Yelle Clears Waivers, Remains With Team
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 27, 2009 1:54 PM EDT
50 comments
Carolina Hurricanes forward Stephane Yelle cleared waivers today, meaning that no other team in the NHL claimed him. According to Canes Now, he will remain with the team and most likely will see action on the fourth line tomorrow night against St. Louis. It will be interesting to see what happens when Ruutu's suspension is over, (Sunday), and when Erik Cole returns to the lineup.
Yelle's future is still up in the air. If he starts performing the way that management envisioned when they signed him in August, then this waiver situation would be soon forgotten. Also, a lot depends upon how the team performs. If they continue losing, look for more steps like these in the coming days and weeks.
For now, the Canes are experimenting by moving some players around.
_____
Coach Paul Maurice is concerned about the penalties taken and admits it disrupts momentum. In this interview, he also mentions that there are good penalties as well as bad ones, something Canes Country readers are well aware of.
It's keeping us from really pushing that momentum," Maurice said. "It's got to be 10 or 11 mimutes (in penalties) to (the opponents') three and four minutes each of our last two games, and nobody does that well.
"I think that's the big factor in how we're playing. ... I don't mind some of the penalties you take. You go in, you're aggressive, crosses the line, this game happens so fast sometimes that's just going to happen.
"It's the penalty that does nothing for you, there's no benefit to it. Basically every time we've lifted our stick to parallel we're going to the box. We've either got to complain about it or stop lifting our sticks -- those are our two options."
The team is also going to try moving Brandon Sutter to wing. He'll be on a line with Jussi Jokinen and Sergei Samsonov. More feedback about that tomorrow.
0 recs |
50 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I have a question: so he cleared waivers, does that mean we can send him down at any time now or is there some sort of time limit and then has to clear waivers again? Just askin….
by rubyhawk on Oct 27, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t know. You almost have to be a lawyer to understand the various waiver rules. I’ll find out and post later though.
GM of CanesCountry.com
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 27, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a bit of curiosity on my part. I appreciate it tho Bob.
by rubyhawk on Oct 27, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
waiver rule concerning Yelle
“Yelle can be sent down at any time in the next thirty days or before ten games are
played, whichever comes first. In Yelle’s case, the ten game time
limit is in play, as the Canes’ tenth game (counting tomorrow as #1)
will be 11/17 at Montreal, or twenty days after he cleared.”
GM of CanesCountry.com
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 27, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Juice, Sammy, and Sutter, I like the dynamics of the line, even if it is a little smallish.
by wylde4canes on Oct 27, 2009 2:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand why they keep putting Rosie on the first line. I like Rosies play alot but he is NOT first line material.
by canescup on Oct 27, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
IMO, it is a symptom of a much larger problem.
The Canes are missing a legitimate 1st line winger.
Sorry Cole, but even when you’re healthy I am not sure you are the answer.
by Iggy Reilly on Oct 27, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen, but Ruu, Ray and Staal I sure liked.
A
by Paladin6 on Oct 27, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is John Forslund not blogging this season???.......
I can’t seem to find him anywhere, and I like his inside look at the team and his opinion where they need to go.
by canescup on Oct 27, 2009 3:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
no, he is not blogging this year.
GM of CanesCountry.com
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 27, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a loss. John always had nice info to spread around. Guesss not to many people were visiting WRAL’s sports page.
Ever think about getting him to blog here Bob? :)
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
by Ivan459 on Oct 27, 2009 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Richards hit on Booth
I posted this elsewhere so feel free to delete or remove if need be!
Is there a reason the Flyer’s Richards gets no suspension for his hit on Booth? It certainly looks more malicious than Ruutu’s as Richards appears to be gunning right for Booth’s head from the get go. Just an honest question if anyone has any insight on why Ruutu is slapped with a 3-game suspension and Richards gets no disciplinary action.
by anonymousJ on Oct 27, 2009 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the real question isn’t why Ruuts got suspended, but why Richards did not receive any disciplinary action – there were two other hits this past week (in addition to Ruuty’s) that resulted in suspensions and/or fines.
by Andrea's evil twin on Oct 27, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The hit on Booth was disgusting./ I feel bad for the guy. Richards just nailed him in the head with his forearm. Totally unnecessary.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
by Ivan459 on Oct 27, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And why does Steve Ott only get 2 games suspension when he is a repeated offender? He committed 2 questionable hits in the same game. I don’t understand the inconsistency in the punishments.
Live & Learn
by Cathye on Oct 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I understand Ruutu’s suspension for the most part but was just shocked to read Richards got no disciplinary action whatsoever.
by anonymousJ on Oct 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the other hit (similar to Ott’s) was Scuderi…
Yeah, I don’t know the answer – it’s sort of frustrating (to put it mildly)…
by Andrea's evil twin on Oct 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the rules it’s clean.
