|
Post by canadiensgm on Nov 29, 2010 9:13:28 GMT -5
It's a completely different scenario... Bailey just got demoted... Souray has been in a long dispute with edm management and was loaned to another ahl team... I guess there is a little bit of a gray line there but its Pretty obvious what the intent of the holdouts rule is and Bailey doesn't fit that intent, souray does... Give me a break. Souray has been injured, and is complete shit for the past several years. No team would even claim him off waivers. It's the same as not being good enough and being demoted. He doesn't fit the rule, neither does Bailey I agree, but you can't make an exception for one player. Give me a break... Explain to me how a player who is demoted to gain confidence in the AHL is the same as a player in a year long fight with management being loaned to another AHL team for basically nothing? If he is so bad why do you care? Do you need to get into technicalities over this? Nothing better to do? He is technically playing "abroad" on another team... He is playing for an unaffiliated team in another country... Nobody has had a problem with This except you because it's pretty obvious what the difference is
|
|
|
Post by xpat on Nov 29, 2010 12:28:30 GMT -5
Seriously, I don't know what is up with the attitude dude. The decision was already made up as a league....that's what the commish is for. Not all scenario's are in black and white.
From the beginning of the year, Kevin Lowe said Souray would not play in an Oiler uniform. Souray showed up to camp during preseason and Lowe kicked him off the team.
We all know what happened to Bailey...not a contract dispute, not playing in Europe...but sent down to the AHL to gain 'confidence' as it was put. 0 pts in 13 games surely would be testament to that much.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 29, 2010 17:31:52 GMT -5
I understand the grey area surrounding the Souray decision, and you're welcome to disagree with it. I certainly wouldn't fault you, and if I'd known how the matter would ultimately play out I probably would have made a different decision in all honesty. However, at the time that Montreal ASKED about his holdout status, it was seemed to be opinion around the league that Souray would be moved very soon after, which is why I let him be considered a holdout.
Whatever the circumstances - I made the decision on Souray and even though I have reservations I'll stick to it. You're off base in comparing Bailey to him, and I get the feeling that this is just some kind of attempt to get around our prospect rules. The difference between the two, as xpat points out, is that there is at least some grey area on the Souray situation, particularly at the time I made the decision. There's no grey with Bailey whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by panthershockey01 on Nov 29, 2010 19:36:19 GMT -5
Florida drops Louis-Marc Aubry and picks up Corban Knight
|
|
|
Post by jtitan on Nov 30, 2010 18:37:17 GMT -5
I understand the grey area surrounding the Souray decision, and you're welcome to disagree with it. I certainly wouldn't fault you, and if I'd known how the matter would ultimately play out I probably would have made a different decision in all honesty. However, at the time that Montreal ASKED about his holdout status, it was seemed to be opinion around the league that Souray would be moved very soon after, which is why I let him be considered a holdout. Whatever the circumstances - I made the decision on Souray and even though I have reservations I'll stick to it. You're off base in comparing Bailey to him, and I get the feeling that this is just some kind of attempt to get around our prospect rules. The difference between the two, as xpat points out, is that there is at least some grey area on the Souray situation, particularly at the time I made the decision. There's no grey with Bailey whatsoever. The problem is when I spoke out about it the rule was cited. The rule as it is written excludes souray as a holdout. I disagree with what you 3 have said, the AHL is the AHL no matter the reason. If montreal wanted to retain the rights to souray, he should have been made to keep him on his roster. It's not so much that Bailey got demoted its that exceptions were made to a rule that seems pretty cut and dry. I would caution you in the future to make rulings based on actual rules and not what comes out of the media as it is often just hearsay and not based on any fact. I wonder what was done for those 2 years where avery was in and out of trouble. Maybe you amend the rule to include such things, but again you'd be basing rulings on the unreliable media. Everyone should be held to the same rules. I'll accept this decision and leave it alone. PS. XPat, when I'm given attitude I'll defend my point with the same type of attitude. Kick me out if you see fit, I won't change. I'm not the type to conform because I'm bullied into it. My post above was civil as it was a response to a civil post from xalcyx which explained and actually conceded that the decision may have been wrong (he didn't say it was, but said it didn't totally conform to the rule).
