Allen exempt

This board becomes a good board for Canuck discussion only if we have the facts right. I think that the posters here are usually head of the curve and, indeed, provides more insightful discussion than those seen elsewhere. However, this can only be true if the base of knowledge is correct. I wondered a couple of times if Allen was exempt from the waiver draft only to be told in no uncertain terms he was not. Even though that did not match my interpretation of the rules these assertion where delivered with such certainity and such acceptance by others I thought I must be wrong. I would say that all those discussions about the Waiver Draft List are now rendered useless because it was based on misinformation. For this board to remain relevant we need to make sure are facts are correct and not be stampeded by people who assume more knowledge than they have. If you are not certain say so. Do some homework before you pretend knowledge you don't have.

With Allen exemption Lindgren no longer needs protection. Or if you wish to expose him it creates the chance to protect someone you can lose so you can maybe get something off waivers. As I say this knowledge has to totally alter previous discussions about the Canuck status within the Wavier draft. Frankly I don't expect such bad gaffes on this board.

I bet you have a T-shirt that says "Smartest Person in the World" on it...don't you?

Maybe if you had of done some research earlier there wouldn't be this problem.. don't be a hypocrite

So everyone on this board is supposed to "babysit" you and make sure that you get 100% correct information? Maybe you should've went out and did some research instead of complaining when someone gave you some false information?

BTW, are you sure Allen is exempt? According to this (http://letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php?id=13) website, he isn't. He's 23 years old, was signed to an NHL contract more than 3 years ago, and has played more than 60 NHL games(68 to be exact).

So everyone on this board is supposed to "babysit" you and make sure that you get 100% correct information? Maybe you should've went out and did some research instead of complaining when someone gave you some false information?

BTW, are you sure Allen is exempt? According to this (http://letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php?id=13) website, he isn't. He's 23 years old, was signed to an NHL contract more than 3 years ago, and has played more than 60 NHL games(68 to be exact).

I'm wondering about this now.

Orca where are you getting this information, you shouldn't rant at people about providing false facts while at the same time stating a bunch of facts you aren't backing up yourself.

Sort of hypocritical if you ask me.

Allen is in no way exempt unless I'm completely misinterpreting the rules.

He is currently 23, being born on Aug 21, 1980.

Which puts him in the following exemption category if I'm correct:

The criteria for is age is as follows...

Age Years from Signing NHL Games played**
23 3 60

**'NHL games played' includes all regular-season and playoff games. A skater who plays in 11 or more NHL games as a 18- or 19-year-old will have his exemption reduced from five and four years, respectively, to three years. A goaltender who plays in 11 or more NHL games as an 18- or 19-year-old will have his exemption reduced from six and five years, respectively, to four years.

Allen is exempt in no way shape or form.

He is more then 3 years from his last contract if I'm not mistaken...and has played 65 games in the NHL at age 23.

How is he exempt?

Unless I'm completely missing something.

Could it be that this is the source of the confusion:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/sports/teams/canucks/story.html?id=4267ED08-0820-4C41-8AB6-68D99F278473

He seems to think that it's 160 NHL games, which I haven't heard before.

Could it be that this is the source of the confusion:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/sports/teams/canucks/story.html?id=4267ED08-0820-4C41-8AB6-68D99F278473

He seems to think that it's 160 NHL games, which I haven't heard before.

This is simply wrong. The guy must have added a 1 or something to the original number...160 games is ridiculous.

Could it be that this is the source of the confusion:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/sports/teams/canucks/story.html?id=4267ED08-0820-4C41-8AB6-68D99F278473

He seems to think that it's 160 NHL games, which I haven't heard before.

Well when someone can explain why Druken was exempt last year but Holden wasn't the year before (he was claimed in the waiver draft) despite having nearly identical resumes (down to birthdays a week apart and nearly identical games played) that person will probably also know why Allen is exempt or not this time around. I vowed never to get involved in waiver draft discussions again after last year.

