Jump to content
News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

aziz

Supporting Member
  • Content Count

    3,762
  • Posts on chatbox

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

aziz last won the day on July 20 2016

aziz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,174 Excellent

About aziz

  • Birthday 06/04/1974

Profile Information

  • Location
    Virginia
  • Specific Location
    Richmond
  • Favorite Team
    Flyers
  • 2nd Favorite Team
    Wild

Recent Profile Visitors

5,075 profile views
  1. we generally think of the crease as the goalie's protected area, and it is that. but it also the area within which a goalie is allowed to intentionally cover the puck and stop play. it is supposed to be a delay of game call for covering the puck while not having some part of your body in the paint (not just falling on top of the puck and refusing to get up, i'm talking about reaching out with a glove and covering). also, if a non-goalie covers the puck in the crease, accidentally or not, it is supposed to be a penalty shot. my point is, the crease does things other than provide a protected area for goalies. of course, NONE of these things are consistently applied. because what would be the fun in predictable and evenly applied rules?
  2. @ruxpin @pilldoc hey, guys, thanks for the shout. things are going well. this whole post-hockey thing is weird after those 30 years, but definitely less stressful. stay strong, everyone
  3. i heard my name? not entirely sure with the current CBA (i haven't even watched a hockey game in two years at this point), but it would definitely be grounds for contract termination back when i knew what i was talking about. it's how LA got rid of Richards a few years back, when he got caught with oxy.
  4. not for nothing, but if the fear is that teams will claim stolarz, now is better than in a few weeks. right now, a ton of goalies (and several tons of position players) are being exposed, and stolarz isn't going to be attracting any particular attention. everyone has had all summer to put themselves in "i'm good with this" situations vis a vis their opening night roster, especially their goalies. two weeks later, when 3 starting goalies and 2 backups are on the IR and stolarz is the only goalie on a waiver wire consisting of 4 total players, you maybe run into some complications. i'm entirely out of the loop, but it sounds like hart might be for real, hart is really young, everyone else is kinda crap, and the team is still running on at least one flat tire, my thoughts: 1. do not put a 20 year old goalie with zero professional experience in a position where he is maybe expected to be a difference maker in the NHL. goalies are headcases by definition, you are rolling a die with 5 sides marked "1" handling him that way. yes, a few teams have rolled 6 in that situation (price), but bad odds are bad odds. don't take them if you don't have to. 2. playing him, and maybe playing him a little bit hard early in the season and then sending him down once a vet comes back from the IR is not expecting him to be a difference maker. my opinion, giving him 4-6 NHL games right there at the start, and then sending him to the A with a, "so, hey, that's how things work up here, that's the speed and environment you need to be able to handle, get to work and we'll see you before too long," would probably be a really good thing. 3. if he does very very well over those 4-6 games, you still send him down when the goalies you care less about become available. steve mason was amazing his freshman season. he was also 20. there is a lesson there. 4. if stolarz is someone you care about holding on to (though, i wonder: why, if you have your goalie of the future waiting behind him. decent backups are easy to find, so...who cares?), you send him down with the masses over the next 5 or so days. no one knows who he is right now. give it a couple weeks, a few goalies get knocked around and bounced onto the IR, one guy with a "G" next to his name on the wire will draw attention. so, yeah. hey, it's fun to type again! hope everyone is doing well!
  5. i don't care either way. just saying goalies who have 7 NHL games under their belt 6 years out from their draft day, and mediocre numbers in the minors to boot, don't tend to be coveted by opposing GMs, especially when everyone is working really hard to trim their rosters down to regular season size.
  6. sure, and brian bouche had a 5-game shutout streak, one time. you would hope no GM would make goaltending decisions based on a 7 game career, because goaltending has nothing to do with tiny tiny tiny sample sizes, it is all about consistency over extended periods. you could be right, someone maybe could want stolarz and grab him off the wire. it won't be because of his NHL career numbers, though. and, at this point, it also probably won't be because of his draft position. it's more likely the GM thinks his name looks great on the back of a jersey as much as either of those things. there will be 60+ goalies on waivers over the next two weeks. i am so very out of the loop these days, but i don't get the impression stolarz stands out from that crowd at all. he is one of the many.
  7. everyone with an NHL contract is assigned to the NHL club at the end of the season. 12 days before the next season starts, teams can start assigning players to their AHL clubs, but waiver-eligibility applies. so, EVERY AHL player with an NHL contract that is not waiver-exempt has to go through waivers to get to their AHL team at the end of the preseason. even if just claimed, no one with an NHL contract can be assigned to an AHL roster without *clearing* waivers (waiver-exempt players aside). so, yes, same situation.
  8. there is generally little to no buzz about any goalie that has 7 NHL games under his belt. i don't know what the habs' or rangers' situations are in net at this point, but i would be pretty very shocked if any GM in the league is licking his lips at adding an entirely unproven (but still 6 years removed from his draft day) goaltender to their roster. remember that goalies are not defensemen or forwards, you can only have 2 on your game roster. factor in 3 leagues (NHL, AHL, ECHL) per organization, and 2 goalie spots per team, things get logistically very weird with more than 6 guys. point being: teams don't add depth goalies suddenly (as in the situation of a waiver-wire report) or just in case. if he were waived soon, i doubt anyone would notice.
  9. that isn't my understanding. a player that has cleared waivers does not need to clear again for 30 days or 10 NHL games, so he can be recalled and sent down like a yo-yo. he doesn't HAVE to stay anywhere, though. he's just waiver-exempt for 30 days or 10 NHL games, whichever happens sooner. if a player IS claimed, the claiming team would have to either assign him to their NHL squad or re-expose him to waivers to send him to their own AHL team. i think. i don't believe there is any functional difference in waivers depending on when they happen, though. aside from the fact that there isn't an AHL roster during the offseason/preseason, so no where to send players once they clear waivers.
  10. right right, its still camp, isn't it? yeah, stolarz is going to have to get through waivers before he goes to the phantoms, whenever he ends up being sent down. the standard argument there is you clear him more or less now, when the rest of the league is trying to trim rosters and send their own people down, let him get lost in the noise. as opposed to 2 weeks into the season when only a few dudes are on the wire, and maybe a few goalies around the league have been knocked out for a while.
  11. the timing will be a thing. if placing neuvirth on LTIR left the flyers even momentarily with 1 goalie on the NHL roster, stolarz could be brought up under emergency conditions and could then be returned to the farm when neuvirth was reactivated, waiver-free. if stolarz was already on the NHL roster when neuvirth was IR'd (and he was, if I'm following the conversation), so the flyers had at least 2 goalies at that moment...then you are right, he'll need to clear when sent down after neuvirth returns, as he wasn't recalled at all, emergency or otherwise. it would just be a normal course demotion.
  12. ah. he would not have to clear to be brought up (as recall waivers aren't a thing anymore). as I understand it, if he were recalled under emergency circumstances, he also wouldn't need to clear to be sent down (so long as he was returned as soon as the emergency was over). the requirement for emergency recall is only that the parent club be reduced below the required minimum available players at a given position (so, less than 2 goalies available), and teams are not "forced" to recall specific players or avoid specific movement restrictions if available. so, the fact that the flyers have a waiver-exempt goalie on the farm is not relevant, they can recall whoever they want, sidestepping waivers as needed. again, as i understand it.
  13. huh? what? (good lord the available emojis have gotten crazy here)
  14. in case you were curious: 1. hit by backes on trocheck was fine. reaching for a bouncing puck in the neutral zone with your head down is a bad idea. 2. ritchie hit on backes, also fine. backes had just released the puck and so was still a valid target for a hit. textbook finishing of a check. 3. hornqvist hit on mcavoy, i don't see any problem here, either. mcavoy bends at the waist for a bouncing puck, and hornqvist hit the part of him that was sticking forward. i don't know what the league is doing these days regarding head shots, I know that would have been called in the recent past. didn't like those calls then, and if they are still being made, don't like them now. are you saying you think those were all bad and should be called? i really have to ask, and i don't mean disrespect, but....when did you start watching this game? i'm trying to figure out the root of this fundamental change of attitude on checking and personal responsibility for your own safety. if you started in like 2008 or something, then i guess i understand. if you were a fan in the 80s and 90s, though, how did you survive? at what point did you go from "that's completely normal" in 1997 to "that is outrageous and i can't believe anyone could think this stuff should be allowed" today? or were you generally appalled at the NHL the whole time until recently?
×
×
  • Create New...