[Discussion] Taxi Squad

[mll]

28 minutes ago, Provost said:

They "could" do any of that but I don't see any motivation for doing so.  They would be adding the taxi squad so players are available in case of injury.  Making it a competitive disadvantage by making it impossible for a team with injury trouble to recall players doesn't seem like it would make any sense.  They just have to make sure all the team have a level playing field.

There are also teams that have already said they plan on running a really slim roster already due to cap issues.  The teams with a farm team co-located can do this easily.  The CBA says a minimum 20 man roster, so they would have to open that up for negotiation to change it and make it more... again for no discernable reason aside from undoing what they are trying to fix with taxi squads.

 

They can recall players in case of injuries - emergency recalls are unlimited.   The same rules would apply to everyone.

 

There are teams that have cleared cap space earlier in the off-season and had to pay a price for it.  In a normal season teams hardly ever go with a 20 player roster and most have at least 22 or the max 23.  Don't think the intent is to change that just because there are taxi squads.

 

The purpose of the taxi squad is to make sure teams have the necessary players in case of injuries/illnesses.  I think they'll want to make sure it's not used as a way for teams to increase their cap allowance.  That's why I wouldn't be surprised if there is a limit on regular recalls.

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by mll

[J.I.A.H.N]

38 minutes ago, Provost said:

They "could" do any of that but I don't see any motivation for doing so.  They would be adding the taxi squad so players are available in case of injury.  Making it a competitive disadvantage by making it impossible for a team with injury trouble to recall players doesn't seem like it would make any sense.  They just have to make sure all the team have a level playing field.

There are also teams that have already said they plan on running a really slim roster already due to cap issues.  The teams with a farm team co-located can do this easily.  The CBA says a minimum 20 man roster, so they would have to open that up for negotiation to change it and make it more... again for no discernable reason aside from undoing what they are trying to fix with taxi squads.

 

Yes, I am just figuring it pretty much the same

 

So basically with a 20 man roster, and a 6 man Taxi squad

 

You would be able to take any amount of the taxi squad players, and play them if one or more of your regular line up is injured/personal day/maintenance day

 

Basically, for all intense and purposes, these guys would be in Utica and get called up for the same reason

 

It hurts those players to some extent, because they would not be playing as much, but generally they would be journeymen players

 

I would much rather keep any of the young guys down in Utica playing regular minutes, and being developed........if they are not playing regularly on the big club

[J.I.A.H.N]

51 minutes ago, mll said:

They can recall players in case of injuries - emergency recalls are unlimited.   The same rules would apply to everyone.

 

There are teams that have cleared cap space earlier in the off-season and had to pay a price for it.  In a normal season teams hardly ever go with a 20 player roster and most have at least 22 or the max 23.  Don't think the intent is to change that just because there are taxi squads.

 

The purpose of the taxi squad is to make sure teams have the necessary players in case of injuries/illnesses.  I think they'll want to make sure it's not used as a way for teams to increase their cap allowance.  That's why I wouldn't be surprised if there is a limit on regular recalls.

 

But really...players are only called for 2 reasons

 

1............for injury replacement...................................................................this is what is used 99% of the time

2............To give a young player a taste of the big leagues........................this is used mostly at the beginning of the year for elite rookies 1% of the time, if that

 

I really don't see it being a issue

 

The other thing is, this is mostly for teams that have farm clubs on the other side border than they are.............It might clear a little cap up as well

 

I guess the only thing is you could not pull from the taxi squad just because a player had a bad game, or maybe you designate 3 players, who can freely interchange with the big club ( Because, when there was a 23 man limit, that was done). I would also add, that, if they can only meet their cap requirements by being at 20 instead of 23, you could not go over cap, even if wanted......meaning you would have to have a few players on the taxi squad that were making league minimum)

 

It is complicated, but not as much as the CBA, so I am sure they could handle it

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[mll]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

But really...players are only called for 2 reasons

 

1............for injury replacement...................................................................this is what is used 99% of the time

2............To give a young player a taste of the big leagues........................this is used mostly at the beginning of the year for elite rookies 1% of the time, if that

