Nikolai Khabibulin on waivers!

shabbs wrote:What is the time frame for clearing waivers?

24 hours I think? We'll know by 12:00ish tomorrow.

The pain in the Donkey of it all is if this all goes down there might be as many as 3 players having to get their arses on a plane to Sweden.

The likelihood of this happening has to go down a big % if Murray hadn't acquired Khabby earlier. Why mess with the team now while they're in Sweden. Too much hassle IMO.

Pretty f-ed up...I honestly thought Tallon had made his bed and was prepping to sleep in it until the deadline.

Makes you really wonder about the Lang trade. I'm curious as to how much the Hawks did not want Lang around their young guys (work ethic, attitude?)

smash88 wrote:

I just don't understand why he would be placed on waivers? dosen't make sense to me...

Because CHI is over the cap, needs to create space, already has Huet, has over $10 mil invested in goalies, and presumably can't find a trading partner willing to take on Khabby.

So, you waive him and hope someone claims him. If not, well, you still have options: assign him to the AHL (highly unlikely, given his salary), bring him through re-entry waivers and let someone claim him them (would happen for sure, tho' CHI would be left with half his salary), work out some kind of trade (ala the Schneider scenario), or keep him (this is still an option -- waiving a guy doesn't automatically send him to the minors; if he goes unclaimed and the team doesn't assign him to the minors, he could hypothetically play the whole season with that team).

It makes sense, in other words, for all the reasons that the Schneider waiving made sense.

504Heater wrote:

smash88 wrote:

504Heater wrote:

smash88 wrote:
I just don't understand why he would be placed on waivers? dosen't make sense to me...

There might already be a deal in place when he clears waivers. Chicago won't assign him to the AHL team, so a trade might already be worked out. They just want to see if Colorado or Ottawa will bite and just take him off their hands. If not, expect Murray to aggressively 'suggest' a Gerber, Schubert for Bulin and Barker (and now I hear some Seabrook rumblings).

Huh. Well, interesting times coming up...someone's gonna get him and Chicago is praying it's not Colorado, but...that's life when you don't know how to manage your cap.

I just don't understand it, because all it does is undervalue your guy even more...

They were never getting anything for him anyway. I have a feeling that if we're in on this -we're either getting Leopold, Barker or Seabrook. Take the pain Tallon, you screwed up - we're one of like...2 teams that needs a goalie - and it's not even a 5 alarm need for us. So if you want to get him out of the West and into the East - we'll take him, but you'll pay either way.

Buahhahaha.

Yeah your right, that they were never getting anything in the first place, but then why put him on waivers? it's just wasting time IMO...

I just hope that whatever happens we end up with Khabby instead of Gerber.... Getting Seabrooke would be nice too.. But i'm not getting my hopes up too quickly either...

rooneypoo wrote:

smash88 wrote:

I just don't understand why he would be placed on waivers? dosen't make sense to me...

Because CHI is over the cap, needs to create space, already has Huet, has over $10 mil invested in goalies, and presumably can't find a trading partner willing to take on Khabby.

So, you waive him and hope someone claims him. If not, well, you still have options: assign him to the AHL (highly unlikely, given his salary), bring him through re-entry waivers and let someone claim him them (would happen for sure, tho' CHI would be left with half his salary), work out some kind of trade (ala the Schneider scenario), or keep him (this is still an option -- waiving a guy doesn't automatically send him to the minors; if he goes unclaimed and the team doesn't assign him to the minors, he could hypothetically play the whole season with that team).

It makes sense, in other words, for all the reasons that the Schneider waiving made sense.

Yeah I guess so... Thanks for the clear up....

So now what is the next step? after noon tomorrow when nobody claimed him, then Chicago will try to trade him again?

What I think is confusing is that if there was no "market" for a trade before a player goes on waivers, why would there be one after?

For example, the Schneider trade, did he need to go on waivers for that to happen? I don't think so, unless I'm mis-understanding something.

shabbs wrote:What I think is confusing is that if there was no "market" for a trade before a player goes on waivers, why would there be one after?

For example, the Schneider trade, did he need to go on waivers for that to happen? I don't think so, unless I'm mis-understanding something.

Yeah that is exactly what I was thinking... Can they not avoid the whole waiver thing if they are going to trade him anyhow?

smash88 wrote:

shabbs wrote:What I think is confusing is that if there was no "market" for a trade before a player goes on waivers, why would there be one after?

