bob_sauve28 Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 I know it means someone else doesn't, but I sure think he looks good. I'd find a place for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 He was assigned to Rochester today, so it's not looking good for him to make the opening night roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 Yeah, he has a lot to work on. He isn't physical enough from what i've read. It's between Derek Grant and Hudson Fasching i think for the extra forward spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 No; he was cut today. It will be Grant. He has enough hours in the AHL that they won't worry about ice time for him. Fasching will be in Rochester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 No; he was cut today. It will be Grant. He has enough hours in the AHL that they won't worry about ice time for him. This. Plus Grant appear to have earned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 He was assigned to Rochester today, so it's not looking good for him to make the opening night roster. oops, well, I guess not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 No; he was cut today. It will be Grant. He has enough hours in the AHL that they won't worry about ice time for him. Fasching will be in Rochester. If we got a 13th forward it will be between grant and deslauriers, all the the rest will be send down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 This thread is why you're supposed to look both ways before crossing the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 He wasn't too happy about the demotion, which is a good sign http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/hockey/2016/10/01/bailey-surprised-early-camp-demotion-amerks/91386554/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 He wasn't too happy about the demotion, which is a good sign http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/hockey/2016/10/01/bailey-surprised-early-camp-demotion-amerks/91386554/ Let's see how he reacts on the ice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Bailey back up. https://sabresdigitalpressbox.com/2016/10/04/sabres-recall-five-from-rochester/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Bailey back up. https://sabresdigitalpressbox.com/2016/10/04/sabres-recall-five-from-rochester/ Uh oh Okposo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Not that it was a major concern with the couple guys involved, but was the initial move just a smokescreen so that guys like Catenacci and Schneider can be cleared through waivers early? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) I saw a tweet to the effect that 2 or more of the call-ups have a connection to the area where an upcoming game is being played. But Bailey coming up to fill in for Okposo would make sense. For the preseason, anyway. Not that it was a major concern with the couple guys involved, but was the initial move just a smokescreen so that guys like Catenacci and Schneider can be cleared through waivers early? how so? (i'm asking - i have no idea how that would work.) Edited October 4, 2016 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted October 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Depth at forward is not our problem it would seem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Not that it was a major concern with the couple guys involved, but was the initial move just a smokescreen so that guys like Catenacci and Schneider can be cleared through waivers early? I don't think so, at least not with respect to Catenacci. He is so, so fast, but I don't think that he'll ever be an NHL regular. And Schneider needs to grow up. Edited October 4, 2016 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 how so? (i'm asking - i have no idea how that would work.) Once they've cleared, they don't have to clear again until they've played in 10 NHL games. Like 11 said, it's not very likely with these guys, but who knows. Maybe you do it early just in case some crazy injury doesn't suddenly make a team consider a claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Once they've cleared, they don't have to clear again until they've played in 10 NHL games. Like 11 said, it's not very likely with these guys, but who knows. Maybe you do it early just in case some crazy injury doesn't suddenly make a team consider a claim. interesting thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Once they've cleared, they don't have to clear again until they've played in 10 NHL games. Like 11 said, it's not very likely with these guys, but who knows. Maybe you do it early just in case some crazy injury doesn't suddenly make a team consider a claim. thanks. i would not put it past GM TM for doing it when he did, for those reasons. OTOH, it sounded like a whole bunch of teams did it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 thanks. i would not put it past GM TM for doing it when he did, for those reasons. OTOH, it sounded like a whole bunch of teams did it too. You mean sending down a handful of guys and then calling them back up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 You mean sending down a handful of guys and then calling them back up? ah - i'm not sure. shoot. maybe it was just the sending down of players that occurred across the league. i saw a general fanager tweet today about how everyone (~25 players) had cleared waivers. maybe those guys were a different CBA class of player, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 ah - i'm not sure. shoot. maybe it was just the sending down of players that occurred across the league. i saw a general fanager tweet today about how everyone (~25 players) had cleared waivers. maybe those guys were a different CBA class of player, though. If I'm doing my math correctly, that day where they sent down Bailey and others was the first one where teams were allowed to place players on waivers. So that's why you're getting a lot of those moves across the league at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.