Nabokov waivers 20 questions/refusing to report, etc.

[EvilPirateZamboni]

I'm trying to understand his situation, my understanding:
Whatever team signs him would have to put him on waivers and any lower ranked team could pick him up for 1/2 salary with waiving team paying the other half.

Is this correct?

For how long would the waiving team have to pick up half his salary? Length of the contract?

How is the cap hit allocated?

Is there an compensation to the team that loses him on waivers?

What event triggered the necessity of waivers? Why isn't he just another unsigned UFA?

How is the ranking as to what teams are eligible to sign him off waivers decided?

Thank you

Click to read more...

 

[LadyStanley]

As a player who played an European game after the start of the NHL season, he has to go through wavers after signing with team A before he can play in the NHL this season. (As did Svatos -- who was picked up on waivers by Nashville.)

ANY team (other than A) can pick him up via waivers. This team B is liable for the full contract amount and cap hit. Team A gets no compensation for losing player to waivers.

The waiver order is determined by standings "today", so the team with the worst record has priority.



If he does not sign by 2/28 (trade/signing deadline), he is not eligible to play this season.

If he signs with a NHL team for next season, he's just like any other UFA out there; there are no waivers .

 

[EvilPirateZamboni]

As a player who played an European game after the start of the NHL season, he has to go through wavers after signing with team A before he can play in the NHL this season. (As did Svatos -- who was picked up on waivers by Nashville.)

ANY team (other than A) can pick him up via waivers. This team B is liable for the full contract amount and cap hit. Team A gets no compensation for losing player to waivers.

The waiver order is determined by standings "today", so the team with the worst record has priority.



If he does not sign by 2/28 (trade/signing deadline), he is not eligible to play this season.

If he signs with a NHL team for next season, he's just like any other UFA out there; there are no waivers .

Thanks. Good info.

So 29 teams have priority over team A, or just those teams lower in the standings than team A?

 

[King Forsberg]

If he does not sign by 2/28 (trade/signing deadline), he is not eligible to play this season.

I thought they just weren't eligible to play in the playoffs. Last Season the Flyers signed Sebastian Caron after the deadline. He suited up for them but couldn't play in the playoffs

 

[LadyStanley]

Yes, 29 teams have priority over team A, and yes, they can play if signed after deadline, just not in playoffs.


(But rarely happens.)

 

[Kimi]

How is the 'worst record' worked out? Least raw points, or least percentage of maximum available points?

 

[macavoy]

How is the 'worst record' worked out? Least raw points, or least percentage of maximum available points?

It goes by points, only if they are tied, do they use tie breaking procedures.

TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURE
* - Division leaders are seeded 1, 2, and 3 in Conference standings. If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:
The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).
The greater number of games won, excluding games won in the Shootout (NEW for 2010-11).
The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.
The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.

 

[kdb209]

I'm trying to understand his situation, my understanding:
Whatever team signs him would have to put him on waivers and any lower ranked team could pick him up for 1/2 salary with waiving team paying the other half.

Is this correct?

No. He would be on Regular Waivers - not Re-Entry Waivers.

If a team claims him, they are responsible for 100% of his salary and cap hit for the full duration of the contract.

For how long would the waiving team have to pick up half his salary? Length of the contract?

How is the cap hit allocated?

See above.

Is there an compensation to the team that loses him on waivers?

No.

What event triggered the necessity of waivers? Why isn't he just another unsigned UFA?

Because he played in a league outside of North America after he start of the NHL Regular Season.

13.23 In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside
North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his
Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs)
only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers. For the balance of the
Playing Season, any such Player who has been obtained via Waivers may be Traded or
Loaned only after again clearing Waivers or through Waiver claim.

How is the ranking as to what teams are eligible to sign him off waivers decided?

Thank you

By reverse order of the current standings - based on %-age of possible points earned (to account for differences in the number of games played). If he had been signed before Nov 1, then it would have been based on last season's final standings.

