To Defend At All Costs?

In the wake of the trade deadline and yet another injury to a Habs defenceman, I’m sure many of us have been thinking about Andrei Markov and his forthcoming contract negotiations. It seems to be taken more or less as gospel truth that Markov will don the CH once again this fall to lead this team through the 2011-12 campaign. And obviously, as fans, we all hope this is the case. Markov has been our best player for several years now, is currently the longest-serving member of the team, and would be captain if he had any interest in the role whatsoever.

Watching Tuesday’s game via video stream, I watched some idiots “discuss” hockey in the accompanying chat room. Something said in there seeded an interesting question in my mind – what is Markov worth on the market right now? He basically hasn’t played for over an entire (regular) season of hockey, suiting up for a mere 52 games this season and last. With so little playing time to judge his worth, what can we expect the market will offer for him?

Markov was signed in an era when people (OK, the Leafs’ management) were willing to sign a mediocre defenceman like Jeff Finger for $3.5M – but before we judge, recall we were more than willing to give $5.5M to Roman Hamrlik. I like Hamrlik, and he’s been an absolute quarterhorse for us during Markov’s injuries, but I don’t think he’s twice as good as, say, Hal Gill and his $2.25M. I think in many ways these days are finished – while Lidstrom might still be able to command $6.2 million, other top free agent defencemen like Jovanovski ($6M), Hamrlik ($5.5M), Brewer ($4.5M) and Hannan ($4.5M) will be unlikely to meet their current salaries on their next contracts when up-and-coming stars like Doughty and Byfuglien are taking under $3.5M. Then again, over $7M for Brian Campbell argues against this, and we are all aware that NHL GMs are an unpredictable lot.

Another factor is judging his worth. While he is invaluable to the loyal Montreal fan base, Markov’s reputation around the league right now is probably more along the lines of a talented defenceman with great hockey sense, good skating, and an excellent offensive upside; but not strong on hitting and rather injury-prone. While we regard him as one of the best defencemen in the league (and rightfully so, in my opinion), other teams might be less enthusiastic about him given his medical record. This may work in our favour to depress his perceived value in the market. Of course, it might also mean that the Islanders are willing to sign him for a contract comparable to Campbell’s based in his 2008-9 numbers, just to keep themselves over the salary cap.

Finally, there’s the consideration of what Markov wants. There’s a phenomenon in psychology known as “projection,” where we assume other people have motivations, emotions and thought processes that mirror our own. This leads us to make false assumptions about what actually motivates people to do the things they do. Such as assuming that the loyalty our fanbase feels towards a player like Markov is reciprocated, and that Markov would like nothing better than to stay in Montreal – and hey, he might even give us a deal on the salary as a result of said inferred loyalty. Needless to say, this is a dangerous way of thinking and is rarely accurate. However, his near-legendary distaste for media appearances and interviews leaves us mostly in the dark about what he actually wants. He’s said he’d like to stay in Montreal, however let’s keep in mind that if this were untrue, he’d be unlikely to say so in an interview.

Given our play without him over this season and last, I ask the most blasphemous question of all: do we need Markov? I would suggest that we can get Markov back next season for a salary comparable to his current $5.75M, and this would be a good thing. I think he is one of the most talented defencemen in the league, a leader, and a big-time contributor to what success we’ve had over the last decade. However, if his agent gets too attached to numbers like Campbell’s, my loyalty will only go so far – certainly not past the $6 million mark. Seeing us win games and go on magnificent playoff runs without him has convinced me that Markov might not be the key part of the team he once was.

Let us know in the comments – Do we still need Markov? And what should we be willing to pay to keep him?

It's Amazing What Gets Written

If you haven't heard already, you'll be hearing from elsewhere soon. Blogger mc79 of the Edmonton Oilers stats fraternity has written an expose on Colin Campbell and his favourite and least favourite NHL players.

The piece may be interesting if it's picked up by the media (or even if it isn't) because of the answers Mr. Campbell will have to provide. We'll keep an eye.

Anyway, I am not qualified to pick up that ball and run with, so I leave you in mc79's able hands if you so wish. But as always, I like to take a sidelong glance at these issues and see if there's anything else.

Our investigative blogger friend mentioned as his source the Canadian Legal Information Institute (or CanLII). Not news to lawyers, (I'm sure, but to the rest of us perhaps. Searching the engine for "NHL" turns up quite a bit, seaching for "Campbell" and "Walkom" turns up this case and a couple of others.

