BryceBruins wrote:

---

Sabres_Luke wrote:

---

Hey Bryce,

for sending guys 23 and under to the minors do they need to meet all of the criteria you listed:

- Players 23 and younger CANNOT go to minors unless they
a) are making less that 1.499,999 per season
b) played at LEAST 5 AHL games last season
c) Played less than 15 NHL games, and no games at any other pro level

Or can they meet just one of the three criteria?

---

 This summarizes all the questions nicely.

All 3 have to apply. Point c mentioned above was coined the Casey Wellman rule. Its for guys who come out of college usually, play a few NHl games at the end of the year, but don't play in the AHL. They shouldnt HAVE to be in the pros all season, hence why it was added.

 

---

Problem is that it seems that point "c" seems to negate point "b"... basically it means is that unless a prospect is a "pure" prospect or does not get more play than their 9 game try-out, then you have to keep them on your roster.

i.e. Zac Dalpe on my roster... played in 15 NHL games exactly and is 21 years old. No one would argue that he played the majority of his game last season in the minors, but by the way the rule is written - which btw has been pointed out that it shows up no where in the "official" rules - means that he *is* waiver eligible...

But, in the NHL, he isn't...

Seems to be an odd discrepancy....

BryceBruins wrote:

---

Think through this.

1. Does he make less than 1.5 million
- If yes move to step 2
- If no, tough ****e, he counts against cap

2. Did he play at least 5 AHL games last year
- if yes Fantastic, he can go down.
- If no move to step 3

3. Did he play less than 15 NHl games and NO games at AHL level?
- If yes, he can go down (Wellman was the example last year)
- If no then he has to stay up


I really don't understand whats confusing.

---

Well, I think what makes it confusing is that you seem to have contradicted yourself. Or, maybe I'm missing something. A few posts up you said that all three have to apply but it doesn't seem to be what you're saying here. For example, if a guy makes 900k and played more than 5 AHL games last year, he can go down (according to what this says). But, earlier, you said that all three have to apply. So, as an example, if a guy makes 900k, played 8 AHL games but played 45 NHL games, he has to stay up. I think that's where the confusion lies. But, how you described it here, seems to make it easier to comprehend.

BryceBruins wrote:

---

Think through this.

1. Does he make less than 1.5 million
- If yes move to step 2
- If no, tough ****e, he counts against cap

2. Did he play at least 5 AHL games last year
- if yes Fantastic, he can go down.
- If no move to step 3

3. Did he play less than 15 NHl games and NO games at AHL level?
- If yes, he can go down (Wellman was the example last year)
- If no then he has to stay up


I really don't understand whats confusing.

---

 Steps 2 & 3 kind of makes scratch my head. I think they are worded incorrectly.

Step 2 says if a player played up to 5 AHL games he can go down, if he didn't he can't. ??? It might be my English or thought process that is confusing.

''At least'' might be better if replaced by ''more than''.

Step 3, has ''NO games at AHL level'' to cinfuse me. What is the difference if a player did play in the AHL?

PensGM wrote:

---

BryceBruins wrote:

---

Think through this.

1. Does he make less than 1.5 million
- If yes move to step 2
- If no, tough ****e, he counts against cap

2. Did he play at least 5 AHL games last year
- if yes Fantastic, he can go down.
- If no move to step 3

3. Did he play less than 15 NHl games and NO games at AHL level?
- If yes, he can go down (Wellman was the example last year)
- If no then he has to stay up


I really don't understand whats confusing.

---

 Steps 2 & 3 kind of makes scratch my head. I think they are worded incorrectly.

Step 2 says if a player played up to 5 AHL games he can go down, if he didn't he can't. ??? It might be my English or thought process that is confusing.

''At least'' might be better if replaced by ''more than''.

Step 3, has ''NO games at AHL level'' to cinfuse me. What is the difference if a player did play in the AHL?

-- Edited by PensGM on Monday 10th of October 2011 07:43:38 PM

---

 OK, I'll try and simplify. Keep in mind this is for players 23 and younger, and avoids teams stashing Taylor Hall etc. in the minors for 4 years. Older players will be subject to the waiver draft before the season starts.

Ignore #3. It only happens to be relevant 2-3 times a year.

Is there a way to protect 3 goalies?

I think in the NHL they have some weird rule that you can?