|
|
|
Post by canadiensgm on Nov 30, 2010 18:47:01 GMT -5
The rule is poorly written but again, it's pretty obvious what the difference is.... When you think of holdout you think of someone who could make an impact on a team but isn't playing because of a dispute unrelated to on ice performance... If you want to read the rules literally to the letter, souray is a holdout because he is "playing abroad"(he is signed by edm and playing in the US)... It might be poorly written but that's because nobody anticipated anyone bitching about technicalities, the intent is obvious
|
|
|
Post by xpat on Nov 30, 2010 19:12:43 GMT -5
Trying to go from memory of 2 years ago, but the holdout status was originally reserved for guys like Radulov, Selanne & the Sundin's of the league. Radulov obviously bolted to Russia and still remains, while Selanne & Sundin both went into semi retirement.
Holdout status was intended mainly for the start of a new season when guys were still not under contract with a team. It was not created for circumventing the 120GP prospect rule. That is sort of a necessity since so many prospects simply fail, its the GM decision to cut their losses or not.
As with any rule there is a bit of gray area. The gray area in this case applies to Souray as I can't think of another player not being allowed to play NHL hockey while being under contract with his club. Maybe Khabibulin gets months of jail time for his drunk driving charge, I suppose the holdout status would apply to him as well...but again, more gray area.
No one is going to kick anyone out for defending an opinion, but just keep it civil. We're all just playing for fun here, no need to whipping out the sidearms just yet.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 2, 2010 15:42:33 GMT -5
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the holdout rule. We brought it in during the initial dispersal draft to address the Radulov situation (among others). We decided on it in this league because it was one was in place in another league I'm in and it was the best option we saw at the time.
I'd definitely be in favor of voting whether to eliminate it in the summer. If someone wants to wait for the Selannes of the world to sign a contract then that's a risk they should have to take if they think the long term reward is worth it. If they want to collect a team of notoriously unreliable Russians they should have to assume some risk.
The Souray decision was made primarily in an attempt to provide a rapid resolution for Montreal at the time, and honestly at the time it was probably a reasonable decision because if I recall I made it while he was banished from the team and BEFORE he was demoted. With hindsight being 20/20 it wasn't correct, but I'll live with it. 36 year old Souray, if he even comes back, isn't going to put Montreal over the top. I understand why you disagree with the decision and that's fine, all I ask is that you at least respect it. One of the things I don't like about commishing a league is that pretty much I have the final vote most of the time and 9 times out of 10 I piss one person off. It is what it is. I'll still sleep tonight, that's for sure.
Ironically, in the other league I referenced above, I had Souray on my team. I wasn't allowed to put him on holdouts and eventually waived him after about 3 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by CanucksGM on Dec 2, 2010 17:34:54 GMT -5
so is bailey now free game?
|
|
|
Post by xpat on Dec 2, 2010 20:18:39 GMT -5
I think for next season we can probably just abolish the whole holdout rule. There is no downside on taking a chance on guys with holdout status, there is only upside.
It's nice protecting an asset for your team, but there should be some element in which a GM is forced to either say fuck it and cut his losses, or bite the bullet and have a NA player take up a roster spot.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 2, 2010 21:15:46 GMT -5
remind me and we will vote on it in the summer
|
|
|
Post by jtitan on Dec 2, 2010 21:40:59 GMT -5
so is bailey now free game? No, I will be picking him backup tomorrow when I am able (can't today)
|
|
|
Post by jtitan on Dec 3, 2010 6:55:01 GMT -5
Pittsburgh claims Justin Braun and places him on assigns him to the farm.
|
|
|
Post by russianrocket on Dec 6, 2010 12:45:44 GMT -5
12/06/10 - Activated RW Drew Stafford from IR Released D Pavel Kubina Signed D Kevin Klein Sent down G Jonas Gustavsson
|
|
|
Post by flyhigh on Dec 8, 2010 18:46:02 GMT -5
LA claims Brendan Ranford.
|
|