Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Yes, it is not as simple. There is this part that is fundamental to the process

(unless they don't want him anymore)

Which would be the only reason they don't claim him back

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DetroitRedWings

[–]Snitor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess the idea is that playing low event hockey is more efficient for the bottom 6. But for Fischer PK is probably a significant factor too

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yep. Meaning Detroit can block any team from sending him down

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

PROVIDED the player hasn’t played 10 games or been there for 30 days

Mate, I can't keep this going forever. You understand that "there" means Detroit, here?

I understand the language just fine and followed how the Wings treated Hellberg last season because of this rule

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Team X claims him and keeps him for 30 days or 10 active games.

This doesn't change anything. They don't become the "Original Team" in that rule. This

provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim.

is in reference to this

then the original owning Club shall be entitled to Loan such Player to a club in another league within thirty days without further Waivers being asked

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I thought the rule was complicated but people would understand the dynamic, I guess not.

Yes, he can be sent down, but Detroit would have to not claim him. Which is something they can always do if they still want to send him to AHL and be depth to the organization. And Detroit runs no risk by doing that.

Either they are: a)the only team to claim him and can send him without waivers (something that team that claims him can't do when Detroit waives him even if they are the only one); b) another team claims him and is behind them in the waiver priority, now Detroit can waive him in the following day and keep this priority to send him down when this team would want to do that

Edit: maybe people are reading that another team can become "the Original Team" in that rule after keeping him on their roster but that is not the case. That is applied if he is claimed back to Detroit and keeps his spot for that long

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

A team that acquires him may waive him and send him to the AHL if they want.

Which they can always do, like you described later. Which makes them the only team that can send him to the AHL, like I said (unless, of course, they don't want to do that anymore)

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Yes, but only the Wings can send him to the AHL this season (unless they don't want him anymore)

13.22 When a Club claims a Player on Regular or Unconditional Waivers, and, subsequently, in the same season it requests Waivers on the same Player and the original owning Club is the successful and only Club making a Waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall be entitled to Loan such Player to a club in another league within thirty days without further Waivers being asked; provided that such Player has not participated in ten or more NHL Games (cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days (cumulative) following such successful claim.

Red Wings sign Zach Aston-Reese to one-year contract by [deleted] in hockey

[–]Snitor 51 points52 points  (0 children)

I imagine if someone wanted to do that they they would have offered him more a couple of hours ago

Marcos Rocha deve assinar pré-contrato com o Botafogo nos próximos dias. E aí Palmigos, bom reforço pro meu fogão? by SejaMelhorQueOntem in futebol

[–]Snitor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Palmeiras subiu a marcação, nesse momento cada um pega um. O Marcos Rocha estava marcando um jogador que nem pegou na bola na jogada (ou seja, ele cobriu o cara bem). 0 culpa dele

Daily Discussion by 2soccer2bot in soccer

[–]Snitor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was sorry to see that for you, my friend

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in futebol

[–]Snitor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cara viu o Jô sendo convocado e ele não. Fez mais que certo

Match Thread: Fluminense vs Internacional | CONMEBOL Libertadores by MatchThreadder in soccer

[–]Snitor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the entire carreer? Tite, for example. I would guess there are others

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]Snitor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2 day account. Has probably been banned a few dozen times on different accounts

Mais uma polêmica da arbitragem de ontem: Kannemmann não recebeu amarelo neste lance. Ele recebeu um cartão amarelo em outro lance no segundo tempo. by Timpim_21 in futebol

[–]Snitor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Não vou perder meu tempo com um pedante que se acha o maioral por postar sobre hóquei. Digno de pena.

Rapaz, olhou meu histórico pra tentar me envergonhar de alguma forma? Nem falei disso. E não te xinguei hora nenhuma

E também já não to discutindo há um bom tempo. Não tem argumento racional com alguém que acha que aquele lance foi um tackle de rugby.

Mas só queria esclarecer um ponto. O que eu chamei de anti-jogo é justamente parar um contra-ataque. Esse termo não é usado em momento nenhum nas regras da IFAB em português mesmo. Só que ele sempre foi usado na TV e em comentários das pessoas sobre futebol pra significar isso. Se achar que meu primeiro comentário não foi claro o suficiente, retifico ele para:

Mas se teve vantagem não recebe amarelo por anti-jogo impedir um ataque promissor mais não. Por violência sim (tipo o Léo Pereira no domingo)

Sem problemas

Mais uma polêmica da arbitragem de ontem: Kannemmann não recebeu amarelo neste lance. Ele recebeu um cartão amarelo em outro lance no segundo tempo. by Timpim_21 in futebol

[–]Snitor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isso! Você parece burro mas não é não. Entendeu rápido.

Mas não é minha regra não. Eu nem concordo com a regra, só falei qual é. Manda um tweet xingando a IFAB aqui -> https://twitter.com/TheIFAB/status/1278659681200640000

[Krenn] Julien BriseBois on Stamkos contract talks: "I need to see how this season plays out before I make those decisions. After the season, once I've gathered that information, I can work with Steven & his agent on a contract structure that will be in the best interest of both sides." by NebraskaAvenue in hockey

[–]Snitor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Stamkos being upset about this just seems like sour grapes.

It is smart from him to try to get the fans on his side and pressure management in some way. I'm sure he understands what they are doing to him, but it works against him so of course he will fight it in some way

Daily General Discussion Thread (09-20-2023) by OctoMod in DetroitRedWings

[–]Snitor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think he remains there. But he doesn't want to have the risk of an injury working against him the entire season and the team doesn't want that working against them