Barnabov Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Am I wrong or is there some confusion about Stafford being able to clear waivers? http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/sabresnh...ory/485619.html I just perused the CBA (page 66 on) and it's talking about being exempt only if you played less than 60 games - Stafford's in his 3rd year of the NHL & played more than that last year alone. What's going on here? Someone smarter please explain. From what I see, Kaleta & Sekera are the only 2 who can clear waivers without being claimed. Sekera is critical to the D. I like Kaleta a lot but if it's a choice between sending him down (where he can get some more goal scoring/ seasoning, etc. at an easier level) or losing someone like Ellis who we will need as soon as the next injury pops up, then send Kaleta down. Of course, if Connolly holds true to form, he'll be on IR for awhile (didn't he have a groin problem last year too that took forever to heal) and no one needs to do down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 As per Shrader 2 days ago ... He was 20 years old the on Sept. 15th of the year he signed his first contract, so his limits for waiver eligibility are 160 games or 3 seasons as a pro. Since he's in his 3rd season and is somewhere around the 130 game mark (playoff games count too), he should be exempt from waivers, unless there is something I'm missing here. But then that is my only source, he could be wrong except everyone in the media keeps saying he can go down also ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawerchuk Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 If Stafford can go down without consequence and Conzo can stay in the lineup, then I think I'd send Stafford down. Get him a change, help the "kids", gain alot of playing time and then move him back up. He isn't contributing right now, but hey, I'm not the coach. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 "Conzo?" I thought the only acceptable reference to Connolly was "The Skill®." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 My post that BTP quoted is dead on. I can point out the exact thing that will cause the confusion. The 3 years/80 games (not 60) is for players who were 21 years old on September 15th of the year where they signed their first contract. Stafford was 20, so his criteria is 3 years/160 games. Stafford did in fact turn 21 the year he signed, but since his birthday is 10/30, by NHL standards he was 20. He's 23 now, but in the NHL's mind, he's actually 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 "Conzo?" :thumbdown: Gonzo perhaps... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 My post that BTP quoted is dead on. I can point out the exact thing that will cause the confusion. The 3 years/80 games (not 60) is for players who were 21 years old on September 15th of the year where they signed their first contract. Stafford was 20, so his criteria is 3 years/160 games. Stafford did in fact turn 21 the year he signed, but since his birthday is 10/30, by NHL standards he was 20. He's 23 now, but in the NHL's mind, he's actually 22. :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnabov Posted November 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Thanks for re-posting Shrader's clarification of this - sorry I missed it - been reading political news most of the week. Since Stafford can going down without risk of being claimed, I agree with others who say he should be the one that heads back to the AHL to get some time to retool his game. I'd like to see him be a key part of the Sabres for the next several years - as solid a contributor as Roy, Pominville, Vanek. Right now it seems he's suffering from trying to improve on what has already been a lot of success and has plateau'd. Let him go dominate the AHL for 20 games or so, get the kinks out then come back with serious confidence and have a career half season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frisky Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I would hope that Darcy has a complete in-and-out understanding of the moves he's allowed or, at least, confirm with the league that Stafford doesn't need to clear waivers before possibly making a bone-head move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 I would hope that Darcy has a complete in-and-out understanding of the moves he's allowed or, at least, confirm with the league that Stafford doesn't need to clear waivers before possibly making a bone-head move. Do you seriously think he wouldn't be aware of the status of his players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Do you seriously think he wouldn't be aware of the status of his players? I would guess it would be less of a "we don't know this player's status" and more of a "just want to confirm that our interpretation is right" thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 It appears that nobody can get it right ... Only two players ? Andrej Sekera and Patrick Kaleta ? are eligible to be sent down to the American Hockey League without having to clear waivers. http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=391065 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 It appears that nobody can get it right ... http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=391065 OK where are all the board lawyers to explain the CBA to us again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 It appears that nobody can get it right ... http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=391065 What time do they have to send someone down by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 What time do they have to send someone down by? Half past a monkey's ass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 What time do they have to send someone down by? They have to decide by 5PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 OK where are all the board lawyers to explain the CBA to us again ... Poor research by the Sabres.com writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Poor research by the Sabres.com writer. Yup and what's funny is that my first thought upon reading this was exactly that. It never even crossed my mind that our esteemed board members could be the ones who are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Yup and what's funny is that my first thought upon reading this was exactly that. It never even crossed my mind that our esteemed board members could be the ones who are wrong. Well that's because I was the one who said it. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 A thread like this is why I think fans should shy away from discussing the business side of hockey. Damn it, my laxative better kick in soon, cuz I'm getting grumpier by the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 It appears that nobody can get it right ... http://sabres.nhl.com/team/app/?service=pa...rticleid=391065 ...or the Sabres don't want to send down mouse potato and they are feeding the writer a line of crap so that they don't have to justify their decision to keep him up here. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 I love watching the Sabres broadcast feed us false information. Stafford was born on 10/30/85 and signed in 2006. So yes, he did turn 21 that year. 9.2 Age of Players. As used in this Article, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age," means a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an SPC, regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC. On 9/15/06, Drew Stafford was 20, so he was considered to be 20 years old when he signed that contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 mouse potato :thumbsup: Don't let PA se this, he'll start calling you a shill or my favorite "jock sniffer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 Mystery solved: 13.4 WAIVERS AND LOANS OF PLAYERS TO MINOR LEAGUE CLUBS - Exempt playersNotes: 2. For purposes of this Article, "age 18" means a Player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "age 19" means a Player reaching his nineteenth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; "age 20" means a Player reaching his twentieth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; and "age 21" means a Player reaching his twenty-first birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft. http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf So, he was 20 for compensation purposes and 21 for waiver purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 8, 2008 Report Share Posted November 8, 2008 :thumbsup: Don't let PA se this, he'll start calling you a shill or my favorite "jock sniffer". He called some fans mouse potatoes, so now that's your nickname for him? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.