13.19 If only one Club makes a claim for the Player on whom Waivers have been
requested, such Player shall be transferred to that Club. In the event that more than one
Club makes a claim for such Player, he shall be transferred to the claiming Club having
earned the lowest percentage of possible points in the League standing at the time of the
request for Waivers or, if Waivers are requested outside the playing season, then to the
Club having earned the lowest percentage of possible points in the preceding season's
schedule of Regular Season Games. If the successful Waiver claim is made before
November 1st then the priority shall be determined by the final standing in the League's
Regular Season schedule in the preceding season.

 

[canadianmagpie]

Do you think? (mod: Nabokov)

Detroit has signed Nabokov to a one year 750k deal, now if the Devils pick him up off waivers and then trade him to Detroit for future considerations or something meaningless, would that be looked at by the league?

Would it be considered as trying to circumvent the rules of the game or will it be overlooked as clever maneuvering by Detroit and just accepted?

 

[mouser]

Can't happen. If NJ were to claim him they would not be allowed to trade Nabokov before the end of the 2010-2011 playoffs unless they first placed him on waivers again and no team claimed him.

 

[cbcwpg]

I do remember a case where the Winnipeg Jets and the Philadelphia Flyers pulled off something like this to circumvent something. Someone can correct me but I believe it was...

Sept 28-89 the Jets traded futures to the Flyers for Pete Peeters & Keith Acton

and then a few days later

Oct 3-89 the Jets traded back to the Flyers Pete Peeters & Keith Acton for futures

Like I say, I may have the wrong trade, but the end result was the NHL wasn't too happy and drafted up some rules.

 

[LadyStanley]

Can't happen. If NJ were to claim him they would not be allowed to trade Nabokov before the end of the 2010-2011 playoffs unless they first placed him on waivers again and no team claimed him.

And with the NMC, NJ or any team cannot put him on waivers without his permission.

There's been speculation that Nabokov may walk from deal if claimed by team he has no interest in playing for.

(His agent also sent out a message to all the league stating that Nabokov wanted a chance to compete for starting goal tender. So if you're looking for a backup, he's not your guy.)

FTR, both Osgood and Howard, in Detroit, will be UFAs this summer, so if he is unclaimed (or ends up with Detroit), this could be a tryout for another deal as the main guy.

 

[danishh]

peeters and acton thing was to circumvent the now-defunct waiver draft.

 

[mouser]

I do remember a case where the Winnipeg Jets and the Philadelphia Flyers pulled off something like this to circumvent something. Someone can correct me but I believe it was...

Sept 28-89 the Jets traded futures to the Flyers for Pete Peeters & Keith Acton

and then a few days later

Oct 3-89 the Jets traded back to the Flyers Pete Peeters & Keith Acton for futures

Like I say, I may have the wrong trade, but the end result was the NHL wasn't too happy and drafted up some rules.

Yah, this was Philly circumventing the 1989 Waiver Draft. Both teams were fined and the NHL later put in rules barring teams from reacquiring players in the same season they traded them away prior to the Waiver Draft.

Dean McAmmond ran afoul of that new rule in 2003 when Calgary traded him to Colorado three days before the October 4th waiver draft, then later reacquired him from Colorado at the trade deadline in March. The league let the trade stand, but ruled McAmmond ineligible to play the remainder of the season.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=350469

McKenzie tries to clarify/uncomplicate all the in/outs of this (non-regular, non-recall) waiver situation and the various options for the teams, Nabokov.

 

[mouser]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=350469

McKenzie tries to clarify/uncomplicate all the in/outs of this (non-regular, non-recall) waiver situation and the various options for the teams, Nabokov.

Bob's grade school English teacher must be turning over in her nursing home bed for this bit:

-- any of the NHL's 29 teams -- other than Detroit, of course -- may put in a claim on Nabokov.

 

[Fugu]

Bob's grade school English teacher must be turning over in her nursing home bed for this bit:

Stop picking on Bobby! We know what he meant. He was inserting that Detroit bit because if he'd just left it as any of the remaining 29 teams, someone would have asked him, "What about Detroit?"

