Speculation: Will we see Peluso on waivers?

[allan5oh]

I would think he'd be practicing with the Moose then.

Longshot: Peluso, Raffl, Pardy are extras, pending Buff trade.

Unless someone goes on waivers today, one of Petan, Copp, or Raffl has to be sent down to make the 4pm deadline.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Unless someone goes on waivers today, one of Petan, Copp, or Raffl has to be sent down to make the 4pm deadline.

Yes. Meant pending trade by 4pm.

 

[abax44]

Short answer to your questions - yes.

I think Peluso could still be waived at any time. If he's claimed by another team it opens up a spot on the Jets roster.

However, it takes 24 hours to clear waivers and the Jets have to announce their 23-man roster sooner than that. So it seems clear that they'll keep Peluso on their initial 23-man roster.

Pardy and Postma would also need to clear waivers. Any of those three could still be traded, which could open up a roster spot for Raffl. Otherwise, the only place for Raffl at the beginning of the season is with the Moose, if he decides to sign with the Jets' organization.

Jets 2015-16 Roster (initial):

Forwards (13)

Ladd-Little-Wheeler
Perreault-Scheifele-Ehlers
Burmistrov-Lowry-Stafford
Petan-Copp-Thorburn
(Peluso)

Defensemen (8)

Enstrom-Myers
Stuart-Trouba
Chiarot-Byfuglien
(Pardy, Postma)

Goal (2)

Pavelec
Hutchinson

I would be a bit surprised if Pardy or Postma was traded, mainly because the Jets like to have a good stock of NHL-ready D and they have a bit of depth on the Moose in forwards to draw upon (Lipon, Armia). Also, if the Jets need to consider trading Buff this year, they would likely want to keep the extra D.

Peluso used to play D.

 

[Say What]

I sense a 'phantom' injury coming, to comply with the 23 man roster limit. But who stubbed their toe?

 

[Winnipeg Jets]

Surprised we haven't heard anything yet. Maybe Raffl is complicating things with his contract?

 

[SoupaTroupa]

I sense a 'phantom' injury coming, to comply with the 23 man roster limit. But who stubbed their toe?

Hopefully Peluso, Pardy or Postma

 

[Whileee]

We're actually spending about $75 million CDN, which is as much or more than any other year. Peluso's contract is a rounding error against the cap, but in the real world, where $1.35M USD ($2M CDN) dollars are already committed to him (i.e., sunk cost), it represents something closer to the Jets entire net income from this year. The people signing the cheque will be weighing the financial considerations of these decisions a lot more than you or I on General Fanager.com.

Once you factor in that neither Raffl or Peluso will ultimately decide whether this is a playoff team or not and so "icing a better roster" does not translate into any new revenues.

I don't blame Chipman, I'd do the same. I'm just saying that its naïve to think that coaches have the final say - even if its "only a couple million dollars". If they did have the final say, anyone who doesn't immediately waive Pavelec should be fired on the spot.

So, the Jets have now signed Raffl to a one-way contract (also probably paying a transfer fee). So maybe your assertion that the Jets would keep Peluso rather than Raffl because of financial considerations was a bit off-base...

 

[allan5oh]

I think so. They also spent a ton on raffls transfer fee. This greatly increases the chance that peluso will be on waivers soon.

 

[robertocarlos]

Peluso going to another team would be good for Peluso. He has potential.

 

[allan5oh]

He's 26. He is what he is.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Peluso going to another team would be good for Peluso. He has potential.

Lol yeah ok. So much potential for 3 years now while he hasn't improved a bit. It's good for the 22 other Jets and all Jets fans for Peluso to be on another team. Ideally that's a team stupid enough to claim him on waivers so we can play against him but him being the #13/14 forward on the Moose will work as well.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

So, the Jets have now signed Raffl to a one-way contract (also probably paying a transfer fee). So maybe your assertion that the Jets would keep Peluso rather than Raffl because of financial considerations was a bit off-base...

Sure, I really don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. I wouldn't concede on my larger point, which was that coaches do not have the final call on roster decisions when financial considerations are involved. All considered though, it looks like I was "off-base" on the rather minor issue of whether Raffl would be signed. Peluso still hasn't been waived, but who knows, maybe they think can trade him...

One of the nice things about analyzing the team and organization's decisions from my perspective is that I don't actually have a dog or a preferred executive in the fight. This gives me the independence to consider all kinds of alternatives and motivations for various decision making and, when poor decisions are made like say the contract extensions of say Thorburn, Stuart or Peluso, I don't have to invent scapegoats (i.e., Maurice) for them. I can just criticize the source. There will be lots of times when I'm wrong, but being wrong doesn't actually threaten my cause [mod]

 

[CanWin]

If Raffl is waiver-exempt, maybe they will send him down instead of Peluso until the first injury.

 

[Whileee]

Sure, I really don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. I wouldn't concede on my larger point, which was that coaches do not have the final call on roster decisions when financial considerations are involved. All considered though, it looks like I was "off-base" on the rather minor issue of whether Raffl would be signed. Peluso still hasn't been waived, but who knows, maybe they think can trade him...

One of the nice things about analyzing the team and organization's decisions from my perspective is that I don't actually have a dog or a preferred executive in the fight. This gives me the independence to consider all kinds of alternatives and motivations for various decision making and, when poor decisions are made like say the contract extensions of say Thorburn, Stuart or Peluso, I don't have to invent scapegoats (i.e., Maurice) for them. I can just criticize the source. There will be lots of times when I'm wrong, but being wrong doesn't actually threaten my cause [mod]

...apparently your [mod] perspective doesn't preclude the inclination to incorporate argumentum ad hominem into the discourse. It's a somewhat ironic juxtaposition.

Maurice isn't a "scapegoat", he's a key part of the organization that has been given a role in player evaluation and decision-making. If you want to ignore his role in assigning value and roles to players like Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso and blame it all on Chevy, that's okay, but it's a bit odd to then pretend that's a non-partisan position to take. Beyond the fact that Maurice fills out the line-up card every game and found a way to play Peluso and Thorbs plenty last year, and has glued Stuart to prized young Trouba, there is plenty of evidence that Maurice was asked to play a big role in evaluating players on the team when he was brought in.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=700556

"[Maurice as] someone with a lot of experience will be valuable for us as we continue to evaluate what we have here and what changes in the future might be necessary," Cheveldayoff said.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

...apparently your perspective doesn't preclude the inclination to incorporate argumentum ad hominem into the discourse. It's a somewhat ironic juxtaposition.


http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=700556

I learned something new today....yay!!

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Gm0ney]

I learned something new today....yay!!

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than addressing the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

What, am I going to take my logic lessons from some greasy biker? I don't think so, Fonzie!

 

[Jaffray15]

If Raffl is waiver-exempt, maybe they will send him down instead of Peluso until the first injury.

I looked into this and he's exempt until he plays his first NHL game

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I looked into this and he's exempt until he plays his first NHL game

Nope. He is exempt all year. Whatever your waiver status at the start of the year it remains so for the full season.

 

[Daximus]

They'll keep Peluso. Raffl will be a call up. Can't see Chevy parting with his favourite scrapper.

 

[Jaffray15]

Nope. He is exempt all year. Whatever your waiver status at the start of the year it remains so for the full season.

I was just going to correct myself after reading into it more, but after this season he isn't exempt anymore

 

[allan5oh]

Nope. He is exempt all year. Whatever your waiver status at the start of the year it remains so for the full season.*

* Only because he's a 25+ player. All players 24 and under also have a GP threshold that when hit, makes them eligible for waivers.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

* Only because he's a 25+ player. All players 24 and under also have a GP threshold that when hit, makes them eligible for waivers.

They do. However if they hit that threshold mid-season it does not change their waiver status for that season. Whatever you start the year as you finish the year as. Whether that be waiver exempt or waiver eligible.

 

[allan5oh]

They do. However if they hit that threshold mid-season it does not change their waiver status for that season. Whatever you start the year as you finish the year as. Whether that be waiver exempt or waiver eligible.

I can't find that, all I see is this:

The exemption from Regular Waivers ends immediately upon a Player playing in
the number of NHL Games set forth in the applicable column above.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I can't find that, all I see is this:

Hmmm maybe I got my wires crossed with the over 25 rule. I think you are correct and I am wrong. This might have been changed at some point, I recall seeing a clause stating you stayed on same waiver status all year. Or it might just because it's so rare you see this in practice since low 20's guy with 160+ games is generally not going to be talked about waivers (ie Scheifele or Trouba).

 

[Whileee]

Hmmm maybe I got my wires crossed with the over 25 rule. I think you are correct and I am wrong. This might have been changed at some point, I recall seeing a clause stating you stayed on same waiver status all year. Or it might just because it's so rare you see this in practice since low 20's guy with 160+ games is generally not going to be talked about waivers (ie Scheifele or Trouba).

Zinger said that Raffl is exempt because this is his first NHL contract.