 

I really don't see it being a issue

 

The other thing is, this is mostly for teams that have farm clubs on the other side border than they are.............It might clear a little cap up as well

 

I guess the only thing is you could not pull from the taxi squad just because a player had a bad game, or maybe you designate 3 players, who can freely interchange with the big club ( Because, when there was a 23 man limit, that was done). I would also add, that, if they can only meet their cap requirements by being at 20 instead of 23, you could not go over cap, even if wanted......meaning you would have to have a few players on the taxi squad that were making league minimum)

 

It is complicated, but not as much as the CBA, so I am sure they could handle it

 

 

 

 

 

I could see them wanting the approach be as close as possible to a normal season while recognising there are logistic issues for recalls.  I simply don't think the league wants the taxi squads to be used as ways to get more cap but rather to be there in case of injuries/illness.   You say yourself most recalls are due to injury and there are a small number of regular recalls.  

 

If teams can freely move players up and down to the taxi squad, it allows them to increase the cap allowance they would have in a normal season.  Teams can go down to a roster of 20 and bank cap space.  Helps with a possible bonus overage for teams not in LTIR, allows more room to add players at the TDL - things they would have not been able to do as conveniently if there was no pandemic.

 

In a typical season the Canucks would never be able to alternate players each game as Utica is at the other end of the continent.  Their roster players are the ones in the lineup.  I don't expect the league to want that to be any different - teams would play their regular roster and if they run into injuries/illness they can get access to the taxi squad.  There are sometimes recalls where a player is demoted and another brought up - that's why I could see a number of regular recalls being authorised.  

 

Hopefully more details soon.  Time is ticking if they want to keep this 13 January start date.  

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by mll

[lmm]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

They "could" do any of that but I don't see any motivation for doing so.  They would be adding the taxi squad so players are available in case of injury.  Making it a competitive disadvantage by making it impossible for a team with injury trouble to recall players doesn't seem like it would make any sense.  They just have to make sure all the team have a level playing field.

There are also teams that have already said they plan on running a really slim roster already due to cap issues.  The teams with a farm team co-located can do this easily.  The CBA says a minimum 20 man roster, so they would have to open that up for negotiation to change it and make it more... again for no discernable reason aside from undoing what they are trying to fix with taxi squads.

 

 

26 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Yes, I am just figuring it pretty much the same

 

So basically with a 20 man roster, and a 6 man Taxi squad

 

You would be able to take any amount of the taxi squad players, and play them if one or more of your regular line up is injured/personal day/maintenance day

 

Basically, for all intense and purposes, these guys would be in Utica and get called up for the same reason

 

It hurts those players to some extent, because they would not be playing as much, but generally they would be journeymen players

 

I would much rather keep any of the young guys down in Utica playing regular minutes, and being developed........if they are not playing regularly on the big club

Provost

From whare I sit you seem to be suggesting is that the Canucks could circumvent the cap by abusing the taxi squad.

Isn't that  similar to offering Luongo a really long contract that you never expect him to finish.

And the acting surprized when the NHL to come back and create a recapture rule?  That is what happened.

Here are a few points you may not have considered

1 the NHL does not like to be embarassed by teams taking avantage of cap loop holes ( see Luongo recapture rule)

2 the NHLPA is htere to make the players as much money as possible, taxi squad as you envision it takes money away from the players on it

3 there are 10 teams currently over cap and 8 teams at the bottom of the salery scale with 35 available roster spots and loads of available cap space

3A the bottom 3 teams have 15 spots and $42M to spend

4 (Maybe) the NHLPA insists that teams use all 23 roster spots before adding taxi squad ( I just thought of this, but I bet the NHLPA already did)

5 the NHL has rules governing forfiture of games if teams are above cap, they do not need to make rules to make cap circumventions easier

6 the NHL has rules in place requiring minimum roster size for games (See point 1 about embarrassing the NHL)

7 negotiations will have to happen to create a taxi squad so a minimum roster increase (as suggested by my brother MLL) is not difficult to imagine 

 

