hockey trades 101. Are you Sam Pollock reincarnate?

You've got a #2 D, who is NOT showing any signs of decline, and you want to trade him off for something of much less value - just because you magically project that in 2 years he's not going to be as good as he is right now. Objectively, your logic is BS.

 

[rafal majka]

Explain to us how Gallagher went from our hottest scorer ending the season to a non-factor in the playoffs.

Feel free to use video highlights of the Ottawa D and Neil targeting him physically throughout the series.

And then throw in Therrien demoting our leading goal scorer, Ryder and relying on Bourque to carry the team.

Is this the tired, old story that the Habs lost because the Sens were moar big?

 

[RealityBytes]

I'll reply with an old post (edited) that basically encapsulates my thoughts on Markov.

As far as getting equal replacement value for Markov... we won't. I can tell you that right now. You aren't going to get another Markov back if you trade him. What you would be getting back is a good blueliner who would be in your lineup for a lot longer.

If our window to win was the next two years and we were contenders now... different story. That's the decision we have to make. If we aren't going for it then trade Markov. Otherwise re-sign him and GO FOR IT now.

Hate to break it to you but whether we trade him or not he's probably not going to be the same blueliner in two years that he is now. Either way we're going to be in the same boat. So we can ride it out and try to win now or sell high and try to get something to help us down the road.

Are we going to get another Markov by trading him? No. But we can get something good to help us going forward and plug a hole on the D that's going to be there when Markov would have declined anyway. Like it or not we're going to lose him. Either to age or to a trade. Might as well profit from it.

It's like trading in a sportscar with two or three years worth of life left for a new Accord. The Accord isn't as flashy but it's good and it will be with you longer. It's a practical move. Of course it all depends on what kind of a return we could get...

Some folks say we should hang onto him for sentimental reasons... forget that. We should have one objective and that's the cup. And if Markov wants to come back we could always re-sign him as a free agent this summer.

The Habs are never going to win a cup with this team so that would make it a clear direction on what you want to do with Markov.

However, other GMs aren't stupid and will not give up their "new Accord" (a young promising defenseman) for an "old aging sportscar" (Markov) if they are also in the same position of trying to rebuild, and that would include around 25 teams in the league. About the only way that a Markov trade would be successful as you propose is if there was a true cup contender who needs a quick fill in the defense slot around trade the deadline as a result of an injury. Still, the other non contending 25 teams would also have their "old valuable" players up as trade bait to get that "Accord" as well so it will not be that easy of a move to do in a buyer's market.

A more realistic trade (hope) approach for Markov is that with his contract up for this year, is to re-sign him at a bargain rate and trade him for a "Civic", else no other team will go after him if he is too pricey for an old player. You wouldn't get much back on a trade as is now with his existing contract and with him to be able to walk from any team from impending unrestricted free agency. If you can't sign Markov cheap, the only options are to just re-sign him at a higher rate and wait for him to fade away from old age on this non contending Hab's team or just release him to free agency.

 

[Jigger77]

I know it's quasi blasphemous to criticize Timmins on here, and he's drafted well overall. I just have trouble getting passed this. Could have had Getzlaf, Brown, Parise, Perry...but instead he went with the project AK. I know a lot of other teams missed out in that draft too, but man, you think about what this team is lacking and there are 5-6 of them we missed out on in one draft round that year.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2003e.html

 

[rockjngo]

I can see many teams interested in Markov. Markov will be on high demand come trading deadline.

Washington: Ovechkin and Markov have a strong history. Asking price might be one of these player (John Carlson or Karl Alzner or Tom Wilson) and a 2nd round pick.

Detroit: They always look to add a puck moving defenseman at the deadline. Danny DeKeyser, Brendan Smith, Riley Sheahan, Xavier Ouellet are prospects that might interest us.

Pittsburgh: Olli Maatta, Simon Despres, Beau Bennett are prospects we might ask for.

San Jose: Jason Demers, Justin Braun, draft picks would interest us.

 

[rockjngo]

I know it's quasi blasphemous to criticize Timmins on here, and he's drafted well overall. I just have trouble getting passed this. Could have had Getzlaf, Brown, Parise, Perry...but instead he went with the project AK. I know a lot of other teams missed out in that draft too, but man, you think about what this team is lacking and there are 5-6 of them we missed out on in one draft round that year.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2003e.html

I wouldn't say Kostitsyn was a bust, he was average pick but for that high overall in a can't miss year, he is a bust. Even 2nd round was deep and we picked Cory Urqhart lol. O'Bryne is a semi bust. Lets just say 2003 was not a good draft year for us.

