GarbageGoal
Courage
remember the 7 veteran 260 game rule
5 now.
Does anyone know when they eliminated the "one pro with 350 games designated as a player/coach prior to the season" exemption? Probably in the 2000's.
remember the 7 veteran 260 game rule
except Providence has an independent owner and has been no matter where the affiliation/PDC stands, that's usually what the affiliate has control over, and what the parent club dictates, Centrum, most affiliates today don't have options ie signing players, or getting approval from an independent franchise in regards to loans, etc..... EVEN Hershey and Chicago have lost the rights over the years to field a veteran laden team over development, all teams slowly have lost those rights as each PDC was either extended or renewed... Providence has never been an NHL owned franchise no matter where it was based from
it depends on what's stated in the PDC....
BUT Until Boston buys the franchise outright, Providence is still independent ownership..... there's no need to extend it till 2029, if they have no intentions of buying the affiliateOld Larue could give a rat's ass who Boston puts behind the bench or if they dressed up actual bears and skated them. He still can't believe anyone wants to listen or watch the games if they aren't at the arena or on the road.
remember the 7 veteran 260 game rule
not anymore, I've seen issues detailing that even Hershey has been forced to change toward a more development philsophy, which is why the Wolves have lost that stature as Vegas calls every shot, as to who plays there, that's happened over the years where it may have been true where a veteran team could be iced, but most organizations are leaning toward development like Rockford, the era of going it alone and not development, is either archaic or dead.
it's not true, axe:Ok...but that still doesn't explain what a veteran limit cap is...there is a limit on the number of veterans a team can ice in any game.But since the word "cap" is commonly used in reference to contracts etc, it would imply that there is a limit (cap) on the number of veterans a team can sign. That is untrue.
This is wrong except for the Devils. All the teams and players want to win. They want to play games. They want to go to the NHL. If all they wanted was development, why play any games? Why keep score if you do play games?
BUT Until Boston buys the franchise outright, Providence is still independent ownership..... there's no need to extend it till 2029, if they have no intentions of buying the affiliate
except, Darryl, the league granted the current franchise in 1987-88, remember, Providence 's original franchise was sold to Binghamton and is Hartford today..... so in essence Boston has always owned a franchise, whether it was active or not is subject to interpretation, how exactly did Calgary acquire the original franchise rights from New Jersey once the Devils clearly got involved in Capital District, now known as Charlotte, which was originally Albany, because Portland, and to a lesser extent Providence couldn't exist because of the deep rivalry between Philadelphia and Boston, it hurt Providence because most of the promotions since 1992, were started here, not Providence, and has manifested itself in various forms....The Bruins have no intention of buying an AHL franchise because they totally control the Providence Bruins from afar. There's no need for them to own the team.
The Islanders have almost no control whatsoever with the Railers. A echl team hires their own staff and mostly controls what players are on the team.except, Darryl, the league granted the current franchise in 1987-88, remember, Providence 's original franchise was sold to Binghamton and is Hartford today..... so in essence Boston has always owned a franchise, whether it was active or not is subject to interpretation, how exactly did Calgary acquire the original franchise rights from New Jersey once the Devils clearly got involved in Capital District, now known as Charlotte, which was originally Albany, because Portland, and to a lesser extent Providence couldn't exist because of the deep rivalry between Philadelphia and Boston, it hurt Providence because most of the promotions since 1992, were started here, not Providence, and has manifested itself in various forms....
it's one of a reasons had Manchester not collapsed when it did, the majority likely wants Boston as the affiliate, but in essence their "control" hurts the affiliate rather than being proactive, in other words, you want the affiliate ownership not to capitulate to the decisions made by Boston, or any other parent club.
Do you always agree any decisions made by the Islanders or Bridgeport benefit the Railers simply because they say so.
I disagree, Centrum.... Portland doesn't and they hired folks who came from Hartford, and that was before the franchise was grantedThe Iles have almost no control whatsoever with the Railers a echl team hires the own staff and mostly controls what players are on the team.
The past two years Vegas did not have enough prospects to field a entire ahl team.Which is why the Wolves played in the Calder Cup Championship Series...because they lost their stature about wanting to win...
The past two years Vegas did not have enough prospects to take to field a entire ahl team.
except, Darryl, the league granted the current franchise in 1987-88, remember, Providence 's original franchise was sold to Binghamton and is Hartford today..... so in essence Boston has always owned a franchise, whether it was active or not is subject to interpretation, how exactly did Calgary acquire the original franchise rights from New Jersey once the Devils clearly got involved in Capital District, now known as Charlotte, which was originally Albany, because Portland, and to a lesser extent Providence couldn't exist because of the deep rivalry between Philadelphia and Boston, it hurt Providence because most of the promotions since 1992, were started here, not Providence, and has manifested itself in various forms....
it's one of a reasons had Manchester not collapsed when it did, the majority likely wants Boston as the affiliate, but in essence their "control" hurts the affiliate rather than being proactive, in other words, you want the affiliate ownership not to capitulate to the decisions made by Boston, or any other parent club.
Do you always agree any decisions made by the Islanders or Bridgeport benefit the Railers simply because they say so.
it's not true, axe:
that's the rule no matter what Levin does, Vegas has the right to refuse any player signings, even loans in season, have to be approved or reviewed by the parent club, affiliates no longer depending on the PDC AS IT WAS 20-30 YEARS ago in the AHL, I can remember teams signing veterans off European teams after their season ended, that has now gone by the wayside, as much as anything franchise-wise ie development..... no matter what the agreement may have said franchises have adopted the Washington model where all player movement has to be approved by the parent club, no matter who the parent club is.... Vegas got that control when they entered that contract in Chicago.... fans may not like that but that's the MO today even though PDC's are not published publically for fans to understand what those entail, all that is widely known is the rights held by the affiliate, have become less as to what they can and cannot do as the contract stipulates.
The past two years Vegas did not have enough prospects to take to field a entire ahl team.
Vegas did not have enough players under contact to make an issue of prioritizing development over winning.Ok...if you say so...not sure what that has to do with whether the Wolves want to win still.
different rules, Centrum, who approves all player transactions for the Wolves, which includes the philosophy of the parent club, that goes to the point of the PDC, is Vegas, coaching, as well
all affiliates have had the ability to not have the parent club dictate all player transactions, whether the club is owned directly or indirectly, most affiliated teams have an NHL AGM overseeing that club's interest: remember why Nashville cut ties in Norfolk after 7 months there..... because Nashville's rep was released by the affiliate and what was the result: the affiliation was terminated....
all affiliates in Portland have lost the ability for the franchise to sign players independently, that era of players staying multiple years in a given city has ended as well for those fans to identify with.
I can remember parent affiliates blocking or saying to the affiliate that's not your option no matter if the player was under that affiliate's control or not.
Vegas did not have enough players under contact to make an issue of prioritizing development over winning.
Chicago Wolves 2018-19 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.comOk...can you please go through and list the players signed by Chicago that played there last year
To explore strange new relocationswhat is the mission of an ahl farm team?
Can you please tell me when Nashville was in Norfolk and what players were assigned there.
Chicago Wolves 2018-19 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com
It doesn't list who on a AHL contact but it seems like quite a lot of career AHL players there where probably more in 2017-2018.
all affiliates in Portland have lost the ability for the franchise to sign players independently, that era of players staying multiple years in a given city has ended as well for those fans to identify with.
I can remember parent affiliates blocking or saying to the affiliate that's not your option no matter if the player was under that affiliate's control or not.