Could it be that this is the source of the confusion:
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/sports/teams/canucks/story.html?id=4267ED08-0820-4C41-8AB6-68D99F278473

He seems to think that it's 160 NHL games, which I haven't heard before.

160 games is in fact an exemption rule, but only for players who are 20 years or under. If a player is 20 years of age or less, and has played more than 160 games in the NHL(including playoffs), he is not exempt. Allen does not fall into this category as he is 23 years old. He falls into the category of 23 years of age, which means to be exampt he has to be on his first NHL contract(he is not) and has to have played less than 60 NHL games(he's played 68 total). Byt these rules, Allen is not exempt.

Well when someone can explain why Druken was exempt last year but Holden wasn't the year before (he was claimed in the waiver draft) despite having nearly identical resumes (down to birthdays a week apart and nearly identical games played) that person will probably also know why Allen is exempt or not this time around. I vowed never to get involved in waiver draft discussions again after last year.

I'm pretty sure there is no confusion. He has played too many games (65) for his age (23).

Unless someone is messing his birthday up by 2 or 3 years or numerous sources are incorrect in the number of games he has played...I don't see any feasible way for him to be exempt from the waiver draft. Contract status aside...though I think his contract situation also eliminates him from exemption.

Contract status aside...though I think his contract situation also eliminates him from exemption.

It does as he was signed to his first NHL contract more than 3 years ago(he's on his second contract, the first being a mandatory 3 year deal).

This confused me, too, reading the Vancouver Sun. However, my understanding of the rules is Allen is NOT exempt, as Peter Griffin said.

So it seems the only way this might be absolutely resolved is once the Canucks protected list appears. Anyone know when this might be ?

So it seems the only way this might be absolutely resolved is once the Canucks protected list appears. Anyone know when this might be ?

I seem to remember last year, the teams gave their protected list the night before the draft (Friday). So Thursday night I suspect.

So it seems the only way this might be absolutely resolved is once the Canucks protected list appears. Anyone know when this might be ?


Sometime today

http://nhl.com/onthefly/news/2003/09/151652.html

I seem to remember last year, the teams gave their protected list the night before the draft (Friday). So Thursday night I suspect.


LOL, guess that is what Orcatown is talking about in his original post.

So it seems the only way this might be absolutely resolved is once the Canucks protected list appears. Anyone know when this might be ?

The reporter must have simply got it wrong, because Allen is not exempt. The guy was obviously looking at the wrong age range or was told Allen was younger then he was.

Either way, Allen can't be exempt as he meets none of the requirements for exemption at his age (23).

Most people think that the lists should be out at around 4 pm eastern time.

Most people think that the lists should be out at around 4 pm eastern time.


That is the time it was out last season, but it largely depend on how long it takes the NHL to review the list to ensure everyone on and off the list is correct.

What do you want, Orca? A cookie? A medal? A T-Shirt that says "I'm so smart"? Wow. If you were really a smart ass, you would have done the research sooner. Big whoop. Hypocrite.

~Canucklehead~

What do you want, Orca? A cookie? A medal? A T-Shirt that says "I'm so smart"? Wow. If you were really a smart ass, you would have done the research sooner. Big whoop. Hypocrite.

~Canucklehead~

The thing is, by all accounts, he's incorrect! Eveything we have read about the CBA states that Allen is not exempt. I guess we'll have to wait until the lists are out...

Well, if he is not exempt I will feel a lot better. I just cringe at the thought that this board might not be "relevant" as it was so aptly put .... :rolleyes:

The thing is, by all accounts, he's incorrect! Eveything we have read about the CBA states that Allen is not exempt. I guess we'll have to wait until the lists are out...

Well, I don't know if Ben Kuzma has a source within the organization but his article in the Province today says Allen is exempt despite his age because he's only played 65 games.

From http://letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php?id=13

13.4. Waiver Draft/Regular Season Waivers. With the exception
of those exempt Players set forth below, Players party to Player
Contract must be cleared through the waiver draft and/or regular
season waivers prior to being assigned to a minor league Club:

GOALIES SKATERS
Age Years from NHL Games Years from NHL Games
Signing -- NHL Played Signing -- NHL Played

18 6 80 5 160
19 5 80 4 160
20 4 80 3 160
21 4 60 3 80
22 4 60 3 70
23 3 60 3 60
24 2 60 2 60
25+ 1 1




As used above, "NHL" Games" include NHL Championship games
and NHL Playoff games.

