[Signing] Flames sign Danny Taylor to Deal

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Pacem

Are we even sure that we could call up Brossiot on an emergency basis? We have the contract spots. We have the cap space. What is the emergency?

What was the emergency when we called Sven up last year? We had forwards in the AHL under NHL contract then as well.

Originally Posted by Pacem

We don't want to give up a contract spot doesn't constitute an emergency. Brossiot is not under contract with the Flames. Could we really sign him to an ELC call him up on emergency basis and send him back thus keeping our contract spot?

I don't see why not.

Originally Posted by Pacem

You don't think anyone would think there is something wrong with that?

Not anyone who mattered.

Originally Posted by Pacem

Don't think that is an absolute slap in the face to an AHL vet like Taylor? Yes, experienced minor league players we want you come to Abby (it is a ####ty place to live) and help our young players learn the pro game and we will not reward you for your hard work. We will insult you!

Huh? Do you think Ben Walter is seething in Abbotsford right now embittered that Sven got NHL games last year and he didn't? I don't think anyone would be "insulted" and if they are then they're probably crybabies and I wouldn't want them on the team or in the org anyways.

Originally Posted by Pacem

If you can sign the kid and get him to Calgarys next game, there is no logical reason why Calgary couldnt sign an AHL vet like a Danny Taylor and get him to Calgary.

Sure, there is no reason they couldn't (and in fact they did) the question isn't whether they could've it's whether they should've.

Originally Posted by Pacem

If Brossiot was already signed to an ELC, then maybe this could count as an emergency call up.

And that's what I think they should have done (absent exact knowledge of Kipper medical situation)... signed Brossiot to an ELC, which they should do this year anyways, and then given him an emergency recall. What difference does it make whether it was signed yesterday morning or today?

[QUOTE=Pacem;4057246]It is more concerning to not have a back up goalie then it is to have 3 open contract spots vs 2[QUOTE=Pacem;4057246]

Technically you have to have a back-up, NHL rules stipulate that you dress two goalies per game... the only question is who the back-up goalie should be. My view is that since they are unlikely to play at all anyways you may as well save yourself a contract spot for 10 days or so while they evaluate Kipper's injury. If he's out longer then sure sign someone but if he's going to be back in fairly short order then you should make the move that ensures maximum contract efficiency. Unless they intend for whomever it is that backs Irving up to actually start games.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

The thing with an emergency recall is that you have to be able to justify WHY it's an emergency to the NHL.

For example, last season they justified emergency recalling Sven because Feaster said they can't deplete the farm any more and still stay competitive (especially since at one point they had Byron, Kolanos, Horak, Brodie, Irving, Bouma, etc.). The NHL found that to be a sufficient reason and they allowed it.

In this case, there's no way Feaster can make a case from bringing in Brossoit. Losing Danny, you still have another ridiculously good goaltender behind him in Brust.

Feaster made the right choice and the only choice in the short timeframe he had to get a backup to Columbus.

Not having a signed player to replace the injured player definitely qualifies as an emergency. I can't see how a team could be compelled to use up a contract slot to fill in for an injury. Otherwise any team with an open contract spot would be barred from an emergency recall which obviously isn't the case.

There are probably a bunch of other reasons why the team went this route, but not qualifying for an emergency recall isn't one of them IMO.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not having a signed player to replace the injured player definitely qualifies as an emergency. I can't see how a team could be compelled to use up a contract slot to fill in for an injury. Otherwise any team with an open contract spot would be barred from an emergency recall which obviously isn't the case.

There are probably a bunch of other reasons why the team went this route, but not qualifying for an emergency recall isn't one of them IMO.

But if Feaster went to the NHL and used your explanation for an emergency recall, I'm 99% sure they'd say tough luck, you have three free contract spots.

[transplant99]

What was the emergency when we called Sven up last year? We had forwards in the AHL under NHL contract then as well.

Two things...

IIRC at the time the Flames had 8 guys on IR and had filled all those slots already with AHL guys.

Also, they were at the 50 contract limit so they could not just go and sign someone to fill in as is the case here.

Combine those two factors, and you see a totally different scenario. The NHL and AHL have a working agreement that still allows for the oarent club to keep the AHL club competitive, even when the injury bug strikes....which is why the "emergency" provision is in place to begin with. Its so both teams can still ice complete rosters..more or less.

