Who is on a 2-way contract???

Phoenix30 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Wasn't he sent down for parts of the season Pragues? I'm pretty sure he was.

Winchester is a prime example of what I'm talking about. He struggled until Clouston came in and he found a roll as a 4th line grinder. Had he been on a two way deal he'd have been sent to Bingo to improve.

Winchester could have been sent down but the concern was he could have been picked up off of waivers not because of the 1way but rather because of the waiver rules for a 25 year old. Lee was indeed sent down last season for short durations.

I'm not sure about that. I remember looking into this question this time last year, and I think the CBA would have protected Winchester from waivers based on the number of years he had played in the NHL (at the time, only 1) and the number of games played (again, at the time). It all depends on how you read the relevant CBA passage on waiver-exempt players (13.4).

For OTT, I think the bigger deal was that we're just not willing to pay a player NHL dollars to play in the AHL. Martin Gerber is the only exception I can think of this last decade, and you have to admit that that scenario was rather extreme. We put up with him and his shoddy goaltending for 2 and 1/2 years before we did it. I certainly can't think of any instances of a Senator on a 1-way deal starting the year in the minors.

In any event, given Winchester's age, NHL experience (this is technically his 3rd year coming up), and his games played (77), he is for sure subject to waivers now, without question.

wprager wrote:
I don't remember exactly when it happened, but at one point someone else (Picard? Bell) was sent down instead of Lee, while everyone here thought that Lee was struggling more.

P.S. Roll != Role

We couldn't send down either Picard or Bell last year.

Picard was on a 1-way deal and, given his accured NHL seasons and games played, was no longer waiver-exempt.

Bell is a trickier case. He was on a 2-way deal, but he must have been subject to waivers because I remember, on trade deadline day, BM put him on waivers. Bell had to clear waivers that day in order to be eligible to play in Bingo after the end of the Senators' season. We could have lost Bell at that point for nothing, but no one picked him up.

But he was so professional about the whole situation, and you cannot blame a player from accepting a salary that was more than he was able to deliver, blah blah blah (sorry, RP, the blahs are not meant for you). Funny, we waived and bought out Emery when he still had 2 years left, after he had one bad season -- after losing the starting job because of off-season surgery. But we waited 2-1/2 seasons to do the same to Gerber.

rooneypoo wrote:

Phoenix30 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Wasn't he sent down for parts of the season Pragues? I'm pretty sure he was.

Winchester is a prime example of what I'm talking about. He struggled until Clouston came in and he found a roll as a 4th line grinder. Had he been on a two way deal he'd have been sent to Bingo to improve.

Winchester could have been sent down but the concern was he could have been picked up off of waivers not because of the 1way but rather because of the waiver rules for a 25 year old. Lee was indeed sent down last season for short durations.

I'm not sure about that. I remember looking into this question this time last year, and I think the CBA would have protected Winchester from waivers based on the number of years he had played in the NHL (at the time, only 1) and the number of games played (again, at the time). It all depends on how you read the relevant CBA passage on waiver-exempt players (13.4).

For OTT, I think the bigger deal was that we're just not willing to pay a player NHL dollars to play in the AHL. Martin Gerber is the only exception I can think of this last decade, and you have to admit that that scenario was rather extreme. We put up with him and his shoddy goaltending for 2 and 1/2 years before we did it. I certainly can't think of any instances of a Senator on a 1-way deal starting the year in the minors.

In any event, given Winchester's age, NHL experience (this is technically his 3rd year coming up), and his games played (77), he is for sure subject to waivers now, without question.

I agree with you as I have looked over the waiver rules in the past. I should have proof read before posting because I remember it being in the newspaper somewhere that Winchester was being considered going down for a short stint early on but the writer indicated it was a risk because of him getting picked up.

Sorry.