The exemption from both regular season waivers and the
waiver draft ends immediately upon a Player playing in the number
of NHL Games set forth in the applicable column above.

For purposes of Regular Season Waivers and the Waiver Draft,
the five year exemption for an 18 year old skater and the four
year exemption for a 19 year old skater shall both be reduced to
three years commencing the first season that the 18 or 19 year
old skater plays in 11 NHL Games or more. The next two seasons,
regardless of whether the skater plays any games in either
season, shall count as the second and third years toward
satisfying the exemption.

For purposes of Regular Season Waivers and the Wavier Draft,
the six year exemption for an 18 year old goalie and the five
year exemption for a 19 year old goalie shall both be reduced to
four years commencing the first season that the 18 or 19 year old
goalie plays in 11 NHL Games or more. The next three seasons,
regardless of whether the goalie plays any games in either
season, shall count as the next three years toward satisfying the
exemption.

The first season in which a Player who is age 20 or older
plays in one or more "Professional Games" shall constitute the
first year for calculating the number of years he is exempt from
waivers.

A Player 25 years old or older who plays in one or more
professional games in any season shall be exempt from regular
season waivers for the remainder of that season and from the
waiver draft in the next season.

For Players age 20 or older, professional games include NHL
Regular Season games, NHL playoff games, all minor league regular
season and playoff games and any other professional games,
including but not limited to, play in European leagues when
Player is on loan to such Club and while Player is party to a
Player Contract.

Note:

1. For purposes of this Article, a "year" of exemption
shall mean a playing season and the waiver draft following such
season.

2. For purposes of this Article, a Player who is exempt
from a waiver draft, but eligible for regular season waivers,
must clear regular season waivers before being sent to a minor
league Club.

3. 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.

The following examples illustrate how the provisions in the
Waiver chart shall be applied:

(a) An 18 year old or 19 year old drafted in the '95 Entry
Draft who signed and played in 11 NHL Games or more in the
1995-96 season will be exempt as follows:

Season Waiver Draft Regular Season Waivers

95-96 n/a Exempt
96-97 Exempt Exempt
97-98 Exempt Exempt
98-99 Exempt Eligible
99-00 Eligible Eligible

Note: Once an 18 year old or 19 year old Player has played in
his 160th NHL Game, he will be immediately become eligible for
both regular season waivers and the next waiver draft.

Seems to me, he's allowed to play 160 games (reg season and playoffs) and is therefore exempt this year

I believe we can condense the various responses above to Orcatown's comment into a concise three words:

neener neener neener

Here is a link to the rules ... article 13.4.

http://www.letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php?id=13

Allen is currently 23 and signed his first contract during the 99-00 season. He is roughly 3 years from having signed his entry contract and has played 68 total NHL games played (Playoff games count towards this total). The way I read this he needs to be protected. I could be wrong however. We will know soon ... the integrity of the board hangs in the balance :D

Facts are these:

#1 Elliot pap reports that Allen is exempt.

#2 Allen background

Bryan Allen was born Aug. 8 2000.
Signed first contract Oct 1, 2000
Resigned contract August 1 2003
Allen has his name on 68 game sheets


Rule is you are not exempt if are 23 and have had a contract for 3 years OR have played 68 NHL games. Given this Allen seems eligibible.

For the canuckheads of this world I did look at this at the time of those discussions. However questions remain. When is the age of 23 calculated from? I guess its at the time of the draft but that's an assumption. Also if the contract is not activated until you play 10 games (that seems to be a rule) then was Allen's contract activated in his first year when he only played 6 games for the Canucks?

At the time I felt there was grey area left. Maybe I was wrong. However I felt people were being too definite even though I recognized the basis for your decision. Pap's report today indicates that may have been too hasty a call.

