GDT: Lightning V. Hurricane

[Lempo]

If a guy was good enough to be stolen, a team wouldn't waive him. It's a non-issue. It's almost always non-NHLrs, fringe NHLrs, or guys teams want to get rid of.

If the Owners had their way, there would be no waivers and they could do as they choose. The players (and players union), want to make sure that IF a player is NHL ready, a team can't keep him from making a good living indefinitely. Imagine if you were a good enough player to play in the NHL, but your team was stacked at your position so they kept you in the minors for 7 years, earning a minor league salary. This prevents that, and IMO, that's a good thing.

The owners benefit from the waivers though when they want/need to buy someone out. The buyout bait needs to clear waivers before he can be bought out, and if he gets claimed then the whole sorry contract is on someone else's books and doesn't keep counting against your cap for 1/3 or 2/3 (26+ y.o.) of the remaining worth divided to 2 x the remaining duration. Plus obviously millions of the actual money that doesn't need to be paid by you.

[insert joke about wiping Semin off the books here]

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

The owners benefit from the waivers though when they want/need to buy someone out. The buyout bait needs to clear waivers before he can be bought out, and if he gets claimed then the whole sorry contract is on someone else's books and doesn't keep counting against your cap for 1/3 or 2/3 (26+ y.o.) of the remaining worth divided to 2 x the remaining duration. Plus obviously millions of the actual money that doesn't need to be paid by you.

[insert joke about wiping Semin off the books here]

Not sure how much of a benefit it is though. How often does a buy-out candidate get claimed though? I don't recall many. Even when a team wants to get rid of a guy, if he's higher paid, he usually still passes through waivers and then the team trades him and takes salary back (or a team retains salary).

Nobody wanted Jussi (twice) on waivers, but the Canes obtained him by trading for him after he cleared so they could send a contract and money back. Same goes for when the Canes waived him. He cleared and we traded him to Pittsburgh, but retained salary.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Waivers were far more important when there were fewer teams. With 31 teams, there's not enough NHL talent to go around as it is, so waived guys are generally terrible and easily replaceable. They were a much more important thing in the days of the 12- and 21-team NHL. The only exception these days is with goalies. Waivers makes it virtually impossible to keep three good goalies in your organization. Without waivers, a guy like Dominic Hasek may never have gotten a shot.

 

[Stickpucker]

What I don't get about the salary cap is why a players cap hit isn't his salary and why the average it.

If people want to front load contracts it hurts their cap and helps small market teams....and avoids these lame retirement clauses....Anyone know why they decided to use AAV for salary cap?

 

[Lempo]

What I don't get about the salary cap is why a players cap hit isn't his salary and why the average it.

If people want to front load contracts it hurts their cap and helps small market teams....and avoids these lame retirement clauses....Anyone know why they decided to use AAV for salary cap?

The dynasty teams would do shenanigans and backload superb players and keep an ensemble team of them cheaply for the cup run years and then load them off to a floor team when they'd have to start to pay salary.

 

[geehaad]

That's why we have waivers.

This is the kind of information that I come here for. Good stuff.

 

[Lempo]

Not sure how much of a benefit it is though. How often does a buy-out candidate get claimed though? I don't recall many. Even when a team wants to get rid of a guy, if he's higher paid, he usually still passes through waivers and then the team trades him and takes salary back (or a team retains salary).

Nobody wanted Jussi (twice) on waivers, but the Canes obtained him by trading for him after he cleared so they could send a contract and money back. Same goes for when the Canes waived him. He cleared and we traded him to Pittsburgh, but retained salary.

There's the trick in that: once he's cleared the waivers, he can be sent down to AHL by the obtaining team. If you went and claimed him, you'd have to put him on waivers yourself to do that.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

There's the trick in that: once he's cleared the waivers, he can be sent down to AHL by the obtaining team. If you went and claimed him, you'd have to put him on waivers yourself to do that.

For an AHL/NHL tweener or prospect, that's a piece of i.

For a buy-out candidate, I don't think that has much to do with it at all because it's more about salary. If a buy-out candidate is claimed on waivers, the claiming team is responsible for 100% of the salary. In the examples I gave you, once a guy clears, then the team can trade for him at a reduced salary (either via retention or sending salary back as I showed with Jokinen).

If nobody wants a guy, then even if you claim him, nobody else is likely to claim him if you waive him again.

 

[Lempo]

For an AHL/NHL tweener or prospect, that's a piece of i.

For a buy-out candidate, I don't think that has much to do with it at all because it's more about salary. If a buy-out candidate is claimed on waivers, the claiming team is responsible for 100% of the salary. In the examples I gave you, once a guy clears, then the team can trade for him at a reduced salary (either via retention or sending salary back as I showed with Jokinen).

If nobody wants a guy, then even if you claim him, nobody else is likely to claim him if you waive him again.

These are very good points I didn't think of.