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The Isles would have asked him if he would report. One wonders if this isn't just a way of squeezing an asset out of Detroit, 'give us a draft pick or we won't put him back on waivers'.

 

[LadyStanley]

With Nabokov refusing to report, the Islanders options are to put him back on waivers (Sunday->clearing Tuesday) or suspend him and he's out for the season.

 

[AllByDesign]

Suspend him. Nabakov had two examples of what could happen when he signed the deal. This isn't a shock.

 

[kdb209]

Bob's most recent summary of the situation:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=350647

And, surprisingly, the main board threads (now on Part III - who does Nabby think he is, Phoenix?) actually has a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio.

And they have probably set an HFBoards record for having the same CBA text quoted the most times within one thread. As someone observed - this thread has been like arguing a case in front of a jury of Alzheimer's patients.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Bob's most recent summary of the situation:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=350647

And, surprisingly, the main board threads (now on Part III - who does Nabby think he is, Phoenix?) actually has a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio.

It may have been answered already but can the NYI trade him to the DRW without waivers?

 

[AllByDesign]

It may have been answered already but can the NYI trade him to the DRW without waivers?

No.

 

[kdb209]

One interesting point I'll C&P here from the main board Nabby thread - for those here not slogging through the ~2500 posts there - which might affect the applicability of the Yashin precedent to toll Nabby's contract.

Actually the rule about tolling is not (directly) in the CBA.

The CBA is silent on the matter of enforcing specific performance of an SPC.

In the 2000 Yashin decision, arbiter Lawrence Holden ruled that since the CBA did not cover the case, the disposition reverted to rulings made by the League during the Zeigler/Stein era which were then implicitly included in the CBA as part of the League Rules.

The wildcard here is any bargaining history during the '05 CBA negotiations. The subject of specific performance came up during the 1995 CBA negotiations - but the sides agreed to maintain the status quo. If the subject was broached again in the current CBA negotiations, even if no change was codified in the CBA, it is possible that might change the disposition in a future arbitration. If Nabby's SPC were tolled the NHLPA would surely grieve and there would be another arbitration hearing - Holden's Yashin decision would not be a binding precedent but would likely hold significant weight with the arbiter.

For those of you with too much time on your hands - I found a copy of a paper with the full text of the Yashin decision. The old link I had for it was dead - but thank you Internet Archive Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051026...ni/reunion2005/documents/HoldoutsinSports.pdf

In a thread on the Vancouver board Wettie made an observation which could affect the applicability of the tolling rules from the Yashin decision.

The current CBA does cover specific performance - but only for players on ELS deals, not in the general case.

(iii) In the event a Player ceases to render his playing services called
for under his SPC (except as a result of injury, illness or disability)
during such period that he is in the Entry Level System, then
during such non-playing period, the Player's number of years in the
Entry Level System shall be extended for a period equal to the
remaining unfulfilled portion of his SPC.

Depending upon the bargaining history in the last CBA negotiation, an arbiter could decide that the NHL/NHLPA chose to exclude that remedy from non-ELS players - in which case tolling Nabby's SPC might not be upheld.

edit:

[Emily Litella]
Nevermind ...

That same language is in the previous 1995 CBA that was in effect when the Yashin arbitration took place.

Yup. I missed it with my quick skim when I was vetting other Wettie quotes because in the old CBA it was conjoined with a Defected Player clause.

(iii) In the event a player becomes a defected player (as described in Section
10.2(b)(i)(A)) or, having signed a Player Contract, ceases to render his playing
services called for thereunder (except as a result of injury or illness), in each case
during such period that he is in the Entry Level System, then during such defected
or non-playing period, as the case may be, the player's number of years in the
Entry Level System shall be extended for a period equal to the remaining
unfulfilled portion of his Player Contract.

So it looks like we're back at Yashin Square One - modulo any negotiations on that point in 2005.

[/Emily Litella]

 

[AllByDesign]

Are we of the opinion that NY will in fact toll Nabikov's contract? I know we can't read minds, but most GM's find that "Sticking it" to players results in not being able to sign anyone to your squad.

I realize we are talking about Charles Wang's organization.