|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Aug 29, 2005 14:39:51 GMT -5
The only problem with that very reasonable explanation is why did we have to waive one of the Kellers. Was he on another CHL (OHL perhaps) card last year to end the season ? Based on my understanding, for some reason or other we wanted him off our 55 man roster, either to clear space, or to give him an opportunity elsewhere in the CHL perhaps (maybe it was part of the agreement that saw him report) - to my knowledge Jared Keller never played major junior so wouldn't have been on another card... I think any player released from the 55 man list must clear waivers; and in addition, the Q has a special rule whereby 19 year olds who played on Q teams as an 18 year old are to be given a second chance elsewhere prior to being cut and buried in Junior A... By having Derek Keller on the 55 man list, taht tells me they may have offered him a contract but he declined for NCAA reasons so they kept him in case he changes his mind...because they offered and he declined he does not go in the waiver draft like his brother. There seems to be a lot of holes in the system, I heard from a good source that they just ask a lot of these guys if they want to be waived or get a longer look, if the player says they want to stay, they indicate that a contract was offered even though none was signed. The league should make it more air tight, have all 19 year olds sent down have to go through 48 hours of waivers if they are sent down...at any time up until the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Aug 29, 2005 14:43:57 GMT -5
Based on my understanding, for some reason or other we wanted him off our 55 man roster, either to clear space, or to give him an opportunity elsewhere in the CHL perhaps (maybe it was part of the agreement that saw him report) - to my knowledge Jared Keller never played major junior so wouldn't have been on another card... I think any player released from the 55 man list must clear waivers; and in addition, the Q has a special rule whereby 19 year olds who played on Q teams as an 18 year old are to be given a second chance elsewhere prior to being cut and buried in Junior A... I don't think FA's automatically go onto your 55 man list when you invite them to camp ... but maybe the 19 yr old ones do. We've had past camps where we had in excess of 60 guys in camp so obviously not all of them were on the list. I think FA's can simply sign a tryout card which holds their rights from other teams until they are signed or released (maybe an expiry date on that). And any FA's thet get cut don't have to go on waivers ... as Clinton did not ... but Billy's 55 man list shows him on the list. Your description of the 19 yr old waiver rule is the way I understand it too ... which should require Leduc, Judson, Ouimet and Mazzerole too all have to be placed on waivers at that deadline last Monday. I agree that anybody on the 55 man list must go on waivers to remove them from the list. I don't think Mazerolle, Ouimet, Leduc and Judson need to be placed on waivers prior to being reassigned - I think that rule applies only to players who were on Q playing cards as of the end of the previous season. All of those guys were in Junior A at the end of last year...
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Aug 29, 2005 14:56:19 GMT -5
I don't think FA's automatically go onto your 55 man list when you invite them to camp ... but maybe the 19 yr old ones do. We've had past camps where we had in excess of 60 guys in camp so obviously not all of them were on the list. I think FA's can simply sign a tryout card which holds their rights from other teams until they are signed or released (maybe an expiry date on that). And any FA's thet get cut don't have to go on waivers ... as Clinton did not ... but Billy's 55 man list shows him on the list. Your description of the 19 yr old waiver rule is the way I understand it too ... which should require Leduc, Judson, Ouimet and Mazzerole too all have to be placed on waivers at that deadline last Monday. I agree that anybody on the 55 man list must go on waivers to remove them from the list. I don't think Mazerolle, Ouimet, Leduc and Judson need to be placed on waivers prior to being reassigned - I think that rule applies only to players who were on Q playing cards as of the end of the previous season. All of those guys were in Junior A at the end of last year... It has nothing to do with where a player played last year. I think Judson doesn't apply as he was hurt.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 29, 2005 14:58:02 GMT -5
I don't think FA's automatically go onto your 55 man list when you invite them to camp ... but maybe the 19 yr old ones do. We've had past camps where we had in excess of 60 guys in camp so obviously not all of them were on the list. I think FA's can simply sign a tryout card which holds their rights from other teams until they are signed or released (maybe an expiry date on that). And any FA's thet get cut don't have to go on waivers ... as Clinton did not ... but Billy's 55 man list shows him on the list. Your description of the 19 yr old waiver rule is the way I understand it too ... which should require Leduc, Judson, Ouimet and Mazzerole too all have to be placed on waivers at that deadline last Monday. I agree that anybody on the 55 man list must go on waivers to remove them from the list. I don't think Mazerolle, Ouimet, Leduc and Judson need to be placed on waivers prior to being reassigned - I think that rule applies only to players who were on Q playing cards as of the end of the previous season. All of those guys were in Junior A at the end of last year... Its these guys that the 19 yr old waiver rule would seem to have been written for ... guys that are buried in Jr A and owned by a Q franchise that has depth ... guys that could actually make several other Q teams if they could get a release. Guys like Donovan are less common than guys like Mazzerole, Ouimet, Leduc and Judson ... not as often does a guy play the whole year in the Q at 18 and then gets cut at 19. If Ouimet and company are exempt from this rule then it really has very few teeth. I look at this rule as being similar to the NHL draft rule ... you have 2 yrs to sign them or you lose them. But instead of going with 2 yrs ... they went with 19 ... which allows a 17 yr old kid 2 full seasons (3 training camps) to catch on before he has to be waived ... 16 yr olds would get 3 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 29, 2005 14:59:03 GMT -5
I don't think Mazerolle, Ouimet, Leduc and Judson need to be placed on waivers prior to being reassigned - I think that rule applies only to players who were on Q playing cards as of the end of the previous season. All of those guys were in Junior A at the end of last year... It has nothing to do with where a player played last year. I think Judson doesn't apply as he was hurt. Perhaps ... but that doesn't answer for Leduc, Mazzerole and Ouimet.
