MMPL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 (edited) Whole year. Gainey said he'd try and give timelines for injuries but will be pretty consistent in not revealing an injury if it's suspect to being re-injured upon return (i.e. opponents targeting the area when player returns). Concussions I think still have to be disclosed. It's a very sticky issue on concussions and there's a standardized procedure which accompanies them. Okay, is this just Gainey or the whole NHL (like the league made a decision or something). Well, does this mean we will be hearing more of the upper/lower body injury bullshit? Sorry for all the questions by the way.. Edited October 6, 2008 by MMPL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Okay, is this just Gainey or the whole NHL (like the league made a decision or something). Well, does this mean we will be hearing more of the upper/lower body injury bullshit? Sorry for all the questions by the way.. Actually, it'll mean we'll hear less of the upper/lower body BS. They won't even give us that much. A player will be out 3-4 weeks with what will be described as an undisclosed injury. Teams will have all the choice in determining how much/how little they disclose to the public. The upper/lower body thing was actually used to mask the disclosure of an injury... the NHL required teams to disclose injuries, but didn't give guidelines to how specific teams had to be. So that's where that came from. The NHL tried to get teams to be more specific, but I guess the teams have complained and now the league has decided not to require teams to disclose information at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Dandenault's pretty irrelevant when it comes to Chipchura. Dandenault will probably be gone either way (as soon as everyone gets healthy, I bet) and Chipchura will be off the team either way. It's Begin, Laraque, Lapierre and Kostopoulos who are clogging up the 4th line and stopping Chipchura from having a spot. We'd need two of them to go to be able to play Chipchura - and that would mean no Pacioretty. It looks like Chipchura will have to wait another full year (next year a whole lot of salaries are wiped off the books, including Begin and Kostopoulos). Personally I think both Lapierre and Chipchura should be in the lineup with Laraque completing what could become a very tough line to play against; Begin and Kostopoulos would be extras that would get inserted in the lineup every few games to keep in game shape, and for strategic purposes whenever necessary (ex. maybe we would prefer playing Begin against other teams that rely a lot on their powerplay, and against whom we could use his throw-himself-in-front-of-the-puck skills). As I mentioned before, not only do I think this could be our best combination for a forth line, but it makes a lot more sense for the Canadiens to play these youngsters because they will be with us for the next few years while Begin and Kostoupolos will most not be back with us next season, at least not as regulars. Besides, with the quality of our top three lines, we have the opportunity to use the forth line to develop these two young players. As for Chipchura not really being a forth-liner type player, I agree but there is no room elsewhere at this point, and there’s nothing wrong with bringing up a young third-year professional player on the forth so that he cab gain experience and confidence, and work his up up into the lineup, just like we did with Higgins and Plekanec a few years ago. Besides, you just know that Don Lever with once again use Chipchura in a defensive-only shutdown role with wingers such as Stewart and White (if not Ryan Flinn), and that therefore he won’t learn much by playing for the Bulldogs. Also, we should try to avoid Kyle Chipchura becoming another Alex Perezhogin, who left for Russia because he knew he had been in Carbonneau’s doghouse from Day 1 and that he would never get a real chance, or Ondrej Pavelec who asked to be traded by the Trashers because he felt the team lied to him when they saif he would get a real shot at training camp when in fact he hardly played at all because Lehtonen and Hedberg have NHL contracts... not to mention that we’ll be kind of robbing him of about 800K, money he could easily earn if he were with many other teams. I would be pissed to see Chipchura become a playoff monster for another team simply because we preferred the “stability” of veterans such as Begin, Kostopulos, and Dandeneault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Actually, it'll mean we'll hear less of the upper/lower body BS. They won't even give us that much. A player will be out 3-4 weeks with what will be described as an undisclosed injury. Teams will have all the choice in determining how much/how little they disclose to the public. The upper/lower body thing was actually used to mask the disclosure of an injury... the NHL required teams to disclose injuries, but didn't give guidelines to how specific teams had to be. So that's where that came from. The NHL tried to get teams to be more specific, but I guess the teams have complained and now the league has decided not to require teams to disclose information at all. That makes sense, especially seing how the Bruins were obvisouly targeting Komisarek's injured hips during the last playoffs. Information is the key to sucess in almost everything, the more you share it, the more you have to lose (especially when it gives an edge to your opponents/competitors). It's like player salaries, the league should have never agreed to share conntract information. Now agents use it to maximize salaries by comparing players, the media use it to criticize players, and meanwhile not only the league got nothing in return, but it went through a gigantic inflation and completely lost control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Also, we should try to avoid Kyle Chipchura becoming another Alex Perezhogin, who left for Russia because he knew he had been in Carbonneau’s doghouse from Day 1 and that he would never get a real chance, or Ondrej Pavelec who asked to be traded by the Trashers because he felt the team lied to him when they saif he would get a real shot at training camp when in fact he hardly played at all because Lehtonen and Hedberg have NHL contracts... not to mention that we’ll be kind of robbing him of about 800K, money he could easily earn if he were with many other teams. I would be pissed to see Chipchura become a playoff monster for another team simply because we preferred the “stability” of veterans such as Begin, Kostopulos, and