And there lies the problem with the rules.
by DaleCooper on Oct 27, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That Scuderi hit was ALOT worse than the one by Ott, maybe legal (both totally unnecessary) yet Scuderi only gets a fine and Ott suspended? Ruu’s hit was illegal although 3 games is a bit much IMO. Richards hit although clean, was so NOT in my book. Those handing out the discipline are as inconsistent as our team.
by jenniwa30 on Oct 27, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the league really wants to stop hits to the head, they would have suspended Richards. There should be an automatic suspension for any hit to the head, no matter the intention or circumstances. But instead they let players off the hook and the media then turns around and blames the victim (he should have kept his head up, etc). It really frustrates me…
by caniacgirl on Oct 27, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Make no mistake, the keep ur head up cry has legs. The primary responsibility for your safety lies with you. The boarding stuff is most often bad news, but the open ice ones are often a case of puck gazing and tunnel vision. I feel for the recipients of the hit, but they gotta be aware of what is happening. My beef with Richards hit, though is it was high
by wylde4canes on Oct 27, 2009 11:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that, but to use that as a justification for why a hit to the head isn’t punished is ridiculous. The legal system doesn’t blame the victim no matter how unsavory they are, so why should the NHL rulebook? Unfortunately, I think it’s going to take someone getting seriously injured (beyond just a concussion or a few broken bones) before the league is willing to take a stand.
by caniacgirl on Oct 28, 2009 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that even that would necessarily change anything
I think the league is just being stupid and stubborn and stupid… and did I say stupid?
by Andrea's evil twin on Oct 28, 2009 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, you’re probably right Andrea. I just hope it doesn’t come to someone having a life threatening injury for them to act.
by caniacgirl on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The legal system if probably not your best model to emulate!
I agree that hits to the head are an issue, but it becomes a matter of intent. And if we use the legal system as our model as you suggets, then intent does count for something.
In this case I think you can make an argument that Richards was intentionally high, but you can make an argument also that there was no intent to hit high. The game is fast and dangerous, to eliminate hits to the head, you have to eliminate hitting. Accidents are going to happen and with big bodies flying around at the speeds they do, the accidents are going to be bad from time to time. Now leaving your feet for a hit to the head ( I’m looking at you Phaneuf, Ovie, and company) that should be an automatic hefty suspension and fine.
All that said, there is a double standard. Present, I am just not sure it was applied here.
by wylde4canes on Oct 28, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You wouldn’t have to eliminate hitting to eliminate hits to the head. The only hit that would be eliminated is hits to the head which I can’t see anyone arguing against. They are trying to get rid of hits from behind and there hasn’t been any reduction in hitting. Other sports have taken steps to protect their players (football is the best example I can come up with right now) and it hasn’t made the game any less physical.
And while the legal system takes intent into account, it also doesn’t let murderers off the hook because they killed a drug dealer who “had it coming”. That is the point I’m trying to make. You can’t use “he put his head down” as a reason not to punish someone for a dangerous hit.
by caniacgirl on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
woah woah, bad analogy. The guy who put his head down is not the drug dealer who had it coming to him. The guy who puts his head down is the drunk who keeps staggering into the middle of the street. You can blame the driver for not stopping, but you also have to take into consideration the guy endangered himself to begin with.
I would also ask you in return how many of the hits to the head we have seen would be normal clean open ice checks, if not for an akward turn, or last second repositioning of the body by the recipient. I don’t have figures but most of the time I see replays, you see guys making themselves vulnerable.
Football is played at nearly half the speed of hockey, put on some skates sometime, get yourself up to speed and imagine how a guy with legs like tractor engine pistons would be outpacing you. That is the speed that this games happens, not the speed of a ten yard dash like the NFL. You don’t have the same luxury of time to say, oh abort this check the guy turned.
by wylde4canes on Oct 28, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok I’ll admit your analogy is probably better. :) But the same principle applies-the driver is generally still held responsible. The punishment isn’t as severe as if the driver willfully and purposefully ran the guy over, but there is still a punishment. And that’s what I think the case should be here.
Yes, players should take care to not put themselves in vulnerable positions, but shouldn’t the hitter take care not to hit someone who is clearly in a vulnerable position? I’ve seen quite a few instances where the hitter had time to pull up and didn’t. No fine, no suspension because it’s technically “clean”. But it’s completely unnecessary and is going to result in a horrific outcome one of these days.
I don’t want to take the hitting out of hockey and I’m not against all open ice hits. But the league is dancing back and forth over the line of protecting players and staying true to the game. I personally would side with protecting the player any day. Maybe it’s silly and “mushy” but having witnessed the consequences of such a hit firsthand, I can’t help it.
by caniacgirl on Oct 28, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think any time an “intent to injure” penalty is given, a suspension should follow.
by Cory Lavalette on Oct 27, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen and a fine more than the salary loss!!
A
by Paladin6 on Oct 27, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that is subjective like any other on-ice call, it’s the having to PROVE the intent to injure for further disciplinary action that is the problem. But I agree with that 110%
by jenniwa30 on Oct 27, 2009 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every hit to the head should receive a penalty, no matter what. 2 minutes. Then intent to injure should be able to be added on top with the player kicked out of the game, and an automatic suspension with a conference to decide on if it needs to be different than a set number of games.