 

As ususal I do agree with you on one point, there will be a flurry of deals soon. However it will be the 10 over cap teams  and the Habs, Flames and Isles giving gifts to the bottom 8 cap teams in order to make cap in time to play games without forfit. See points 3 and 3A

 

Jan

If a team is running a 20 player roster, they are saying they can play without "Personal" or "Maintenance" days

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

57 minutes ago, mll said:

 

I could see them wanting the approach be as close as possible to a normal season while recognising there are logistic issues for recalls.  I simply don't think the league wants the taxi squads to be used as ways to get more cap but rather to be there in case of injuries/illness.   You say yourself most recalls are due to injury and there are a small number of regular recalls.  

 

If teams can freely move players up and down to the taxi squad, it allows them to increase the cap allowance they would have in a normal season.  Teams can go down to a roster of 20 and bank cap space.  Helps with a possible bonus overage for teams not in LTIR, allows more room to add players at the TDL - things they would have not been able to do as conveniently if there was no pandemic.

 

In a typical season the Canucks would never be able to alternate players each game as Utica is at the other end of the continent.  Their roster players are the ones in the lineup.  I don't expect the league to want that to be any different - teams would play their regular roster and if they run into injuries/illness they can get access to the taxi squad.  There are sometimes recalls where a player is demoted and another brought up - that's why I could see a number of regular recalls being authorised.  

 

Hopefully more details soon.  Time is ticking if they want to keep this 13 January start date.  

 

I actually think we are in agreement

 

Let me explain. Usually teams have 23 players....and a cap of $81,500,000

 

What I am saying is this

 

Roster is from 20-23 players on main roster, and the cap remains at $81,500,000

A taxi squad, which are all technically papered down (Utica), but remain with and travel with the Canucks

(they would all get paid their AHL salary, except when they play in the NHL)

 

Now, for example I suggest papering Ericksson, Baertschi and Benn down as part of the Taxi squad that remains with the Canucks

Now, ordinarily the Canucks would get just over a million per player, cap relief............that would remain the same, so the remaining $8,500,000 would go against the cap

But those other 3 players, who would ordinarily be down in Utica, would be exempt from the Cap hit, unless they were used by the Canucks, then their pro-rated salary would apply...................but the injured players salary would be deducted............this is basically what happens now.

So, really, the only thing that changes is that those 6 players travel and practice with the Canucks, and only play if there was an injury.............which is exactly what happens now.

 

Basically......everything is the same, from a cap and player movement perspective.............note, if a player from the taxi squad is being used for a none injury reason, then someone would have to be sent from the big club to the taxi squad, and the cap would still have to be under the $81,500,000.

 

The small stuff can be sorted out.....

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[J.I.A.H.N]

13 minutes ago, lmm said:

 

Provost

From whare I sit you seem to be suggesting is that the Canucks could circumvent the cap by abusing the taxi squad.

Isn't that  similar to offering Luongo a really long contract that you never expect him to finish.

And the acting surprized when the NHL to come back and create a recapture rule?  That is what happened.

Here are a few points you may not have considered

1 the NHL does not like to be embarassed by teams taking avantage of cap loop holes ( see Luongo recapture rule)

2 the NHLPA is htere to make the players as much money as possible, taxi squad as you envision it takes money away from the players on it

3 there are 10 teams currently over cap and 8 teams at the bottom of the salery scale with 35 available roster spots and loads of available cap space

3A the bottom 3 teams have 15 spots and $42M to spend

4 (Maybe) the NHLPA insists that teams use all 23 roster spots before adding taxi squad ( I just thought of this, but I bet the NHLPA already did)

5 the NHL has rules governing forfiture of games if teams are above cap, they do not need to make rules to make cap circumventions easier

6 the NHL has rules in place requiring minimum roster size for games (See point 1 about embarrassing the NHL)

7 negotiations will have to happen to create a taxi squad so a minimum roster increase (as suggested by my brother MLL) is not difficult to imagine 

 

 

As ususal I do agree with you on one point, there will be a flurry of deals soon. However it will be the 10 over cap teams  and the Habs, Flames and Isles giving gifts to the bottom 8 cap teams in order to make cap in time to play games without forfit. See points 3 and 3A

 

Jan

If a team is running a 20 player roster, they are saying they can play without "Personal" or "Maintenance" days

 

Keep in mind, that a maintenance day "could" be construed as an injury day ( just like a sick day) and a personal day is just like a Family day, where some one needs care or a funeral, or alot of other reasons...........these are actual federal and Provincial laws, it is just the way the NHL applies them to the CBA.......

