Commandant 808 Posted January 26 It depends if there are any other teams who claimed the player on waivers. If there are... you have to offer him to those teams. Im unclear if you have to offer him back to his first team too... but dlb seems to think you dont when this came up earlier. I think hes right. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dlbalr 758 Posted January 26 3 hours ago, John B said: Last year the Penguins claimed Mike Condon on waivers from the Habs and then traded him to Ottawa when his services were no longer needed. I was under the impression that you couldn't trade a player acquired on waivers unless he were to successfully pass through waivers again. I don't remember the Penguins placing Condon on waivers prior to dealing him (I'm thinking if they would have, Ottawa would have just claimed him instead of giving up a pick). I only ask because the Habs are in a similar situation with Niemi. Could they deal Niemi if they wanted to (if someone would want him)? Condon didn't go through waivers a second time because no one else had claimed him when Montreal waived him (Pittsburgh was at the back of the waiver priority list) so he was free to be dealt. If anyone else claimed Niemi, the Habs would have to waive him and have him go unclaimed in order to deal him. If not, then they should be able to trade him. That said, does he really have much, if any, trade value? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trizzak 668 Posted January 29 Bit of a "cart before the horse" situation here, but it looks very much like Mete will hit this milestone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dlbalr 758 Posted January 29 It's certainly disappointing - management is prioritizing nine/ten largely meaningless weeks ahead of an entire additional year of team control and RFA status. It's extremely short-sighted thinking, especially if he's only playing 15 minutes per game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trizzak 668 Posted January 30 I'll devil's advocate, even though I agree he might as well play in junior the rest of the season... Mete's development doesn't appear to have been stunted by low minutes in the NHL vs high minutes in junior, and the Habs need a feel-good story to point to for the future... Mete is pretty much all they have in that department. That's all I've got. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Commandant 808 Posted January 30 Id argue 15 minutes of nhl is better than 25 in junior for.his development If he wasnt playing that would be different Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
illWill 505 Posted January 30 I don't think that extra year of control means much at this point, that's a long long time away in the hockey world. He could be a bust or even locked up long term before then. I am mostly interested in his development right now, so I'm good with whatever route that is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dlbalr 758 Posted January 30 10 hours ago, Commandant said: Id argue 15 minutes of nhl is better than 25 in junior for.his development If he wasnt playing that would be different Yes, he'll develop a bit more in the NHL playing 15 minutes over 30+ in London but he'd only be in London until late March (they'll be an early out in the playoffs after selling at the deadline). Then he could go to Laval and he could certainly benefit from some time down there as well. I don't think that's worth losing a year of team control (and making his next contracts slightly more expensive) over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
