JM_ Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Matt_T83 said: Ok, so I made a similar thread a year ago when the leafs claimed Corrado off waivers. However, I think it came off as a little bitter that we lost an asset, rather than seriously discussing the issue of waiver abuse and prospect hoarding. It's time the NHL made a rule for claiming players off waivers: they must play in 50% of games until they are UFA's, as well as 41 out of every 82 consecutive healthy games, with at least 10 minutes of ice time for a game to be counted as 'played'. If the team is not complying with this rule, the player would be allowed to demand assignment to the AHL, where they would then be exposed to waivers. This would give said player a chance to find a new home with a new team Ahh Corrado. The gift that keeps on giving. I like your idea, just not the amount of time needed. It would pretty much make waivers unnecessary as no one would ever likely claim anyone. But something like 10 games... sure that could work and be in line with things like getting to play guys for 9 games before burning a year of their ELCs. The other side of this though is Corrado just isn't good enough to play, even on the Leaves, and JB knew he wasn't passing on much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 If the NHL dropped a couple teams this wouldn't even be an issue. Corrado would be flipping burgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_T83 Posted January 3, 2017 Author Share Posted January 3, 2017 8 hours ago, 3KBieksa said: Ummm I like your idea... But we do have a concept of depth player in the NHL so..... I don't think you 50% rule would work well, it would almost make these player's life harder as they keep hitting waiver then they would be travelling the whole season. 25% would be a better number I believe You're probably right about that. I agree that you wouldn't want a rule which would actually hurt depth players from being picked up on waivers (who otherwise wouldn't have a regular NHL job on any team). You could also make a non-mandatory option for the player. Say if the player isn't in 25-50% of games, they have the option of forcing an AHL assignment. That way if a player is happy with their role and deployment, they can stay with the team as long as they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 That's much too long term, and picking someone off waivers is not likely to get you a consistent producer. Maybe make it so they must play the player a certain % of games (or minutes played that would equate to 5 minutes per game) in the first 30 (maybe 14) days of being claimed. This way the player that is claimed is guaranteed ice time, which is part of the purpose of waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I'd almost prefer a Bug to a Corrado. Much ado about a discontinued-lemon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshinefe Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Still would've rather had Corrado up than Biega. I don't mind the general idea behind this rule, but the details would have to be ironed out. Poaching one of our better D-prospects then benching them most of the season seems like a pretty crappy mechanic in the system. Who exactly was helped there? It doesn't seem to be Corrado, the Canucks or Toronto. And to those saying "if he was good enough he'd be playing on the Leafs"--perhaps true, but at such a young age being rejected by your club then sent off to a new place with debatably even higher pressure definitely has an impact. Certain players benefit from certain situations, and sending a youngster for a ride like that may have hurt him psychologically, not to mention this latest news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolboarder Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I agree that the wavier rules need to protect some players from hoarding the assets by burying them in the minors with an opportunity to play on a NHL team but the NHL team should use that asset if they are claimed and if they are not used for x amount of games after a wavier pickup then they should go through the wavier again fi the team failed to meet the criteria and let other team claim him or the original team claims him if nobody claims him and straight to AHL for some playing time. For any waiver pick-up, he should not be used as a scapegoat to gain some revenge against some certain team that lose their asset and have no use for him. Another rule I feel that is important is for a waived player is that if he is picked up by the team and failed to meet the criteria and send him through the waiver again and picked up by other team and send him through he waiver again for 3rd time in a season and nobody claimed him and send him to AHL should be paid NHL money to be split by 2 teams, (2nd team/3rd team split the cost, not the original team). This will ensure that the player would still get paid for all of the trouble by claiming with many teams and still send to AHL on 3rd waiver transaction in a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 Does anyone know is Corrado back as reserve after his chance the other night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 41 minutes ago, Westcoasting said: Does anyone know is Corrado back as reserve after his chance the other night? He is a scratch tonight I think, I haven't heard his name being called out at all. I read that he had an atrocious game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Toews said: He is a scratch tonight I think, I haven't heard his name being called out at all. I read that he had an atrocious game. But he was a blue chip prospect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 15 hours ago, Toews said: He is a scratch tonight I think, I haven't heard his name being called out at all. I read that he had an atrocious game. thank you, yes i watched the game and didn't hear mention of his name. I did hear similar reactions to his game the other night, lol Babcock doesn't allow passengers... either play well or sit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 This is the dumbest fkn thread. 1. Corrado is not an asset. 2. No one is "hoarding" waiver claims. 3. If a player is important to you, don't waive him. This just in: You are waaaay too much in love with Canucks players. PS: This is a new rule that specifically addresses hoarding. It works. This thread is costing me a computer screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 1/2/2017 at 9:58 PM, c00kies said: That's much too long term, and picking someone off waivers is not likely to get you a consistent producer. Maybe make it so they must play the player a certain % of games (or minutes played that would equate to 5 minutes per game) in the first 30 (maybe 14) days of being claimed. This way the player that is claimed is guaranteed ice time, which is part of the purpose of waivers. No. Not even close. It's to prevent teams stashing talent in the minors. To level the playing field. The end. Take your touchy feelings to a different arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 5:21 PM, coolboarder said: I agree that the wavier rules need to protect some players from hoarding the assets by burying them in the minors with an opportunity to play on a NHL team but the NHL team should use that asset if they are claimed and if they are not used for x amount of games after a wavier pickup then they should go through the wavier again fi the team failed to meet the criteria and let other team claim him or the original team claims him if nobody claims him and straight to AHL for some playing time. For any waiver pick-up, he should not be used as a scapegoat to gain some revenge against some certain team that lose their asset and have no use for him. Another rule I feel that is important is for a waived player is that if he is picked up by the team and failed to meet the criteria and send him through the waiver again and picked up by other team and send him through he waiver again for 3rd time in a season and nobody claimed him and send him to AHL should be paid NHL money to be split by 2 teams, (2nd team/3rd team split the cost, not the original team). This will ensure that the player would still get paid for all of the trouble by claiming with many teams and still send to AHL on 3rd waiver transaction in a season. You're trying to fix something that isn't even a little bit of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 23 hours ago, Toews said: He is a scratch tonight I think, I haven't heard his name being called out at all. I read that he had an atrocious game. Well that sounds pretty far-fetched. I have a crush on him, so obviously he can play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 "Everyone gets to play but me". He's a future Norris winner and they're sitting on him just to mess with our fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 4 hours ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Well that sounds pretty far-fetched. I have a crush on him, so obviously he can play. Well it's safe to say that if he played a great game that Babcock would keep him in the lineup. I didn't watch the game myself but heard it was not a good game at all by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 For what it's worth, one of the Canucks players (I don't remember who, maybe Burrows?) said in an interview he was in touch with Corrado still, and that he was very unhappy Babcock wasn't playing him. No kidding. It's likely next contract Corrado will definitely look around and, all other things being equal, not go with the leafs again unless they give him an absolute iron-clad guarantee he will actually be played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 So kind of like what we are doing with Reid Boucher right now eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 hours ago, jmahyoung said: For what it's worth, one of the Canucks players (I don't remember who, maybe Burrows?) said in an interview he was in touch with Corrado still, and that he was very unhappy Babcock wasn't playing him. No kidding. It's likely next contract Corrado will definitely look around and, all other things being equal, not go with the leafs again unless they give him an absolute iron-clad guarantee he will actually be played. He is a still a RFA so Toronto can match any offer that comes his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.