 

They would have to be considered as acceptable in regards to legally bringing a guy off the taxi squad for a game...............

 

Keep in mind, that some NHL teams, have their farm team in the same city and can use it for more immediate concerns........think of it this way..........

An NHL hockey player could be place on LTIR for a cold if the team doctor thought he would be out long enough...........injury is a broad term

aka.......mental health...........again these are laws

 

You also have to consider there will be some give and take on this taxi squad idea..................

 

LOL,,,,,,,,,,I think you are over thinking about it, as you do know the CBA better than most (me included) and this is still an unknown to you.....lol.....bugs you! Don't it! LOL

 

Hey they may go an entirely different way........who knows?

Edited December 16, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[BigTramFan]

I think the Canucks may run with a 20-man active roster but will want to keep enough cap space to bring in replacement players (1F and 1D) from their taxi squad for injuries that may not necessarily be considered LTIR.

 

For example, if Sutter and Rafferty are on the taxi squad and nominated as first callups for injury cover. The Canucks will want to keep enough cap space to allow them to bring these two up as injury replacements without exceeding the cap limit. This means that they want their 20-man roster to be ($1.075 + $0.7) $1.775m under the cap limit.

 

Working backwards from there...can we afford another depth Dman?

 

When I sketch out the first 19 players on my ideal 20-man opening night roster (without that extra depth Dman but including bonus overages) it comes to $2.85m below the cap limit. So this tells me we can afford to spend only $1m on another depth Dman, because once the extra Dman is signed we will be just $1.85m below the cap limit.

 

Who is available for that sort of money? I don't think Hamonic will go that low. Others have mentioned Hainsey. But I would be targeting Jan Rutta. I feel he could be signed for somewhere between $700k - $1m and provide a veteran presence on the 3rd pairing, he is a natural RD, he has size and plays on the PK.

 

So 20-man opening night roster becomes:

 

Miller Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Virtanen

Roussel Gaudette Ferland

Motte Beagle MacEwen

 

Hughes Schmidt

Edler Myers

Juolevi Rutta

 

Holtby, Demko

 

 

These players would be on my taxi squad (assuming the AHL goes ahead):

Sutter, Baer, Eriksson, Rafferty, Benn, Brisebois

 

Most of our young prospects should be developing in the AHL if possible.

Edited December 16, 2020 by BigTramFan

[vannuck59]

19 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

The remaining players named, are all 4th line players, with little upside, therefore,  not impacting their development in any large way. In the case of Rafferty and Kielly, we are looking at a fringe NHLers that are already 25 or almost 25, and Rafferty having a May 28th birthday and Kielly having a September birthday, meaning to me, that they only have a very little chance of surpassing their current ceilings or making a large impact at the NHL level.

I beg to differ I think Rafferty may surprise some people some players dont peak until they are 28 to 30 as far as playing with better players the cream always rises to the top

[dpn1]

On 12/14/2020 at 11:37 PM, King Heffy said:

I'm definitely taking Graovac over Eriksson for the taxi squad; he actually looked decent last camp, puts in an honest effort, and can play center.

I would like to see Graovac tried as the third line center. 

[Provost]

6 hours ago, lmm said:

 

Provost

From whare I sit you seem to be suggesting is that the Canucks could circumvent the cap by abusing the taxi squad.

Isn't that  similar to offering Luongo a really long contract that you never expect him to finish.

And the acting surprized when the NHL to come back and create a recapture rule?  That is what happened

I don’t see it that way at all.

