Why Tom Poti "played" last night

In case you're wondering why Tom Poti was on the ice for the opening faceoff last night, skated right off and didn't return, here's your explanation. Teams are limited to just four call-ups after the trade deadline, not counting emergency call-ups. In order for a call-up to qualify as "emergency," he has to replace a guy who "played" in the last game, but needs to go on IR. Therefore, Poti "playing" last night allows the team to make an emergency call-up today. He didn't catch a rut on his way to the bench for a quick change because the Caps were matching D pairs against Lee Stempniak or anything ridiculous like that.

about 3 years ago J.P. 23 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Poti

Thanks for the clarification.

Poti was having one hell of a game until he came off.

by SA-Town on Mar 6, 2009 12:21 PM EST reply actions

Those were the best 7 seconds of hockey I’ve ever seen.

by Ovechwin on Mar 6, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions

I preferred Neuvirth’s 23 seconds.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 6, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions

Hahaha

That was awesome, too. Going theory is that Neuvirth can skate to the bench faster than Jose can.

by gotsparkly on Mar 6, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

He skated off really fast. Not as fast as Tim Thomas after Semin blasted him in the face from 80ft away though.

by zephyr on Mar 6, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

phenomenal comment.

-shwedy

by shwedy on Mar 7, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions

I also thought that since he was announced in the starting lineup, he had to at least be there for the opening faceoff. Your explanation makes more sense.

by b.orr4 on Mar 6, 2009 12:26 PM EST reply actions

I don’t mean to be a pain JP, but that doesn’t really explain why Poti was in the line-up to start with.

Either he was healthy enough to play or he was not. He obviously wasn’t.

Your explanation (thanks for that btw, I didn’t know that) would be an answer to the hypothetical question: why would the Caps play with 5 defensemen?

by mauree on Mar 6, 2009 12:28 PM EST reply actions

Allow me to further clarify – since Poti didn’t play in the previous game and the “emergency” window relative to that game closed, he had to “play” to open a new window, as it were.

In essence, Poti wasn’t OK. So the team had the choice of shuffling like they did and thus enabling the use of a “free” call-up OR using one of their four and getting a D here to play last night. They chose the former.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 6, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions

And even though they knew Poti wasn’t ok, they sent Kronwall down to Hershey to keep him from having to go through waivers (10 games/30 days)

by Sct112 on Mar 6, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

It’s an elegant explanation. I still have my doubts that was the team real intention. Poti interview:
he thought he was going to be able to play, but then he felt a twinge in the groin muscle that has bothered him for a lot of the season. Instead of playing on it and possibly making it worse, he said he told the trainers and together they decided it would be best if he came out of the game.

So it means they wanted to actually play him.

If 7 seconds are enough to go around that rule, maybe that rule isn’t that good to begin with lol.

by mauree on Mar 6, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

Not necessarily. The team can’t come out and say “Hey, we’re manipulating the rules”.

by David Getz on Mar 6, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

In fact, anyone in the arena would have noticed that when they listed the scratches pre-game, Poti’s name was on there and AO’s was not. There was never (at least anywhere near game time) any intention of having him play the full game.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 6, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

That actually makes sense to me. Since we’re limited to four call-ups not counting emergencies, we’d need to make Poti’s replacement an “emergency” call-up… wish we hadn’t sent Kronwall down now, though, because playing with 5 D was just painful all around… :-( I turned to my hockey buddy midway through the first, and was, like, “has Mike Green even left the ice yet?!” and I was only half kidding…

by IRockTheRed on Mar 6, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions

The thing on Kronwall is there was another window – 30 days/10 games – during which he could be sent down to the AHL without having to go through waivers, and they had to move before that window closed. Why? I’m not entirely sure – he’ll have to pass through waivers if they call him back up anyway. Maybe just a favor to Hershey.

Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world

by J.P. on Mar 6, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

Its possible that they liked what they saw from Kronwall (though they didn’t see much) and that they want to keep him around for next year. Sending him down will keep him in the fold at least until July 1.

by Sct112 on Mar 6, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, that’s what Toronto did every year.

Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.

by Chemmy on Mar 6, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Bluntly?

I really, really liked Kronwall. Solid, steady, and laid a few people flat on the ice. I didn’t see him make too many bad decisions.

by gotsparkly on Mar 6, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

@mauree – It explains it to me. We could not call up a replacement without using one of our “four allowed call-ups” unless Poti was in the lineup and “played” last night. So they put him in the lineup so that we could make a call-up without using one of the four we’re allowed to use. Makes sense to me. :-)

by IRockTheRed on Mar 6, 2009 12:35 PM EST reply actions

Please. Is this really necessary? I read this in TEB/the Washington Post.

Oh, wait, no I didn’t.

Modern Art Notes

by TylerG on Mar 6, 2009 12:51 PM EST reply actions

Cheap Shot

Lee Stempniak is offended at the suggestion that a team wouldn’t want to match lines against him.

/reads his own game recap…

Oh, well carry on then.

Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.

by PPP on Mar 6, 2009 12:56 PM EST reply actions

Gee, and we thought it was a typo

in the scratches list, where some dufus thought an “8” was a “3”.

Thanks for the clarification.

by Uncle C on Mar 6, 2009 3:10 PM EST reply actions

Since we are talking about manipulating the call up rules...

Could GMGM have theoretically sent Backstrom down to Hershey after every Caps game and called him back up before the next game? Do players have to play at least one game with the team they are assigned to? I seem to remember the Cryers being famous for these paper transactions (good bye Phantoms). Would that save us a significant amount of cap room over the course of a season? I realize it would be a pretty jack ass move but I’m just curious.

by Rob Parker on Mar 6, 2009 10:29 PM EST reply actions