One-way v. Two-way Contracts

The rules above are the complete rules for determining whether a player has to pass through Regular Waivers. There is a widely-held misconception that whether the player has a one or two-way contract has an effect on waiver status. The only thing a one-way or a two-way contract signifies is what the player is paid. A player on a two-way contract is paid one salary in the NHL and a lesser salary in the AHL. A player on a one-way contract is paid the same whether he is playing in the NHL or AHL.

A player's AHL salary determined whether a player was eligible for re-entry waivers, but with those a thing of the past, the type of contract has absolutely no bearing on the NHL waiver process, no matter how it works in EA Sport's NHL series of video games.
- SMP8719

EA's NHL is exactly why people think that way (or so I have had many people tell me as I don't have any video games).

Gonna expand on my post a bit above for our top 6...

Obvious top 6 spots...

Crosby, Malkin, Horny, Kessel. Think we all can agree upon that, no arguments.

Now, who gets the other two spots? Gonna break it down into those who have had success in the top 6 before, those who havn't (or little) but seem capable, and those in need or a shot/leap of faith to try it out.

Priors: Kunitz, Dupuis, Perron, Bennett
Capable: Fehr, Bonino, Plot
Unknown: Bennett, Plot, Sheary, Sprong

I don't think that is a bad list... got from what I see 7 people who have done top 6 minutes in some form... 1 however, Fehr, is injurred to start here.

1. Sutter's numbers are worse by a substantial margin compared to Bonino's.

2. Ignoring cap issues is a pointless argument. Every team is subjected to the cap so every player must be evaluated based on their cost-effectiveness.
- jfkst1

Different roles, different line mates and different teams. and u have to cherry pic to say substantial. I have only seen sutter in the PO since I don't get pens games here. But I have watched lots of Bonino with the Canucks and Anaheim.

And obviously the cap matters.... I only mentioned it because it does
I was just comparing the players.

Do you guys like hockey or stats more?

Different roles, different line mates and different teams. and u have to cherry pic to say substantial. I have only seen sutter in the PO since I don't get pens games here. But I have watched lots of Bonino with the Canucks and Anaheim.

And obviously the cap matters.... I only mentioned it because it does
I was just comparing the players.
- SMP8719

advanced stats guys always have to cherry pick.

Do you guys like hockey or stats more?
- Grinder47

I heart russians


YOU GOT ME BANNED YOU ()&(^*%*^%*(&)*!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what you are saying is you have never seen Bonino play
guy can't keep up with Tanner Glass. Good hands and deceptive shot.... nothing else.... You guys say Sutter is soft.... but he skates much faster and had 3 times the hits Bonino had. I am no where near enamored with Sutter, especially at 4 million plus..... but he is an Upgrade on Bonino if you ignore cap issues.
- SMP8719

Ummm...ignoring cap issues in a salary cap league is basically idiotic. In general terms, we traded players of similar skill sets, and saved $1.2 million in the process. This allowed us to sign Fehr. And that's even before we talk about Clendening and the improved draft pick.

I like Sutter more than most here, but the Pens got very solid return for a guy they weren't going to resign anyways.

Ummm...ignoring cap issues in a salary cap league is basically idiotic. In general terms, we traded players of similar skill sets, and saved $1.2 million in the process. This allowed us to sign Fehr. And that's even before we talk about Clendening and the improved draft pick.

I like Sutter more than most here, but the Pens got very solid return for a guy they weren't going to resign anyways.
- Emperor Filonius

1.4

DUH

advanced stats guys always have to cherry pick.
- ChrisMS

Only if you don't understand the numbers.

Only if you don't understand the numbers.
- jfkst1

actually, only if you do understand hockey. and love it. you cant quantify everything my friend. dont try to quantify the love of a sport that brings us all here. see it as a tool. a great tool. But in a ame like hockey... it can only take you so far...

you my friend have a great understanding of the numbers.... I hope you still can retain the love of the game the rest of us have.

actually, only if you do understand hockey. and love it. you cant quantify everything my friend. dont try to quantify the love of a sport that brings us all here. see it as a tool. a great tool. But in a ame like hockey... it can only take you so far...

you my friend have a great understanding of the numbers.... I hope you still can retain the love of the game the rest of us have.
- ChrisMS

I don't have a great understanding of numbers. Anyone can understand the numbers if they wanted to. I could say Sutter looks better than Malkin based on my eye-test and no one could prove me wrong. Which is why I don't like eye tests, there's far too much randomness. In actuality, idk how anyone could watch Sutter and not see his horrid play either without even looking at the numbers.

I don't have a great understanding of numbers. Anyone can understand the numbers if they wanted to. I could say Sutter looks better than Malkin based on my eye-test and no one could prove me wrong. Which is why I don't like eye tests, there's far too much randomness. In actuality, idk how anyone could watch Sutter and not see his horrid play either without even looking at the numbers.
- jfkst1

wha? if your argument is sutter vs. malkin your in troubs babes.

I like you

but dont head towards the sammy magicmike donkeykong level of anger. not worth it. sutter wasnt that bad... he wasnt nearly 3.3 mil worth good. but he had his moments.