 

Pre-Covid teams have been doing this already.  Many teams with a cap crunch have run bare bones rosters because they didn’t have the money for short term injury call ups.  They have the minimum roster size clause just for this purpose.
Clubs with their farm team in the same city have been running with less than full 23 man rosters consistently, almost as a rule for years.

The league and NHLPA is just not likely to open up negotiations for the CBA again at this juncture, especially as poorly as the last attempt went.  Most of the stuff you suggest would require that to happen in a major way.

By far the easiest thing to do is simply leave the rules as is.  You could just waive the player off the active roster and not physically assign them to the AHL team... becoming a de-facto taxi squad.

Insisting on a 13 man roster to use a taxi squad puts those teams at a competitive disadvantage compared with teams that can (and will) run with less than 23 players.

The solution that doesn’t involve opening big swaths of the CBA is just to let any team carry extra players due to Covid travel complications (even within countries) but have them not count against the cap.  Most teams will take advantage of it because they don’t want to insert a bunch of extra potential exposures by flying guys in and out.  The Canadian clubs with US farm teams will just be forced to do it due to travel.  There is a long term disadvantage to that.

On the other side. That would be fair and who knows if they are happy to screw a few Canadian clubs and put them at a disadvantage.

 

[lmm]

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Keep in mind, that a maintenance day "could" be construed as an injury day ( just like a sick day) and a personal day is just like a Family day, where some one needs care or a funeral, or alot of other reasons...........these are actual federal and Provincial laws, it is just the way the NHL applies them to the CBA.......

 

They would have to be considered as acceptable in regards to legally bringing a guy off the taxi squad for a game...............

 

Keep in mind, that some NHL teams, have their farm team in the same city and can use it for more immediate concerns........think of it this way..........

An NHL hockey player could be place on LTIR for a cold if the team doctor thought he would be out long enough...........injury is a broad term

aka.......mental health...........again these are laws

 

You also have to consider there will be some give and take on this taxi squad idea..................

 

LOL,,,,,,,,,,I think you are over thinking about it, as you do know the CBA better than most (me included) and this is still an unknown to you.....lol.....bugs you! Don't it! LOL

 

Hey they may go an entirely different way........who knows?

Hey Jan

I is far from a CBA nerd, I have no interest in reading it.

But what I try to do is look at situations from both sides.

when you put quotation marks around the word "COULD" I smell fish

 

I agree that the NHL might go a different way. I thnk taxi squad would mostly benefit the Canucks, Oilers and Flames, teams with farms across the border

 

One thing you seem unclear on is LITR

If a player gets a cold, we do not want to put him on LITR, because he would be unavailable for 10 days, that is why you do not want to be too close to the cap. That is why we have a 23 man roster, and choosing to run a small roster will incur risks

 

As I said I look at things from different points of view, I think you and Provost are proposing league wide rule changes to specifically help the Canucks.

You see a bunch of teams that need cap help, I see a bunch of teams sitting at the bottom of the cap chart waiting for their chance at a Nate Schmidt type deal.

It does not bug me, I just don't see the league doing us any favors at the expense of teams who are cap complient.

[J.I.A.H.N]

26 minutes ago, lmm said:

Hey Jan

I is far from a CBA nerd, I have no interest in reading it.

But what I try to do is look at situations from both sides.

when you put quotation marks around the word "COULD" I smell fish

 

I agree that the NHL might go a different way. I think taxi squad would mostly benefit the Canucks, Oilers and Flames, teams with farms across the border

 

One thing you seem unclear on is LITR

If a player gets a cold, we do not want to put him on LITR, because he would be unavailable for 10 days, that is why you do not want to be too close to the cap. That is why we have a 23 man roster, and choosing to run a small roster will incur risks

 

As I said I look at things from different points of view, I think you and Provost are proposing league wide rule changes to specifically help the Canucks.

You see a bunch of teams that need cap help, I see a bunch of teams sitting at the bottom of the cap chart waiting for their chance at a Nate Schmidt type deal.

It does not bug me, I just don't see the league doing us any favors at the expense of teams who are cap compliant.