As much as losing Kipper may be an emergency to Flames fans and management....it is not construed as such by the NHL, particularly when they have open contract spots to burn.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

True, but keep in mind he was just 21 years old. Now, he's had five years to incubate in the AHL and get experience playing against pros.

plus how old was Kiprusoff before getting his starting gig? goaltenders take a long time to mature into solid players, so i wouldn't be surprised at all if Taylor proved he has what it takes to stick in the NHL

[#-3]

Are people really sugesting we only dress 1 professional goaltender for the next 3 to 4 games, because we might actually have a chance at signing 3 guys like this?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=116521
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=116461

And are other really saying that getting called up to the NHL will hinder a 26 year old AHL goaltenders developement, because of a lack of minutes?


I'm not sure which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.


Its good low-risk signing, that was well earned by Taylor, and I see it as a vote of confidence for Irving.

If they were really worried about contract spots they would have done an advanced buy-out on babchuck or they would not have signed Begin.


I also feel it is vary important that the Flames take the oportunity to test Irving and Taylor, beacuse in a perfect world Ramo and Bressoit will be North American Pro's next year.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

it is not construed as such by the NHL, particularly when they have open contract spots to burn.

Frankly, I very much doubt that the NHL would deem this any less of an emergency then the situation whereby Sven came up. Hell, I'd consider having only one Goalie in North America under NHL contract more of an emergency then depleting the farm team of one additional piece of depth.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I mean if Feaster came out and said that the NHL wouldn't let him do it I'd believe him but absent someone in the know saying it seems farfetched to me.

I really have to think that either Kipper is hurt more then "day-to-day" would imply or Feaster just doesn't want to bother with the slightly more complicated process that ELC/Emerg Recall would entail and is willing to burn the contract slot for the convienence.

[Yanda]

Signing Taylor instead of Signing/Trading for a goalie is good for the other goalie prospects in the system.

It would be encouraging for Ramo and Ortio to know that the team rewards those that put in the effort. This hasnt always been the case.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Frankly, I very much doubt that the NHL would deem this any less of an emergency then the situation whereby Sven came up. Hell, I'd consider having only one Goalie in North America under NHL contract more of an emergency then depleting the farm team of one additional piece of depth.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I mean if Feaster came out and said that the NHL wouldn't let him do it I'd believe him but absent someone in the know saying it seems farfetched to me.

I really have to think that either Kipper is hurt more then "day-to-day" would imply or Feaster just doesn't want to bother with the slightly more complicated process that ELC/Emerg Recall would entail and is willing to burn the contract slot for the convienence.

This is simple...they have contract positions available to be used to sign replacement players in an injury situation...that option did NOT exist last year when Baertschi was brought up...and the same reason he was sent down again even though he was on a roll with the big club. There was no longer an emergency as players were coming back to health.

As for the one goalie in NA thing an emergency...sure it is, but thats one that the Flames created, not injuries. Again...with 3 open contract spots and time between games, there is no way in hell the NHL would call anything facing feaster and the Flames an emergency.

[getbak]

The NHL and CHL have a player movement agreement which states that once the NHL season begins, if a player has been returned to his CHL club, he can't be called-up to the NHL until his CHL team's season is over.

As we found out last year, if the NHL team currently has a minimum of 3 roster players on injury recall from the AHL, they can perform an emergency call-up from the CHL, but the player must be returned to the CHL once the emergency situation is resolved.

We have no reason to assume that those rules would be any different just because it's a goalie injury.

[transplant99]

Just found the reason Baertschi was allowed to be recalled last year...

The Flames were able to recall Baertschi from junior based on an agreement between the NHL and CHL that states if a team is on its third emergency situation, the club can recall a player from major junior.

So no....no emergency exists here, and the Oil kings would likely be allowed to block the recall anyhow.

[boggledepot]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Frankly, I very much doubt that the NHL would deem this any less of an emergency then the situation whereby Sven came up. Hell, I'd consider having only one Goalie in North America under NHL contract more of an emergency then depleting the farm team of one additional piece of depth.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I mean if Feaster came out and said that the NHL wouldn't let him do it I'd believe him but absent someone in the know saying it seems farfetched to me.

I really have to think that either Kipper is hurt more then "day-to-day" would imply or Feaster just doesn't want to bother with the slightly more complicated process that ELC/Emerg Recall would entail and is willing to burn the contract slot for the convienence.

