dlbalr Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 You have captured that nicely. I've entertained that same idea ,that the rule needs tweeking. Seems to me teams could get punished for having injuries, which will happen because of the length of time the rule covers. It also punishs the Ahl team and awards AHL teams whose parent team is eliminated. Maxwell may have made the difference last year! It's not intended to punish teams with injuries, that's why you're allowed to exceed the limit if an emergency situation exists; you shouldn't have to dress less than 18 skaters...unless you're capped out of course. Maxwell did play in the final game too vs Texas, as did Subban, actually. Could've used him earlier in the series though, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 It's not intended to punish teams with injuries, that's why you're allowed to exceed the limit if an emergency situation exists; you shouldn't have to dress less than 18 skaters...unless you're capped out of course. Maxwell did play in the final game too vs Texas, as did Subban, actually. Could've used him earlier in the series though, that's for sure. How would you tweek it, so it worked better for everyone concerned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 How would you tweek it, so it worked better for everyone concerned? Designate 2 players as your call up players who are free to move between the NHL and AHL rosters without penalty (as long as it's in compliance with the cap). Then, permit 3 additional recalls under the rules of the current format; the 2 designated players do not count towards your 3. Emergency recalls are still permitted as per the current rule. For a Habs example, let's use White and Engqvist. Martin likes them for some teams matchup wise, so they call one of those two up periodically, they can go up and down without counting against the 3. But if they want to give Palushaj a look, then he counts against the limit. Thus, barring injuries, no more than 5 AHL'ers from the Clear Day Roster can be on the parent roster at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Designate 2 players as your call up players who are free to move between the NHL and AHL rosters without penalty (as long as it's in compliance with the cap). Then, permit 3 additional recalls under the rules of the current format; the 2 designated players do not count towards your 3. Emergency recalls are still permitted as per the current rule. For a Habs example, let's use White and Engqvist. Martin likes them for some teams matchup wise, so they call one of those two up periodically, they can go up and down without counting against the 3. But if they want to give Palushaj a look, then he counts against the limit. Thus, barring injuries, no more than 5 AHL'ers from the Clear Day Roster can be on the parent roster at the same time. That would work. Like it. I thought of something a little simpler. Move the date closer to the playoffs. What I mean there is the date when they are charged for call-ups. Maybe the last day of regular season you start your four callup allowment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 That would work. Like it. I thought of something a little simpler. Move the date closer to the playoffs. What I mean there is the date when they are charged for call-ups. Maybe the last day of regular season you start your four callup allowment. The only issue with that is what's stopping a team with $6 million in cap space from calling up their top 7 AHL'ers (4 F, 2 D, and 1 G) as they feel they'd benefit more from practicing with the NHL club than from the AHL playoff push. That would kill that AHL team's playoff hopes, which is I think the main reason the rule was put in place. Also, having read through lots of the CBA, that's simply too simple for the lawyers, who just love to make things difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 The only issue with that is what's stopping a team with $6 million in cap space from calling up their top 7 AHL'ers (4 F, 2 D, and 1 G) as they feel they'd benefit more from practicing with the NHL club than from the AHL playoff push. That would kill that AHL team's playoff hopes, which is I think the main reason the rule was put in place. Also, having read through lots of the CBA, that's simply too simple for the lawyers, who just love to make things difficult. We are back to protecting ourselves against ourselves. I don't know anyone that would strip their farm team from any chance of success unless they were in dire need of those players. Montreal has a hard time all year keeping 21 players happy, how are they going to make out with 30. This a case where the cure is worse than the disease. PS Bettman wouldn't be a DEMOCRAT perchance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 We are back to protecting ourselves against ourselves. I don't know anyone that would strip their farm team from any chance of success unless they were in dire need of those players. Montreal has a hard time all year keeping 21 players happy, how are they going to make out with 30. This a case where the cure is worse than the disease. PS Bettman wouldn't be a DEMOCRAT perchance? Montreal wouldn't do it, but hypothetically speaking, what if we see a split affiliation again next season? Or a non-affiliated team? Then you could run into those issues. The rule is in place for the worst case scenario though, hard to see anyone taking it to that extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoRvInA Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Question 1: Should the Habs consider bringing back Alexei Kovalev this season? Question 2: For the Habs to go deep this season, is a backup who can handle more games required? Question 3: Roman Hamrlik and Hal Gill - At year's end, re-sign both, one, or neither? R:/ 1) if a) we are desperate enough, as long as its cheap and Kovy is 200% healthy. Carbo said he would pick him up for cheap at the trade deadline if he were healthy because he is 2nd to none when he feels like playing. And I believe that... does Kovy believe that?!?!?! R:/ 2) 50 games in and truth be told YOU and I Can't answer that.. Auld needs to play more, before a decision can be made here R:/ 3) Yes to both if Hall signs for no more than 1.8 mil Yes for hammer if he can play for 3mil a season (which he wont) so bye bye hammer 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.