HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   San Jose Sharks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=43)
-   -   Recalled/Assigned: McLaren to Worcester on conditioning assignment 11/11 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1027363)

Led Zappa 11-11-2011 02:38 PM

McLaren to Worcester on conditioning assignment 11/11
 
https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profil...ter_normal.png @PollakOnSharks David Pollak


Frazer McLaren heading to Worcester on conditioning assignment. And, yes, just a maintenance day today for #SJSharks Joe Pavelski.

210 11-11-2011 02:58 PM

I wish they'd sent him to Stockton :shakehead

(And yes, I know they can't)

bleedteal12 11-11-2011 04:02 PM

No. We have Winchester for that role now. And while most everyone (I, for one, wasn't) was calling for his head not long ago, I thought he really upped his game against the Wild. He was very visible out there, in a good way. Obviously he's not going to be an offensive machine, but he's physical and can make decent plays. McGinn also provides the physicality and apt fighting skills, as well as speed--and hands, when he decides to use them.

If any "goonish" player were brought up, I'd rather Mash over McLaren, but really I think we're set on that front. I have a soft spot for Mash, but barring injuries to the fourth line, I don't see a place for him, or for McLaren.

VP and GM 11-11-2011 08:37 PM

Not sure what we need him for at the NHL level, we have Winchester. I'd guess that some other teams may be interested in him and his is DW way of keeping him and or getting something for him in a minor deal...

sjshark91 11-11-2011 08:57 PM

Pretty much Winchesters insurance.

VP and GM 11-11-2011 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjshark91 (Post 39306777)
Pretty much Winchesters insurance.

i would contend that there are better players availabe as insurance for this role.

Pinkfloyd 11-11-2011 10:42 PM

He's a minor leaguer at this point. Why are people even reacting to this? lol

Led Zappa 11-11-2011 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd (Post 39310545)
He's a minor leaguer at this point. Why are people even reacting to this? lol

Then why put him on a conditioning stint instead of waivers?

Pinkfloyd 11-11-2011 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Led Zappa (Post 39310761)
Then why put him on a conditioning stint instead of waivers?

Is he even eligible for waivers? If he's not healthy, I don't think they can even send him down at this point.

LadyStanley 11-11-2011 11:04 PM

Yes, McLaren's waiver exemption ended more than a season ago.

WTFetus 11-11-2011 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 39311367)
Yes, McLaren's waiver exemption ended more than a season ago.

I think PF was referring to his status on LTIR. He's still on it as far as I know.

LadyStanley 11-11-2011 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 39311749)
I think PF was referring to his status on LTIR. He's still on it as far as I know.

A player remains "on" the (NHL) IR until after his (successful) conditioning stint.

(Recall that Michalek went to Worcester after rehabbing knee and injured it just before he was scheduled to end his conditioning stint.)

WTFetus 11-11-2011 11:40 PM

So yeah, he can't be waived...yet.

What happened to Michalek happened to Mitchell a few seasons ago too iirc.

Led Zappa 11-11-2011 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 39312525)
So yeah, he can't be waived...yet.

What happened to Michalek happened to Mitchell a few seasons ago too iirc.

You don't need a conditioning stint to be declared healthy and thus off IR. A player must actually consent to the loan. So, AIUI, they could simply declare him healthy, waive him and send him down and he starts playing for Worcester or gets claimed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBA
13.9 Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan. A Player
who is on the Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception as set forth in Article 50
may, with his consent, during the term of such Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness
Exception (but in no event during the first fourteen (14) calendar days and six (6) NHL
Games), be Loaned on a Conditioning Loan (the "Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness
Exception Conditioning Loan") for a period not to exceed up to the longer of six (6) days
and three (3) games, solely for the purpose of determining whether the Player is fit to
play. If the Club determines that it needs more time to assess the Player's fitness to play,
the Club may file a written request by facsimile with the Commissioner's Office, with a
copy to the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof, to extend the Loan for an
additional two (2) games. The Commissioner, upon good cause, may approve the onetime
extension. The Commissioner's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. A
Player on a Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan will
continue to be listed on Injured Reserve and will not count against the Club's 23-man
roster limit. The Club's Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception will continue
until the Conditioning Loan ends, and his Paragraph 1 NHL Salary and Bonuses will
continue to count against the Club's Upper Limit and the Players' Share during such time.
The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to investigate the
circumstances under which a Player is placed on a Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness
Conditioning Loan. If he has reason to believe or determines that the Club has used the
Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Conditioning Loan to evade Re-Entry Waivers or
otherwise to Circumvent any provision of this Agreement, he may take other disciplinary
action against the Club as he deems appropriate. A Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness
Conditioning Loan may be extended on one occasion. This procedure can only be used
once during each period of time that the Player is on a Bona Fide Long-Term Injury
Exception.


