-Vintage Canuck-

[Waivers] Mike McKenna (Flyers claim McKenna)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

McKenna's 'conditioning' stint ends tomorrow I believe, so he may be ours again if we want him ( if no-one besides Flyers put in a claim when we lost him ).

Does he have to be on the roster or put on waivers tomorrow, or is tomorrow the last day he's allowed to be in the AHL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Great Canucks said:

Does he have to be on the roster or put on waivers tomorrow, or is tomorrow the last day he's allowed to be in the AHL?

Take this with a grain of salt.......I believe that if no-one else put in a claim on him  when the Phillie claim happened, that he can be ours at the AHL level. We need an NHL stop gap and I think he could be on the Canuck roster for 10 games/ 30 days without having to go through waivers again. If, however, a 2nd team did put in a waiver claim when we lost him, everything changes. ( that team might have a say ? )

 

If we don't get McKenna back, I think Leighton will be here by Wednesday ! ( with a nice NHL contract in his pocket ! )

 

Edit: As far as the Flyers go, he has to be on the NHL roster or be waived again. ( either today or tomorrow ! ) His conditioning stint is/ was a sham. He had recently played and was not injured. Don't know how they got that one through !

Edited by SingleThorn
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

Take this with a grain of salt.......I believe that if no-one else put in a claim on him  when the Phillie claim happened, that he can be ours at the AHL level. We need an NHL stop gap and I think he could be on the Canuck roster for 10 games/ 30 days without having to go through waivers again. If, however, a 2nd team did put in a waiver claim when we lost him, everything changes. ( that team might have a say ? )

 

If we don't get McKenna back, I think Leighton will be here by Wednesday ! ( with a nice NHL contract in his pocket ! )

 

Edit: As far as the Flyers go, he has to be on the NHL roster or be waived again. ( either today or tomorrow ! ) His conditioning stint is/ was a sham. He had recently played and was not injured. Don't know how they got that one through !

Yeah I don't understand how they were able to send him down in a conditioning stint either. How was he eligible for that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Canucks make a trade to get Mckenna back, would they have to place him on waivers again when they need to send him down to the farm or because the Canucks were the original team that placed him on waivers, can they send him down without waivers?

Edited by TheRick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JamesBlondage said:

Yeah I don't understand how they were able to send him down in a conditioning stint either. How was he eligible for that??

Philly basically skirting the system. Unless the commissioner actually initiates an investigation for philly to prove that McKenna needs the stint, they can just pretend he does and send him to the minors for 14 days. No one in the nhl cares if a 3rd string goalie is sent on a conditioning stint even when he may not need to. well, except us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TheRick said:

I wonder if the Canucks make a trade to get Mckenna back, would they have to place him on waivers again when they need to send him down to the farm or because the Canucks were the original team that placed him on waivers, can they send him down without waivers?

My understanding is that he'd have to go through waivers anyways. They're better off waiting for his stint to finish.

 

At this point, it makes me wonder if we're better off trading a low 2020 pick for a 3rd string goalie (Fucale from Vegas, Hutchinson from Toronto, Montoya from Edmonton, or Budaj from LA). Marky is one cold or stubbed finger away from DiPietro being our starter... Demko can't come back soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheRick said:

I wonder if the Canucks make a trade to get Mckenna back, would they have to place him on waivers again when they need to send him down to the farm or because the Canucks were the original team that placed him on waivers, can they send him down without waivers?

I think that if he were to go back on waivers, which he very likely will, we'd get first crack at taking him and would be allowed to send him down to the AHL immediately without requiring any waivers. Although given the spot we're in we'd likely just take him back for the main roster. Either way there's no need to trade for him. They have like 2 goalies on the injured reserve and will have to waive somebody eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another tidbit in the Flyers goalie saga. Brian Elliot on LTI conditioning stint, as of today. Really don't see them wanting to keep McKenna !

 

Edit: At a not too distant point, they might have to waive Stolarz. Payback time !

Edited by SingleThorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

I think that if he were to go back on waivers, which he very likely will, we'd get first crack at taking him and would be allowed to send him down to the AHL immediately without requiring any waivers. Although given the spot we're in we'd likely just take him back for the main roster. Either way there's no need to trade for him. They have like 2 goalies on the injured reserve and will have to waive somebody eventually. 

