Talbot???

dagny · Post by **dagny** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:35 pm

Will we lose him like Fata? I don't exactly understand how the waivers work. Does Talbot have to clear them to come back up? What's the criteria? Thanks! 8)

BJL · Post by **BJL** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:35 pm

He is waiver exempt.

dagny · Post by **dagny** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:51 pm

BJL wrote:
He is waiver exempt.

Thanks, but... can I get a little more than that? Why is Talbot exempt, but not Fata?
What is the criteria???

Tico Rick · Post by **Tico Rick** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:03 pm

dagny wrote:
BJL wrote:
He is waiver exempt.
Thanks, but... can I get a little more than that? Why is Talbot exempt, but not Fata?
What is the criteria???

Rookies are exempt.

PensFanBryan · Post by **PensFanBryan** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:59 pm

Fata is in his 6th (atleast) season as a pro... Talbot is only in his 2nd pro season. That is what makes Fata Waiver Eligible and Talbot not eligible.

dagny · Post by **dagny** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:02 pm

PensFanBryan wrote:
Fata is in his 6th (atleast) season as a pro... Talbot is only in his 2nd pro season. That is what makes Fata Waiver Eligible and Talbot not eligible.

How is Talbot considered a rookie, if this is his second pro season? I appreciate all the help with my hockey education.

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:08 pm

dagny wrote:
PensFanBryan wrote:
Fata is in his 6th (atleast) season as a pro... Talbot is only in his 2nd pro season. That is what makes Fata Waiver Eligible and Talbot not eligible.

How is Talbot considered a rookie, if this is his second pro season? I appreciate all the help with my hockey education.

First year pro = professional contract (ie AHL/NHL)

Rookie = NHL experience

Look at Colby Armstrong, at WBS for 3 years (I think), first year with the Pens. Four year pro, but NHL rookie.

dagny · Post by **dagny** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:09 pm

Daniel wrote:
dagny wrote:
PensFanBryan wrote:
Fata is in his 6th (atleast) season as a pro... Talbot is only in his 2nd pro season. That is what makes Fata Waiver Eligible and Talbot not eligible.

How is Talbot considered a rookie, if this is his second pro season? I appreciate all the help with my hockey education.
First year pro = professional contract (ie AHL/NHL)

Rookie = NHL experience

Look at Colby Armstrong, at WBS for 3 years (I think), first year with the Pens. Four year pro, but NHL rookie.

Sometimes... that's all I need.

Dallas? Daniel? Is this my very first Pens friend?!?

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:18 pm

dagny wrote:
Daniel wrote:
dagny wrote:
PensFanBryan wrote:
Fata is in his 6th (atleast) season as a pro... Talbot is only in his 2nd pro season. That is what makes Fata Waiver Eligible and Talbot not eligible.

How is Talbot considered a rookie, if this is his second pro season? I appreciate all the help with my hockey education.
First year pro = professional contract (ie AHL/NHL)

Rookie = NHL experience

Look at Colby Armstrong, at WBS for 3 years (I think), first year with the Pens. Four year pro, but NHL rookie.

Sometimes... that's all I need.
Dallas? Daniel? Is this my very first Pens friend?!?

Yes, this is your very first Pens friend. How have you been doing so far?

Post by **Mango Salsa** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:45 pm

I believe there are a certain number of NHL games a guy has to play before he has to clear waivers or is cno onger considered a rookie. I remember having this discussion about Milan Kraft a couple seasons ago.

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:51 pm

Mango Salsa wrote:
I believe there are a certain number of NHL games a guy has to play before he has to clear waivers or is cno onger considered a rookie. I remember having this discussion about Milan Kraft a couple seasons ago.

I think it has to do with how many years since signing a first pro contract. I think Armstrong/Endicott are examples of that, they have to clear waivers, even though they are rookies (know Endo for sure, pretty sure on Armstrong).

dagny · Post by **dagny** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:50 pm

Mango Salsa wrote:
I believe there are a certain number of NHL games a guy has to play before he has to clear waivers or is cno onger considered a rookie. I remember having this discussion about Milan Kraft a couple seasons ago.

What ever happened with Kraft? (I was out of touch with Pens info at the time) I understand what happened with Morozov... but not Beech. Say. . . what ever happened to Tibbetts???

Pipes Hochuli · Post by **Pipes Hochuli** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:08 am

tibbets is in the ahl, emphasis on american because he's not allowed into canada

Post by **Pitts** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:50 am

Daniel wrote:
Mango Salsa wrote:
I believe there are a certain number of NHL games a guy has to play before he has to clear waivers or is cno onger considered a rookie. I remember having this discussion about Milan Kraft a couple seasons ago.
I think it has to do with how many years since signing a first pro contract. I think Armstrong/Endicott are examples of that, they have to clear waivers, even though they are rookies (know Endo for sure, pretty sure on Armstrong).

It's is actually variations of both. I don't have time, or effort, to look it up. But basically, it like 70 NHL games, 2 seasons on an NHL roster or 6 professional seasons (AHL and NHL). Something like that!

BJL · Post by **BJL** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:08 am

I *believe* in Talbot's case, since he was 20 when he signed his contract and played in his first professional game, he has 3 years or 160 NHL games (whichever comes first) before he is eligible for waivers.

Fleury was 18, so for him it was 6 years or 80 NHL games. He's up to 50 NHL games now, so they won't have a problem doing a paper transaction to get him on Wilkes-Barre's clear day roster for the playoffs.

Guys like Ouellet, Endicott, and Armstrong all have to go through waivers going down, but not up. Whitney is the only other waiver exempt player on our team.

Talbot???

Talbot???

Why?

Re: Why?

Thanks for your indulgence. . .

Re: Thanks for your indulgence. . .

Thank you for spelling that out. . .

Re: Thank you for spelling that out. . .

Another question I had. . .