Can roster limits increase? And why not?

  • We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.

    What This Means for You:

    • If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
    • If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
    • Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.

    Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.

    In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server

The Shadow

Registered User
Feb 9, 2013
1,163
926
Apparently GMs were warned that next seasons schedule is going to be rough with the Olympics and possibly all star event being involved

To prevent injury and keep the players fresh why can’t active rosters be changed from 23 to 27 active players?

Adding 1 additional goalie, 1 defenseman and 2 forwards that don’t have to pass through waivers just makes a lot of sense.

Please tell me why this isn’t a good idea. I’m open to feedback

I just Think of the players that play through injuries when they wouldn’t have to with a bigger roster. In addition to quality of play should be better with more fresh players.

What benefit to the teams and fans is there when you lose a defence man and have to play with 5 players for half a game? You open your players up to more injury and fatigue often having to play the next night in a back to back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
I doubt the owners would want this, because that would mean paying more money for player salaries in the long run. You probably could presumably fill those extra roster spots with guys on ELCs or two-way contracts, but every dollar matters to someone who owns an NHL team, even if it's a pretty trivial percentage. I could be wrong, but it seems like the mindset they would have to me.

Trying to think about what the players would think of this idea, I can see arguments both for it (more NHL jobs, for one) and against it (less playing time available to showcase yourself, perhaps), so no idea there.

I think it's a good idea from the purely "competitive balance" side of things, but I'm not sure if either the players or the owners would care about that aspect.
 
I doubt the owners would want this, because that would mean paying more money for player salaries in the long run. You probably could presumably fill those extra roster spots with guys on ELCs or two-way contracts, but every dollar matters to someone who owns an NHL team, even if it's a pretty trivial percentage. I could be wrong, but it seems like the mindset they would have to me.

Trying to think about what the players would think of this idea, I can see arguments both for it (more NHL jobs, for one) and against it (less playing time available to showcase yourself, perhaps), so no idea there.

I think it's a good idea from the purely "competitive balance" side of things, but I'm not sure if either the players or the owners would care about that aspect.
I was also thinking of just injury prevention giving players more rest and recovery. 82 games in crazy grind for these guys. The NBA is a long season but not the physical toll these guys take. Not even close
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
I doubt it would change very much. Right now (after the TDL) teams have unlimited spots on the active roster, and the only load management you see is teams that are locked into their playoff spots. The fact is teams don’t rest these guys b/c they can’t, it’s b/c they are better
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
I doubt it would change very much. Right now (after the TDL) teams have unlimited spots on the active roster, and the only load management you see is teams that are locked into their playoff spots. The fact is teams don’t rest these guys b/c they can’t, it’s b/c they are better

Isn't it that the 23-man roster is still in effect from the trade deadline? I thought it was only the playoffs where the 23-man limit goes away.
 
Maybe if owners tell their GM's to be able to have recall money instead being nut to butt up against the cap ceiling - or over it like a third of the teams in the league are with LTIR - then maybe there are the possible recall players' salaries against the cap.

But they won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
I doubt it would change very much. Right now (after the TDL) teams have unlimited spots on the active roster, and the only load management you see is teams that are locked into their playoff spots. The fact is teams don’t rest these guys b/c they can’t, it’s b/c they are better
There are limits on the number of callups though.
 
Apparently GMs were warned that next seasons schedule is going to be rough with the Olympics and possibly all star event being involved

To prevent injury and keep the players fresh why can’t active rosters be changed from 23 to 27 active players?

Adding 1 additional goalie, 1 defenseman and 2 forwards that don’t have to pass through waivers just makes a lot of sense.

Please tell me why this isn’t a good idea. I’m open to feedback

I just Think of the players that play through injuries when they wouldn’t have to with a bigger roster. In addition to quality of play should be better with more fresh players.

What benefit to the teams and fans is there when you lose a defence man and have to play with 5 players for half a game? You open your players up to more injury and fatigue often having to play the next night in a back to back.

It’s a good idea, but unfortunately hockey is rather conservative and likely won’t change. Owners don’t wanna spend more, and it doesn’t clearly benefit NHLers, so I don’t see them caring.

But I think a lot of dudes play through small stuff they might sit for if there were an extra body there. Gives dudes more rest, prospects more chances to show their worth.
 
