RobRock Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 According to this week's Hockey News, the NHL, the NHLPA and the Professional Hockey Players Association, which represents AHL players, are close to a deal that would see the NHL's re-entry waiver rule rescinded as early as this season. The PHPA first objected to the controversial new rule because they saw it as a limit on AHL-level salaries, which for some veteran players could be, and are, above the $75K limit. In addition, they believed that it was unfair for AHL players to be restricted in their ability to advance to the NHL because of the parent club's fear of losing them on waivers, and the minor detail that AHL players had no input on its implementation, yet would be the most impacted by it. I never quite understood the intent of this rule. What is it supposed to do? If a guy clears waivers going down, then it means that no other team thinks that he can help them, or that he's not an economic fit for them. If the guy goes down and plays well enough to get recalled, then suddenly, everybody wants him? Why didn't you make that decision when he wasn't playing as well? And the whole splitting of salaries by the waiving team and the claiming team was even more puzzling. The team wants him back because he's improved his play, and now suddenly I gotta pay him to play for another team, possibly another rival team? And what about teams that would pluck players from rivals, just 'cause they could? Here's an example that actually happened this season. Earlier this year, Boston claimed goalie Craig Anderson off waivers from Chicago. A few weeks ago, Boston waived him, and Chicago re-claimed him. If both of those claims were made on recalls, would that mean that the Hawks were responsible for 3/4 of Anderson's salary and Chicago the remaining 1/4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I hope that rule is rescinded. It is terrible for player devlopment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Minister Koivu Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Good post I hope the rule is reversed too. It makes no sense at all. We would still have Hainsey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigRedC Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yep, why would they even put that in there? Terrible idea...Here's hoping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I never saw the logic in the way this was set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I hope this waiver thing gets fixed. It's a load of crap if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) I'm not happy about changing this rule in mid-season. We and other teams have lost players under this rule. Okay that's fine, that's the rule. But changing it now is unfair. I think the reason for the rule was to prevent teams from shipping overpaid palyer back and forth to the minors in order to reduce their effect on a team's salary cap. They wanted to allow players to be sent down but really wanted to discourage teams from shuttling established players back and forth just for cap reasons. I agree this rule isn't working well but they shouldn't change it until the beginning of next season. Edited February 11, 2006 by Peter Puck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I'm not happy about changing this rule in mid-season. We and other teams have lost players under this rule. Okay that's fine, that's the rule. But changing it now is unfair. I agree this rule isn't working well but they shouldn't change it until the beginning of next season. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 We lost Hainsey for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 re-entry waivers are ######ed. Why should a team get stuck with half of a guys remaining salary having it count against the cap and then the player gets to go elsewhere. If I were in the AHL and I missed my shot because the parent club didnt wanna lose me for nothing and get stuck with the bill I would be pissed off. All in all, Re-entry waivers = stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brobin Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I could never figure out how a rule this detrimental to everyone ever got included in the first place. While it is unfortunate that we got burned by this rule already, I say the sooner they change it the better. For example, it this rule was gone, we would be able to bring up Dags. Not because he is so great, but because he could fill in for injuries, or to send a message to a floater. Unfortunately, Dags had to stay up longer then we wanted because they could not send him down, and now that he is down he is effectively lost for the season. People wonder why he is not doing well in the AHL, but it must be hard to focus knowing that nothing you do down there has a chance of getting you promoted back to the big club. Dags is an example, but many teams have the same issue with marginal players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HABBER-oooooKNOWS Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I could never figure out how a rule this detrimental to everyone ever got included in the first place. While it is unfortunate that we got burned by this rule already, I say the sooner they change it the better. For example, it this rule was gone, we would be able to bring up Dags. Not because he is so great, but because he could fill in for injuries, or to send a message to a floater. Unfortunately, Dags had to stay up longer then we wanted because they could not send him down, and now that he is down he is effectively lost for the season. People wonder why he is not doing well in the AHL, but it must be hard to focus knowing that nothing you do down there has a chance of getting you promoted back to the big club. Dags is an example, but many teams have the same issue with marginal players. He has all kinds of reason and motivation to do well in the ahl. So he can be traded to a team in the nhl? that would be a good one.......and the waiver rule is great.....It keeps already good teams from keeping great players on the farm. This way a crap team can pick them off keeping the nhl balanced which at the end of the day makes perfect sense........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 He has all kinds of reason and motivation to do well in the ahl. So he can be traded to a team in the nhl? that would be a good one.......and the waiver rule is great.....It keeps already good teams from keeping great players on the farm. This way a crap team can pick them off keeping the nhl balanced which at the end of the day makes perfect sense........ that is a good defense of the classic waivers rule, not the modified re-entry rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I never liked the changes they made to waivers and hope they go back to the old system. Glad to see that it isn't working. Now if they would give the teams back the rights to players from their region all will be as it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'm not happy about changing this rule in mid-season. We and other teams have lost players under this rule. Okay that's fine, that's the rule. But changing it now is unfair. I think the reason for the rule was to prevent teams from shipping overpaid palyer back and forth to the minors in order to reduce their effect on a team's salary cap. They wanted to allow players to be sent down but really wanted to discourage teams from shuttling established players back and forth just for cap reasons. I agree this rule isn't working well but they shouldn't change it until the beginning of next season. Double ditto. Whatever they decide to do, it should be done in between seasons. Most other rule changes take place at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.