General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

wprager wrote:So, trades can no-longer happen, but what about waiver-wire pickups?

I believe anyone acquired by waivers now would not be eligible to play in the playoffs. They probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the NHL for the rest of the year, actually, now that I think of it.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:So, trades can no-longer happen, but what about waiver-wire pickups?

I believe anyone acquired by waivers now would not be eligible to play in the playoffs. They probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the NHL for the rest of the year, actually, now that I think of it.

Wouldn't that mean then that waivers are not in effect? If a team was to waive a player in any other situation, and the player was claimed, the claiming team has to play that player on their NHL roster, otherwise they have to waive them again. So it just seems illogical that a team would have to waive a player to send them to the AHL only for another team to claim them and assign them to their AHL team, no?

Dash wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:So, trades can no-longer happen, but what about waiver-wire pickups?

I believe anyone acquired by waivers now would not be eligible to play in the playoffs. They probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the NHL for the rest of the year, actually, now that I think of it.

Wouldn't that mean then that waivers are not in effect? If a team was to waive a player in any other situation, and the player was claimed, the claiming team has to play that player on their NHL roster, otherwise they have to waive them again. So it just seems illogical that a team would have to waive a player to send them to the AHL only for another team to claim them and assign them to their AHL team, no?

Hmmm. I honestly don't know. Research time!

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:So, trades can no-longer happen, but what about waiver-wire pickups?

I believe anyone acquired by waivers now would not be eligible to play in the playoffs. They probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the NHL for the rest of the year, actually, now that I think of it.

Wouldn't that mean then that waivers are not in effect? If a team was to waive a player in any other situation, and the player was claimed, the claiming team has to play that player on their NHL roster, otherwise they have to waive them again. So it just seems illogical that a team would have to waive a player to send them to the AHL only for another team to claim them and assign them to their AHL team, no?

Hmmm. I honestly don't know. Research time!

Let's ask Roche

Chip McCleary on the waiver period (he's talking about the 2007-08 season, but the principle is the same):

"Q: How long is waivers applicable?
A: The waiver period starts from the 12th day before the start of the Regular Season [for 2007-08, the start of the Regular Season is October 3, 2007 – the games played in London do not count as the start of the season] and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s Playing Season [which means that for playoff teams, waivers may still be necessary while the team is playing; generally, this would apply only to re-entry waiver requests]."

And from Spector:

"Surfing through the last news reports out of Dallas, I noted that the Stars had yesterday recalled forward Toby Petersen but he'd have to pass through re-entry waivers.

Usually during the season a team can claim a player via re-entry waivers and only have to pick up half his remaining salary. However, there is an interesting twist to the rule after the trade deadline has passed.

As per Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News:

The process involving re-entry waivers changes after the trade deadline, as a team can claim Petersen for half price and place him on their NHL roster, but they cannot play him in the regular season or in playoff games for the remainder of the season. That allows teams to make call-ups like this without much risk of losing a player.

Pretty much ensures that a team can safely recall a player via re-entry waivers without fear of losing him to another team from the day after the trade deadline to the end of the season and into the playoffs.

Just goes to show you learn something new about the CBA every day!"

So, waivers remain in effect, but no one can claim a player and play him in the NHL after the trade deadline *this* year, I believe. That is to say, you have waivers but no waivers, really.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:So, trades can no-longer happen, but what about waiver-wire pickups?

I believe anyone acquired by waivers now would not be eligible to play in the playoffs. They probably wouldn't be eligible to play in the NHL for the rest of the year, actually, now that I think of it.

Wouldn't that mean then that waivers are not in effect? If a team was to waive a player in any other situation, and the player was claimed, the claiming team has to play that player on their NHL roster, otherwise they have to waive them again. So it just seems illogical that a team would have to waive a player to send them to the AHL only for another team to claim them and assign them to their AHL team, no?

Hmmm. I honestly don't know. Research time!

Let's ask Roche

Pfft. Guy never told me anything I didn't already know, or couldn't figure out in about 5 minutes.

What the heck kind of rule is that? Who would claim a player without being able to play them and only to have them sit on their NHL roster, taking up pay and roster spot?

Dash wrote:What the heck kind of rule is that? Who would claim a player without being able to play them and only to have them sit on their NHL roster, taking up pay and roster spot?

Well, if the player waived had another year on his deal, for instance, you'd get to take full advantage of that.

Sure... but not until next year. Not much fun for the team or player for him to just be sitting watching the game.

Dash wrote:What the heck kind of rule is that? Who would claim a player without being able to play them and only to have them sit on their NHL roster, taking up pay and roster spot?

The Genius would.

Let's say it was a potential playoff opponent bringing up some depth. Grab him for half price and deny your (potential) opponent some depth.

Mind you, that would also give the other team another reason to despise you.

Has anyone mentioned this?

Gillies gets 10.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=356483

I would have given him the season but 10 is pretty stiff, that's a lot of cash. At least $60,000.00 forfitted.

NEELY wrote:I would have given him the season but 10 is pretty stiff, that's a lot of cash. At least $60,000.00 forfitted.

That's a lotta lettuce.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:I would have given him the season but 10 is pretty stiff, that's a lot of cash. At least $60,000.00 forfitted.

That's a lotta lettuce.

Particularly when you consider that he's UFA after this year. I think he'll be hard pressed to find work in this league. He may have just forfeited a dollar figure in excess of his annual salary next year.

Whoever is on Team 1200 now just equated Clutterbuck to Cooke.

WTF?

Clutterbuck, to me, is not a Matt Cooke.

Especially with 18 goals, 13 assists.

Am I missing something?

shabbs wrote:Whoever is on Team 1200 now just equated Clutterbuck to Cooke.

WTF?

Clutterbuck, to me, no not a Matt Cooke.

Especially with 18 goals, 13 assists.

Am I missing something?

Nope.

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:What the heck kind of rule is that? Who would claim a player without being able to play them and only to have them sit on their NHL roster, taking up pay and roster spot?

Well, if the player waived had another year on his deal, for instance, you'd get to take full advantage of that.

What about the player? He just doesn't get to play until September? That's hardly fair.