1.4

DUH


- ChrisMS

I love it when I mess up simple arithmetic when it works in my favor.

wha? if your argument is sutter vs. malkin your in troubs babes.

I like you

but dont head towards the sammy magicmike donkeykong level of anger. not worth it. sutter wasnt that bad... he wasnt nearly 3.3 mil worth good. but he had his moments.
- ChrisMS

I like Sammy and Mike. Though Sammy is seriously the most negative person I have ever met.

Well boys, let's enjoy having hockey while we can. There's 100% going to be a lockout in the next few years.

Everyone is demanding more money, from third liners to the elite. Sutter going to make 4.4? Imagine a legit 3c on his next deal. His agent will point there to start. Next elite winger? He'll point to Jake's new deal and more than likely make more. The next elite center? He'll point to Toew's especially if he has better #'s, which is highly likely.

Contracts are getting out of control these days. At the rate they're going and the rate the cap is going to raise, CAN vs USD and the expansion we're in for at least a year of no hockey soon.

I like Sammy and Mike. Though Sammy is seriously the most negative person I have ever met.
- jfkst1

I like them too! But to get that aitn worth it

Well boys, let's enjoy having hockey while we can. There's 100% going to be a lockout in the next few years.

Everyone is demanding more money, from third liners to the elite. Sutter going to make 4.4? Imagine a legit 3c on his next deal. His agent will point there to start. Next elite winger? He'll point to Jake's new deal and more than likely make more. The next elite center? He'll point to Toew's especially if he has better #'s, which is highly likely.

Contracts are getting out of control these days. At the rate they're going and the rate the cap is going to raise, CAN vs USD and the expansion we're in for at least a year of no hockey.
- Pens_Burgh

apparently I have sloth sperm... lots of it and mobile... but the heads are slightly dented.... HEY YOU GUYS has become a slogan when boom boom occurs.... I have had a few by the way

Well (frank) me - rambling on with HB 'facts' again. That makes a lot more sense, no one made that point the other day! Well now he can be seen as Harro's replacement - my apologies Gunner.
- Aussiepenguin

I think the 2 way deal only effects his pay difference between the NHL and the AHL. Pretty sure he has to still pass through waivers because he has 3 years of pro experience.

actually, only if you do understand hockey. and love it. you cant quantify everything my friend. dont try to quantify the love of a sport that brings us all here. see it as a tool. a great tool. But in a ame like hockey... it can only take you so far...

you my friend have a great understanding of the numbers.... I hope you still can retain the love of the game the rest of us have.
- ChrisMS

Totally agree that statsism sucks the love out of it. Kind of how I never understood why folks would pay to go to a baseball game and sit there and keep score. Um, there's that scoreboard thingy out there, look at that. And pass me my beer.

I have plenty of issues with advanced stats - but my biggest one is the elimination of the human element. Not all shots are equal. Not all goals are equal. Sure, they result in an additional tick on a series of totals, but they're not all the same.

Players are not all the same. They do things in different ways. They rely on different skills to succeed. Advanced stats all point towards one particular type of player as the template for greatness, while ignoring the unquantifiable elements that make hockey hockey. It's no coincidence that advanced stats typically fly out the window in the playoffs.

I'll admit that some of this is personal to me. As a teacher, I see great similarities between the unathletic mathemagicians who openly seek to take over hockey and the accountability-crazed bureaucrats and politicians who have reduced student evaluation to a few sets of numbers.

Like coaches who watch their players every day in hockey who have statistical bean counters telling them their assessments are wrong, numbers alone do not describe my students or my performance in teaching them.

The state exams said that one of my students "failed" her end of grade test by 4 points. But this girl couldn't even sit in a chair for 10 minutes (at the age of 14) at the beginning of the school year, was easily two years behind in retention of content, and had an awful home life.

By the end of the year, she paid attention every class. Took notes. Did every assignment. Was excited to finally understand concepts she never grasped. Asked inquisitive things about off-topic subjects. But then she took the test, and she failed, because some dude in a suit said so via his construction of metrics designed to impersonally measure students they'll never meet. Despite my tireless and ultimately fruitful effort to help her, the numbers say that I failed, too, while those bureaucrats never once observed me teach. In the same way that advanced stats guys in hockey will analyze a player they've never seen play.

I don't want hockey to lose its soul, the way education is threatened with losing its soul.

And for the record, I teach science. Quantification is important to me. But hockey is not an experiment. It's certainly a petri dish where variables collide against each other in ways that can be measured, but there's an underlying and subtle artistic quality that is lost in the current barrage of numbers.

Totally agree that statsism sucks the love out of it. Kind of how I never understood why folks would pay to go to a baseball game and sit there and keep score. Um, there's that scoreboard thingy out there, look at that. And pass me my beer.

I have plenty of issues with advanced stats - but my biggest one is the elimination of the human element. Not all shots are equal. Not all goals are equal. Sure, they result in an additional tick on a series of totals, but they're not all the same.

Players are not all the same. They do things in different ways. They rely on different skills to succeed. Advanced stats all point towards one particular type of player as the template for greatness, while ignoring the unquantifiable elements that make hockey hockey. It's no coincidence that advanced stats typically fly out the window in the playoffs.