There are limits on the number of callups though.
No, there aren’t.

16.4 Active Roster Size; Playing Roster
(a) There shall be a maximum of twenty-three (23) Players on each Club’s Active Roster at any one time, provided, however, that, on the date of each season’s Trade Deadline, a Club’s Active Roster may be increased to any number of Players the Club, in its discretion, so determines, subject to Article 50.

For reference, article 50 is the salary cap.

They can call up anyone under contract, and as many as they want. The players are paid their NHL salaries, and the team must be cap compliant. That said, there are adverse consequences to having players on the active roster when not needed, but these mostly deal with free agency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Not the worst idea although it isn't good for the several extra players being benched every game (versus playing in the AHL or somewhere else)
 
No, there aren’t.



For reference, article 50 is the salary cap.

They can call up anyone under contract, and as many as they want. The players are paid their NHL salaries, and the team must be cap compliant. That said, there are adverse consequences to having players on the active roster when not needed, but these mostly deal with free agency.
Clubs are limited to 4 AHL call ups after the deadline. After that it’s an emergency call up only.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammman
Increase roster size...and bring back the taxi squad
I just don’t see the downside to this. Another issue. Teams on road trips get injuries. Far easier and potentially cheaper to have the player there already than having to fly in someone separate and coordinate the logistics of that.

I think the NHL is missing something here. This is a physical game and guys are going down on a nightly basis. Why have teams play short handed? It’s almost like a punishment in that way so players play injured.

Far too many back to backs as well that leave guys banged up
 
Big issue for the PA.

If the players still get 50% of HRR, everyone takes a bit less if they have on average four more mouths to feed on each team.

Also, its not so great for the players to be not playing and sitting in the press box for as much as an entire season.

Finally, marginal players who do get waived are much more likely to get claimed, moving from one press box to another.

Waivers are generally for the players benefit, and I think there are some problems with running a bloated roster.
 
Big issue for the PA.

If the players still get 50% of HRR, everyone takes a bit less if they have on average four more mouths to feed on each team.

Also, its not so great for the players to be not playing and sitting in the press box for as much as an entire season.

Finally, marginal players who do get waived are much more likely to get claimed, moving from one press box to another.

Waivers are generally for the players benefit, and I think there are some problems with running a bloated roster.
Like the NFL that is a physical game with the fraction amount of games they have large rosters. And they never play back to back days
 
I just don’t see the downside to this. Another issue. Teams on road trips get injuries. Far easier and potentially cheaper to have the player there already than having to fly in someone separate and coordinate the logistics of that.

I think the NHL is missing something here. This is a physical game and guys are going down on a nightly basis. Why have teams play short handed? It’s almost like a punishment in that way so players play injured.

Far too many back to backs as well that leave guys banged up
Teams really do not play down a man very often at all lol. This is a non-existent issue that as others have pointed out hits the sweet spot of not really being looked on favorably by the owners or the PA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Every team knows what the cap ceiling is. If they choose to strategically spend with no wiggle room, one downside is that they won't have flexibility to call players up and will have to operate within the emergency call up rules.

The only reason teams have problems is due to not leaving a cap buffer.

If you want to argue that teams should be allowed a taxi squad where they still have to be cap compliant when they activate a player from that squad, that's a different discussion.
 
While I do think increasing it to 24 or 25 might make sense, 27 seems a bit much.

All that being said sometimes it's nice to have a guy like Pierre Engvall(islanders) who for roster management purposes you can send up and down since you won't worry about anybody picking him up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Teams really do not play down a man very often at all lol. This is a non-existent issue that as others have pointed out hits the sweet spot of not really being looked on favorably by the owners or the PA
Lots of players playing hurt or leaving games early. Do you watch a lot of games?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Lots of players playing hurt or leaving games early. Do you watch a lot of games?
So are you proposing that teams be allowed to dress more than 18 skaters?

As for guys playing hurt, that's completely a culture thing and not a "we physically can't have anyone replace you" thing.

Once again just a problem that doesn't exist
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Guys that you would likely fill with those extra slots are waiver-exempt anyway, so what's the big deal with just recalling? Everything has to be under the cap anyway.

Only sucky part would be if you're an east coast team and are on a west coast trip and need an emergency call up but teams deal with that every season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose

Ad

Ad