As to canuckhead 17 - Why do you try to dumb down discussions by calling anyone who tries to raise some the level of controversy or discussion by labelling it as being 'smart ass". Isn't that the old Junior High gig of the the dumb kids in the class trying to shoot down the brighter kids and by promoting derision for discussion they can not comprehend. "Man, that guy must think he's a smart-ass or something". You could get away with there and make life pretty miserable for the more thoughtful kids. Hopefully you can't do here.

Here is a link to the rules ... article 13.4.

http://www.letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php?id=13

Allen is currently 23 and signed his first contract during the 99-00 season. He is roughly 3 years from having signed his entry contract and has played 68 total NHL games played (Playoff games count towards this total). The way I read this he needs to be protected. I could be wrong however. We will know soon ... the integrity of the board hangs in the balance :D

There really isn't a question in my opinion.

Seeing as he is 23 and played 68 games...he is not exempt. Add on to that the fact his contract makes him ineligible for exemption and he definitely needs protection.

Facts are these:

#1 Elliot pap reports that Allen is exempt.

#2 Allen background

Bryan Allen was born Aug. 8 2000.
Signed first contract Oct 1, 2000
Resigned contract August 1 2003
Allen has his name on 68 game sheets


Rule is you are not exempt if are 23 and have had a contract for 3 years OR have played 68 NHL games. Given this Allen seems eligibible.

For the canuckheads of this world I did look at this at the time of those discussions. However questions remain. When is the age of 23 calculated from? I guess its at the time of the draft but that's an assumption. Also if the contract is not activated until you play 10 games (that seems to be a rule) then was Allen's contract activated in his first year when he only played 6 games for the Canucks?

At the time I felt there was grey area left. Maybe I was wrong. However I felt people were being too definite even though I recognized the basis for your decision. Pap's report today indicates that may have been too hasty a call.

As to canuckhead 17 - Why do you try to dumb down discussions by calling anyone who tries to raise some the level of controversy or discussion by labelling it as being 'smart ass". Isn't that the old Junior High gig of the the dumb kids in the class trying to shoot down the brighter kids and by promoting derision for discussion they can not comprehend. "Man, that guy must think he's a smart-ass or something". You could get away with there and make life pretty miserable for the more thoughtful kids. Hopefully you can't do here.

This makes no sense. Allen is 23...he was born Aug 1980...that blatantly makes him 23...there is a question to this? They obviously count age at the time of the draft or it wouldn't make any sense.

He is also on his second contract, the first of which was signed 3 years ago today.


When is the age of 23 calculated from?


When you are born to the draft day (over 23 years)?

You can't have an 'NHL Age'...I mean, the guy is 23, there is no technicality where you can say...well, he is technically 22...because he isn't, he's 23 and has been for 2 months (in a week).

Here is the way I see it:

1. He is 23.
2. He has played aggregately over his career 68 games.
3. It has been 3 years since his last contract and he is on his 2nd.

The way I see it...the contract thing has nothing to do with the number of games you play. It has to do with actual contract years...so he was signed that first year regardless of the number of games he played, it began counting down.

So he is now 23 and has been under contract for at least 3 years. Therefore, not exempt...correct?

The only way I could possibly see him being exempt is if...those initial 11 games are discounted, therefore he has only 57 games. On top of that, they would have to take some weird stance on the contract issue where you discount the fact he is 23 and had 3 years of contract (and he has).

I don't see him being exempt.

This makes no sense. Allen is 23...he was born Aug 1980...that blatantly makes him 23...there is a question to this? They obviously count age at the time of the draft or it wouldn't make any sense.

He is also on his second contract, the first of which was signed 3 years ago today.



When you are born to the draft day (over 23 years)?

You can't have an 'NHL Age'...I mean, the guy is 23, there is no technicality where you can say...well, he is technically 22...because he isn't, he's 23 and has been for 2 months (in a week).

Here is the way I see it:

1. He is 23.
2. He has played aggregately over his career 68 games.
3. It has been 3 years since his last contract and he is on his 2nd.

