View Single Post
03-09-2012, 10:42 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,494
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I agree because that's the only logical explanation at this point. I guess I'm a stickler for language though.

If I'm running the league, and a team wants to use an emergency recall, then the player who is "hurt" is 100% out, no matter what at the time of recall. Because otherwise, again, what is the point in allowing four recalls? If you need an emergency recall, by all means do it, but you sure as heck better declare someone as OUT with an injury/illness. It should NOT be precautionary. It should be truly an emergency, as defined.
Well the purpose for a lot of teams is to give young guys a shot to play when their NHL teams are out of it, but also because alot of teams are using unproven talent that may not be sufficient for the NHL. Look at the Leafs as an example of a team that regularly switches out recalls, as well as the Flyers for the matter. We have seen Harry, Wellwood, Gus, Bourdon, Marshall, Manning, Rinaldo?, Sestito, Schenn all been recalled.

Limiting it to 4 past the deadline ramps up team accountability, not to make the NHL a joke by recalling and sending down 12 guys in an attept to be 'more competitive' etc. I look at it the same way as I look at the 50 contract rule, if it wasnt there, there are teams who would try ever damn player from the AHL on their roster. You just can't have that bushleague **** going on.

If you havent figured out who your top 4 recall players are by now, then you deserve your fate at the bottom of the pile.

ORYX is offline   Reply With Quote