Dandeneault. Pavelec got 2 decisions in preseason, the same amount that Hedberg and Lehtonen got. That situation is ridiculous. Atlanta had only 6 presason contests and he got into 2 games. That's not unreasonable. Combine that with the prospect tourney Pavelec participated in before training camp and the Thrashers have a pretty good read on what's best for Pavelec and their team. His agent should be kicking his ass and getting him back to Chicago ASAP. You can't pull a Patrick Roy just because you won a Calder Cup. As for Chips... it's not like he's been dominating the AHL or anything. Geez... he's only played 2 pro seasons. If he can't make the #1 team in the East at 22, he can try again at 23. And Perezhogin didn't leave because of Carbo... he left because he was being offered the equivelant of a $3.4m per year salary to play in his home country, when the Habs wouldn't have offered him a dime over $1m to stay in Montreal. It was money, not Carbo, that drove Perezhogin out of Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Just another note.... we've achieved cap compliance to start the year with the following lineup: F: Kovalev, Koivu, Tanguay, Plekanec, A Kostitsyn, S Kostitsyn, Higgins, Lang, Latendresse, Begin, Lapierre, Laraque, Kostopolous, Chipchura D: Markov, Komisarek, Hamrlik, Gorges, O'Byrne, Brisebois, Dandenault G: Price, Halak IR: Bouillon, Carle To start the year, our projected cap hit for the year has to be within the assigned salary range ($40.3 to $56.7m). Based on that lineup, our projected cap hit is $56,585,301. That's pretty tight, but keep in mind that number will go down once Carle is cleared to play and gets sent to the AHL and when Bouillon gets healthy and the final roster move is made (easiest move being Chips to AHL). That'll make our cap space go from under $115,000 to a little over $1.9m. If Carle's injury is deemed long term, his salary doesn't count against the cap. If it's short term, his salary counts against the cap every day until he's sent to the AHL (about $4,570 per day). In other words, the team is set for opening day. They don't need to cut anyone else as of right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Pavelec got 2 decisions in preseason, the same amount that Hedberg and Lehtonen got. That situation is ridiculous. Atlanta had only 6 presason contests and he got into 2 games. That's not unreasonable. Combine that with the prospect tourney Pavelec participated in before training camp and the Thrashers have a pretty good read on what's best for Pavelec and their team. His agent should be kicking his ass and getting him back to Chicago ASAP. You can't pull a Patrick Roy just because you won a Calder Cup. I shouldn't have written "in fact", I was just mentioning what Pavelec is feeling at this moment. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, he's unhappy because he feels he's not getting the chance he deserves, and the Trashers might lose one of its best prospects. And Perezhogin didn't leave because of Carbo... he left because he was being offered the equivelant of a $3.4m per year salary to play in his home country, when the Habs wouldn't have offered him a dime over $1m to stay in Montreal. It was money, not Carbo, that drove Perezhogin out of Montreal. That's your opinion, and you might be right. It makes a lot of sense. Personally I predicted that unless he was traded, Perezhogin would leave for Russia a few weeks into his last season in Montreal. It was obvious from day 1 of training camp that Carbonneau didn't want Perezhogin (it's ok, a coach doesn't have to like everyone; maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong). And it became a certainty when Carbonneau had to replace Higgins on the Koivu, and that he chose Latendresse, who was playing mediocre hockey on the forth line, instead of Perezhogin who was working hard and with good results in a very unfamiliar defensive role, not to mention that he was a skilled offensive who had great sucess as a rookie playing with Koivu. Regardless of the money, Perezhogin had to leave Montreal for the sake of his career. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in the NHL as soon as Montreal loses its rights on him, probably for a lot less money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Regardless of the money, Perezhogin had to leave Montreal for the sake of his career. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in the NHL as soon as Montreal loses its rights on him, probably for a lot less money. I tend to agree with you. The fact that he could make more money in Russia likely made his decision easier, but I think Perogy would have left anyway. I don't think he got a fair shot with the Habs and appeared to lose favour with Carbo (his hooking penalties likely contributed to this), but I think he will find success with another NHL team once the Habs lose or trade his rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhfarber Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I tend to agree with you. The fact that he could make more money in Russia likely made his decision easier, but I think Perogy would have left anyway. I don't think he got a fair shot with the Habs and appeared to lose favour with Carbo (his hooking penalties likely contributed to this), but I think he will find success with another NHL team once the Habs lose or trade his rights. what exactly is the duration of the Habs rights on him. I mean he was signed to a contract wasn't he, so doesn't that contract continue until he's honoured it? Or was he a RFA at the time which I assume would change things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 what exactly is the duration of the Habs rights on him. I mean he was signed to a contract wasn't he, so doesn't that contract continue until he's honoured it? Or was he a RFA at the time which I assume would change things... I remember the media saying at the time that if Perezhogin ever returned, he would have to still honour his contract, but I'm not sure if that's true. I would think that there must be some limitations. I dunno, I guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 The Habs hold Perezhogin's NHL rights until he's 27, just like any of their other players. Players become UFA eligible at 27 or at 7 years of NHL service, whichever comes first (hence why players can be UFA's as young as 25). Guillaume is our youngest eligible UFA, as he can become unrestricted when he's 26, after his 7th NHL season. Next summer, Perezhogin's contract in the KHL expires, but if he wants to come back to the NHL at that time, Montreal still holds his negotiation rights, just like any other restricted free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 The Habs hold Perezhogin's NHL rights until he's 27, just like any of their other players. Players become UFA eligible at 27 or at 7 years of NHL service, whichever comes first (hence why players can be UFA's as young as 25). Guillaume is our youngest eligible UFA, as he can become unrestricted when he's 26, after his 7th NHL season. Next summer, Perezhogin's contract in the KHL expires, but if he wants to come back to the NHL at that time, Montreal still holds his negotiation rights, just like any other restricted free agent. Thanks for the clarification! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMPL Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 The Habs hold Perezhogin's NHL rights until he's 27, just like any of their other players. Players become UFA eligible at 27 or at 7 years of NHL service, whichever comes first (hence why players can be UFA's as young as 25). Guillaume is our youngest eligible UFA, as he can become unrestricted when he's 26, after his 7th NHL season. Next summer, Perezhogin's contract in the KHL expires, but if he wants to come back to the NHL at that time, Montreal still holds his negotiation rights, just like any other restricted free agent. Another bargaining chip if some team wanted to take a chance on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Another bargaining chip if some team wanted to take a chance on him. Not much of a bargaining chip for someone who doesn't want to be in America. I've often seen you guys include his rights in imaginary trade negotiations as if is rights hold any value. He makes more in the KHL and add to the fact he doesn't want to be here much like his buddy Radulov and he becomes completely worthless. His stats are no big deal either........Why are we talking about him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Why are we talking about him? Good question! I don't know? True Perzhogin had some talent and some potential, but he hadn't proved anythign yet and as far as I can tell, he isn't lighting up the KHL! Godd bye and good riddance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Not much of a bargaining chip for someone who doesn't want to be in America. I've often seen you guys include his rights in imaginary trade negotiations as if is rights hold any value. He makes more in the KHL and add to the fact he doesn't want to be here much like his buddy Radulov and he becomes completely worthless. His stats are no big deal either........Why are we talking about him? I just brought Perezhogin and Pavelev as cases where players were unhappy because they felt they were not given a fair chance, and that wanted out because it was affecting their career. I personally think that's what we are doing to Kyle Chipchura (not giving him his chance, which could be affecting his career), and I was wondering whether Chipchura could not eventually request a trade if faced with another full AHL season in front of him, especially considering he makes about 900K more in the NHL, and that if he's sent down, it will be more about his contract situation than about his performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I just brought Perezhogin and Pavelev as cases where players were unhappy because they felt they were not given a fair chance, and that wanted out because it was affecting their career. I personally think that's what we are doing to Kyle Chipchura (not giving him his chance, which could be affecting his career), and I was wondering whether Chipchura could not eventually request a trade if faced with another full AHL season in front of him, especially considering he makes about 900K more in the NHL, and that if he's sent down, it will be more about his contract situation than about his performance. Hopefully he'll remain patient and wait for an injury. I don't think Chips is an idiot, he won't cause a fuss, He knows that he is better then Laps and that his time will come real soon. He doesn't really have any trade value so why would he piss Gainey off by asking to be traded. That would almost assure him a nice long stay in the AHL. He would be a nice fit on the Minnesota Wild though, I wonder if we could get Mikko Koivu in a package that included Chips. That would be sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I wonder if we could get Mikko Koivu in a package that included Chips. That would be sweet. You'd have to give up alot more than just chips to get Mikko Koivu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You'd have to give up alot more than just chips to get Mikko Koivu! Chips, Dandy and the rights to Perezhogin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Probably more like Chips and Higgins, or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You'd have to give up alot more than just chips to get Mikko Koivu! That could give us three pairs of brothers, if we added the Niedermayers we'd be all set... On that note, I wonder if all the Staal brothers are planning to sign with the Maple Leafs as soon as they become UFAs... too bad Kim Staal will a little too old by that time, that would have completed the entire powerplay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You'd have to give up alot more than just chips to get Mikko Koivu! That's why I said part of a package Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAK Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 You'd have to give up alot more than just chips to get Mikko Koivu! It would probably cost Halak and/or Higgins and one of the 2 minnesota Dmen. But I just don't see why the Wild would trade a young, big two way Centerman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Chips, Dandy and the rights to Perezhogin? rights to Perezogin = A nice hot cup of jack squat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 It would probably cost Halak and/or Higgins and one of the 2 minnesota Dmen. But I just don't see why the Wild would trade a young, big two way Centerman. I don't think it would happen but Mikko would send Laps to the minors in a heartbeat and make Lang look completely unnecessary. I suppose Chips needs to look at that scenario to realize what he needs to do to get noticed. Not really sure if my comments entirely fair to Chips but this thread has somehow turned him into a whiny little monster who wants to be traded when the truth is, he's still with the team and fairly close to staying with the team for good real soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.