samurai Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 minute ago, qwijibo said: You know what else Corrado might be thinking. It sure is nice to be up with the NHL club collecting on my $630k a year salary instead of being in the minors making $67k a year http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php if you read this which appears reliable it says only half of the NHL players make a 100 games, so that blows your so what about 20 games. Second, yeah he is getting paid but long term not playing hurts his chances for sticking in the show and making more - see 100 game point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Just now, samurai said: http://www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php if you read this which appears reliable it says only half of the NHL players make a 100 games, so that blows your so what about 20 games. Second, yeah he is getting paid but long term not playing hurts his chances for sticking in the show and making more - see 100 game point. Who says he'd make the 100 game mark either way? He's a bubble NHL player. He's also young. Right now he's being paid as an NHL'er. There's no guarantee he'd be on any other NHL roster playing if the Leafs did t claim him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I hate that you guys are making me defend the Leafs, I despise the Leafs lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 16 minutes ago, qwijibo said: I hate that you guys are making me defend the Leafs, I despise the Leafs lol No one is making you do anything qwib. You defending the Leafs is of your own doing. (So slap yourself lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 minute ago, oldnews said: No one is making you do anything qwib. You defending the Leafs is of your own doing. (So slap yourself lol) lol. I'm considering it, I feel so dirty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 31 minutes ago, qwijibo said: Also. I noticed the article you quoted is from 2009. Perhaps the rule has been modified slightly in the newest CBA (or maybe it hasn't. I honestly don't care enough to look it up lol ) No qwib, the new CBA hasn't modified the definition of conditioning loan. Since 2009 the league has done away with re-entry waivers, but otherwise, the changes are minor / not relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 8 minutes ago, oldnews said: No qwib, the new CBA hasn't modified the definition of conditioning loan. Since 2009 the league has done away with re-entry waivers, but otherwise, the changes are minor / not relevent. Actually. I just looked up the current CBA. It appears the rule has been rewritten. 13.8 Conditioning Loan. Unless a Player consents, he shall not be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan to a minor league club. Such Conditioning Loan shall not extend for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days. The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the circumstances under which a Player is Loaned on a Conditioning Loan. If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club, as he deems appropriate. The Player shall continue, during the period of such Conditioning Loan, to receive the same Paragraph 1 NHL Salary, and be entitled to the same benefits, that he would have received had he continued Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 6 minutes ago, qwijibo said: Actually. I just looked up the current CBA. It appears the rule has been rewritten. 13.8 Conditioning Loan. Unless a Player consents, he shall not be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan to a minor league club. Such Conditioning Loan shall not extend for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days. The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the circumstances under which a Player is Loaned on a Conditioning Loan. If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club, as he deems appropriate. The Player shall continue, during the period of such Conditioning Loan, to receive the same Paragraph 1 NHL Salary, and be entitled to the same benefits, that he would have received had he continued Nope. It hasn't been rewritten. That is the same, unchanged wording - not sure where you got the idea that it has changed, but did you by chance look up the wording of the previous CBA. That is it. Here's what the recently-expired CBA had to say about Conditioning Loans: NHL Conditioning Assignment Rules 13.8 Conditioning Loan. Unless a Player consents, he shall not be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan to a minor league club. Such Conditioning Loan shall not extend for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days. The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the circumstances under which a Player is Loaned on a Conditioning Loan. If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade the Re-Entry Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club, as he deems appropriate. The Player shall continue, during the period of such Conditioning Loan, to receive the same Paragraph 1 NHL Salary, and be entitled to the same benefits, that he would have received had he continued to play with the Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: Nope. It hasn't been rewritten. That is the same, unchanged wording - not sure where you got the idea that it has changed, but did you by chance look up the wording of the previous CBA. That is it. Here's what the recently-expired CBA had to say about Conditioning Loans: NHL Conditioning Assignment Rule 13.8 Conditioning Loan. Unless a Player consents, he shall not be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan to a minor league club. Such Conditioning Loan shall not extend for more than fourteen (14) consecutive days. The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the circumstances under which a Player is Loaned on a Conditioning Loan. If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade the Re-Entry Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club, as he deems appropriate. The Player shall continue, during the period of such Conditioning Loan, to receive the same Paragraph 1 NHL Salary, and be entitled to the same benefits, that he would have received had he continued to play with the Club. No. I cut and pasted that directly from the pdf of the current CBA dated September 16 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 minute ago, qwijibo said: No. I cut and pasted that directly from the pdf of the current CBA dated September 16 2012 You're missing the point. That is the exact same wording as the previous CBA. It hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Just now, oldnews said: You're missing the point. That is the exact same wording as the previous CBA. But it's different than the rule you originally quoted that required the player coming of an injury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 2 minutes ago, qwijibo said: But it's different than the rule you originally quoted that required the player coming of an injury No - the rule is the same - the difference is that the NHL has allowed teams to use the conditioning loan for purposes other than coming off IR/illness. The Leafs - granted - are not the only team that does this - it's been and is being circumvented by lots of teams - but it's BS nevertheless, particularly in these LEAFS instances! Claiming a guy off waivers - letting him rot in the press box - is the cause of the need for a conditioning stint - not a justification for one. This is clear