Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

42 Alexander Perezhogin


jl-1

Recommended Posts

I agree too.

I didn't really care too much for Perezhogin, he was there and that was about it.

He did have some potential yes, but he failed to show any of that.

You can't risk cap space and man space over a player who shows "some" potential, to have him span out to be a nobody in three years. Remember Hossa and Hainsey? At the time they were the "next big things" to the Canadiens.

Thank God we traded them because their existing teams are still waiting for them to display some of that potential.

We didn't trade Hainsey, we lost him through waivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs_fan1160
We didn't trade Hainsey, we lost him through waivers.

Yeah but isn't it up to the team to put a player on waivers?

Either way it would have been the teams decision to axe him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but isn't it up to the team to put a player on waivers?

Either way it would have been the teams decision to axe him.

Boy, we need a hockey and history lesson here...

Ron Hainsey wasn't ready for NHL duties yet and was playing in Hamilton. He was called up because Sheldon Souray got hurt. When Souray got back, we HAD to send him back to Hamilton but because of the number of years he had been playing professional hockey, he HAD to clear waivers first, which means that any team could claim him for free under the old CBA. That's when Columbus, an expension team, claimed him as they weren't as deep as we were on defense. The team didn't want to lose him, but our hands were tied! We had no choice. Let's not make allegations without fully understanding the facts here, as it really isn't fair to the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't risk cap space and man space over a player who shows "some" potential, to have him span out to be a nobody in three years. Remember Hossa and Hainsey? At the time they were the "next big things" to the Canadiens.

I don't think anyone is saying he should have been given that contract. It simply couldn't be done, it would throw Gainey's negotiating strategy with other free agents way off track.

It's getting out of control. everytime something happens with a player on this team, it's all Carbo's fault. I'm surprised no one's blamed him for giving the team the Flu bug this past season.

It's getting a bit ridiculous though. Between Carbo and Gainey, we have had: Sammy, Kovy, Perezhogin, Koivu, and Rivet all either

a.) request or suggest possibly wanting a trade

b.) leave the team by their own choice

c.) rumoured to have demanded a trade, and after a trade did happen, announce how happy they are about leaving the team.

That is 1/4 of our opening night roster this season. That is too much. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is who's fault between Carbo, the other coaches, and everyone in managment, but our management and coaching have got to work this out, this is 1/4 of our opening roster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every Hainsey, there's a Beauchemin. I wouldn't be so quick to write off young talent.

Exactly. That's why when people said that we don't have top notch prospects, I can't help but shake my head. Ryder is another example, coming out of nowhere.

Anyway, we're way off-topic here so to get back on track, it is very sad that we've lost Perezhogin but I have a feeling that this saga isn't over yet. I have a feeling that when his contract is due in Russia, we may contact his agent to find out if he wants back in the NHL and we could very well trade his rights to another team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is saying he should have been given that contract. It simply couldn't be done, it would throw Gainey's negotiating strategy with other free agents way off track.

It's getting a bit ridiculous though. Between Carbo and Gainey, we have had: Sammy, Kovy, Perezhogin, Koivu, and Rivet all either

a.) request or suggest possibly wanting a trade

b.) leave the team by their own choice

c.) rumoured to have demanded a trade, and after a trade did happen, announce how happy they are about leaving the team.

That is 1/4 of our opening night roster this season. That is too much. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is who's fault between Carbo, the other coaches, and everyone in managment, but our management and coaching have got to work this out, this is 1/4 of our opening roster!

Graeme, you can remove Koivu from that group. Never once has he said anything to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, we need a hockey and history lesson here...

Ron Hainsey wasn't ready for NHL duties yet and was playing in Hamilton. He was called up because Sheldon Souray got hurt. When Souray got back, we HAD to send him back to Hamilton but because of the number of years he had been playing professional hockey, he HAD to clear waivers first, which means that any team could claim him for free under the old CBA. That's when Columbus, an expension team, claimed him as they weren't as deep as we were on defense. The team didn't want to lose him, but our hands were tied! We had no choice. Let's not make allegations without fully understanding the facts here, as it really isn't fair to the team.