WTFetus 11-11-2011 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Led Zappa (Post 39312875)
You don't need a conditioning stint to be declared healthy and thus off IR. A player must actually consent to the loan. So, AIUI, they could simply declare him healthy, waive him and send him down and he starts playing for Worcester or gets claimed.

But to be declared healthy, you have to be checked out and approved by the team physician. I'm pretty sure it's not as clear-cut and easy as "declaring him healthy". No physician is going to say he's healthy when he's clearly not.
And there is no reason for McLaren not to consent. Last I checked, when a player is sent on a conditioning stint, he gets paid as if he were playing for the big-club. So he gets money and much needed play-time.

Led Zappa 11-12-2011 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 39313199)
But to be declared healthy, you have to be checked out and approved by the team physician. I'm pretty sure it's not as clear-cut and easy as "declaring him healthy".
And there is no reason for McLaren not to consent. Last I checked, when a player is sent on a conditioning stint, he gets paid as if he were playing for the big-club. So he gets money and much needed play-time.

It clearly says "may" "with his consent" "be loaned". That means they don't have to be sent down. In fact, it is usually the team hiding a healthy player that the NHL is worried about. The language is there for a reason. I emphasize the word "may" because it indicates that he doesn't have to. If you follow the logic then a player can deny the conditioning loan and return directly to the team. If he can return to the team without a conditioning loan then he can be waived without a conditioning loan.

I'd wager that an injured player on LTIR or otherwise does not need to be sent down on a conditioning stint before returning to the NHL and playing or being waived.

None of this means I know that they are not planning on waiving him afterwards and are just buying time or that they may want to show that he's healthy before trying to make a trade. Or any number of reasonings behind it.

I'm sure KDB or someone will let us know one way or another what the definitive answer is.

WTFetus 11-12-2011 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Led Zappa (Post 39313873)
It clearly says "may" "with his consent" "be loaned". That means they don't have to be sent down. In fact, it is usually the team hiding a healthy player that the NHL is worried about. The language is there for a reason. I emphasize the word "may" because it indicates that he doesn't have to. If you follow the logic then a player can deny the conditioning loan and return directly to the team. If he can return to the team without a conditioning loan then he can be waived without a conditioning loan.

I'd wager that an injured player on LTIR or otherwise does not need to be sent down on a conditioning stint before returning to the NHL and playing or being waived.

I'm still not getting what you're trying to say. Yes, he has to consent to a conditioning stint, he doesn't really have much of a reason to decline. What does consenting have to do with his waiver status? Conditioning stint or not, he's still on the LTIR. A physician has to declare him healthy before he's taken off, if I recall correctly. So apparently, he's healthy enough to play some conditioning games in the AHL, but that's it.

EDIT: Unless you mean if they are planning on waiving him in the future, why send him down at all? That, no clue. They probably want to give him a final look at before making any decisions.

SJeasy 11-12-2011 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 39314105)
I'm still not getting what you're trying to say. Yes, he has to consent to a conditioning stint, he doesn't really have much of a reason to decline. What does consenting have to do with his waiver status? Conditioning stint or not, he's still on the LTIR. A physician has to declare him healthy before he's taken off, if I recall correctly. So apparently, he's healthy enough to play some conditioning games in the AHL, but that's it.

EDIT: Unless you mean if they are planning on waiving him in the future, why send him down at all? That, no clue. They probably want to give him a final look at before making any decisions.