LOL....2  things

 

First of all.................you commented on my "could", but then used "Might" and "I think", in the same way........The whole taxi squad Idea is not mine, and I was under the understanding the league is looking for ways to solve the problem of teams with farm teams on the other side of the border, and this is one of the ideas they are looking at.

 

Secondly........I actually do know how LTIR works, I was just too lazy type out a long drawn out explanation......so I just blanketed it with LTIR.....my bad!, but truthfully, you seemed to look at these things like they are legal documents, where as I look at it as a loose discussion. My point was that a player may only be taken off the taxi squad for injury or serious reason, whether it is for 2 days or 4 weeks......like I said, I was lazy. You remind me of my grade 12 English teacher.......mean what you say, and say what you mean.......fair enough!.....................hey, it was late! lol........I think maintenance days and personal days could fall under this, as long as they are cap compliant.

 

Don't get me wrong.......I don't mind being challenged on something I said and you are polite.......no objection here  

[J.I.A.H.N]

My point in commenting on this at all is that the NHL has to find away to let the clubs with team on the wrong side of the boarder have a manning solution, and this seems to be a very logical idea, to solve this problem (IMO).

 

I think earlier, you commented on the amount of players it would take from the AHL and other leagues to man this taxi squad, when in actual fact 3 of the players would normally be on the big club anyways, so in actual fact, there will only be 3 players off of each team, that need to be covered off of. 

 

IMO, this actually increases the amount of players playing hockey, which I would imagine would make the NHLPA happy. It is true there is an argument that these players are actually being elevated to the big club, so therefore should be paid NHL money. But these are difficult times, and there will have to be some give and take (from what I have heard, they are considering some type of hy-breed for taxi squad. giving them some extra pay, but not the full amount), but I personally kept  away from this, just because, they could come up with anything, that we/I have not even thought about.

 

Something that some do not understand about me, is that, I make comments in general, so that "OUR" ideas may be discussed and built upon. It is the same for me in trade proposals........I like for CDC to take my basic idea and see if we can take that general idea and make it into a solid proposal, if in fact it needs tweaks. I do not have to have my ego massaged. But sometime the general idea changes 180 degrees, just by better suggestions. But I like it, as if we are sitting in a bar, bull $hitting. I don't always think my proposals are the best, I am merrily starting the ball rolling, for more objective people like yourself to chew over.

 

To me, this place is not life or death................it is a place to escape ( I do like your thought process, so don't take this to heart, I am merrily spelling out my MO)

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[WeneedLumme]

With respect to players being financially penalized for being on the taxi squad, that would only apply to those on 2-way contracts. Those on one-way contracts would actually benefit substantially from the lack of escrow when they are technically not on the NHL rosters. So I can't see the NHLPA really making a real objection there.

[mll]

 

[WeneedLumme]

3 hours ago, mll said:

 

Interesting. I wonder what the "more flexible emergency recalls" entails?

[Arrow 1983]

On 12/14/2020 at 10:40 PM, Provost said:

The details will come out in the next day or two, but with travel restrictions it is almost certain we will have a taxi squad/extended roster.

 

This is good news for us as it likely means we can shave some cap off by only carrying a 20 man official roster that counts towards the cap and just call up guys same day if we need them due to injury.

 

The really interesting conundrum is who you have on the taxi squad. It may not be some of our top prospects because we want them developing and not sitting in the press box for long stretches.

 

To me that gives a leg up to the older guys with lower ceilings who will lose less by not playing.

 

To me our prospects will end up as:

 

At forward it is easier because we have too many vets.  Hoglander is the most interesting decision because they may feel that being with the team under their control for strength training may be more beneficial than playing minutes.  It is not like his skill is going to develop a lot more in Sweden... it is the transition to our game and skating that will be most important.  I don’t see him staying in the AHL long term though.