I thought it was: He wasn't claimed going down. He made it down after training camp fine, and then when we needed another defenseman (maybe Souray was injured, I'm not sure), he was called up and that was when he was claimed.

Still, Gainey had to have known that there was a very good chance he'd get picked up. By sending him down originally we were basically saying we barely wanted him, and when he was recalled (there were other options in Hamilton, I forget who, but they had to be called up anyways once Hainsey was claimed), there was again a huge risk of him leaving. Officially we didn't trade him away, but we may as well have. When you put a player on waivers twice (once at 50% pricetag), even if it's to switch them from NHL/AHL, you obviously don't really care about that player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But did he not say ( or suggest ) that he does not want to be on a rebuilding team

That's what he said. Did he ask for a trade? No. He said that at this point in his career, he wants to have a chance to win. Gainey assured him publically that we weren't rebuilding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme, you can remove Koivu from that group. Never once has he said anything to that effect.

I took that comment of his to mean that, maybe not immediately, but at the latest by the end of his contract, he wanted out if things don't improve. For our captain to come out and speak like that, he's obviously unhappy, that is my point. You don't just say that sort of thing for fun.

Of course he didn't come out and demand or even ask for a trade, but he suggested that if things don't start to improve, he wants out (and he's a UFA in 2 years, so that will be his choice). Not for the same reason as the others, but I find this worthy of attention, when yet another player complains about the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took that comment of his to mean that, maybe not immediately, but at the latest by the end of his contract, he wanted out if things don't improve. For our captain to come out and speak like that, he's obviously unhappy, that is my point. You don't just say that sort of thing for fun.

Of course he didn't come out and demand or even ask for a trade, but he suggested that if things don't start to improve, he wants out (and he's a UFA in 2 years, so that will be his choice). Not for the same reason as the others, but I find this worthy of attention, when yet another player complains about the team.

He didn't come out and stated that he wasn't happy and that he wanted out. That's exactly what Mojocrookedfoot is talking about. We reach for every straw to try to make management look bad, even trying to interpret words that don't even mean that. He voiced his desire to win, that's not complaining, and Gainey assured him that the team shares the same goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what he said. Did he ask for a trade? No.

Did I say he did? No. ;) (edit: switched smiley, dont' want this to be taken seriously)

"a.) request or suggest possibly wanting a trade

Maybe to word it a bit better, a trade or going elsewhere at the end of the contract

Gainey assured him publicly that we weren't rebuilding.

I'll remember this quote if next season is a disappointment and everyone's excuse is "we're rebuilding"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Talon

Perezhogin's name has already been removed from the main site...it isn't even under prospects..wow.

Although Kostitsyn and Lapierre are still listed under "roster" and not "in the system."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't come out and stated that he wasn't happy and that he wanted out. That's exactly what Mojocrookedfoot is talking about. We reach for every straw to try to make management look bad, even trying to interpret words that don't even mean that. He voiced his desire to win, that's not complaining, and Gainey assured him that the team shares the same goal.

His exact quote "'I want to be back, there's no question about that,'But the reality is that we get older and how many years are in front of me, I don't know. ''I don't want to be part of a team that's going to rebuild and rebuild and not make the playoffs again. Hopefully, we can compete against the best and have a chance to win.''

To me that means that he is starting to get unhappy. Since we like analogies, when someone says at work "if I don't get a promotion by next year, I'm leaving", to me that suggests he is starting to get upset, maybe not enough to leave immediately and he's still going to stick it out for awhile, but he's not happy. I suppose I could interpret that as just "well he's a keener, nothing wrong with that", but more than likely, he's starting to get upset.

Koivu's problem wasn't with coaching specifically like others, but with the direction the team seems to be going in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll remember this quote if next season is a disappointment and everyone's excuse is "we're rebuilding"

It shoud be easy to find, it's Gainey that said it in his year end press conference. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree too.

