|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 30, 2007 7:50:26 GMT -4
I also think the rule about players returning to previous teams should be ammended. Right now, I'm under the impression they can't even return via waivers. To me, if a player can clear waivers, and his old team wants to pick him up and give him a place to play, he should be allowed to return. Right now, the rule is this: A transferred or traded player cannot return, whether through a waiving, transfer or a trade to the team that last transferred or traded him, except for a 16 year-old player returning to his first team once he turns 19 years old or for a 17 year-old player once he turns 20 years old.So a player can return to his original team as long as there has been a 3rd team. Take Roger Kennedy - he would have to be the property of a 3rd team before Halifax could bring him back. No ... the 3 yrs would still apply to Kennedy ... he cannot return to Halifax. If what you suggest is correct then we could get Marchand back simply by working out a three team trade. |
|
|
|
Post by hockey1981 on Oct 30, 2007 14:49:46 GMT -4
might see Labelle in lineup on Wednesday with the suspension of Marquardt...
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Oct 30, 2007 19:42:38 GMT -4
Right now, the rule is this: A transferred or traded player cannot return, whether through a waiving, transfer or a trade to the team that last transferred or traded him, except for a 16 year-old player returning to his first team once he turns 19 years old or for a 17 year-old player once he turns 20 years old.So a player can return to his original team as long as there has been a 3rd team. Take Roger Kennedy - he would have to be the property of a 3rd team before Halifax could bring him back. No ... the 3 yrs would still apply to Kennedy ... he cannot return to Halifax. If what you suggest is correct then we could get Marchand back simply by working out a three team trade. That is the exact quote from the rules. So unless the infamous QMJHL translator is at work again, then yes, Kennedy and Marchand would both be able to return to Halifax and Moncton respectively as long as there was a 3rd team involved. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2007 7:52:13 GMT -4
No ... the 3 yrs would still apply to Kennedy ... he cannot return to Halifax. If what you suggest is correct then we could get Marchand back simply by working out a three team trade. That is the exact quote from the rules. So unless the infamous QMJHL translator is at work again, then yes, Kennedy and Marchand would both be able to return to Halifax and Moncton respectively as long as there was a 3rd team involved. There are only two exceptions ... and Kennedy and Marchand do not fit them ... they weren't traded from their "first team" at 16 or 17 ... Marchand was traded after his 17 YO season. Edit: The wording is confusing ... almost contradictory ... Example: Moncton trades a 17 yr old kid to Bathurst in a minor deal after cutting him at training camp ... Bathurst keeps him for awhile but he doesn't pan out so they trade him to Vic as part of a deal at Xmas that same year ... Vic keeps him and he develops into a fine Q player over the next 1.5 seasons. At 19 he becomes a sought after player during the trading period. He can't be traded back to Moncton ... his first Q team ... because he has to wait until he is 20. Now take it a step further ... same example as above but lets say that Vic (his 3rd team) traded him to RN (his 4th team) at the end of his 17 YO season ... he busts out in RN at 18 and becomes a sought after player at 19 during the Xmas trading period. The rule above seems to read that Bathurst (his 2nd team) could actually trade to get him ... but Moncton (his 1st team) could not. That makes no sense at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Oct 31, 2007 7:54:32 GMT -4
That is the exact quote from the rules. So unless the infamous QMJHL translator is at work again, then yes, Kennedy and Marchand would both be able to return to Halifax and Moncton respectively as long as there was a 3rd team involved. There are only two exceptions ... and Kennedy and Marchand do not fit them ... they weren't traded from their "first team" at 16 or 17 ... Marchand was traded after his 17 YO season. If he were traded or transferred to RN first, then according to the way that rule looks, he could then be traded back to MOncton........RN would then become the LAST team that traded or transferred him. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 31, 2007 8:04:48 GMT -4
There are only two exceptions ... and Kennedy and Marchand do not fit them ... they weren't traded from their "first team" at 16 or 17 ... Marchand was traded after his 17 YO season. If he were traded or transferred to RN first, then according to the way that rule looks, he could then be traded back to MOncton........RN would then become the LAST team that traded or transferred him. If you read the rule in French, the wording is slightly different, and it implies you cannot return to a team that traded you (except after 3 years), and seemingly closes the 3rd team loophole. It seems to me that the Q is opening itself up to a potential embarrassment if the rule books don't say the same thing in French and English ... what if Danny Flynn and Ed Harding agree to a trade based on their mutual understanding of the rules (which would obviously be based on the English rule book) - does the league step in and overrule a deal, or do they let it go and have other teams pissed? Perhaps there is a rule somewhere in the book that states that in the event of a discrepancy between the translation of the rule book, one or the other takes precedence as the official document? |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2007 8:10:26 GMT -4