My take is that he would have to do handsprings in Woostah not to get waived at the expiry of the conditioning stint. He has a huge incentive to agree to the loan/stint. The NHL paycheck. If waived right away, that is a week's pay at 10X his AHL salary. I am sure he harbors no illusions that he would be waived, claimed and placed immediately on an NHL roster. I will be absolutely shocked if he is not waived at the end of the stint.

Led Zappa 11-12-2011 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTFetus (Post 39314105)
I'm still not getting what you're trying to say. Yes, he has to consent to a conditioning stint, he doesn't really have much a reason to decline. What does consenting have to do with his waiver status? Conditioning stint or not, he's still on the LTIR. A physician has to declare him healthy before he's taken off, if I recall correctly. So apparently, he's healthy enough to play some conditioning games in the AHL, but that's it.

I saw your edit and that's basically what I mean.

210 11-12-2011 06:29 AM

I'm not an expert on this but I reasonable certain the following is true:

McLaren was not on LTIR, he was on the "non roster, injured" list (or whatever it's officially called). His salary did not count against the cap nor does he count against the NHL roster maximum because he is not officially assigned to a roster.

He could have come off that list and played an NHL game without a conditioning loan. A player has the right to refuse a conditioning loan.

There are two types conditioning loans; the first is a 14 day loan where the player's NHL salary counts against the NHL salary cap, and the second is a 3 game loan where the player's salary does not count against the NHL cap...the 3 game loan can only be used once per specific injury.

You cannot assign waive nor assign a player to the AHL that is injured without his permission.

LadyStanley 11-12-2011 10:53 AM

Non-roster = not on NHL active roster (semantics).

McLaren was on the IR and/or LTIR (I haven't figured out where to get that info) and his contract DOES count against the Sharks' cap. (But does not count against the 23 man roster limit.)


(Sheppard and Niittymaki are also on the LTIR/IR and their salaries count against the cap. Stalock was injured in AHL, so AFAIK he's on the AHL equivalent of IR and getting a minor league salary.)

210 11-12-2011 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 39321187)
Non-roster = not on NHL active roster (semantics).

McLaren was on the IR and/or LTIR (I haven't figured out where to get that info) and his contract DOES count against the Sharks' cap. (But does not count against the 23 man roster limit.)


(Sheppard and Niittymaki are also on the LTIR/IR and their salaries count against the cap. Stalock was injured in AHL, so AFAIK he's on the AHL equivalent of IR and getting a minor league salary.)

McLaren was also injured in the AHL. He was on the "non roster, injured" list and could not come off that list until he passed a physical which he has obviously done. At that point he must be added/assigned to a roster, so he has now been added to SJ's roster and loaned to Worcester on a rehab assignment. His salary counts against SJ's cap while on his rehab assignment (provided it's the 14 day assignment).

I am fairly certain players on the "non roster, injured" list do not count against the cap...certain enough to now say it twice anyway.

There is no IR list in the AHL at all.

Led Zappa 11-12-2011 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 210 (Post 39321825)
McLaren was also injured in the AHL. He was on the "non roster, injured" list and could not come off that list until he passed a physical which he has obviously done. At that point he must be added/assigned to a roster, so he has now been added to SJ's roster and loaned to Worcester on a rehab assignment. His salary counts against SJ's cap while on his rehab assignment (provided it's the 14 day assignment).

I am fairly certain players on the "non roster, injured" list do not count against the cap...certain enough to now say it twice anyway.

There is no IR list in the AHL at all.

McLaren has been on SJ's roster and counting against our CAP all season long according to CapGeek as I recall it. He is definitely on our roster today according to CG.

Pinkfloyd 11-12-2011 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Led Zappa (Post 39322527)
McLaren has been on SJ's roster and counting against our CAP all season long according to CapGeek as I recall it. He is definitely on our roster today.

Which makes no sense. Why have a guy count against your cap if you don't have to?

210 11-12-2011 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Led Zappa (Post 39322527)
McLaren has been on SJ's roster and counting against our CAP all season long according to CapGeek as I recall it. He is definitely on our roster today according to CG.

Capgeek also says Cam MacIntyre is not exempt from waivers, which is untrue.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.