 

Hoglander - AHL for 2 weeks then Rogle

Baertschi - Taxi Squad

McEwan - Roster/Taxi Squad

Graovac - AHL

Lind -AHL

Bailey - Taxi Squad 

Hawyrluk - Taxi Squad

Lockwood - AHL

Gadjovich - AHL

Eriksson - I wish AHL, but Taxi Squad

 

Defence.  This is where I think age will make the most difference.  It makes more sense for Rathbone and Woo to be playing huge minutes in the AHL as a top

pairing than being with the big club in the press box.

 

Juolevi - Roster

Rathbone -AHL

Rafferty - Taxi Squad

Chatfield - Taxi Squad

Brisebois - Taxi Squad

Woo - AHL

Sautner - Taxi Squad

Teves - AHL

 

I think holding a 20 player roster is absurd as this is clearly cap circumvention, and taking advantage of the taxi squad no team has ever run with 20 players in current past that hasn't been emergency . Toronto did 21-22 last year for some periods of the season but their AHL team is in Toronto. I could easily see teams going with 22 players as many teams do so when injuries happen but are not long term.

Furthermore, it does a lot of harm to a team if many injuries occur all at one time. As this method is limiting a team to 26 player with Quarantine rules in Canada a team may not even get a new player up for 14 days and that's only if the AHL is playing. Truthfully it is limiting a team to 25 players as 1 of the extras has to be a goalie in your scenario it is easy to see a team have to play a forward at defense or vise versa. 

Moreover, a Taxi squad will work just like a AHL team. What happens if a player on the roster gets hurt but does not require LTIR that player would still require a roster spot and the team would have no cap space to replace the player. What if that player is a Goalie are you expecting a team to play with no backup.

The minimum roster I could see happening is 22 players, That gives a team  1 extra defenseman and 1 extra forward for non LTIR injuries and if you lose a goalie a team can move a forward or defenseman down and recall their spare goalie from the taxi squad.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

On 12/14/2020 at 11:07 PM, lmm said:

so you are assuming that there will be an AHL seaon

If that is the case, what does that roster look like? 

you have 5 forwards and 3 d in Utica

I imaging that the agreement with Utica specifies  X number of players sent from the canucks to Utica, Who are the rest?

I see where you where coming from now. read my post above that I wrote to provost I think we agree with each other on this point

[Provost]

18 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I think holding a 20 player roster is absurd as this is clearly cap circumvention, and taking advantage of the taxi squad no team has ever run with 20 players in current past that hasn't been emergency . Toronto did 21-22 last year for some periods of the season but their AHL team is in Toronto. I could easily see teams going with 22 players as many teams do so when injuries happen but are not long term.

Furthermore, it does a lot of harm to a team if many injuries occur all at one time. As this method is limiting a team to 26 player with Quarantine rules in Canada a team may not even get a new player up for 14 days and that's only if the AHL is playing. Truthfully it is limiting a team to 25 players as 1 of the extras has to be a goalie in your scenario is could easily see a team have to play a forward at defense or vise versa. 

Moreover, a Taxi squad will work just like a AHL team. What happens if a player on the roster gets hurt but does not require LTIR that player would still require a roster spot and the team would have no cap space to replace the player. What if that player is a Goalie are you expecting a team to play with no backup.

The minimum roster I could see happening is 22 players, That gives a team  1 extra defenseman and 1 extra forward for non LTIR injuries and if you lose a goalie a team can move a forward or defenseman down and recall their spare goalie from the taxi squad.

Calgary played a long stretch with less than 20 players, they didn’t have the cap space to cover short term injuries.

 

As usual, your pairs don’t make sense.  It is fine for teams to play with a 21 player roster when not forced to because of specific pandemic issues... but suddenly 20 is “clearly cap circumvention”?

 

It is clearly NOT cap circumvention because the CBA literally outlines that teams are allowed to only carry 20 players.  They specifically picked that number as the minimum.  A team carrying 20 players fulfills the specifically outlined roster as explicitly outlined in the CBA language.  They would have to negotiate a memorandum of agreement between the PA and the league to increase that.

 

Your stuff around replacing players on short term injuries shows that you didn’t bother reading the thread at all.  You literally run a short roster to bank cap space and give yourself breathing room. You can keep guys demoted until you need them and then demote them right after the game so you save cap on off days.