Confirmed with Link: Coyotes claim Eric Comrie off waivers from WPG

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,562
3,039
Oh, certainly needs the season to start. Did I read somewhere Hill is almost out of his waivers-excempt zone? 10 more starts or something, and he needs to clear waivers to go down again? Or did I make that up.o_O
 

Gm0ney

Unicorns salient
Oct 12, 2011
14,578
13,239
Winnipeg
Winnipeg doesn't get first dibs. Ottawa would, followed by LA, NJ, Detroit, etc. Reverse standing from last season. Assuming the waiver is before Nov 1st. After that it switches to this season's standings.

Winnipeg can claim Comrie and send him down to the AHL if they're the only team to submit a claim. But they don't get any priority to reclaim him.
A bit OT, but I was wondering about the "first dibs" myth. I recall hearing it in 2011 when the Jets claimed Brett MacLean off waivers from the Coyotes and then waived him after a couple of weeks. The Coyotes reclaimed him and sent him to the A.

So, does a player have to clear waivers for the entire league again if he's waived within 30 days / 10 games? If Arizona was the only team to put in a claim on Comrie, and they put him back on waivers in a couple of weeks, do the 29 teams that already passed on him yesterday get another chance to claim him? If not, and the Coyotes waive him, it's effectively like he cleared waivers for the Jets - and that's the reason why teams can reclaim players within 30 days / 10 games and assign them directly to the AHL. It just seems a bit illogical to offer him again...everyone had their chance to claim during the original 24 hour window.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,565
11,449
A bit OT, but I was wondering about the "first dibs" myth. I recall hearing it in 2011 when the Jets claimed Brett MacLean off waivers from the Coyotes and then waived him after a couple of weeks. The Coyotes reclaimed him and sent him to the A.

So, does a player have to clear waivers for the entire league again if he's waived within 30 days / 10 games? If Arizona was the only team to put in a claim on Comrie, and they put him back on waivers in a couple of weeks, do the 29 teams that already passed on him yesterday get another chance to claim him? If not, and the Coyotes waive him, it's effectively like he cleared waivers for the Jets - and that's the reason why teams can reclaim players within 30 days / 10 games and assign them directly to the AHL. It just seems a bit illogical to offer him again...everyone had their chance to claim during the original 24 hour window.

AFAIK, if the Coyotes waive Comrie then Winnipeg gets first dibs on him, then the rest of the league if the Jets pass.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,353
12,727
South Mountain
A bit OT, but I was wondering about the "first dibs" myth. I recall hearing it in 2011 when the Jets claimed Brett MacLean off waivers from the Coyotes and then waived him after a couple of weeks. The Coyotes reclaimed him and sent him to the A.

So, does a player have to clear waivers for the entire league again if he's waived within 30 days / 10 games? If Arizona was the only team to put in a claim on Comrie, and they put him back on waivers in a couple of weeks, do the 29 teams that already passed on him yesterday get another chance to claim him? If not, and the Coyotes waive him, it's effectively like he cleared waivers for the Jets - and that's the reason why teams can reclaim players within 30 days / 10 games and assign them directly to the AHL. It just seems a bit illogical to offer him again...everyone had their chance to claim during the original 24 hour window.

If Arizona waives Comrie tomorrow then every team in the league can submit a new waiver claim.

If Winnipeg is the only team to submit a claim then they would receive Comrie and he's treated almost** as if he had just cleared waivers for the Jets. There's no requirement that the claim be made within 30 days/10 games. Once the Jets claim Comrie they have 30 days/10 games to assign him to the AHL. If Comrie is still on the Jets roster after that period then he would need to go through waivers again before he could be assigned to the AHL.

