It is difficult to believe that. Unless Lou is now losing it. The Leafs were playing for nothing but a better pick all year long. What harm would it have been to keep him on the roster if they wanted to keep him so bad? What would have been the advantages? Well he would have played at a lower competitive level that's granted. Are the Leafs in a cash crunch? None of us would believe that. Would Granberg have prevented the Leafs from tanking to get that better pick? Well that's a stretch. Was he lower on the depth chart then they had hoped? Probably and this was the likely reason they had to try and retain the guy slipping him through. But why take a chance at all? I can't think of a reason we would expose any player to waivers unless there is zero chance they would be picked up. Poile sent Stalberg down two or three times last year trying to get someone to bite.
Looking back some articles it appears it was a combination of his injury + Babcock doesn't like stay at home defensement.
[fieldset=Why the Leafs lost Petter Granberg on waivers]
Granberg was once considered a top defensive prospect for the Maple Leafs, an example of a European scouting system that was going to find steals in lower rounds. Granberg was a fourth-rounder who played eight games for the Maple Leafs.
He was recovering from a torn achilles tendon and the Leafs thought they could sneak him through waivers, that no team would want a player who hadn't played since spring, but they were wrong.
They took the risk, though, because Granberg's a stay-at-home type defenceman, and Leafs coach Mike Babcock has no time for those. As he's said, why would a defenceman want to stay in his own end?
Babcock prefers swift skaters and fast puck movers and Granberg didn't fit that bill.
Granberg is probably ready to play in the NHL. Nashville is probably the team that best appreciates his skill sets, even if he is the ninth defenceman on their roster.
http://www.thestar.com/sports/break...he-leafs-lost-petter-granberg-on-waivers.html
[/fieldset]