Jump to content

Talk:2015–16 NHL transactions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft day trades

[edit]

The draft day trades need to be moved to the previous year's Transactions page. Not only is are the beginning of the day's drafts there, but the NHL seasons roll over on July 1st. Anything before hand needs to be on the 14-15 page. 74.9.203.129 (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up just about every year for a long time. The consensus so far around here is that the new season starts on the date of the draft, it just makes more sense when you look at how we write things like the team season articles to do it this way. Deadman137 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%, and have been the main advocate to do so, the past couple of years, but it just seems easier to maintain status quo in the community here. I wouldn't even say consensus says we keep it that way, but history and high-ups do, so it stays. -Uncleben85 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we hit the halfway mark of this season and draw closer to another rollover of pages, is anybody willing to discuss this again? I think new pages should start on July 1... not draft day, for several reasons. -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call-ups from AHL or ECHL affiliate

[edit]

This has never happened before in previous articles but when a player is called up from the AHL or ECHL, the league requires they sign a contract (unless an entry level contract from previous years) to play an NHL game. When considering transactions in the NHL, should this be accounted for or not? Conyo14 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all players called up from the AHL are already on an NHL contract - technically ALL players "called up" ARE on NHL contract. Any player playing in the AHL or ECHL without and NHL contract who then joins an NHL team are free agents signing a new contract, regardless of how long they've been in the organization with the farm team. As with any free agent signing (from minors, or Europe) we do not include their movement, unless they were on NHL contract elsewhere in the previous season. This page tracks NHL contract movements from season-to-season (as well as draft pick transactions).
ex. 1: Byron Froese played last year with the Toronto Marlies on AHL contract and had no NHL contract. This offseason he earned an NHL contract from Toronto brass. Because he was not on an NHL contract anywhere last year though, he is not included in the page. (If the signing happened in-season, the outcome would be the same, I just could not think of an example for that off the top of my head.)
ex. 2: Last year Brad Mills was playing with the Binghamton Senators on AHL contract and had no NHL contract. In January, Ottawa felt he had earned an NHL contract, and signed him to one. He WAS included in last year's page because although he was an AHL to NHL free agent signing, he had held NHL contract with Chicago the year previously. (When this happens the player must also go on NHL waivers before finalizing his NHL contact.)
-Uncleben85 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Dupuis

[edit]
  • Pascal Dupuis has announced he will never play again. No retirement papers have been filed with the league, and the Pittsburgh Penguins have formally stated he will remain with the team in another capacity, active contract, and counted on the LTIR, ie. with effect on the cap and on their 90 man reserve, and most importantly, tradeable.
I understand including them in the article, but, imo, precedent has been set with Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, and Nathan Horton. None of them were included in their respective articles as retirees and each of them were ultimately traded. Including the contract as retired, and then including them in a transaction would not make a lot of sense.
When his contract expires and he officially retires, I say include him then.
-Uncleben85 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the difference here is that Pronger, Savard and Horton haven't made any formal announcements. Since Dupuis has firmly stated he won't be playing anymore, that to me acts like a retirement, regardless of being on contract still. Rusted AutoParts 18:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyers confirmed Pronger would never play again: http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2013/10/15/4840722/chris-pronger-injury-update-retirement-flyers. He also took a job with the NHL and was inducted in the HHOF (neither of which I agreed with because his contract remains, but that's another discussion, haha). The NHL and Boston openly discussed how Savard will likely never play again: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=587549. And you are correct about Horton, in fact, he still remains hopeful to return, though understands the longshot of it. The league and the individuals' teams though in Pronger and Savard's cases recognized the players would not play again, and yet the contracts remained active, and were both traded. That's the kicker for me. The player is not retired. They are injured and still tradeable commodities. And if you check the team's reserve lists, the team has to include them, hence why they still have to put them on LTIR (LTIR and team insurance won't transfer to a retired player either). -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other thing to remember here is that if a player retires for any reason with a valid contract, the player is no longer entitled to any of the remaining money he is owed. Since all of these players were injured while they were playing they are entitled to their full pay through LTIR, similar to what we saw with previously injured players being paid during the last lockout. To make a long story short, these are all technically injured players and should be treated as such until their contracts expire. Deadman137 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my part, I'm disinclined to play ball with these silly technicalities. If a player says he's never playing again, he's retired, and that should be reflected in his article. However: this is an article chronicling official transactions. If the player hasn't "officially" retired, and he remains under contract with his team, then such an announcement shouldn't affect this article. Ravenswing 07:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup as long as he is being paid he isn't retired for the purposes of this page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a new section for LTIR and place him there. I understand conforming to uniformity from previous seasons but this is a rare occurrence. I feel that adding the section of LTIR with the explanation of his situation will be satisfactory. If/when he announces his official retirement then reflect that additionally in the retirement section whenever that season occurs. –B2Project(Talk) 13:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two issues with that. LTIR does not change the state of player's contract, just the playing status of a player, ie. its not a transaction. Also, where do end that? Do we include Pronger, Savard, Horton, Ohlund? How do we mark players on LTIR who come back (LTIR need just be out for 10 games or 24 days)? Players go on and come back all the time. -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is an article about "transactions" (which is more or less the term used for contracts and other official player documentation) I would think that Dupuis does not belong on the list of Retirees since he remains under contract and is still technically tradeable. However, if we decide he should be included, I think his name should probably have a notation or asterisk stating that he is not officially retired, remains under contract, and does not plan to play again (which could then be done retroactively to Pronger and Horton and so on). Yosemiter (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a video published by NHL's official Youtube page showing a tribute to Dupuis. The description of the video reads "The Pittsburgh Penguins and Consol Energy Center faithful pay tribute to **recently retired forward Pascal Dupuis** with a chorus or cheers and a video tribute." This to me shows the NHl regards his departure from the game as a retirement. Therefore, I feel with this video and the fact he made an official announcement (on his own behalf, which holds alot more water than the organization) should be more than enough to warrant inclusion in the Retirements section. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I disagree. I think he understands he will no longer play and is effectively retired, but what holds more water than his word is the official documentation, which says he has not officially, formally retired. Again, the biggest sticking point for me is that his contract is still in play, cap-wise and in terms of eligibility for transactions, and so he should remain eligible for transactions on this page.-Uncleben85 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk has been going for 9 days now. Those for removing Dupuis in the listed section tally as: Uncleben85, Deadman137, Ravenswing, DJSasso, B2Project, Yosemiter; Against: Rusted AutoParts. Dupuis has been edited out of the Retirements section until a formal retirement is completed. -Uncleben85 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undrafted free agents

[edit]

Had a quick questions regarding free agents. Technically, a player like Kasimir Kaskisuo, who signed with Toronto as a free agent should be included in the free agents table, no? Same with undrafted players from the CHL, Europe, etc. Is there a policy against adding them? Spilia4 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is specifically for internal NHL transactions, ie. transactions involving players already in the NHL system (prospects or signed players). I personally would have no issue including European or minor/junior league signings, but I think it largely comes down to keeping an already busy page not any more cluttered than it is. -Uncleben85 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015–16 NHL transactions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015–16_NHL_transactions&oldid=1196700684"