**The one small difference is that normally once a player clears waivers they don't need to go through waivers again unless they spend 30 days on the NHL roster or play 10 NHL games. This means players waived at the beginning of the season can often be moved back and forth all season so long as the cumulative time on the NHL roster doesn't exceed either threshold. With a claim like Comrie the team only has 30 days to assign him to the AHL. That waiver exemption expires in 30 days regardless of how many NHL games or days on the NHL roster Comrie accumulates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YOW and Gm0ney

Mosby

Salt Lake Bound
Feb 16, 2012
23,693
18,795
Toronto
From 31 Thoughts:

8. The next team to keep an eye on goalie-wise is Arizona. The Coyotes claimed Eric Comrie, a risk the Jets recognized. Darcy Kuemper has re-signed on a two-year deal with an AAV of $4.5 million. Antti Raanta’s got this year and next at $4.25 million. When healthy, he’s been very good. If he’s still not 100 per cent ready, Adin Hill could back up their opener Thursday in Anaheim, as Comrie’s paperwork needs to get done. GM John Chayka likes to deal, and there’s a surplus here.
 

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,562
3,039
Winnipeg doesn't get first dibs. Ottawa would, followed by LA, NJ, Detroit, etc. Reverse standing from last season. Assuming the waiver is before Nov 1st. After that it switches to this season's standings.

Winnipeg can claim Comrie and send him down to the AHL if they're the only team to submit a claim. But they don't get any priority to reclaim him.

Did any other teams claim him now? Wouldn't that imaginary team get first dibs?

We never get to know which other teams claimed a player, except if the Blues had claimed someone now. Then we would have known they were the only ones.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,353
12,727
South Mountain
Did any other teams claim him now? Wouldn't that imaginary team get first dibs?

We never get to know which other teams claimed a player, except if the Blues had claimed someone now. Then we would have known they were the only ones.

We don't know if another team put in a claim. Even if another team had then that team wouldn't get any priority if Comrie goes on waivers again.

If another team did however put in a claim then the Coyotes are not free to trade Comrie without first offering him to all of the teams that put in waiver claims. The return for such a trade would simply be the waiver $ cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZviaNJ

ShelbyZ

Registered User
Apr 8, 2015
3,816
2,578
Red Wings fan checking in on the whole Adin Hill thing and saw this post, so figured I'd clarify.

My head haha.

I believe Detroit used a similar approach when dealing with Hasek’s fragile groin. I want to say the other two goalies were Osgood and Legace.


It was Osgood and Joey MacDonald in 06/07 until MacDonald was waived and lost to the Bruins sometime shortly before the trade deadline to give them cap flexibility for trades.

It was kind of a combination of:

-Had a crowd of goalies behind Hasek and Osgood (MacDonald, Howard, Liv and MacIntyre, who they traded during camp)
-MacDonald had been promising but missed some time due to injury and was now subject to waivers and the Red Wings were worried he'd get claimed
-Hasek was old as balls, had a wonky groin in his previous season with the Wings (03-04) and missed the last 1/4 of 05-06 with the Sens after he hurt his groin in the Olympics
-Osgood was supposed to be the Wings starter the previous season but started the year with a groin injury and lost the starting job to Legace, never really got going all year, then when Legace crapped the bed in the playoffs, Osgood tweaked his groin during a morning skate when it was speculated Babcock was going to give him the net and he missed the rest of the playoffs.
-Didn't want Hasek entering any games cold if Osgood started and was either pulled or couldn't finish a game due to injury.