question begging. Sitting a goaltender too much - and then watching him have a poor performance - not on any level related to injury - is not justification for the need to send this goaltender for a 'conditioning stint' a few days later. It's garbage. Waivers circumvention. Bernier is able to stay in shape in Toronto - just not game shape - because they're not playing a healthy goaltender. They should just do away with waivers if they're going to allow this - or change the rules so that a player needs to be waived two weeks after being assigned. As it is, it's grey area nonsense that has done away with the spirit and intention of the rules without actually changing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1 hour ago, oldnews said: Conditioning Assignments "A player who has been on IR or otherwise incapicated (and the team must be able to demonstrate cause) can agree to be assigned to an affiliate for a conditioning stint that cannot last longer than 14 days. At the end of the 14 days, the player must either return to the NHL roster or be placed on waivers to remain with the affiliate." http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2009/11/26/1174855/waivers-101-a-guide-to-the-nhl See. This is an entirely different rule. The one I'm quoting (and you are too) makes no mention of IR or incapacitated. Only that the player must consent and the league has to approve it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 4 minutes ago, qwijibo said: See. This is an entirely different rule. The one I'm quoting (and you are too) makes no mention of IR or incapacitated. Only that the player must consent and the league has to approve it That is not the rule qwib. It is a distilled explanation of how the rule works. "If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade the Re-Entry Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement..." It is what this part alludes to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 4 minutes ago, oldnews said: That is not the rule qwib. It is a distilled explanation of how the rule works. "If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade the Re-Entry Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement..." It is what this part alludes to. The problem is that you used that version to support your argument. And the actual rule makes no mention of the things you bolded. The actual rule seems to leave a lot more leeway with regards to what qualifies as a reason for a conditioning assignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I think you guys are focusing a little too much on this. It's still only been 2 months. Patience must be a swear word to CDC. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 40 minutes ago, qwijibo said: The problem is that you used that version to support your argument. And the actual rule makes no mention of the things you bolded. The actual rule seems to leave a lot more leeway with regards to what qualifies as a reason for a conditioning assignment. There is no "that version" or 'my argument' There is no change to that part of the waiver system from one CBA to the next. What you've done is read one clause of it and haven't asked yourself what the references to other parts of the CBA means. Take the preceding sections and put 13.8 in context: 13.6 Disabled Player Loan to Minor Leagues. A Player who is otherwise required to clear Regular Waivers and who becomes disabled while on an NHL roster can be placed on Regular Waivers and be Loaned to a minor league club prior to appropriate medical clearance being granted only if the Player was on NHL Recall at the time he becomes disabled and has not played ten (10) NHL Games (cumulative) or remained on the NHL roster for thirty (30) days (cumulative) since his Recall. The Player shall receive his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and benefits until appropriate medical clearance is granted. All other Players may not be Loaned until appropriate medical clearance is granted. There is no 'my version'. 13.8 refers to: "If the Commissioner has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the Conditioning Loan to evade Waivers, or otherwise Circumvent any provision of this Agreement.." What do you imagine that refers to if your perception is that 13.8 is the extent of the waiver definitions? Whatever the Commissioner deems it to mean, by convenience, at the time? If there is no criteria to evade or circumvent - there can be no evasion or circumvention - but clearly there is a reference to criteria for a conditioning loan. But in practice, there may as well be none. I think it's pretty clear that what everyone understood as a 'conditioning loan' started devolving sometime around 2013 to the point where it had little to do with injury/illness or meeting a qualification/criteria - and teams are simply being permitted to 'condition' players they aren't using whether there is an actual medical/injury/illness reason or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The is such a non class move by the Toronto Maple Leafs. Why would a team pick the guy up off waivers and park him on the bench. Why claim the guy? Making the guy sit on the bench and play no games is a waste of a roster spot and a waste of an oppertunity for a rookie. This move is almost as bad as burying a guy in the minors just becauce it saves cap space. Here's the thing I don't understand though, Why would the Canucks get a secod round draft pick from the Columbus for hiring a head coach that was fired over a season ago but teams get no compensation for losing a player still under contract and still in their employment? There needs to be a provision there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 7 hours ago, qwijibo said: You know what else Corrado might be thinking. It sure is nice to be up with the NHL club collecting on my $630k a year salary instead of being in the minors making $67k a year i agree with this he is 25 games or so into the season practices often with nhl caliber players (well maybe that is an exaggeration, as this is the leafs) gets nhl level coaching (although rumour is the coach does not really like him much) he has spent a fair bit of time in the ahl he'll be moved at some point this season . .likely back down and he is a minor asset overall, so i do not get all the fuss about him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 23 minutes ago, smokes said: The is such a non class move by the Toronto Maple Leafs. Why would a team pick the guy up off waivers and park him on the bench. Why claim the guy? Making the guy sit on the bench and play no games is a waste of a roster spot and a waste of an oppertunity for a rookie. This move is almost as bad as burying a guy in the minors just becauce it saves cap space. Here's the thing I don't understand though, Why would the Canucks get a secod round draft pick from the Columbus for hiring a head coach that was fired over a season ago but teams get no compensation for losing a player still under contract and still in their employment? There needs to be a provision there. I think Toronto picked him up hoping that he'd be a gem, only to realize why he was on waivers in the first place. Even so though, this is not fair at all to the poor kid. Frankie should be playing right now, somewhere. But the Leafs wont waive him. The Leafs ought to be fined a hefty amount, as well as being forced to waive Corrado. It's an outrage, 2 months in and not a single game played yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.