I'm not so sure this is true. A player that cleared waivers in doesn't have to clear waivers again in the same "Playing Season Waiver Period" unless he has either played 10 or more NHL games, or spent more than 30 days on an NHL roster since he cleared. I assume that re-entry waivers aren't required then, since it states "A Player who requires Regular Waivers may not be Recalled
without first clearing Re-Entry Waivers [...]", and Vally wouldn't require regular waivers after clearing.
The 10 games/30 days refers to waivers, not re-entry waivers.
A player can be waived, clear, but remain on the NHL roster. This happened with Voros last year. He was waived, cleared waivers, but was never sent to Hartford. At any time prior to 10 NHL games or 30 days, he could be sent down to Hartford. After the 10/30 he would have to clear waivers again to be sent down.
Once a player clears waivers and is sent down, he is then subject to re-entry waivers at any time if he is brought back up (See Sean Avery). So if Valley goes down to Hartford, he will have to pass through re-entry waivers if we try to bring him back up.
The alternative to all this would be to send him down on a conditioning assignment, which would allow him to play in Hartford for a short time while still counting against the Ranger's cap. We did this a couple years ago with Callahan when he struggled after returning from a knee injury. Unfortunately, we don't have the cap space to carry Valley, Johnson and Christensen, so Valley must be waived.
Hey kid I love your posts and thinking but pick your wars on here. 70% of this board has no clue about tough hockey and sticking up for teammates . The guys that do you will see it quickly. We are soft and Torts is soft team coach end of story.
Agreed. Different generation it seems. But we are certainly in the minority on this Ranger board it seems. Funny how it is the other way around with the Rangers fans that I know and associate with over the past 35 years. And its become.....
A topic that is not worth debating here anymore imo. Some fans love that Red Wing style of skill and skating. Some like the Ducks or Flyer style of smashmouth hockey.
Both are great. Neither style is this Rangers team.
The only smashmouth team that the Rangers have had in some fans "hockey lifetimes" had a Captain that would knock your teeth with an elbow or stick if you looked at him wrong, a defenseman who made you scared for your life to stand in front of #35's crease and a winger who would have never let Gaborik get popped in the head go (without swift retribution) unanswered like Guerin did the other night.
But that was 1994.
Last edited by HAPPY HOUR: 12-02-2009 at 02:39 PM.
Agreed. Different generation it seems. But we are certainly in the minority on this Ranger board it seems. Funny how it is the other way around with the Rangers fans that I know and associate with over the past 35 years. And its become.....
A topic that is not worth debating here anymore imo. Some fans love that Red Wing style of skill and skating. Some like the Ducks or Flyer style of smashmouth hockey.
Both are great. Neither style is this Rangers team.
The only smashmouth team that the Rangers have had in some fans "hockey lifetimes" had a Captain that would knock your teeth with an elbow or stick if you looked at him wrong, a defenseman who made you scared for your life to stand in front of #35's crease and a winger who would have never let Gaborik get popped in the head go (without swift retribution) by Guerin like he did the other night.
But that was 1994.
Look, I think toughness and intimidation will always have a place in the game of hockey. It just so happens that, since the 70's really, its importance has been on a steady decline.
Would I like this team to have more grit and toughness, or any sort of intimidation factor at all? Yes.
Do I think its even worth discussing when we have to address much bigger issues like finding some people that can put the puck in the net, and others that can play capable defense? Nope.
Besides, toughness and the ability to intimidate aren't necessarily inherant skills. They are attitudes. They can be instilled into a team a hell of a lot easier than making a forward a better offensive player. Thats what pisses me off about Torts. Hes got that kind of attitude, but its nowhere to be found in his players.
Look, I think toughness and intimidation will always have a place in the game of hockey. It just so happens that, since the 70's really, its importance has been on a steady decline.
Would I like this team to have more grit and toughness, or any sort of intimidation factor at all? Yes.
Do I think its even worth discussing when we have to address much bigger issues like finding some people that can put the puck in the net, and others that can play capable defense? Nope.
Just playing devil's advocate here. The people looking for toughness, grit, intimidation will say if the Rangers add that/those elements, the scorers will have an easier time of it.
Valliquette will end the season in Hartford. No one will claim him, TOR waits for Marten Biron to become available.
Rangers need G competition. Not only because Henrick is slumping, but because that's the way Torrts runs his teams: Safe is death, Stress is life. Constant pressure on everyone. On and off the ice. Hank gets it too easy, let's give him a kid to worry about. That will keep his thoughts away from Vancouver for awhile. Good move by the Rangers.
I like Christensen. He has the talent. That talent didn't materialized. If it did we wouldn't be able to get him. Risk is not big, but Boyle will get stressed right away. That is what Torts needs. Who said that 4th line doesn't matter? The terrible 4th we've got doesn't, true, but secondary scoring comes from 4th and 3rd lines. I am sure Torts would love to stress Drury a bit ( don't we all?) but it is not so easy to do. Hence, we got only Eric for now.
And 175 pounds for a 6'2" goaltender is strange, guys a bit of a stringbean. Richter weighed more and he was 3 inches shorter.
Ryan Miller is doing pretty well for himself. Same should be said for MAF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rags225
every player in the NHL at one time had zero NHL games under his belt.
Hiller replaced Giggy
Backstrom replaced Fernandez
Vokoun displaced Dunham (who was still very good at the time)
dipietro displaced Luongo
Rask is making a case of Thomas
if Johnson comes up and starts playing lights out, than **** Hank. I want the goalie in who can start winning some games.