The way the season started, Hasek got most of the starts, with Osgood dressing as back up and MacDonald in the press box. If they had two games in two days, Osgood would start the 2nd night with MacDonald dressing as back up, and Hasek in the press box. MacDonald didn't even get a start until well into November, and that was because Osgood went down for a month or so, elevating MacDonald to #2. Shortly after Osgood went down, the Red Wings had a stretch of 8 games where 6 of them were 3 sets of back to backs. They actually stuck to their guns on protecting Hasek and recalled Stefan Liv to dress as the back up when MacDonald got his 3 starts on the 2nd of the back to backs. After the 3rd set they sent Liv back down and Hasek started every game until the next set of back to backs, where Osgood was finally healthy. With Osgood healthy, MacDonald didn't see much action for over a month so he got sent to Grand Rapids on a conditioning stint for a week and Hasek finally dressed as the back up in the first game MacDonald was gone in mid January. Osgood got banged up again, which prompted the Wings to cut MacDonalds conditioning stint short. At some point in February both Hasek and Osgood were out and MacDonald got 3 starts in 5 nights, with games 2 and 3 in a back to back where he got torched for 10GA. Once both Osgood and Hasek were healthy, the Wings placed MacDonald on waivers a couple days before the trade deadline. IIRC, it had more to do with opening up some cap/roster flexibility since they were looking to make some big moves (they ended up getting Todd Bertuzzi and Kyle Calder) at the deadline and hoped to keep MacDonald in the fold. However, the Bruins snagged him looking for someone to replace the hot pile of garbage Hannu Toivonen playing 2nd fiddle to Tim Thomas.

The next year, they still had the Hasek/Osgood combo, but didn't carry a 3rd.

It was actually the 3rd season in 10 years that the Red Wings carried 3 goalies, but the previous two probably aren't similar to the Raanta/Kuemper/Comrie situation:

-96/97: Osgood/Vernon/Hodson: Front office pretty much hated Vernon and thought he was on his way out. They were high on Kevin Hodson and didn't want to lose him on waivers.
-98/99: Osgood/Maracle/Hodson then Osgood/Ranford/Maracle: Norm Maracle out played Hodson to take the #2 spot, but Holland wouldn't trade Hodson unless he got at least a 3rd rounder. Eventually Hodson was dealt for Wendel Clark, but the Red Wings then picked up Bill Ranford and relegated Maracle to #3 on the NHL roster.

======
Another explanation for Comrie could be expansion draft insurance. If Comrie plays at least 30 minutes in 23 NHL games over the next two seasons (technically speaking in regards to the ED he DOESN'T have to play the games. However, if he doesn't he'll be eligible for player elected Group VI UFA status which if elected would negate his eligibility for the ED. He loses that option if gets those 23 games and his fate would be completely in Chayka's hands as long as the following happens...) and the Yotes give him at least a $735K qualifying offer to become an RFA before the June 2021 expansion draft, he'll meet the requirement for exposing at least one goalie to Seattle. As it stands now, Arizona doesn't have a goalie that would meet the requirement, as Raanta would be a UFA, Kuemper may need protecting as he'd have a year left, Kallgren and Prosvetov will be exempt from the draft and Hill and Madsen may or may not be under contract by then and obviously they'd want to protect a decent goalie as well. Just speculating though.
 

rt

The Kinder, Gentler Version
May 13, 2004
97,483
46,421
A Rockwellian Pleasantville
Red Wings fan checking in on the whole Adin Hill thing and saw this post, so figured I'd clarify.




It was Osgood and Joey MacDonald in 06/07 until MacDonald was waived and lost to the Bruins sometime shortly before the trade deadline to give them cap flexibility for trades.

It was kind of a combination of:

-Had a crowd of goalies behind Hasek and Osgood (MacDonald, Howard, Liv and MacIntyre, who they traded during camp)
-MacDonald had been promising but missed some time due to injury and was now subject to waivers and the Red Wings were worried he'd get claimed
-Hasek was old as balls, had a wonky groin in his previous season with the Wings (03-04) and missed the last 1/4 of 05-06 with the Sens after he hurt his groin in the Olympics
-Osgood was supposed to be the Wings starter the previous season but started the year with a groin injury and lost the starting job to Legace, never really got going all year, then when Legace crapped the bed in the playoffs, Osgood tweaked his groin during a morning skate when it was speculated Babcock was going to give him the net and he missed the rest of the playoffs.
-Didn't want Hasek entering any games cold if Osgood started and was either pulled or couldn't finish a game due to injury.