People may complain about it being lame, or that it takes physical play out of the game (really no more than boarding reduces hitting by making it against the rules to hit from behind, so that’s silly), but when you look at some of the penalties that are called now like hooking where a stick just has to be momentarily horizontal on the hands and never truly impede, it is mind boggling that there is no rule against hits to the head.
by Pirate Caniac on Oct 27, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hockey should adjust the rules so that vicious hits like these can be limited.
Football has changed rules to protect quarterbacks and kickers, it hasn’t ruin the sport or made it less physical.
The excuse that the hit was done legally (with the shoulder) is always brought up, even though these hits usually come from players with a reputation for making them.
Scott Stevens perfected the blindside shoulder hit the head, he shortened a lot of careers doing so.
by CanesFanFromLI on Oct 28, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
canescup
Thank you for bringing up rosie on the first line, seems like he is either passing the puck to the goaltender or nocking off the net. I can’t believe that I am saying this but I would like to see walker out there. To me he is the only hurricane showing up each game.
Also what is going on with Wallin, he looks like he is struggling just to keep up. Seems like he is playing hot potatoe with the puck – I do like it when he shows up an seems to have a physical edge.
by McCorkle on Oct 27, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can’t figure out Gleasons 2 , 5, & 10 penalties. I think that is the only time it has been called in the NHL this year. I think that it is overly punishing a guy for standing up for his team after a dirty or questionable hit.
by McCorkle on Oct 27, 2009 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
maybe just
opening night jitters from the officials?
Let's go Canes!
Hakkaa Paalle!
by hockeymomof2 on Oct 27, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t it 5 for fighting, two for instigating, and a 10 for misconduct? An instigator penalty results in an automatic 10 minute misconduct.
5 seconds left.
Do you believe in miracles?
YES!!
by C-Leaguer on Oct 28, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t understand why Samsonov hasn’t been put on waivers. The guy is awful.
Well, I guess I am asking to much there. He is the only player on the team I have a gripe with.
Member of Canes Country and the Cat Scratch Reader
by Ivan459 on Oct 27, 2009 8:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hes the only one on the team you have a gripe with?
not Brindy, not larose, not staal?
by briney on Oct 27, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you must not be watching the games
samsonov has played great this year, especially on his back check.
he has single handledly saved about 4 or 5 sure goals this season by getting back quickly
also
sammy creates space for the players on his line and has a great shot.
by chrisj on Oct 27, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a great shot?
I sure haven’t seen him shoot enough to know that for certain ;-)
5 seconds left.
Do you believe in miracles?
YES!!
by C-Leaguer on Oct 28, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding. Tell Sammy that please!
by Iggy Reilly on Oct 28, 2009 12:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Question about Yelle. Since he cleared waivers, but was kept with the team, does that mean we when/if we do send him to the AHL he doesnt have to clear waivers again, only when hes brought back?
by TylerA7707 on Oct 27, 2009 11:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
correct, within the guidelines below.
Yelle can be sent down at any time in the next thirty days or before ten games are
played, whichever comes first. In Yelle’s case, the ten game time
limit is in play, as the Canes’ tenth game (counting tomorrow as #1)
will be 11/17 at Montreal, or twenty days after he cleared."
GM of CanesCountry.com
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 28, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
cole
Observer says that Cole was just now placed on the IR yet is doing some light skating. Why is he just now going on the IR and when do we see him skating for real? Any insider info here?
by dahep on Oct 28, 2009 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He was just put on the IR so they could make room for Sutter on the roster, without removing anyone else. His health status has not changed.
GM of CanesCountry.com
by Bob Harwood Waeghe on Oct 28, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hockey, like baseball, has a retro-active IR and a minimum stay (14 days in hockey I think). Cole wasn’t put on the IR because he could always be put on retro-actively to the date of his injury. The team didn’t need or want to clear a roster spot at that time. With Ruutu being suspended, the team had to call someone up, but they would have been over the 23 man max roster or possibly in to cap issues without putting Cole on the IR or sending Yelle down. Since they’ve decided to keep Yelle around Cole had to go on the IR.
5 seconds left.
Do you believe in miracles?
YES!!
by C-Leaguer on Oct 28, 2009 10:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Hurricanes Schedule
Next 5 Games
Buffalo
|
Sun 03/21 | 5:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Tampa Bay
|
Tue 03/23 | 7:30 PM EDT |
|
Washington
|
Thu 03/25 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Atlanta
|
Sat 03/27 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
Atlanta
|
Mon 03/29 | 7:00 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Pittsburgh
|
Sat 03/20 | OT - W 3 - 2 |
|
Washington
|
Thu 03/18 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
|
Boston
|
Tue 03/16 | L 2 - 5 |
|
Phoenix
|
Sat 03/13 | L 0 - 4 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
Thu 03/11 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Washington
|
71 | 47 | 14 | 10 | 104 |
|
Atlanta
|
70 | 30 | 29 | 11 | 71 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
70 | 28 | 30 | 12 | 68 |
|
Florida
|
69 | 28 | 30 | 11 | 67 |
|
Carolina
|
70 | 29 | 33 | 8 | 66 |
(updated 3.20.2010 at 8:14 AM EDT)
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