I really have to think Jay Feaster believes Danny Taylor is a better goaltender.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is simple...they have contract positions available to be used to sign replacement players in an injury situation...that option did NOT exist last year when Baertschi was brought up...and the same reason he was sent down again even though he was on a roll with the big club.

I get that... I just don't see the NHL naying "No, Sign someone" now and not saying "No, recall someone you already have on contract" then. The NHL doesn't seem that anal about the emergency recall rules... I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of them denying a team a recall (was LA at 50 contracts when they let Schenn play a game? I don't recall hearing anyone saying that they were).

Edit:

Originally Posted by transplant99

The Flames were able to recall Baertschi from junior based on an agreement between the NHL and CHL that states if a team is on its third emergency situation, the club can recall a player from major junior. .

Okey, now this I can buy as an explanation. Not that the NHL would say "no sign someone" but that the Major Junior status doesn't permit it.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I get that... I just don't see the NHL naying "No, Sign someone" now and not saying "No, recall someone you already have on contract" then. The NHL doesn't seem that anal about the emergency recall rules... I can't think of a single instance where I've heard of them denying a team a recall (was LA at 50 contracts when they let Schenn play a game? I don't recall hearing anyone saying that they were).

Because they (Flames) had already recalled 3 full time players from Abbotsford...thereby depleting them to the point they could not ice a complete roster had they called up yet another player....which would have broken the NHL/AHL agreement IIRC.

[Parallex]

Saw that after posting... edited above. I buy that as an explanation. I still maintain that it's doubtful the NHL would deny it as a descretionary matter (i.e. determining that it's not "an emergency") but if the rules state that you require a minimum number of recalls prior to plucking from MJ that I can buy.

Shame... if Kipper isn't out long I'd rather have the open contract slot.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Signing Taylor instead of Signing/Trading for a goalie is good for the other goalie prospects in the system.

It would be encouraging for Ramo and Ortio to know that the team rewards those that put in the effort. This hasnt always been the case.

It also tells players that sigining an AHL deal with this orgnaization doesn't exclude from getting a chance at the NHL.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Some good/funny Ward and Taylor quotes from Dan Kinvig's article:

"His mental game is far superior to most guys at this level," Ward said. "He has his unique style, but I think it's one of his biggest strengths.

"I tend to just leave the bast*rd alone. The more I talk to him, the more I screw him up."

During stoppages in play, Taylor skates out to the hashmarks, drops to one knee, and stares at the puck – located on one of the faceoff dots in preparation for the next draw.

It's a classic goalie quirk on the surface, but it's got a purpose.

"I see a lot of goalies go to their water bottles (during stoppages), or go to the bench to chat," explained Taylor, who has developed the habit since since joining the Heat in December of 2011. "I've done that in the past, and I think it's a distraction for me. I like to just be out there and do my thing, and try to be in the moment as best as possible.

"The periods are pretty long, so it's nice to give your legs a break. And the puck just happens to be there, so what better thing to look at than the puck?"

Another of Taylor's tricks is putting himself in the skates of the goalie at the other end of the ice, and reading the play from his perspective.

"We're so good defensively, sometimes I won't see a shot for 10 minutes," he noted with a chuckle. "So I'll pretend to be the goalie in the other net . . . Sometimes I get so bored back there, it's the only way to stay in it."

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The Flames may have added their 48th contract with this signing, but there is always the chance to free another one or two contract spots as the season progresses.

Let's not forget we have 8 d-men currently travelling with the team, plus Carson and Breen both playing REALLY well down in Abbotsford lately.

I can definitely see a d-man being moved if everyone stays healthy.

I vote for F Blake Comeau to get rid of....even for a hockey puck..

As for the D-men i am not sure they will get rid of one playing in the NHL. Babchuk is tradeable but you won't get a lot for him.

[boggledepot]

Originally Posted by OzSome

I vote for F Blake Comeau to get rid of....even for a hockey puck..

As for the D-men i am not sure they will get rid of one playing in the NHL. Babchuk is tradeable but you won't get a lot for him.

The assignment of professional hockey players isn't really a democratic event.

[dissentowner]

Good deal. As for who should start I don't really care, whomever can stop the puck. I imagine Irving will get the reins first and rightfully so as he had already won an NHL job. Hopefully he can be solid.