I didn't really care too much for Perezhogin, he was there and that was about it.

He did have some potential yes, but he failed to show any of that.

You can't risk cap space and man space over a player who shows "some" potential, to have him span out to be a nobody in three years. Remember Hossa and Hainsey? At the time they were the "next big things" to the Canadiens.

Thank God we traded them because their existing teams are still waiting for them to display some of that potential.

I thought Hossa played well during the playoffs when I watched him. He was even put on a line with Jagr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..........You can't risk cap space and man space over a player who shows "some" potential, to have him span out to be a nobody in three years. Remember Hossa and Hainsey? At the time they were the "next big things" to the Canadiens............

lol..........Yup, Peroz had potential

Now all I read how some people think in a few years with ALL our prospects we'll be Cup contenders ;)

Higgins, Kostitsyn, Plekanecs, Latendresse, Grabovski, D'Agostini, O'Byrne, Ferland, Milroy etc

They all have ' potential " ...how many of them will actually make the jump to he NHL and be more than a 3rd liner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habsfan#08
lol..........Yup, Peroz had potential

Now all I read how some people think in a few years with ALL our prospects we'll be Cup contenders ;)

Higgins, Kostitsyn, Plekanecs, Latendresse, Grabovski, D'Agostini, O'Byrne, Ferland, Milroy etc

They all have ' potential " ...how many of them will actually make the jump to he NHL and be more than a 3rd liner

Probably 3.....4 at the most, with the list provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't be saying that with a straight face. I'm not saying that there weren't other reasons contributing but you can't say that being offered more than 5 times the money you made last year and play at home didn't have anything to do with his decision. The NHL is great, but money talks.

Not to put words in Keith's mouth, but I think the intent of his post was to show that money wasn't the primary deciding factor; I think the point was missed.

From what I can tell, the point was that Perezhogin could have made that kind of money in the seasons leading up to this one by playing in Russia. Yet, he chose not to back then. Which thus makes it an intriguing situation with the sudden change in heart; what would lead him to change his mind? You can't simply right it off as coincidence when you factor in the events of the past year. At the same time, money is an obvious temptation (I don't think anyone could disagree), but has essentially proven itself not to be the "be-all, end-all" in the decision making process.

Glad to see I'm not the only one seeing it that way...

Is it just me, or does this seem to be an argument of extremes? We've got one side that won't openly admit any fault to Carbonneau, and one side that states that the entirity of the fault lies with Carbonneau. And it's the same "warring factions" that have been going at it for months; each side seems to make every attempt to ridicule the other. Am I the only one that realizes that while we cannot blame Carbonneau in entirity, we can't totally leave him out of the equation?

We have people who like Carbonneau; we have people who don't. Let's get over our bias and try and view things in moderation; it's clear that the blame doesn't even come close to fully laying with Carbonneau (or any individual for that matter), but at the same time, all parties/individuals involved (Perezhogin et al, and even beloved Carbonneau) must be recognized for their share of the fault.

The word bolded brings me to another thing we've seem to lose sight of at times (myself included); hockey is a team game. As the saying goes, "you live and die as a team". One individual or entity do not make a team, nor do they house any accomplishments or faults that the team incurs. On a team, one individual does not make everything happen; as such, one individual thus cannot fully engulf a fault.

I just thought I needed to say that. If anyone feels individually singled out or offended, please don't. I wrote this with no single person in mind, and I assuredly do not write this to offend. So, take this post for what you will. Or, everyone can just forget this post was ever written and continue playing the blame game, and throw shots at one another whenever there's an opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His exact quote "'I want to be back, there's no question about that,'But the reality is that we get older and how many years are in front of me, I don't know. ''I don't want to be part of a team that's going to rebuild and rebuild and not make the playoffs again. Hopefully, we can compete against the best and have a chance to win.''