 

[rafal majka]

The Habs are never going to win a cup with this team so that would make it a clear direction on what you want to do with Markov.

However, other GMs aren't stupid and will not give up their "new Accord" (a young promising defenseman) for an "old aging sportscar" (Markov) if they are also in the same position of trying to rebuild, and that would include around 25 teams in the league. About the only way that a Markov trade would be successful as you propose is if there was a true cup contender who needs a quick fill in the defense slot around trade the deadline as a result of an injury. Still, the other non contending 25 teams would also have their "old valuable" players up as trade bait to get that "Accord" as well so it will not be that easy of a move to do in a buyer's market.

A more realistic trade (hope) approach for Markov is that with his contract up for this year, is to re-sign him at a bargain rate and trade him for a "Civic", else no other team will go after him if he is too pricey for an old player. You wouldn't get much back on a trade as is now with his existing contract and with him to be able to walk from any team from impending unrestricted free agency. If you can't sign Markov cheap, the only options are to just re-sign him at a higher rate and wait for him to fade away from old age on this non contending Hab's team or just release him to free agency.

But the logic behind the "move Markov now before he declines" premise is faulty. Markov is not in decline and to say that he will in the next 2 years is just soothsaying.

 

[RealityBytes]

But the logic behind the "move Markov now before he declines" premise is faulty. Markov is not in decline and to say that he will in the next 2 years is just soothsaying.

Of course the future can never be predicted 100%, but Markov is 35 now and how long will he realistically last as a top defenseman? How many 37 year old defensemen are there in the league now, or even in the past, who played full minutes and at full speed and were as good as they were at 27? Aging and Markov's slide is inevitable, but exactly when and how fast it will happen is still uncertain. Is it one week, one month, one year, two years, no one knows for sure, but we do know that it will definitely happen.

That being said, even if Markov does last two years he will then be 37 but the other GMs know that as well and what would they be willing to give up for him, especially those teams trying to build for the long term future. He will only be in short term plans anywhere he goes, or even if he stays, and that will be considered when looking at his value.

 

[rafal majka]

Of course the future can never be predicted 100%, but Markov is 35 now and how long will he realistically last as a top defenseman? How many 37 year old defensemen are there in the league now, or even in the past, who played full minutes and at full speed and were as good as they were at 27? Aging and Markov's slide is inevitable, but exactly when and how fast it will happen is still uncertain. Is it one week, one month, one year, two years, no one knows for sure, but we do know that it will definitely happen.

That being said, even if Markov does last two years he will then be 37 but the other GMs know that as well and what would they be willing to give up for him, especially those teams trying to build for the long term future. He will only be in short term plans anywhere he goes, or even if he stays, and that will be considered when looking at his value.

If Beaulieu, Dietz or Nygren turn into the second coming then by all means trade him but getting rid of Markov now is a significant step backwards.

 

[rockjngo]

.... getting rid of Markov now is a significant step backwards.

This is exactly what the thread is about. Stepping backwards to rebuild properly by drafting high. I would sacrifice Markov if we have a chance to take Sam Reinhart or Aaron Ekblad or Connor McDavid.

 

[CanadienShark]

Diaz not good enough to play in this league?

He's second on the Habs in SH ice time and has had a pretty decent season.

 

[CanadienShark]

I can see many teams interested in Markov. Markov will be on high demand come trading deadline.

Washington: Ovechkin and Markov have a strong history. Asking price might be one of these player (John Carlson or Karl Alzner or Tom Wilson) and a 2nd round pick.

Detroit: They always look to add a puck moving defenseman at the deadline. Danny DeKeyser, Brendan Smith, Riley Sheahan, Xavier Ouellet are prospects that might interest us.

Pittsburgh: Olli Maatta, Simon Despres, Beau Bennett are prospects we might ask for.

San Jose: Jason Demers, Justin Braun, draft picks would interest us.

Bolded one:
Bolded two: In our dreams
Bolded three: See #2
Bolded four: Yeahhhh no.