View Single Post
03-10-2005, 02:50 PM
King Blazer
Registered User
King Blazer's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by willie
I understand where you're coming from with regards to development but I still think it's silly. I look at AHL teams, to some degree anyway, as a sign of the merits of the parent club but loans negate that dynamic. More importantly, it alters the competitive balance unfairly. Why should some teams get rewarded with 'free' players while others don't?

And I disagree with it being the same as what the NHL does. At least in the NHL, when players are dumped, teams are still subject to supply and demand factors. Contending teams still have to compete with each other in order to acquire players and they have to deal assets to acquire players. There is both competition and risks with involved late season moves. In the case of loans, neither exists.
How about this then, the NJ Devils "trade" Zach Parise to the Kings for "future considerations" and after the playoffs, the Kings "trade" him back to NJ for "future considerations"?

As far as altering the the competitive balance unfairly goes, many NHL teams that don't make the NHL playoffs, send players to the AHL team to boost their rosters for the AHL playoffs. Doesn't that alter the competitive balance?

I understand and appreceate what you're saying, however, in the end, I really don't have a problem with the loans.

edit: Also, keep in mind that in the AHL we are used to seeing players come and go through ATO, PTO, and SP contracts...

Last edited by King Blazer: 03-10-2005 at 03:15 PM.
King Blazer is offline