Claimed off Waivers: Sabres claim Derek Grant

caley

Moderator
Aug 19, 2006
17,657
2,698
twitter.com
I think that Buffalo waived him and gets first dibs if he goes back on waivers. Not sure what the time limitation on that is though.



BTW, Grant was interviewed after being claimed by Nashville and said that he was told when the Sabres put him on waivers that the team intended to keep him on the roster if he cleared, so it's not definite that he's headed to the AHL permanently.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,658
50,457


BTW, Grant was interviewed after being claimed by Nashville and said that he was told when the Sabres put him on waivers that the team intended to keep him on the roster if he cleared, so it's not definite that he's headed to the AHL permanently.


Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.
 

GellMann

Registered User
Dec 16, 2014
4,294
3,810
Lancaster NY
So that was just like a 3 week demotion. Glad it was successful, the Amerks could use the help, and if Bylsma and Murray weren't freaking idiots for getting fooled by 2 preseason goals, he'd have been there helping out this whole time.
 

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,323
8,758
Acton, Ontario
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.

To further clarify I'd like to emphasize another part of that CBA passage:

the original owning Club is the successful and only Club

emphasis on successful and only



Buffalo gets to send Grant down to the minors because nobody else put in a claim. If a team with worser priority, say Minnesota, put in a claim, Buffalo would get Grant back but not be able to send him down (happened to New Jersey with Boucher earlier this year).

If something with greater priority, say Colorado, puts in a claim, Colorado gets him. Buffalo does not have first dibs, going back to your first comment. Normal waiver process is followed.
 

Not Sure

Registered User
Feb 8, 2016
4,918
1,146
Buffalo
To further clarify I'd like to emphasize another part of that CBA passage:



emphasis on successful and only



Buffalo gets to send Grant down to the minors because nobody else put in a claim. If a team with worser priority, say Minnesota, put in a claim, Buffalo would get Grant back but not be able to send him down (happened to New Jersey with Boucher earlier this year).

If something with greater priority, say Colorado, puts in a claim, Colorado gets him. Buffalo does not have first dibs, going back to your first comment. Normal waiver process is followed.

are you sure about that? it seems to be saying if another team puts in a claim he can't go straight to AHL, but the original club always gets first dibs if the player gets waived again. At least that's how I've always seen it explained.
 

vipera1960

Registered User
Aug 1, 2007
925
547
are you sure about that? it seems to be saying if another team puts in a claim he can't go straight to AHL, but the original club always gets first dibs if the player gets waived again. At least that's how I've always seen it explained.

There is nothing anywhere giving the original team any kind of waiver priority. That passage just allows a minor league assignment without waivers if no other claims were made.
 

uncleben

Global Moderator
Dec 4, 2008
14,323
8,758
Acton, Ontario
are you sure about that? it seems to be saying if another team puts in a claim he can't go straight to AHL, but the original club always gets first dibs if the player gets waived again. At least that's how I've always seen it explained.

I'm positive :)


It's just a misconception!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad