Two doesn't make any sense because he would have to wait for injuries to call him up. What if the team had stayed healthy for the first half of the year or more?
Tell me any team in sports history that can go half a season without injuries? If by some miraculous way that did happen, guys get sick and maladies are made up to allow transactions to occur if necessary.
Tell me any team in sports history that can go half a season without injuries? If by some miraculous way that did happen, guys get sick and maladies are made up to allow transactions to occur if necessary.
Look at my post on the other page, also you would have to wait for an injury to your forwards, and depending on which forward was injured you wouldn't have brought up Pettinger anyways.
Ouellet had negative value and we were forced to take him to get o'brien. Canucks didn't want ouellet, cause he sucks.
But that's what I mean. If they wanted to save money on AHL salaries, they would have recalled Ouellet too (or not involved him in the trade in the first place). Or why not recall Jeff Cowan? He's more useless and not even helping the Moose but there's a good chance he gets claimed for half his salary by some team close to the cap in need of depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ditch
Look at my post on the other page, also you would have to wait for an injury to your forwards, and depending on which forward was injured you wouldn't have brought up Pettinger anyways.
Not necessarily. If they were bringing him up just to get claimed by another team, it wouldn't really matter where on the depth chart the injury happened as you could find a way to fit him into the lineup.
Look at my post on the other page, also you would have to wait for an injury to your forwards, and depending on which forward was injured you wouldn't have brought up Pettinger anyways.
If the goal is just to put Pettinger on re-entry waivers, it doesn't matter who is injured. There are no rules that you have to replace a forward with a forward on the roster.
But that's what I mean. If they wanted to save money on AHL salaries, they would have recalled Ouellet too (or not involved him in the trade in the first place). Or why not recall Jeff Cowan? He's more useless and not even helping the Moose but there's a good chance he gets claimed for half his salary by some team close to the cap in need of depth.
Not necessarily. If they were bringing him up just to get claimed by another team, it wouldn't really matter where on the depth chart the injury happened as you could find a way to fit him into the lineup.
Good thing for Vancouver is all the cap space
soo Pettinger eats up 500,000...........Wellwood gets through
If they need forwards so bad then yea try Cowan now or even gamble on Oulette
OR what I think they will do is take Ward or Rissmiller off waivers , they were just placed on it
If the goal is just to put Pettinger on re-entry waivers, it doesn't matter who is injured. There are no rules that you have to replace a forward with a forward on the roster.
I was saying that because you can only have a certain number of players on your roster, so for a single injury you couldn't call up two players knowing that the one would get taken, if I am wrong please correct me.
the greatest thing the team needs right now is penalty killers, far more than they even need scorers, so it wouldn't be surprising to see the team pick up something on waivers. The PK has let in two goals per game for 4 games straight. It's not a coincidence that they're 1-3 during that stretch.
I was saying that because you can only have a certain number of players on your roster, so for a single injury you couldn't call up two players knowing that the one would get taken, if I am wrong please correct me.
the team doesn't need to carry a 23 man roster. They can just call up one player, lose him on waivers, and then call up another if they want.
The Canucks dealt Cooke because he wanted the trade and they didn't want to renegotiate with the fan favorite. They took a chance on Petti because he was signed through this season, unfortunately for Petti he wasn't good enough to be a regular starter.
Losing him on waivers is unfortunate but at least they arent paying him $1million+ to play for the Moose.
That's Aquilinis problem, it's not like we're up against the cap. And he was being paid 1.1 mil to play in Manitoba.
Exactly. Acquilini actually saves money with this move. With all our cap space I don't really see $500K as an issue this year for us.
And who gives a flying **** about the fact we traded Cooke for him (Nonis move, not Gillis). Cooke was not coming back to play for Vignault. He'd have been gone for nothing anyways.
the greatest thing the team needs right now is penalty killers, far more than they even need scorers, so it wouldn't be surprising to see the team pick up something on waivers. The PK has let in two goals per game for 4 games straight. It's not a coincidence that they're 1-3 during that stretch.
PK was fine coming out of training camp and the first two games vs Calgary.
Road trips historically do not allow time to work on special teams.
Once they are home and have a few practices, this function should be better.
the greatest thing the team needs right now is penalty killers, far more than they even need scorers, so it wouldn't be surprising to see the team pick up something on waivers. The PK has let in two goals per game for 4 games straight. It's not a coincidence that they're 1-3 during that stretch.
The problem with the PK isn't the forwards. Our defensemen forgot how to clear rebounds and Luongo has been less than stellar.
The Canucks also rank 3rd in the league in minor penalties with 39 and have played some of the most potent PP's in the league. That won't end tonight either as the CBJ's are currently top 10.
If there's one thing this team has me confident in, it's the fact that they will right their PK.
I don't think the trade part is what he has a problem with,
its more about Gillis loosing the payment we got for Cooke.
I don't mind the fact that they lost him for nothing now considering it was obvious he had no value around the league at his salary.
That said, it was still a stupid decision (IMO) to send him down in the first place over Brown. But now that it's done, losing him doesn't really make a difference for all intents and purposes.