Canucks would keep McKenna up.  If Demko was healthy:

 

It's by the standings.  If the Canucks are the only team to claim him they can send him to the AHL directly.  If another team puts in a claim they would have to add him to the NHL roster and then waive him to send him to the AHL.

 

It happened with Boucher.  NJD was the original team that waived him.  He was claimed by Nashville who put him back on waivers a few weeks later.  NJD reclaimed him but another team had also put in a claim.  NJD were lower in the standings so had waiver priority.  They couldn't send him directly to the AHL because there was another claiming team.  They had to add him to their NHL roster and waive him and the Canucks claimed him then.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mll said:

Canucks would keep McKenna up.  If Demko was healthy:

 

It's by the standings.  If the Canucks are the only team to claim him they can send him to the AHL directly.  If another team puts in a claim they would have to add him to the NHL roster and then waive him to send him to the AHL.

 

It happened with Boucher.  NJD was the original team that waived him.  He was claimed by Nashville who put him back on waivers a few weeks later.  NJD reclaimed him but another team had also put in a claim.  NJD were lower in the standings so had waiver priority.  They couldn't send him directly to the AHL because there was another claiming team.  They had to add him to their NHL roster and waive him and the Canucks claimed him then.

So we gotta hope that Philly was the only team to put in a claim for McKenna. How many teams are strapped for goaltending right now? I don't see there being very many people lining up to take McKenna off waivers, but I could be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N7Nucks said:

So we gotta hope that Philly was the only team to put in a claim for McKenna. How many teams are strapped for goaltending right now? I don't see there being very many people lining up to take McKenna off waivers, but I could be wrong. 

Toronto had also put in a claim at the time.  It doesn't matter though.  It's only if there is another team that puts in a claim when Philadelphia finally waives him.

 

Philadelphia can't trade him before offering him to Toronto because they had also put in a claim.  But to put him on waivers it doesn't matter that another team had put in a claim back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mll said:

Toronto had also put in a claim at the time.  It doesn't matter though.  It's only if there is another team that puts in a claim when Philadelphia finally waives him.

 

Philadelphia can't trade him before offering him to Toronto because they had also put in a claim.  But to put him on waivers it doesn't matter that another team had put in a claim back then.

I doubt Toronto would have interest now as I'm pretty sure all their goalies are healthy now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If McKenna is placed on waivers today by the Flyers, then why not claim him, keep him in the NHL, and keep Manzanec in the minors for depth?  That way they preserve at least one G who can pass through waivers without much risk.  Kulbakov has played admirably for the Comets but the Comets could still use more depth.  Leighton has been getting better but why not add more NHL-available depth?  I believe the Canucks have the contract spots for it?

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

If McKenna is placed on waivers today by the Flyers, then why not claim him, keep him in the NHL, and keep Manzanec in the minors for depth?  That way they preserve at least one G who can pass through waivers without much risk.  Kulbakov has played admirably for the Comets but the Comets could still use more depth.  Leighton has been getting better but why not add more NHL-available depth?  I believe the Canucks have the contract spots for it?

Agreed. I think/hope that's the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MoneypuckOverlord said:

No clue what philly is doing.  They can send him down , but he cannot dress for their team unless he clears waivers.  

I thought Philly can't actually send him down without him having to pass through waivers.  If McKenna also cannot dress for the NHL roster unless he clears waivers, then that sure seems to be unfair to McKenna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

I thought Philly can't actually send him down without him having to pass through waivers.  If McKenna also cannot dress for the NHL roster unless he clears waivers, then that sure seems to be unfair to McKenna.

My bad, he cannot suit up for their farm team.  Frankie corrado situation all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2019 at 7:23 AM, therodigy said:

At this point, it makes me wonder if we're better off trading a low 2020 pick for a 3rd string goalie (Fucale from Vegas, Hutchinson from Toronto, Montoya from Edmonton, or Budaj from LA).

How 'bout a 7th?

 

On 2/12/2019 at 7:31 AM, SingleThorn said:

Edit: At a not too distant point, they might have to waive Stolarz. Payback time !

OIler Boss Keef helped them with that.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.