The way the season started, Hasek got most of the starts, with Osgood dressing as back up and MacDonald in the press box. If they had two games in two days, Osgood would start the 2nd night with MacDonald dressing as back up, and Hasek in the press box. MacDonald didn't even get a start until well into November, and that was because Osgood went down for a month or so, elevating MacDonald to #2. Shortly after Osgood went down, the Red Wings had a stretch of 8 games where 6 of them were 3 sets of back to backs. They actually stuck to their guns on protecting Hasek and recalled Stefan Liv to dress as the back up when MacDonald got his 3 starts on the 2nd of the back to backs. After the 3rd set they sent Liv back down and Hasek started every game until the next set of back to backs, where Osgood was finally healthy. With Osgood healthy, MacDonald didn't see much action for over a month so he got sent to Grand Rapids on a conditioning stint for a week and Hasek finally dressed as the back up in the first game MacDonald was gone in mid January. Osgood got banged up again, which prompted the Wings to cut MacDonalds conditioning stint short. At some point in February both Hasek and Osgood were out and MacDonald got 3 starts in 5 nights, with games 2 and 3 in a back to back where he got torched for 10GA. Once both Osgood and Hasek were healthy, the Wings placed MacDonald on waivers a couple days before the trade deadline. IIRC, it had more to do with opening up some cap/roster flexibility since they were looking to make some big moves (they ended up getting Todd Bertuzzi and Kyle Calder) at the deadline and hoped to keep MacDonald in the fold. However, the Bruins snagged him looking for someone to replace the hot pile of garbage Hannu Toivonen playing 2nd fiddle to Tim Thomas.

The next year, they still had the Hasek/Osgood combo, but didn't carry a 3rd.

It was actually the 3rd season in 10 years that the Red Wings carried 3 goalies, but the previous two probably aren't similar to the Raanta/Kuemper/Comrie situation:

-96/97: Osgood/Vernon/Hodson: Front office pretty much hated Vernon and thought he was on his way out. They were high on Kevin Hodson and didn't want to lose him on waivers.
-98/99: Osgood/Maracle/Hodson then Osgood/Ranford/Maracle: Norm Maracle out played Hodson to take the #2 spot, but Holland wouldn't trade Hodson unless he got at least a 3rd rounder. Eventually Hodson was dealt for Wendel Clark, but the Red Wings then picked up Bill Ranford and relegated Maracle to #3 on the NHL roster.

======
Another explanation for Comrie could be expansion draft insurance. If Comrie plays at least 30 minutes in 23 NHL games over the next two seasons (technically speaking in regards to the ED he DOESN'T have to play the games. However, if he doesn't he'll be eligible for player elected Group VI UFA status which if elected would negate his eligibility for the ED. He loses that option if gets those 23 games and his fate would be completely in Chayka's hands as long as the following happens...) and the Yotes give him at least a $735K qualifying offer to become an RFA before the June 2021 expansion draft, he'll meet the requirement for exposing at least one goalie to Seattle. As it stands now, Arizona doesn't have a goalie that would meet the requirement, as Raanta would be a UFA, Kuemper may need protecting as he'd have a year left, Kallgren and Prosvetov will be exempt from the draft and Hill and Madsen may or may not be under contract by then and obviously they'd want to protect a decent goalie as well. Just speculating though.
Great post! Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShelbyZ

TheLegend

Megathread Gadfly
Aug 30, 2009
36,800
28,914
Buzzing BoH
This phrasing made me think it was sourced. “Sounds like the plan...”. Why wouldn’t it?

No team carries three healthy goalies, and has no plans to start one. Using him only as a backup for one goalie. It doesn’t happen. It’s completely novel. Show me one example of this ever happening.

Calvin Pickard was a temporary injury replacement. That obviously happens all the time. Thats not what was suggested.

It’s fine to speculate. If he wasn’t speculating and it seemed as though he wasn’t, I thought I was misusing a source.

Then you chime in suggesting I should read ****ing twitter and maybe I’d find a source there. There isn’t a source on twitter. So what the **** were you even taking about? Nothing. That’s the answer. You were just being an ass.