Come on. You're comparing Chad Johnson to those guys? Let's temper the expectations a little here.
If CJ comes in and unseats Lundqvist, that's amazing, but it's not all sunshine and flowers. Look at Anaheim for instance. They have a backup who is 3 years removed from a Stanley Cup and 4 years (I think) removed from a Conn Smythe. Don't see too many takers for him, despite his public displeasure in sitting on the bench. Why? A massive cap hit.
If Lundy's play regresses enough to the point that Chad Johnson earns a starting gig in NY, you'll have a tougher time moving him than most of you realize.
I'm happy to see Christensen get another shot with an NHL team. He's definitely got NHL-level hands. I'm surprised at the waiving of Valliquette, he's got the tools to be a good NHL goaltender.
every player in the NHL at one time had zero NHL games under his belt.
Hiller replaced Giggy
Backstrom replaced Fernandez
Vokoun displaced Dunham (who was still very good at the time)
dipietro displaced Luongo
Rask is making a case of Thomas
if Johnson comes up and starts playing lights out, than **** Hank. I want the goalie in who can start winning some games.
If that happens playing with this team in front of him, I will buy you and Hank new Lamborghini's
I'm happy to see Christensen get another shot with an NHL team. He's definitely got NHL-level hands. I'm surprised at the waiving of Valliquette, he's got the tools to be a good NHL goaltender.
No. Avery said it best, he's a career minor leaguer.
Just playing devil's advocate here. The people looking for toughness, grit, intimidation will say if the Rangers add that/those elements, the scorers will have an easier time of it.
This is the old time thinking. Toughness is going away, no matter what one says. In the past if you cannot stop the guy, you could rough him up to make him think twice about getting up close. It is practically impossible in contemporary hockey. Now, if you're bad you have to add those able to create, rather than those able to destroy.
Ryan Miller is doing pretty well for himself. Same should be said for MAF.
Come on. You're comparing Chad Johnson to those guys? Let's temper the expectations a little here.
If CJ comes in and unseats Lundqvist, that's amazing, but it's not all sunshine and flowers. Look at Anaheim for instance. They have a backup who is 3 years removed from a Stanley Cup and 4 years (I think) removed from a Conn Smythe. Don't see too many takers for him, despite his public displeasure in sitting on the bench. Why? A massive cap hit.
If Lundy's play regresses enough to the point that Chad Johnson earns a starting gig in NY, you'll have a tougher time moving him than most of you realize.
I don't think Johnson comes in and unseats Lundqvist either but it has happened before. And when those other goalies mentioned in the post you responded to did it, they were indeed the "nobodies" (not saying you said that, I did) that Johnson is. I mean, there is precedent. But I agree 100% that if it were to happen there would be few takers for Lundqvist at his rate.
I really hope Johnson suprises me, I absoutly love when young goalies come in, if he plays steller, (I am prob gunna get flamed) but if Johnson is gunna play big would you trade Lunqvist and get a first line center prospects and picks in return?
I really hope Johnson suprises me, I absoutly love when young goalies come in, if he plays steller, (I am prob gunna get flamed) but if Johnson is gunna play big would you trade Lunqvist and get a first line center prospects and picks in return?
I don't think Johnson comes in and unseats Lundqvist either but it has happened before. And when those other goalies mentioned in the post you responded to did it, they were indeed the "nobodies" (not saying you said that, I did) that Johnson is. I mean, there is precedent. But I agree 100% that if it were to happen there would be few takers for Lundqvist at his rate.
I don't think so.
All those names 'Rags' threw up there were all older, more experienced or both compared to Chad Johnson.
I almost wonder after reading the post by Dagoon that this move isn't based just as much off what Vally did/didn't do on the ice, as to what he did off it. What better way to shake up the team outside of changing captains then to remove Vally from the team to let these guys know nobody is safe.
I really hope Johnson suprises me, I absoutly love when young goalies come in, if he plays steller, (I am prob gunna get flamed) but if Johnson is gunna play big would you trade Lunqvist and get a first line center prospects and picks in return?
No, because that would be utterly retarded. Have some of you started watching hockey this season or something?
I really hope Johnson suprises me, I absoutly love when young goalies come in, if he plays steller, (I am prob gunna get flamed) but if Johnson is gunna play big would you trade Lunqvist and get a first line center prospects and picks in return?
If he came in and was hands down the better goalie, which I think is more than a long shot, I would, only because I personally don't see the Rangers getting a sniff for 2-3 years. And yes, we probably are going to get flamed for this.
you know, I have nothing against the Rangers getting some players who could play physical hockey and beat the crap out of the other team...the only problem is that you can't really do it just by acquiring a bunch of goons who can't contribute elsewhere and expect that to suddenly change the entire mentality of the team.
And the correlating problem is that guys who can also contribute while playing smashmouth hockey are tough to find and tough to get a hold of. I'm not even a big Chris Neil fan, but he at least skates well enough and contributes a little bit on offense so at least he's good for that. The same can't be said for random guys off waivers who play 4 minutes per game (and for Brashear, truth be told)
So...they gotta find enough of these players who can actually contribute. On the downside, I don't really see many in the system that can play large roles on the team
All those names 'Rags' threw up there were all older, more experienced or both compared to Chad Johnson.
I like CJ, but lets get real here.
Bluenote, I don't think so either, and I have no delusions in regards to Johnson. But to say it's never happened, with varying degrees of circumstance, is wrong. And I'm not saying you said never.
Are the same people advocating that Johnson replace Lundqvist as the starter if he plays a few good games the same people that thought Valliquette could be a starter in this league?
