Richardson Placed On Waivers!

http://www.ottawasun.com/Sports/Senators/2008/11/27/7555231.html

As per the Ottawa Sun, bye bye Luke. There must be something going down, this is very little cap space, but there has to be a reason.

SensGirl11 wrote:http://www.ottawasun.com/Sports/Senators/2008/11/27/7555231.html

As per the Ottawa Sun, bye bye Luke. There must be something going down, this is very little cap space, but there has to be a reason.

hmmmmm.....like you said, not much room, but a little extra cap room now.

Perhaps it's to make room on the NHL roster? It can't be for cap or play purposes.

Just a reminder: Richardson's being placed on waivers doesn't do *anything at all* if no one claims him, or if we don't re-assign him to Bingo. If neither of those things happen and he clears waivers, he remains with (and part of) the team, and his salary still counts against our cap. If he retires, his salary remains on our cap, too.

As the Sun reports, it seems unlikely that he'll be claimed or accept demotion, and just might retire. That means we wouldn't get any cap relief.

It's a curious move, really, and I don't understand doing it now. Either we shouldn't of signed him in the first place, or we should have been content to let him play the role of reserve D, at full salary, all year long. If he's not claimed or retires instead of reporting to Bingo, we're still on the hook for his salary, and it still counts against the cap.

I'm confused as to why we would do this now, unless Murray knows a GM will pick him up... ?

asq2 wrote:Perhaps it's to make room on the NHL roster? It can't be for cap or play purposes.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. That's the only thing that makes sense. Maybe we want to keep Bass up here regularly? Or (gasp) Zubov? Or maybe it has something to do with an impending trade?

In any event, this certainly suggests to me that Bell is sticking with the club for the rest of the year now.

Or, maybe he's just sending him down to help coach Bingo...that could be another reason...

SensGirl11 wrote:Or, maybe he's just sending him down to help coach Bingo...that could be another reason...

That would have to be a point worked out between Murray and Richardson beforehand... if he doesn't want to go down, he can just retire.

rooneypoo wrote:Just a reminder: Richardson's being placed on waivers doesn't do *anything at all* if no one claims him, or if we don't re-assign him to Bingo. If neither of those things happen and he clears waivers, he remains with (and part of) the team, and his salary still counts against our cap. If he retires, his salary remains on our cap, too.

As the Sun reports, it seems unlikely that he'll be claimed or accept demotion, and just might retire. That means we wouldn't get any cap relief.

It's a curious move, really, and I don't understand doing it now. Either we shouldn't of signed him in the first place, or we should have been content to let him play the role of reserve D, at full salary, all year long. If he's not claimed or retires instead of reporting to Bingo, we're still on the hook for his salary, and it still counts against the cap.

I'm confused as to why we would do this now, unless Murray knows a GM will pick him up... ?

He was on a two way so if he were sent to Bingo he could retire without affecting the cap.

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:Perhaps it's to make room on the NHL roster? It can't be for cap or play purposes.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that. That's the only thing that makes sense. Maybe we want to keep Bass up here regularly? Or (gasp) Zubov? Or maybe it has something to do with an impending trade?

In any event, this certainly suggests to me that Bell is sticking with the club for the rest of the year now.

He is on a two-way deal, isn't he? Would they have to place him on waivers to send him to Bingo or is it the other way around?

The roster limit is 23 and the minimum is 20. Shannon is on the IR, so he doesn't count (yet). However McAmmond does (he only had a cold) and Fisher is back to being active. This may simply be a numbers move, the only question is why they had to waive him.

SensGirl11 wrote:Or, maybe he's just sending him down to help coach Bingo...that could be another reason...

That's risky; if he was going to do that, he'd be better off retiring as a player first; otherwise, what if someone picks him up?

RobbyJ wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just a reminder: Richardson's being placed on waivers doesn't do *anything at all* if no one claims him, or if we don't re-assign him to Bingo. If neither of those things happen and he clears waivers, he remains with (and part of) the team, and his salary still counts against our cap. If he retires, his salary remains on our cap, too.

As the Sun reports, it seems unlikely that he'll be claimed or accept demotion, and just might retire. That means we wouldn't get any cap relief.

It's a curious move, really, and I don't understand doing it now. Either we shouldn't of signed him in the first place, or we should have been content to let him play the role of reserve D, at full salary, all year long. If he's not claimed or retires instead of reporting to Bingo, we're still on the hook for his salary, and it still counts against the cap.

I'm confused as to why we would do this now, unless Murray knows a GM will pick him up... ?

He was on a two way so if he were sent to Bingo he could retire without affecting the cap.

I don't think so. He signed this latest deal at age 39. As far as I'm aware, when a player signs a contract after the age of 35 and then retires, the team that signed him is stuck with his cap hit. Of course, it's possible that there are some kind of exceptions made for 1-yr, 2-way deals... but I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong about that, tho'!

I tried to find something about it in the CBA, but did not find anything about the affect of retirement on cap hit.

Regardless, $500K is not a whole lot to worry about.

wprager wrote:

He is on a two-way deal, isn't he? Would they have to place him on waivers to send him to Bingo or is it the other way around?

The roster limit is 23 and the minimum is 20. Shannon is on the IR, so he doesn't count (yet). However McAmmond does (he only had a cold) and Fisher is back to being active. This may simply be a numbers move, the only question is why they had to waive him.

Whether a player is on a 1-way or 2-way deal makes no difference with respect to waivers. Statistically, most players on 1-way deals have to clear waivers, and most players on 2-way deals (invariably entry-level deals) don't. The status of their contract as 1- or 2-way, however, is not the deciding factor when it comes to waiver exemption: instead, it has everything to do with their age, the NHL games-played and seasons-accrued, and the time removed from their first signing.

Richardson has to pass through waivers because he's got 100 years NHL experience, 50,000 games played, and is 106 years removed from his first signing. (Give or take a few decades.) Whether his deal is 1-way or 2-way is not a factor. He is subject to waivers.

It's about time. I guess Murray feels that Bell is good enough to stay.

rooneypoo wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:Just a reminder: Richardson's being placed on waivers doesn't do *anything at all* if no one claims him, or if we don't re-assign him to Bingo. If neither of those things happen and he clears waivers, he remains with (and part of) the team, and his salary still counts against our cap. If he retires, his salary remains on our cap, too.

As the Sun reports, it seems unlikely that he'll be claimed or accept demotion, and just might retire. That means we wouldn't get any cap relief.

It's a curious move, really, and I don't understand doing it now. Either we shouldn't of signed him in the first place, or we should have been content to let him play the role of reserve D, at full salary, all year long. If he's not claimed or retires instead of reporting to Bingo, we're still on the hook for his salary, and it still counts against the cap.

I'm confused as to why we would do this now, unless Murray knows a GM will pick him up... ?

He was on a two way so if he were sent to Bingo he could retire without affecting the cap.

I don't think so. He signed this latest deal at age 39. As far as I'm aware, when a player signs a contract after the age of 35 and then retires, the team that signed him is stuck with his cap hit. Of course, it's possible that there are some kind of exceptions made for 1-yr, 2-way deals... but I don't think so. I hope I'm wrong about that, tho'!

But if they assign him to the minors and he refuses to show up, they can suspend him indefinitely and his pay will be taken off the cap. I suspect that is what will happen.