It's an interesting read. I didn't read through the whole file, but there were a few things that jumped out for in this "Warren v. National Hockey League" case.

Now, we astute observers already know that NHL officiating is an interesting case study. We think we can see instances where rules are clearly ignored because one team just had 3 penalties, or is on the PK, or maybe close to putting the game into OT. Some might have dismissed this as fanciful fans seeing games through their own prism.

Guess what, though? We're right. And they write it down here.

"59. There are many aspects to being a good referee. Referees must call penalties correctly and be in the proper location on the ice to make the right call. This is true of all officials in all professional sports. Apart from the speed of the game, where NHL officials may differ from officials in other professional sports is in the exercise of discretion. Historically referees have been expected to “take the flow and characteristics of the game” and the effect of the infraction on the game into account in assessing whether to call a penalty. A penalty in the first period may not be a penalty in the second or third period. It appears that a penalty in the regular season may not always be a penalty in the playoffs. Mr. Gregson noted that if the referees called all the penalties the entertainment would be taken out of the game because, given the speed and physical nature of hockey, a penalty could be called on virtually every play. An assessment of whether a referee is good at making the right calls at the right time is extremely subjective."

OK, pretty obvious stuff here. The pandering to the Don Cherrys of the world who don't think players could adapt to any rule thrown at them. Guess that's why hockey players all throw body checks on golf courses...

Anyway, in addition to this, it seems that Mr. Warren's very tendency to call games by the rulebook -- the way the fans that I know want the game to be called -- got him fired:

"90. In 2005/2006, Mr. Warren was selected to work the playoffs. The reason for his selection to the playoffs was clearly that he was in the top half of the League’s officials. Mr. Walkom testified that in that year, the first year after the lock-out, Mr. Warren was successful because there was no judgement in the officiating of games. There was only black and white. The League expected that all penalties would be called to the letter of the rule regardless of the game situation. In Mr. Walkom’s view, Mr. Warren excelled in the circumstances which were in place during the regular season. However, Mr. Walkom’s assessment of his performance during the playoffs was not good.

This is by no means a scandal, as it was plain for all to see anyway. But for me it cheapens a lot of what goes on.

How the league expects consistent and fair results when they isnsist on applying the rules differently in different situations is mind boggling. How is a GM supposed to build a team?

And as to the notion apllication of the rules would undermine the entertainment in the game, I suggest only that if that is the case then it is the rules and not the application of them that needs to be addressed.

I leave you to enjoy the impending debacle now.

The visitors' section: Buffalo Sabres

Part of blogging is getting to debate and share with your readers and fellow bloggers. Habs bloggers until now, but I thought it was time to reach out to those blogging our rivals.

Sometimes we focus on our own team so much that we forget there are 14 other teams vying for the 8 playoff spots we are (well 7 if Ottawa doesn't slow down and give everyone else a chance). Sometimes that means we lose to a team that's better than we are. Sometimes we lose to a team who wants to win more than we do.

The Buffalo Sabres have had a couple of super seasons and have stumbled thus far. Although i can't say I am completely shocked about their predicament. The city of Buffalo (and Ontario commuters) sure are.


Here's a summary of what David at Die by the Blade had to say about his Sabres so far this year:

Recent form
The Buffalo Sabres have been very inconsistent this season, searching for an identity after losing Chris Drury and Daniel Briere. At times they look like the team we all saw last year, but at other times they seem to struggle. The Sabres are coming off of a 4-2 loss to the Florida Panthers, in which they allowed the Panthers to score three times in five minutes.

The players
The team is led by Derek Roy, Brian Campbell and Tim Connolly (who is returning from a season long head injury). Ryan Miller is still the backbone of the team, although he has not been as consistent as in years past.

The Sabres have also been soft in their own zone through the first 11 games and have relied on minor league defensemen due to injuries to Jaro Spacek, Dmitri Kalinin and newly signed Nolan Pratt.


I agree with David about the consistency issue. But that, as we know, is the bane of every team that doesn't collect 116 points. Welcome back to the pack (at least for a month or two) Sabres fans. As I said in my weekly review, I think we are well matched with Buffalo, and we each play about the same way the others would like to. I think on current form and hopefully a little desperation born out of a Leafs loss, this game should reflect the standings and we should win. And I stand by Spacek and Afinogenov as my Sabres to keep your eyes on.

I think our guest might have the same opinion of his own team's circumstances if you asked. But even if we're being nice to other bloggers - this is a Habs blog afterall.