GDT Apr. 24, Laval vs Belleville, 3 PM

[dlbalr]

7 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

 Were all 3 call ups essential??? Did we need another old man in Stall if it was going to put us up against the cap, if we weren’t going to subtract someone else from the roster (should have traded someone rather than sending Evans down, when he hasn’t been out main issue at centre)?  Couldnt we have made a move to dump Byron, even if it costed us a 2nd rounder (he’s on the books for more years - so it would have been a benefit for more than just this year).

 

Ouellet was needed to field six defencemen that night.  The other two were paper moves to keep them eligible to be sent back down if the cap situation required it.  And the trade deadline showed it would have cost more than a second to get out of Byron's deal.

[Commandant]

3 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

Ouellet was needed to field six defencemen that night.  The other two were paper moves to keep them eligible to be sent back down if the cap situation required it.  And the trade deadline showed it would have cost more than a second to get out of Byron's deal.

 

Ouellet was needed.

 

The two paper moves we shouldn't have made IMO.  We shouldn't have sent them down.  Given the lack of recalls, we can't send them down anyways so what was the point.  You want the flexibility to send them down again?  Why?  you can't call them back if you do cause the recall rule, so I don't get the keep them eligible to go down if the cap required it part. 

[GHT120]

16 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

... And the trade deadline showed it would have cost more than a second to get out of Byron's deal.

 

Undoubtedly true ... but moving Byron would not just have addressed cap issues this season, it would help for the next two seasons as well ... don't know how much more than a second I would have been willing to pay but cap space is as much an asset as a player in today's NHL, so hopefully MB was looking at all options (but for no provable reason I doubt he was).

[dlbalr]

22 minutes ago, Commandant said:

The two paper moves we shouldn't have made IMO.  We shouldn't have sent them down.  Given the lack of recalls, we can't send them down anyways so what was the point.  You want the flexibility to send them down again?  Why?  you can't call them back if you do cause the recall rule, so I don't get the keep them eligible to go down if the cap required it part. 

 

I think Romanov was in case he got pushed out of the lineup entirely with the newcomers in which case he could have gone to Laval.  Byron I think was actually for Caufield, in case they need to send him down to make the cap space to bring Caufield up for the last game or two to give him a taste before the playoffs.  That's my guess to the logic at least.