To me that means that he is starting to get unhappy. Since we like analogies, when someone says at work "if I don't get a promotion by next year, I'm leaving", to me that suggests he is starting to get upset, maybe not enough to leave immediately and he's still going to stick it out for awhile, but he's not happy. I suppose I could interpret that as just "well he's a keener, nothing wrong with that", but more than likely, he's starting to get upset.

Koivu's problem wasn't with coaching specifically like others, but with the direction the team seems to be going in.

The problem with this all is though is that we're merely speculating. That sentence you've quoted from Koivu could just as easily be interpreted as saying to Bob Gainey: "This team needs help, bring it!"...but it doesn't necessarily mean that Koivu specifically wants out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is saying he should have been given that contract. It simply couldn't be done, it would throw Gainey's negotiating strategy with other free agents way off track.

It's getting a bit ridiculous though. Between Carbo and Gainey, we have had: Sammy, Kovy, Perezhogin, Koivu, and Rivet all either

a.) request or suggest possibly wanting a trade

b.) leave the team by their own choice

c.) rumoured to have demanded a trade, and after a trade did happen, announce how happy they are about leaving the team.

That is 1/4 of our opening night roster this season. That is too much. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is who's fault between Carbo, the other coaches, and everyone in managment, but our management and coaching have got to work this out, this is 1/4 of our opening roster!

The thing you're failing to see is: With those players in our line-up, (with the exception of Koivu) we were a very inefficient team this past season. The Habs paid out over $11,000,000 to 4 players and only got 40 goals for 111 points of offence in return. Compare that with the $2.2 million we paid Ryder and got 30 goals in return...that's 3/4 of the goals we got from all 4 of those players for less than 1/4 of the cost.

I don't see those playes leaving as a downside when the numbers they collectively put up are easily replaceable by kids on the farm for less money. If anything they're doing us a favor by leaving. Now we can put players in there who can be coached into the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does this seem to be an argument of extremes? We've got one side that won't openly admit any fault to Carbonneau, and one side that states that the entirity of the fault lies with Carbonneau. And it's the same "warring factions" that have been going at it for months; each side seems to make every attempt to ridicule the other. Am I the only one that realizes that while we cannot blame Carbonneau in entirity, we can't totally leave him out of the equation?

We have people who like Carbonneau; we have people who don't. Let's get over our bias and try and view things in moderation; it's clear that the blame doesn't even come close to fully laying with Carbonneau (or any individual for that matter), but at the same time, all parties/individuals involved (Perezhogin et al, and even beloved Carbonneau) must be recognized for their share of the fault.

The word bolded brings me to another thing we've seem to lose sight of at times (myself included); hockey is a team game. As the saying goes, "you live and die as a team". One individual or entity do not make a team, nor do they house any accomplishments or faults that the team incurs. On a team, one individual does not make everything happen; as such, one individual thus cannot fully engulf a fault.

I just thought I needed to say that. If anyone feels individually singled out or offended, please don't. I wrote this with no single person in mind, and I assuredly do not write this to offend. So, take this post for what you will. Or, everyone can just forget this post was ever written and continue playing the blame game, and throw shots at one another whenever there's an opening.

I can't speak for anyone else but I personnally have said numerous times that I did not agree with Carbonneau giving the first line duty to Latendresse ahead of Perezhogin earlier in the season when Higgins got hurt, as Latendresse hadn't shown anything yet and Perezhogin was playing great hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Come Back Patrick
Still, Gainey had to have known that there was a very good chance he'd get picked up. By sending him down originally we were basically saying we barely wanted him, and when he was recalled (there were other options in Hamilton, I forget who, but they had to be called up anyways once Hainsey was claimed), there was again a huge risk of him leaving. Officially we didn't trade him away, but we may as well have. When you put a player on waivers twice (once at 50% pricetag), even if it's to switch them from NHL/AHL, you obviously don't really care about that player.

Agreed. It's also pretty sad to think that we lost Beauchemin and Hainsey so that guys like Stephane Quintal could play. I'm not trying to take anything away from Quintal but we just threw away our future on defense for an aging defenseman who had plans to retire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...