The way I see it...the contract thing has nothing to do with the number of games you play. It has to do with actual contract years...so he was signed that first year regardless of the number of games he played, it began counting down.

So he is now 23 and has been under contract for at least 3 years. Therefore, not exempt...correct?

The only way I could possibly see him being exempt is if...those initial 11 games are discounted, therefore he has only 57 games. On top of that, they would have to take some weird stance on the contract issue where you discount the fact he is 23 and had 3 years of contract (and he has).

I don't see him being exempt.




http://washingtoncaps.com/photos/waiverlist03.pdf


So you still don't see it? :)

So Allen was exempt, and I think I know why. He's 23, has played more than 60 games in the NHL, but he is currently entering his 4th NHL season, but only his 3rd waiver draft. IIRC, a year exempt includes both the season and the waiver draft. Allen's 3rd 'year' doesn't officially end until the season begins, after the waiver draft. I'm pretty sure this is the reason Allen was exempt despite entering his 4th NHL season, at 23 years old and having played over 60 NHL games.

So Allen was exempt, and I think I know why. He's 23, has played more than 60 games in the NHL, but he is currently entering his 4th NHL season, but only his 3rd waiver draft. IIRC, a year exempt includes both the season and the waiver draft. Allen's 3rd 'year' doesn't officially end until the season begins, after the waiver draft. I'm pretty sure this is the reason Allen was exempt despite entering his 4th NHL season, at 23 years old and having played over 60 NHL games.


You did not say that earlier, i guess we cannot simply read a basic rule from the website and assume it is fact. Especailly with the wavier draft which has lot of rules, and the poster TonyTanti already posted a detailed reason why Allen is exempted.

You did not say that earlier

I just re-read the entire CBA article and noticed it. I remeber talking about it in the past, but wasn't sure.


i guess we cannot simply read a basic rule from the website and assume it is fact. Especailly with the wavier draft which has lot of rules, and the poster TonyTanti already posted a detailed reason why Allen is exempted.

You think the CBA is basic?

Besides, the rules TonyTanti posted are the same as I posted earlier. By the rules of being a 23 year old skater, to be exempt he had to have signed a contract less than 3 seasons ago(he signed a contract 4 years ago) and play less then 60 NHL games(he's played 68). He's exempt accroding to these rules. The sticking point is this:

"1. For purposes of this Article, a "year" of exemption
shall mean a playing season and the waiver draft following such
season."

Allen's 3rd year of exemption includes the waiver draft. If I'm reading correctly, that's why he's exempt.

Well when someone can explain why Druken was exempt last year but Holden wasn't the year before (he was claimed in the waiver draft) despite having nearly identical resumes (down to birthdays a week apart and nearly identical games played) that person will probably also know why Allen is exempt or not this time around. I vowed never to get involved in waiver draft discussions again after last year.
If I remember right, Holden was exposed during the draft at the team's option. Holden would have be exempt for the draft, but would have had to clear waivers it the team sent him down during the regular season (different waiver rules). As the team wanted holden to play in the minors they elected to expose him then as it is easier to get him waived in the draft.

You think the CBA is basic?



No, i don't think the CBA is basic that is why i want to see the list before i go on this thread and post my own theory as "fact". i think you are one of the good posters which demand a wait and see approach which is absolutely correct, but if you go back of this thread and re-read it from the start, you will see Orcatown is completely correct and getting bash by other Canucks posters who think of themselves as "knowing everything" but in fact all they are completely wrong, and base their theory on incomplete information. i have to admitt i thought those are the rules as well, but as i read what orcatown said and the articles from Elliot pap, i have to question about my orignal thought and did not come back here to insist my point is right.


i mean look at what canucklehead17 wrote, he really should give Orcatown, an apology.

Facts are these:

#1 Elliot pap reports that Allen is exempt.

#2 Allen background

Bryan Allen was born Aug. 8 2000.
Signed first contract Oct 1, 2000
Resigned contract August 1 2003
Allen has his name on 68 game sheets


Rule is you are not exempt if are 23 and have had a contract for 3 years OR have played 68 NHL games. Given this Allen seems eligibible.