Which I’m happy to forgive. I’m usually the ass around here. :)


Well from one "ass" to another..... :thumbu:

I'd just been reading my Twitter timeline when I saw Mosby's post and some of the media out there were hinting along the same lines.

Twitter is definitely a cesspool most of the time but it does have some value.
 

Scheifele55

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
1,434
1,524
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Eric Comrie was a serviceable goaltender in the AHL and mediocre so far in the NHL. He has had a very slow development with little improvements. Winnipeg has Mikhail Berdin who they are high on.
 

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,562
3,039
Eric Comrie was a serviceable goaltender in the AHL and mediocre so far in the NHL. He has had a very slow development with little improvements. Winnipeg has Mikhail Berdin who they are high on.

Well, he has just been claimed by the team who traded for Kuemper with the payment of Rieder and an AHL-'tender (Wedgewood). Just saying. :arr:
 

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,562
3,039
Eh. What is an "NHL Non-Roster"? According to cap-friendly. Hill is called up again?

Edit: Ah. Visa-trouble. And here I thought Canadians more or less could sign out a green card by just showing up. There you go, silly things us Euros' believe. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
From 31 Thoughts:

8. The next team to keep an eye on goalie-wise is Arizona. The Coyotes claimed Eric Comrie, a risk the Jets recognized. Darcy Kuemper has re-signed on a two-year deal with an AAV of $4.5 million. Antti Raanta’s got this year and next at $4.25 million. When healthy, he’s been very good. If he’s still not 100 per cent ready, Adin Hill could back up their opener Thursday in Anaheim, as Comrie’s paperwork needs to get done. GM John Chayka likes to deal, and there’s a surplus here.

People are buying into this too much - you don't trade as a result of having a surplus. You trade because a team has a need at which you have a surplus of. Friedman's comments are true that there is a surplus, however, it implies that having a surplus is the reason to create a deal. Which is why people believe that this means that there is an on-going discussion as to where Hill lies in the battle.

Raanta and Kuemper are 1 and 2, in some order. Hill is #3. He probably could be an NHL backup, but we are blessed with two very good goaltenders ahead of him. Only when it is clear that Hill has either played himself into the backup role or one of Raanta/Kuemper becomes valued by another team, do we make a deal.

As rt said, probably going to be an offseason thing. Which would be great, because should we make the playoffs and have a decent run where both goalies look good in their playoff minutes, that can only drive their value up.
 

Name Nameless

Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
Apr 12, 2017
6,562
3,039
Obviously people have forgotten how many goalies Tampa Bay acquired in the off season and have stuffed in the minors right now.

:dunno:

Yeah, except stuffing waivers-claims in the minors means they will have to pass waivers, and their old team might disagree with that plan...

How long before they don't have the right to just send him to the A if they are the only one to claim him?
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,304
6,350
Yeah, except stuffing waivers-claims in the minors means they will have to pass waivers, and their old team might disagree with that plan...

How long before they don't have the right to just send him to the A if they are the only one to claim him?
They don't have that right at any time.
 

Bonsai Tree

Turning a new leaf
Feb 2, 2014
9,238
4,574
Curious. Anyone buy that the claim was made because it was a free opportunity to get a look at a player that the Coyotes had had their eyes on? It's not free. It antagonized Hill (I presume) and potentially upsets the working relationship between Kuemper and Raanta.
 

hbk

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
23,020
9,613
Visit site
Curious. Anyone buy that the claim was made because it was a free opportunity to get a look at a player that the Coyotes had had their eyes on? It's not free. It antagonized Hill (I presume) and potentially upsets the working relationship between Kuemper and Raanta.
It’s a proactive move in the event they need to trade a goalie. Ie Raanta
 

Jakey53

Registered User
Aug 27, 2011
30,149
9,185
It’s a proactive move in the event they need to trade a goalie. Ie Raanta
They have Hill in that case, unless they think Comrie is better, but the stats do not show that. That move still puzzles me.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad