Waivers system reform proposal

[nturn06]

For example let’s look at Harri Sateri, recently signed by the Leafs around the TDL and was put on waivers. He reportedly had around 5 teams that put in a claim for him but since Arizona is top waiver priority, they were able to take him.

Harri left from Finland to Toronto initially. Thousands of miles traveled and lots of planning like looking for places to stay or if he has kids, looking at schools in the Toronto area. Now all of a sudden he has to move thousands of miles away from the place he chose to sign because of the NHL’s waiver system.

This might turn some Euros away from signing with the NHL. However you present them the option to either stay with the club in the AHL or go to a team of their choosing (from the claim list) and all of a sudden they feel more security signing in the NHL.

All this discussion is based on the idea that Harri would had rather have been the fourth or fifth wheel in Toronto, with almost no chance of playing in NHL instead of actually getting a chance of playing with the Yotes.

At the end of the day with the current waivers system a claimed player has better chances at the NHL with the team claiming him than with the old team.

The only difference the new system brings is a possibility for teams to circumvent the cap/add veteran depth for playoffs.

 

[nturn06]

That’s not even close to what I’m proposing. And you don’t have to add a max AHL salary to prevent it from happening. Just enforce it when it’s clearly happening. It will be obvious and easy to control. Also how does it mean it’s a bad idea even if you have to change another rule? You’re making up hypothetical scenarios that could easily be prevented

It will be as onvious and easy to control as the LTIR exploitation, will it not?

 

[HugeInTheShire]

I think we would be surprised by some decisions which can add to the fun. It’s basically limited free agency. Free agents always just don’t choose to go to top teams. Some prefer to get ice time and opportunity elsewhere, especially the ones that fell out of favor with these top teams


And players on waivers are on waivers for a reason, it’s not like you’re giving the top teams anything significant. It’s more about supporting NHL players and giving them additional comfort and security while also creating a fun system that can generate discussion

I get that you're probably not getting anyone that great, they're on waivers for a reason lol
I also don't think any real contender is making a waiver claim at least not often
The Euro thing would be a major issue though, with team hiding players over there until they can come back for cheap with zero consequences.

It's very different from free agency though, in free agency nobody has played any games and collapses happen all the time look at the Sharks a few years ago perennial cup contender and missed the playoffs by a lot the next year or even the Islanders this year, nobody saw that collapse coming. So if you're waiting in Europe until after the trade deadline, you know exactly which teams are good and which aren't

 

[JadedLeaf]

So you're going to subjectively enforce it?

That'll go over well.

What about the NHL isn't subjective right now? There's very things that aren't.

 

[SomeDude]

What about the NHL isn't subjective right now? There's very things that aren't.

The waiver system, for one.

 

[JadedLeaf]

It will be as onvious and easy to control as the LTIR exploitation, will it not?

That is an easy fix though. There's a difference between something being difficult to fix and something that owners don't want to fix.

 

[Lays]

All this discussion is based on the idea that Harri would had rather have been the fourth or fifth wheel in Toronto, with almost no chance of playing in NHL instead of actually getting a chance of playing with the Yotes.

At the end of the day with the current waivers system a claimed player has better chances at the NHL with the team claiming him than with the old team.

The only difference the new system brings is a possibility for teams to circumvent the cap/add veteran depth for playoffs.

Yes but he signed with Toronto knowing that. That’s my whole point. He would’ve signed with AZ if he wanted that guaranteed time

 

[SomeDude]

Yes but he signed with Toronto knowing that. That’s my whole point. He would’ve signed with AZ if he wanted that guaranteed time

The good news is he can just sign with Toronto in 3 months.

 

[Lays]

It will be as onvious and easy to control as the LTIR exploitation, will it not?

The LTIR exploitation still exists does it not? That’s my whole point, the NHL would have no problem implementing this if people think it can get subjective. LTIR exploitation is subjective as well

 

[Lays]

The good news is he can just sign with Toronto in 3 months.

Sure, but he could’ve been with the team he actually wanted to sign with right now. And the team that signed him to that contract can have him as an option right now. The only winner here is Arizona for being bad and getting a free player that doesn’t want to be there.

 

[McDNicks17]

The LTIR exploitation still exists does it not? That’s my whole point, the NHL would have no problem implementing this if people think it can get subjective. LTIR exploitation is subjective as well

That was his point lol.

A subjective system will always be easy to exploit.

 

[SomeDude]

Sure, but he could’ve been with the team he actually wanted to sign with right now. And the team that signed him to that contract can have him as an option right now. The only winner here is Arizona for being bad and getting a free player that doesn’t want to be there.

If he didn't want to be there he could have just not reported....and signed with Toronto in 3 months. My goodness.

 

[Lays]

That was his point lol.

A subjective system will always be easy to exploit.

Doesn’t change the fact that there are a ton of subjective rules and policies in place.

One of the biggest parts of the game, penalties, are all subjective. The game is basically being decided on the opinion of 1 person whether a call was right or not. If a ref chooses to call 7 penalties on one team and 0 on the other that’s all subjective too. So you can keep going on with this subjective BS because that subjective cap circumvention you’re already hypothetically proposing has rules in place already to prevent and what you’re saying is already possible

1. If a team signed a player who’s value is 2 million to a 5 million dollar contract they can send him to the AHL for him to play there and call him up whenever. No team is claiming this player with the current waivers system
2. While technically this team has that ability to do that with a player and then call him up for playoffs, it would be flagged under the NHL’s current cap circumvention policies because that’s blatant cap circumvention

 

[McDNicks17]

Doesn’t change the fact that there are a ton of subjective rules and policies in place.

One of the biggest parts of the game, penalties, are all subjective. The game is basically being decided on the opinion of 1 person whether a call was right or not. If a ref chooses to call 7 penalties on one team and 0 on the other that’s all subjective too. So you can keep going on with this subjective BS because that subjective cap circumvention you’re already hypothetically proposing has rules in place already to prevent

So far your examples have been pretty much the most widely talked about issues with the NHL. LTIR and reffing.

You really want to add another one?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think it's a good idea to give players a free choice of where to play. They're under contract, not UFAs; and inevitably it would favor more successful teams, which defeats the purpose of waivers in the first place.

That being said, allowing them to decline waivers and proceed to the AHL for their own benefit is more than fair. It's actually so common-sense that once you think of it, it's surprising that the system wasn't designed that way in the first place.

 

[SomeDude]

Doesn’t change the fact that there are a ton of subjective rules and policies in place.

One of the biggest parts of the game, penalties, are all subjective. The game is basically being decided on the opinion of 1 person whether a call was right or not. If a ref chooses to call 7 penalties on one team and 0 on the other that’s all subjective too. So you can keep going on with this subjective BS because that subjective cap circumvention you’re already hypothetically proposing has rules in place already to prevent

Here's something that is not subjective: if losing out on Harri Sateri has any negative impact to your season, you were never going anywhere to begin with.

 

[McDNicks17]

I don't think it's a good idea to give players a free choice of where to play. They're under contract, not UFAs; and inevitably it would favor more successful teams, which defeats the purpose of waivers in the first place.

That being said, allowing them to decline waivers and proceed to the AHL for their own benefit is more than fair. It's actually so common-sense that once you think of it, it's surprising that the system wasn't designed that way in the first place.

It isn't just solely the player's benefit though. There's massive benefits for their team too.

 

[Lays]

Here's something that is not subjective: if losing out on Harri Sateri has any negative impact to your season, you were never going anywhere to begin with.

Harri Sateri has nothing to do with my favorite team. I’m a Rangers fan. I don’t think we put a claim in for him and I don’t care if we did or didn’t. We have goalies already. This was your entire takeaway? That I’m upset on my team losing out on Harri Sateri? His situation just prompted me to think of a new waiver system which clearly benefits more than it hurts

 

[SomeDude]

I don't think it's a good idea to give players a free choice of where to play. They're under contract, not UFAs; and inevitably it would favor more successful teams, which defeats the purpose of waivers in the first place.

That being said, allowing them to decline waivers and proceed to the AHL for their own benefit is more than fair. It's actually so common-sense that once you think of it, it's surprising that the system wasn't designed that way in the first place.

If they really think it would be better to play in the AHL with their current team than play in the NHL with another team, then they can ask their NHL team to terminate their contract and sign an AHL deal with them.

 

[Lays]

It isn't just solely the player's benefit though. There's massive benefits for their team too.

That’s the point. You literally just admitted it benefits the player AND the team yet you’re still arguing more in this thread against it than anyone else

 

[MarkusKetterer]

Sure, but he could’ve been with the team he actually wanted to sign with right now. And the team that signed him to that contract can have him as an option right now. The only winner here is Arizona for being bad and getting a free player that doesn’t want to be there.

Would you want this rule changed if Colorado or Florida were the only ones to put a claim on him?

It’s weird how people hate waivers when a shitty team claims a player. But I can guarantee you that when Sateri and Mrazek were simultaneously on waivers, nobody was hoping Mrazek wasn’t the one claimed.

 

[SomeDude]

Harri Sateri has nothing to do with my favorite team. I’m a Rangers fan. I don’t think we put a claim in for him and I don’t care if we did or didn’t. We have goalies already. This was your entire takeaway? That I’m upset on my team losing out on Harri Sateri? His situation just prompted me to think of a new waiver system which clearly benefits more than it hurts

No it doesn't, as it has been pointed out by a lot of other people. You posted an absurd idea and are arguing with people who are pointing out reasons why it is absurd.

Your reason for posting the idea is that you're a fan of a big market team and want to further exploit that. You already had guys force their way to play in New York. Which proves that if players want to play for a certain team, they will find a way to get there under the current system.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Very bad ideas for the many reasons already pointed out.

 

[McDNicks17]

That’s the point. You literally just admitted it benefits the player AND the team yet you’re still arguing more in this thread against it than anyone else

It benefits rich teams. Not every team.

You aren't getting 95% of the teams in the league to agree on screwing themselves over.

 

[Lays]

Would you want this rule changed if Colorado or Florida were the only ones to put a claim on him?

It’s weird how people hate waivers when a shitty team claims a player. But I can guarantee you that when Sateri and Mrazek were simultaneously on waivers, nobody was hoping Mrazek wasn’t the one claimed.

Yes I would? It would create excitement for both those fanbases to see if he signs with their team AND it gives the player the option to choose between the two.

The scenario you listed is a good case.

Let’s pretend that Sateri wanted to go to the team with best opportunity for him, Colorado has a thinner goalie pool than Florida so he chooses them and gets what he wants, the team putting the player on waivers gets what they want (if they’re hoping to lose him), and lastly the team receiving the player gets a player they know wants to play there because he chose them over other teams. Where is the negatives?