For the canuckheads of this world I did look at this at the time of those discussions. However questions remain. When is the age of 23 calculated from? I guess its at the time of the draft but that's an assumption. Also if the contract is not activated until you play 10 games (that seems to be a rule) then was Allen's contract activated in his first year when he only played 6 games for the Canucks?

At the time I felt there was grey area left. Maybe I was wrong. However I felt people were being too definite even though I recognized the basis for your decision. Pap's report today indicates that may have been too hasty a call.

As to canuckhead 17 - Why do you try to dumb down discussions by calling anyone who tries to raise some the level of controversy or discussion by labelling it as being 'smart ass". Isn't that the old Junior High gig of the the dumb kids in the class trying to shoot down the brighter kids and by promoting derision for discussion they can not comprehend. "Man, that guy must think he's a smart-ass or something". You could get away with there and make life pretty miserable for the more thoughtful kids. Hopefully you can't do here.

*yawn* I simply object to people being on their high horses breaking with their "I told you so" rhetorics even though they said nothing when we all believed the contrary. So I'm the dumb kid trying to shoot down the smarter kid?

Right, of course. Arrogance doesn't suit you...I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm not saying you're wrong--you ARE right. However, the manner in which you say you're right leaves something to be desired, get my drift?

~Canucklehead~

*yawn* I simply object to people being on their high horses breaking with their "I told you so" rhetorics even though they said nothing when we all believed the contrary. So I'm the dumb kid trying to shoot down the smarter kid?

Right, of course. Arrogance doesn't suit you...I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm not saying you're wrong--you ARE right. However, the manner in which you say you're right leaves something to be desired, get my drift?

~Canucklehead~


You think your manner is better than he is?

No, i don't think the CBA is basic that is why i want to see the list before i go on this thread and post my own theory as "fact". i think you are one of the good posters which demand a wait and see approach which is absolutely correct, but if you go back of this thread and re-read it from the start, you will see Orcatown is completely correct and getting bash by other Canucks posters who think of themselves as "knowing everything" but in fact all they are completely wrong, and base their theory on incomplete information. i have to admitt i thought those are the rules as well, but as i read what orcatown said and the articles from Elliot pap, i have to question about my orignal thought and did not come back here to insist my point is right.

I agree with the wait and see approach, but orcatown's original post reeked of "I told you so" antics. I don't recall anyone bashing orcatown for telling us that Allen was exempt(I questioned it because of the complexity of the waiver rules) but everyone seemed a bit taken aback by orcatown criticizing the posters on this board when he himself did not know either and appeared to not even try to search for the answer to his question himself. Seems very hypocritical to me...

i mean look at what canucklehead17 wrote, he really should give Orcatown, an apology.

I think all of you who posted in this threat either owe Orcatown an apology OR give him his dues...he was right.

This thread turned into a pissing contents and guess what...Orcatown won. I applaud him for standing his ground.

I think all of you who posted in this threat either owe Orcatown an apology OR give him his dues...he was right.

Orcatown was right, but what's wrong with questioning him, especially on something as complicated as the waiver draft? Orcatown started this post bascially saying that everyone here let him down by giving him false information, using a "better than you" attitude to convey it. All I can say to that is look up the damn stuff yourself if you're going to complain about the information that strangers on an internet message board give you. That's just how I feel...

You think your manner is better than he is?

Read my quote...I said "I'm not saying I'm better than you" because I'm not. I'm a very small fish on these boards and I'm fully aware of it.

~Canucklehead~

Orcatown was right, but what's wrong with questioning him, especially on something as complicated as the waiver draft? Orcatown started this post bascially saying that everyone here let him down by giving him false information, using a "better than you" attitude to convey it. All I can say to that is look up the damn stuff yourself if you're going to complain about the information that strangers on an internet message board give you. That's just how I feel...

LOL!!!

There is NOTHING wrong with questioning him. What I said is that those people who were RUDE to him (and you know who you are) should apologize to him and those that said he was wrong should be man enough, like you just did, and say...heh...he was right and I was wrong.

