|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 1, 2006 8:22:18 GMT -5
I don't think that rule ever passed, I believe they are sticking with 2. Moving Bartulis would depend on A-if they have a replacement lined up and B-if they can get good return back for him. I think a team like RN would be a perfect candidate, especially if they are losing Vishnevsky. What's the story with Vishnevsky. You'd think R-N would want to keep him since he will be a top player this year. I'm sure they want to keep him, but it may not be their call...I guess the Remparts paid his transfer fees and such.
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan42 on Jun 1, 2006 8:24:33 GMT -5
Politics mostly. Canadian Hockey is looking to keep Major Junior "Canadian". There was talk of limiting US players but couldn't agree on numbers. Also exempting US teams from this restriction. Might be good for us Maineiac fans but it is far outeighed by the integrity of the CHL that would be compromised.
The fundamental question is; Does the CHL want to be a developmental program for Canadians or a Canadian developmental program for the best players available? Not always an easy question.
In Maine The state law school offers no preferential treatment to Maine residents. They believe they are charged with producing the best lawyers for Maine not a chance for Maine residents to become lawyers. Same question really. No easy answer.
Later, there was actually of allowing three Euros per team. But right now, I believe it is one Euro, no grandfather, staring in '08. Stayed tuned.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Jun 1, 2006 8:25:15 GMT -5
Wouldn't that be against the rules? IMO, if Vishnevsky is traded to Quebec, this would fall in the category of trades for $$$.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 1, 2006 8:28:07 GMT -5
Wouldn't that be against the rules? IMO, if Vishnevsky is traded to Quebec, this would fall in the category of trades for $$$. Why? They can trade Vishnevsky to Quebec for a pick...2nd or 3rd and nothing illegal has taken place.
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Jun 1, 2006 8:32:57 GMT -5
Wouldn't that be against the rules? IMO, if Vishnevsky is traded to Quebec, this would fall in the category of trades for $$$. Why? They can trade Vishnevsky to Quebec for a pick...2nd or 3rd and nothing illegal has taken place. That part would not be against the rules. However, the money paid by Quebec for the transfer is essentially money given to R-N that they used to bring him to North America. It might not be illegal, but it is greasy.
|
|
richy
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by richy on Jun 1, 2006 8:33:46 GMT -5
T he euro rule wasn't accepted at the Gouv. meeting.So it's the same thing for now.One euro rules will not passe in the futur anyway.R-N got 2 euro and if Vishnevski id traded to Quebec TOURIGNY will have to move from R-N.....
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Jun 1, 2006 8:40:49 GMT -5
Why? They can trade Vishnevsky to Quebec for a pick...2nd or 3rd and nothing illegal has taken place. That part would not be against the rules. However, the money paid by Quebec for the transfer is essentially money given to R-N that they used to bring him to North America. It might not be illegal, but it is greasy. It's happened many times by Quebec, Gatineau...and Moncton also did it with Kaltygen(Victo).
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Jun 1, 2006 9:00:34 GMT -5
Kaltygen?........wow must've been Alan Power the brains of that move,gotta love those nice knee on knee hits.I thought we had got him from Shawinigan though?
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Jun 1, 2006 9:03:32 GMT -5
That was before AP. It was RĂ©al Paiement who got us that gem.
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Jun 1, 2006 9:05:04 GMT -5
hahahah...same difference
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 2, 2006 5:45:31 GMT -5
Whonare the prospects like Patrice Cormier or Yann Sauve in next years draft. I know its putting the cart before the horse but we have a few more picks next year than we do now. (As of today anyways.)
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan99 on Jun 2, 2006 6:09:12 GMT -5
RN traded us their Euro pick for this year which suggests that the rumour with Vishnevskiy may not be true otherwise (especially in a contending year) they probably would have wanted to keep their pick.
Obviously they could still make a trade for a Euro but as it stands now this would suggest that they are probably keeping Vishnevskiy.
|
|
|
Post by PotatoesRGoodYum on Jun 2, 2006 6:54:02 GMT -5
Course the picks traded could be flipped back in further deals. Gonna be interesting for sure.
|
|
|
Post by catwatch on Jun 4, 2006 7:53:23 GMT -5
Why? They can trade Vishnevsky to Quebec for a pick...2nd or 3rd and nothing illegal has taken place. That part would not be against the rules. However, the money paid by Quebec for the transfer is essentially money given to R-N that they used to bring him to North America. It might not be illegal, but it is greasy. Quebec involved in something greasy! I'm shocked at the thought of it!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bev on Jun 4, 2006 12:24:33 GMT -5
I suspect we're being visited by one Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald's are like ants...they can be found everywhere and seem to get into everything. Actually the Boards are over run by David MacDonalds.
|
|