|
|
MikeC
Full Member
Posts: 454
|
Post by MikeC on Aug 29, 2005 18:10:38 GMT -5
There seems to be a lot of holes in the system, I heard from a good source that they just ask a lot of these guys if they want to be waived or get a longer look, if the player says they want to stay, they indicate that a contract was offered even though none was signed. The league should make it more air tight, have all 19 year olds sent down have to go through 48 hours of waivers if they are sent down...at any time up until the trade deadline. First part of your post: That could be the case, but why would a player agree to that? If they are put on waivers and claimed, the team who claims them has to sign them to a card. Isn't that what the players want? If they are put on waivers and not claimed, then they can continue to try out for their original team. Second part of your post: The only problem with that is the same last place team (from the previous season) would always have first crack at claiming whatever player is waived.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Aug 30, 2005 7:36:52 GMT -5
There seems to be a lot of holes in the system, I heard from a good source that they just ask a lot of these guys if they want to be waived or get a longer look, if the player says they want to stay, they indicate that a contract was offered even though none was signed. The league should make it more air tight, have all 19 year olds sent down have to go through 48 hours of waivers if they are sent down...at any time up until the trade deadline. First part of your post: That could be the case, but why would a player agree to that? If they are put on waivers and claimed, the team who claims them has to sign them to a card. Isn't that what the players want? If they are put on waivers and not claimed, then they can continue to try out for their original team. Second part of your post: The only problem with that is the same last place team (from the previous season) would always have first crack at claiming whatever player is waived. In most leagues, I think waivers work in such a way that the last place team from the previous year has first crack at the waiver wire until such time as they claim a player - at which point they move to the bottom of the list ... as does any other team that claims a player - the order is constantly changing. So, as I understand it, in a 16 team league (ignore expansion cause I am not sure where they fit in), if Teams A, B and C were ranked 1, 2, and 3 on the waiver wire and Team A and C claimed a player (assume no other team in the league picked up a player), then at the end of the day Team B would be #1 on the waiver list, Team A would be #15, and Team C would be #16. The next team to claim a player would then become #16, and everyone below them moves up 1 spot. Does this make sense?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Aug 30, 2005 7:43:56 GMT -5
First part of your post: That could be the case, but why would a player agree to that? If they are put on waivers and claimed, the team who claims them has to sign them to a card. Isn't that what the players want? If they are put on waivers and not claimed, then they can continue to try out for their original team. Second part of your post: The only problem with that is the same last place team (from the previous season) would always have first crack at claiming whatever player is waived. In most leagues, I think waivers work in such a way that the last place team from the previous year has first crack at the waiver wire until such time as they claim a player - at which point they move to the bottom of the list ... as does any other team that claims a player - the order is constantly changing. So, as I understand it, in a 16 team league (ignore expansion cause I am not sure where they fit in), if Teams A, B and C were ranked 1, 2, and 3 on the waiver wire and Team A and C claimed a player (assume no other team in the league picked up a player), then at the end of the day Team B would be #1 on the waiver list, Team A would be #15, and Team C would be #16. The next team to claim a player would then become #16, and everyone below them moves up 1 spot. Does this make sense? This past waiver period was on Monday ... i think there was a noon (est) deadline to submit your list. Then on Tuesday at 2:00 PM (est) they held what they called a dispersal draft in which Saint John picked first, Bathurst 3rd ... and so on. So it was just like a draft. But other times through the year in the past players have been placed on waivers at various times through the season, and there was hardly any sort of draft when that occurred. The lowest team the previous year got first crack at the players ... but I also seem to recall Halifax getting first pick once when they started teh season slowly and were dead last for a period. Now it seems there are two waiver periods ... the one that just past and another around xmas.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Aug 30, 2005 8:02:43 GMT -5
In most leagues, I think waivers work in such a way that the last place team from the previous year has first crack at the waiver wire until such time as they claim a player - at which point they move to the bottom of the list ... as does any other team that claims a player - the order is constantly changing. So, as I understand it, in a 16 team league (ignore expansion cause I am not sure where they fit in), if Teams A, B and C were ranked 1, 2, and 3 on the waiver wire and Team A and C claimed a player (assume no other team in the league picked up a player), then at the end of the day Team B would be #1 on the waiver list, Team A would be #15, and Team C would be #16. The next team to claim a player would then become #16, and everyone below them moves up 1 spot. Does this make sense? This past waiver period was on Monday ... i think there was a noon (est) deadline to submit your list. Then on Tuesday at 2:00 PM (est) they held what they called a dispersal draft in which Saint John picked first, Bathurst 3rd ... and so on. So it was just like a draft. But other times through the year in the past players have been placed on waivers at various times through the season, and there was hardly any sort of draft when that occurred. The lowest team the previous year got first crack at the players ... but I also seem to recall Halifax getting first pick once when they started teh season slowly and were dead last for a period. Now it seems there are two waiver periods ... the one that just past and another around xmas. The waivers from last Monday is completely different from what happened before, it's just for 19 year olds. Teams seem to be using the NCAA loophole to get around last week's waiver draft. Instead of actually offering the player a contract for the year, they ask him if he wants to stay, if the player says yes, it goes down as the team offering the player a contract...they need to modify the system.
|
|