That's it.

As far as him "looking up the damn stuff"...well he did. That's how he knew you were all wrong. LOL!!!

You think your manner is better than he is?

i second that question MVP

I'm just glad that I chose not to comment on this thread... I'm already in too much trouble on the Oilers' board. :p

I'm just glad that I chose not to comment on this thread... I'm already in too much trouble on the Oilers' board. :p

Oof...I shoulda done the same, Jewelly. :P When I'm sick, I get very cranky.

I apologize to Orca for the...well, harsh way I responded. I have a head flu. But still...I don't like the way his topic sounded. :dunno:

~Canucklehead~

and the poster TonyTanti already posted a detailed reason why Allen is exempted.

Not bad for a first post eh ???? :)

You know, googling and reading the links isn't that hard, I guess it just wasn't "relevant" enough.

Not bad for a first post eh ???? :)

You know, googling and reading the links isn't that hard, I guess it just wasn't "relevant" enough.My first post was right too. All wrong from there on though. It'll only get worse for you now too. :joker:

My first post was right too. All wrong from there on though. It'll only get worse for you now too. :joker:

Roffle. I've been lurking here and the old boards for years. Always too lazy to register though.

Roffle. I've been lurking here and the old boards for years. Always too lazy to register though.Lurking for years... on the old board too? Wow, you really are lazy. j/k

BTW, what's a "Roffle"? :confused:

If I need a lawyer I'm hiring MVP. Maybe I began the thread in a too condensing way or maybe I was POed at the previous discussions. My comments where not directed at anyone in particular. The fact Pater G. took offense I guess shouldn't surprise because the comments on reflection should not have been so general. Rather I could have simply re-engaged the discussion abour Allen's status. I guess my thread almost invited some hitting back.

However, I think I'll keep my present babysitter. She's probably cheaper and probably a lot better with the kids.

Lurking for years... on the old board too? Wow, you really are lazy. j/k

BTW, what's a "Roffle"? :confused:


rofl but better. It's a thing we do in this baseball league I'm in.

You know, googling and reading the links isn't that hard, I guess it just wasn't "relevant" enough.

Yeah, until you came along nobody had actually read the CBA. :rolleyes:

And your summary was absolutely *incorrect*: "Seems to me, he's allowed to play 160 games (reg season and playoffs) and is therefore exempt this year". The 160 is for 18 and 19 year olds, not Allen. This is damn confusing stuff, don't get haughty.

The reason the folks got it wrong was a very subtle point. Most people were saying "3 years OR 60 games", and I don't believe that's correct now. He's got the 68 games, so it must be the 3 years that's making him ineligible.

Take the Sedins. They had played well over 162 games by the end of *last* year, when they were officially still 21 (their birthday is past Sep. 15). The CBA line says "21, 3 years, 80 GP", yet they were exempt last year.

It looks to me like you get 3 years regardless of GP.

*edit* Nope, I was wrong, the Sedins were protected last year. So I still don't understand why Allen is exempt, with 68 GP.

i THINK the probem is everyone read the chart wrong. (i read it wrong, too, til now, i think i got it figured out)

for visual purposes i took out goalies.

SKATERS
(age) (years from NHL signin) (nhl games played)
18 --- 5 ---- 160
19 --- 4 ---- 160
20 --- 3 ---- 160
21 --- 3 ---- 80
22 --- 3 ---- 70
23 --- 3 ---- 60
24 --- 2 ---- 60
25+ ---1


most people (and i did) read: if you are 23 RIGHT NOW, you'd need to be within 3 years since you signed NHL contract and have played 60 or less NHL games.

well, that logic is wrong. because, let's assume you are 18. so using that logic, it would be: if you are 18 RIGHT NOW, you'd need to be within 5 years since you signed NHL contract and have played 160 or less NHL games.

now, there is no way a 18 year old would've played 160 NHL games so obviously that was the wrong way to look at the chart.


a few things need to be clearified.

the AGE really means "your age, when you were drafted"

Bryan Allen was drafted when he was 18 according to rule
"
3. 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
"
just for argument's sake, you can ask "well, how about players that turn 18 after Sept 15, they are not included anywhere" --- those players won't be eligible for the draft.

so now, since allen was 18 when drafted, we should read the column.