If he were traded or transferred to RN first, then according to the way that rule looks, he could then be traded back to MOncton........RN would then become the LAST team that traded or transferred him. If you read the rule in French, the wording is slightly different, and it implies you cannot return to a team that traded you (except after 3 years), and seemingly closes the 3rd team loophole. It seems to me that the Q is opening itself up to a potential embarrassment if the rule books don't say the same thing in French and English ... what if Danny Flynn and Ed Harding agree to a trade based on their mutual understanding of the rules (which would obviously be based on the English rule book) - does the league step in and overrule a deal, or do they let it go and have other teams pissed? Perhaps there is a rule somewhere in the book that states that in the event of a discrepancy between the translation of the rule book, one or the other takes precedence as the official document? I would expect that one is declared the official document .. and one is a translation of the official document ... and the official document rules ... and you can guess which one is the official document for the QUEBEC MJHL |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2007 8:14:38 GMT -4
There are only two exceptions ... and Kennedy and Marchand do not fit them ... they weren't traded from their "first team" at 16 or 17 ... Marchand was traded after his 17 YO season. If he were traded or transferred to RN first, then according to the way that rule looks, he could then be traded back to MOncton........RN would then become the LAST team that traded or transferred him. No ... Moncton is his "1st team" ... and he was traded AFTER his 17 YO season ... you might argue that he could be traded back at 20 if you argued that a player does not become an 18 YO until the 1st day of training camp ... but I expect the draft is the turn over day. I consider the draft to be the 1st day of the new season ... but thats just my interpretation ... could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 31, 2007 9:12:23 GMT -4
If he were traded or transferred to RN first, then according to the way that rule looks, he could then be traded back to MOncton........RN would then become the LAST team that traded or transferred him. No ... Moncton is his "1st team" ... and he was traded AFTER his 17 YO season ... you might argue that he could be traded back at 20 if you argued that a player does not become an 18 YO until the 1st day of training camp ... but I expect the draft is the turn over day. I consider the draft to be the 1st day of the new season ... but thats just my interpretation ... could be wrong. The league rules clearly state (the french ones anyway  ) that a player traded at the draft is considered to be the age of the next season and not the previous one. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 31, 2007 11:05:13 GMT -4
No ... Moncton is his "1st team" ... and he was traded AFTER his 17 YO season ... you might argue that he could be traded back at 20 if you argued that a player does not become an 18 YO until the 1st day of training camp ... but I expect the draft is the turn over day. I consider the draft to be the 1st day of the new season ... but thats just my interpretation ... could be wrong. The league rules clearly state (the french ones anyway ) that a player traded at the draft is considered to be the age of the next season and not the previous one. Right ... meaning Marchand was traded at 18. |
|
|
|
Post by hockey1981 on Oct 31, 2007 11:08:25 GMT -4
Labelle will be in Lineup tonight...
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeb on Nov 1, 2007 11:10:48 GMT -4
Labelle played on the 4th line, ie. didn't see very much ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by HockeyAngel17 on Nov 3, 2007 2:16:21 GMT -4
I was standing by him(Labelle) while waiting for my friend in section 17 and a man walked up to him and asked why he wasnt playing and he answered that he probably played his last game as a wildcat.. but then my friend walked over and i missed the rest of the conversation... So according to him he's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by CatsFan on Nov 4, 2007 14:04:04 GMT -4
I was standing by him(Labelle) while waiting for my friend in section 17 and a man walked up to him and asked why he wasnt playing and he answered that he probably played his last game as a wildcat.. but then my friend walked over and i missed the rest of the conversation... So according to him he's done. He is in the lineup this afternoon in Halifax. |
|
|
|
Post by Arnold Slick on Nov 4, 2007 15:48:32 GMT -4
Labelle playing on the 4th line yet again. With Cameron out I figure why not finally give Labelle a chance on one of the Top 2 lines. Nope! They put Lessard, who hasn't exactly proven to be a Top 2 line guy with Marquardt and Eagles. I really don't understand why Flynn doesn't seem to wanna give Labelle any chance at all. He automatically puts Cameron on a Top 2 line but continuously sticks Labelle on the 4th line which is apparently "giving him a chance to prove himself." I'm not quite sure what you expect from him on the 4th line not playing with any offensively gifted players? Expect him to work hard yes, but he's not going to put up any big numbers in that role. It's rather frustrating because we could be wasting an offensive talent, something we don't have a lot of, by sitting him in the stands and putting him on the 4th line when he does play.
|
|
) that a player traded at the draft is considered to be the age of the next season and not the previous one.
