So with Gorges and Emelin signed, and this call to re-sign 3 or 4 more existing defencemen, how does the club get better? This is why I have trouble with this plan.
I'm not sure I see that our D really needs to get much better? We have a Norris winner, top-5 special teams play, and sitting 4th in GA/G in the league right now? While not playing a particularly defense-focused system. Returning the incumbents is a pretty safe call, I'd say. It's more up front where attention is needed for overall improvement.
Diaz is not the kind of guy we need, in my opinion, and Murray is only filler until Tinordi is ready, which should be later this season.
Well, we needed Diaz this season with Emelin out, and he has stepped in admirably. What team goes all year without an injury in their top-4 anymore? I'd much rather have Diaz around to step up than feel like we have to make a last-minute Campoli signing or trade for a Drewiske or whatnot. It's a war of attrition on D in the modern NHL, and if you can load up, do it. There's a limit to the price you pay for that luxury, of course, but if it works out that you can manage it, why not.
Murray I can take or leave atm... Tinordi "should" be ready... what if he isn't... it's not a biggie either way. But if I have the 5 big-salary guys all signed, I'm still looking for one experienced depth guy to have around in case Tinordi/Beaulieu/Pateryn aren't ready. And it's not Bouillon. I guess it might be Drewiske since we already have him signed. But I'm not putting all my eggs in the basket of young players who are still waiver-exempt.
Markov is too old and slow to commit three years to, especially with the over-35 huge penalty that comes with a multi-year deal, but I could be convinced to give him one year at a time at market rate or a touch more for his intangibles, until the day he needs to really retire. But it has to be one year at a time officially. Markov becomes expendable once Beaulieu is really ready, say one year after Beaulieu gets here full-time. The year would show he is sticking and can take over an offensive D role.
Well, I could be wrong, but I'd think that if you were only willing to go 1 year at a time with Markov, you are basically saying goodbye to him. I don't see why he'd accept that. It would be sweet for us if our veteran impending-UFAs would take 1-year deals indefinitely, but realistically, why would they. Markov is clearly worth his salary at the least this season... as long as that holds up and you want to keep him, you kind of have to make a commitment that reflects the marketplace. And other teams would cheerfully pony up multi-year deals.
I wouldn't count on Beaulieu ever making anybody expendable either... he may or may not, but you can't commit a plan to something like that which may never happen.