For example, the Schneider trade, did he need to go on waivers for that to happen? I don't think so, unless I'm mis-understanding something.

Yeah that is exactly what I was thinking... Can they not avoid the whole waiver thing if they are going to trade him anyhow?

Say they try to trade him but those interested say not without Barker for example. Well you don't want to do that so you see if there are any takers for free. And like the poster said before, if not then you have options. Take that trade you were offered before (hypothetically including Barker). Bury him in the minors and eat that huge salary. Or do the re-entry stuff and eat half. If you don't do the waiver thing you never see if someone would takehim for free and you do not get to try the re-entry waiver process. Only hold on to the asset forever until you cave. This way at least they have options and it is a catalyst for something to happen. Which needed to be done before the start of the season.

MurderOnIce wrote:

smash88 wrote:

shabbs wrote:What I think is confusing is that if there was no "market" for a trade before a player goes on waivers, why would there be one after?

For example, the Schneider trade, did he need to go on waivers for that to happen? I don't think so, unless I'm mis-understanding something.

Yeah that is exactly what I was thinking... Can they not avoid the whole waiver thing if they are going to trade him anyhow?

Say they try to trade him but those interested say not without Barker for example. Well you don't want to do that so you see if there are any takers for free. And like the poster said before, if not then you have options. Take that trade you were offered before (hypothetically including Barker). Bury him in the minors and eat that huge salary. Or do the re-entry stuff and eat half. If you don't do the waiver thing you never see if someone would takehim for free and you do not get to try the re-entry waiver process. Only hold on to the asset forever until you cave. This way at least they have options and it is a catalyst for something to happen. Which needed to be done before the start of the season.

Yeah I just think there is alot more to this than what is said...

Moving Kelly as well makes more sense now that I have seen the potential line up.

Heatley - Spezza - Alfredsson
Vermette - Fisher - Winchester
Foligno - McAmmond - Donovan
Ruutu - Bass - Neil


Phillips – A Train

Kuba – Smith

Lee - Schubert



Bulin

Auld


Total salary would be about 53.668. Not sure how we could take on Seabrook unless we got Bulin on recall waivers and another deal was struck for Seabrook. So I think it would have to be Barker because we could send him to the minors and call him up later.

See, I am sure they would try to move Neil before Kelly if that could be done....

smash88 wrote:See, I am sure they would try to move Neil before Kelly if that could be done....

GP Points +/- Salary
Neil 68 20 -3 1.1
McAmmond 68 22 +3 .875
Kelly 75 30 +3 2.2


As you can see they are fairly close in stats. The biggest difference is Neil brings grit and toughness so I think he stays for now and McAmmond is cheaper than Kelly and could replace him. We could get a better return for Kelly than McAmmond and it would free up some much need cash.

I am not sure if Kelly would be moved but taking a quick look it might be our best option.

Harstburg asked Murray to retain Kelly when he got the job. There's no chance he's being traded.

504Heater wrote:Harstburg asked Murray to retain Kelly when he got the job. There's no chance he's being traded.

If that is the case lets hope he continues to improve. I'd hate to carry around a 2.2 contract when I could have potentially filled a need in another area.

Sportsnet is finally covering this piece...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/09/29/khabibulin_waivers/

Teams have until noon tomorrow to lay claim.

Tick tock...

shabbs wrote:Sportsnet is finally covering this piece...

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/09/29/khabibulin_waivers/

Teams have until noon tomorrow to lay claim.

Tick tock...

I'm pretty sure he'll clear. The salary is just to big right now. Stranger things have happened, I suppose, but I think CHI is going to have to deal him and take on salary in return OR give up a pick/prospect to make it happen.

rooneypoo wrote:I'm pretty sure he'll clear. The salary is just to big right now. Stranger things have happened, I suppose, but I think CHI is going to have to deal him and take on salary in return OR give up a pick/prospect to make it happen.

Yeah, they're going to have to sweeten the pot or become part of a bigger trade.

Maybe they'll bring him back on re-entry - Huet got blown out last night - lol

Number Twenty Nine wrote:Maybe they'll bring him back on re-entry - Huet got blown out last night - lol

Sounds like this Niemi kid is outperforming everybody at camp. He could surprise... tho' when you give a guy (Huet) that much money, you have to think he's going to be the number one no matter what.