I'll admit that some of this is personal to me. As a teacher, I see great similarities between the unathletic mathemagicians who openly seek to take over hockey and the accountability-crazed bureaucrats and politicians who have reduced student evaluation to a few sets of numbers.

Like coaches who watch their players every day in hockey who have statistical bean counters telling them their assessments are wrong, numbers alone do not describe my students or my performance in teaching them.

The state exams said that one of my students "failed" her end of grade test by 4 points. But this girl couldn't even sit in a chair for 10 minutes (at the age of 14) at the beginning of the school year, was easily two years behind in retention of content, and had an awful home life.

By the end of the year, she paid attention every class. Took notes. Did every assignment. Was excited to finally understand concepts she never grasped. Asked inquisitive things about off-topic subjects. But then she took the test, and she failed, because some dude in suit said so via his construction of metrics designed to impersonally measure students they'll never meet. Despite my tireless and ultimate fruitful effort to help her, the numbers say that I failed, too, while those bureaucrats never once observed me teach. In the same way that advanced stats guys in hockey will analyze a player they've never seen play.

I don't want hockey to lose its soul, the way education is threatened with losing its soul.

And for the record, I teach science. Quantification is important to me. But hockey is not an experiment. It's certainly a petri dish where variables collide against each other in ways that can be measured, but there's an underlying and subtle artistic quality that is lost in the current barrage of numbers.
- hardnosed

wow...


u....




dont know what to say. Doc. Fro was and is one of my favs ever... (high school chem). we usually are on the same page toughshnoze. 2

Gonna expand on my post a bit above for our top 6...

Obvious top 6 spots...

Crosby, Malkin, Horny, Kessel. Think we all can agree upon that, no arguments.

Now, who gets the other two spots? Gonna break it down into those who have had success in the top 6 before, those who havn't (or little) but seem capable, and those in need or a shot/leap of faith to try it out.

Priors: Kunitz, Dupuis, Perron, Bennett
Capable: Fehr, Bonino, Plot
Unknown: Bennett, Plot, Sheary, Sprong

I don't think that is a bad list... got from what I see 7 people who have done top 6 minutes in some form... 1 however, Fehr, is injurred to start here.
- Guile

How is plot capable but also unknown. He has just as good a shot of not making the
team at all as he does making the top 6

How is plot capable but also unknown. He has just as good a shot of not making the
team at all as he does making the top 6
- jchst22

Lets see... his showcase in the Worlds and his KHL experience makes him capable, but unknown how he will adjust here.

Its like your post... you showcased the ability to read and write, but not cognitive thinking.

Totally agree that statsism sucks the love out of it. Kind of how I never understood why folks would pay to go to a baseball game and sit there and keep score. Um, there's that scoreboard thingy out there, look at that. And pass me my beer.

I have plenty of issues with advanced stats - but my biggest one is the elimination of the human element. Not all shots are equal. Not all goals are equal. Sure, they result in an additional tick on a series of totals, but they're not all the same.

Players are not all the same. They do things in different ways. They rely on different skills to succeed. Advanced stats all point towards one particular type of player as the template for greatness, while ignoring the unquantifiable elements that make hockey hockey. It's no coincidence that advanced stats typically fly out the window in the playoffs.

I'll admit that some of this is personal to me. As a teacher, I see great similarities between the unathletic mathemagicians who openly seek to take over hockey and the accountability-crazed bureaucrats and politicians who have reduced student evaluation to a few sets of numbers.

Like coaches who watch their players every day in hockey who have statistical bean counters telling them their assessments are wrong, numbers alone do not describe my students or my performance in teaching them.

The state exams said that one of my students "failed" her end of grade test by 4 points. But this girl couldn't even sit in a chair for 10 minutes (at the age of 14) at the beginning of the school year, was easily two years behind in retention of content, and had an awful home life.

By the end of the year, she paid attention every class. Took notes. Did every assignment. Was excited to finally understand concepts she never grasped. Asked inquisitive things about off-topic subjects. But then she took the test, and she failed, because some dude in a suit said so via his construction of metrics designed to impersonally measure students they'll never meet. Despite my tireless and ultimately fruitful effort to help her, the numbers say that I failed, too, while those bureaucrats never once observed me teach. In the same way that advanced stats guys in hockey will analyze a player they've never seen play.

I don't want hockey to lose its soul, the way education is threatened with losing its soul.

And for the record, I teach science. Quantification is important to me. But hockey is not an experiment. It's certainly a petri dish where variables collide against each other in ways that can be measured, but there's an underlying and subtle artistic quality that is lost in the current barrage of numbers.
- hardnosed

Lets see... his showcase in the Worlds and his KHL experience makes him capable, but unknown how he will adjust here.

Its like your post... you showcased the ability to read and write, but not cognitive thinking.
- Guile

Because KHL experience helps everyone

Because KHL experience helps everyone
- jchst22

So... you'd rather he have no experience, or only AHL experience, vs KHL and strong showing at the Worlds?

You're an idiot right? You can't be taking your own posts seriously at this point.