SKATERS
(age) (years from NHL signin) (nhl games played)
18 --- 5 ---- 160

so, he has 5 years since his NHL signing, or if he played 160 or more NHL games, he'd haev to be put on waiver.

note: the only way that 5 years can be changed to 3 is if he played 11 or more NHL games as 18 or 19 year old. which he did not. so he has all 5 years after he was signed.



now, for NEXT year. it does matter whether he was signed at 18 or 19. becausel, he was DRAFTED as 18 year old, but we didn't sign him til he was 19, so we can keep him for 5 years, til he is 24? i am really not sure about this but it is POSSIBLE he could be exampt from next year's waiver if he doesn't play more than 100 NHL games this season and he was signed as a 19 year old. i am not 100% sure i guess we could argue about it a year from now.

Hey, well done!^

You start at the age when Allen signed his first contract... or was drafted... NOT his age now! He must, as Pap figured correctly, still exempt due to lack of games played in the five years. Allen didn't sign his first contract at age 23, he signed at 18 or 19!

Cool. :handclap:

i THINK the probem is everyone read the chart wrong. (i read it wrong, too, til now, i think i got it figured out)

most people (and i did) read: if you are 23 RIGHT NOW, you'd need to be within 3 years since you signed NHL contract and have played 60 or less NHL games.

well, that logic is wrong. because, let's assume you are 18. so using that logic, it would be: if you are 18 RIGHT NOW, you'd need to be within 5 years since you signed NHL contract and have played 160 or less NHL games.


Excellent work. It's the age you first signed a contract, not the age you were drafted though.

http://nhl.com/nhlhq/faq/hockey_ops.html#waivers has a better description than the ones I've seen in the various threads.

So in summary, Allen was 20 when he signed, he had 3 years or 160 games. This is his last year of exemption (2001,2002,2003 drafts), regardless of how many games he plays this year.

Yeah, until you came along nobody had actually read the CBA. :rolleyes:

And your summary was absolutely *incorrect*: "Seems to me, he's allowed to play 160 games (reg season and playoffs) and is therefore exempt this year". The 160 is for 18 and 19 year olds, not Allen. This is damn confusing stuff, don't get haughty.

The reason the folks got it wrong was a very subtle point. Most people were saying "3 years OR 60 games", and I don't believe that's correct now. He's got the 68 games, so it must be the 3 years that's making him ineligible.

Take the Sedins. They had played well over 162 games by the end of *last* year, when they were officially still 21 (their birthday is past Sep. 15). The CBA line says "21, 3 years, 80 GP", yet they were exempt last year.

It looks to me like you get 3 years regardless of GP.

*edit* Nope, I was wrong, the Sedins were protected last year. So I still don't understand why Allen is exempt, with 68 GP.

So Chum says the same thing I say and gets a good job and you tell me "not to get haughty" :rolleyes:

I don't see what's so "confusing" about finding the age of signing (18 in this case) and reading across a 3 column table, it's really quite simple.

I can't remember if the Sedins signed at 18, I'm thinking not as they went back to Sweden for one year. I think this paragraph explains it.

For the purposes of regular season waivers and the Waiver Draft, the five-year exemption for an 18-year-old skater and four-year exemption for a 19-year-old skater are both reduced to three years commencing the first season that the 18 or 19-year-old playes in 11 games or more. The next two seasons, regardless of whether the skater plays any games in either season, shall count as the second and third years toward satisfying the exemption.

So yes, everyone does get a three year exemption regardless although most never need it as they don't get to the bigs that fast.

So in summary, Allen was 20 when he signed, he had 3 years or 160 games. This is his last year of exemption (2001,2002,2003 drafts), regardless of how many games he plays this year.

Boy, thanks for "summarizing" it for us.