HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Edmonton Oilers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Valiquette is Back (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=17371)

PineJockey 10-06-2003 04:47 AM

Valiquette is Back
 
It looks like that crafty Lowe just made $42000 for nothing. Very nice. :handclap:

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/sport...9-06CA23ABD4E6

dukeforrest 10-06-2003 05:03 AM

If it happens, I am thoroughly impressed. I almost think it could have been intentional. Could Lowe have known that the Panthers owner wanted a reliable backup and would berate Dudley for letting go of Hurme? Makes me wonder...

Oilers Ent 10-06-2003 06:07 AM

If Lowe knew that I would ask him what the numbers of the next 6/49 were.

momentai 10-06-2003 06:12 AM

I think all this proves is Dudley has not been a smart GM of late.

igor* 10-06-2003 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by momentai
I think all this proves is Dudley has not been a smart GM of late.

Yup, I think you are right Momentai. It is a very ambiguous rule though.

These three paragraphs pretty much cover the issue.

13.27.
(a) No Club shall lose more than three (3) players through draft claim made by another Club(s), unless it chooses to so offer its players, except as provided in subparagraph (b) of this Article, provided that, in any year in which there is an Expansion Draft involving one or two new Clubs, then the above described Waiver Draft loss limits shall not be applicable and instead Clubs will have a loss limit in the next Waiver Draft of two players or one player, respectively, per Club. In addition, any Club that loses a goalie in any Expansion Draft may not, unless it so elects, lose a goalie in either the next Waiver Draft or the following year's Waiver Draft. "Draft claim" for this purpose does not include a player transferred as a result of the option described in subsection 13.29 hereof.

(b) A Club's three draft claim loss limit shall be increased by the number of draft claims it makes against other Clubs.

13.28. Goalkeepers: No Club shall lose more than one (1) goalkeeper which loss shall be included in the total of three (3) in subsection 13.27 above, unless the Club chooses to so offer additional goalkeeper(s), provided that, in any year in which there is an Expansion Draft involving one or two new Clubs, then the above described Waiver Draft loss limits shall not be applicable and instead Clubs will have a loss limit in the next Waiver Draft of two players or one player, respectively, per Club. In addition, any Club that loses a goalie in any Expansion Draft may not, unless it so elects, lose a goalie in either the next Waiver Draft or the following year's Waiver Draft.



At the end of the day it just wasn't a very smart move by Rick Dudley though ... I mean geez Dudley, if you are unsure, ask!

Mowzie 10-06-2003 07:30 AM

Whether KLO knew about this or not, I'm gonna give him the credit. that's a great chess move he made, and now he has an extra $42,000 to buy himself some new shoes. I assume that he will re-claim Steve Valaquette today. now if we can only get the comrie situation resolved before thursday...

Burke's Evil Spirit 10-06-2003 07:35 AM

Wow...so Dudley lost Hurme for NOTHING. Wow.

Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever.

Mizral 10-06-2003 07:35 AM

It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?

USC Trojans 10-06-2003 07:41 AM

I don't think Lowe knew.
Who would've guessed that Dudley would pick up Valiquette, then put Hurme on waivers, have him get picked up, and then go ahead and sign Shields....thus putting Valiquette back on waivers. Someone put another quarter in the goalie merry go round.

Guy Flaming 10-06-2003 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizral
It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?

Perhaps this is the US to CDN currency result? $50G US becomes $85G CDN? I don't know.

Burke's Evil Spirit 10-06-2003 07:55 AM

Actually, I think the way the rule works is if you reclaim a player off waivers whom you just lost, I don't think you have to pay? Not sure, exactly.

Funkymoses 10-06-2003 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PineJockey
It looks like that crafty Lowe just made $42000 for nothing. Very nice. :handclap:

score! now we can pay Comrie!

igor* 10-06-2003 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizral
It's my understanding that it costs $50,000 to claim a player off waivers - isn't that the case?

It varies widely depending on how long the player has been playing on a professional contract. And whether they are a skater or defenseman.

For example; for Travis Green the waiver fee was maximum USD 6,500 (The Leafs can reduce it if they wish to). For goaltenders, this is the payment schedule:

For each goaltender who has not in the aggregate completed more than the following years under one or more professional contracts:

2 Years - $97,500
3 Years - $82,500
4 Years - $75,000
5 Years - $67,500


So unless Valiquette's first contract was a personal services contract to Lowell in the AHL (highly unlikely) then the waiver fee for him would have been USD 67,500. FLA also has to pay Valiquette USD 5000 in addition to this fee.

If Valiquette goes on waivers today, the Oilers can file to claim him within 48 hours, by fax. If none of the other teams that drafted before them in the waiver draft file a claim ... he will become Oilers property. The Oilers do NOT have first dibs here, the Journal was incorrect on this. The CBA is explicit in this regard.

The Oilers would have to pay 50% of the waiver draft fee, in their home currency (i.e. CAD 33,750, or about USD 25,300). The Oilers would also have to pay Valiquette USD 5000 in addition to this fee. (EDIT: any other team that claims him would have to pay the full waiver fee, plus USD 5000 to Valiquette).

So the Oilers would be up USD 37,200. And Valiquette would be up USD 10,000 before taxes.

There is no way on God's green earth that the Oilers planned this, in fact it sounds very much like they were caught unawares. But it looks like it might work out okay, becasue I really doubt that any other team will claim him.

BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston

oilers_guy_eddie 10-06-2003 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igor
BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston

I thought that we got first dibs if the Panthers try to put Valiquette through waivers.

dawgbone 10-06-2003 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igor

BTW: Here are the other teams (in order of priority) who would be able to claim Valiquette ahead of the Oilers)

1. Carolina
2. Pittsburgh
3. Columbus
4. Buffalo
5. San Jose
6. Nashville
7. Atlanta
8. Calgary
9. Montreal
10. Phoenix
11. NY Rangers
12. Los Angeles
13. Chicago
14. NY Islanders
15. Boston

Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.

Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.

M00se 10-06-2003 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.

Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.


I heard an interview on Friday with Kevin Prendergast and he basically said the same thing. The Oil have first dibs on him. :handclap:

igor* 10-06-2003 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M00se
I heard an interview on Friday with Kevin Prendergast and he basically said the same thing. The Oil have first dibs on him. :handclap:

Hmm, that's curious.

The CBA is fairly specific here, and that simply doesn't appear to be the case ... in fact explicitly so. Look it up yourself, I think it is quite obvious http://letsgopens.com/nhl_cba.php. And go to Article 13.

I wonder if Prendergast is blowing smoke or just doesn't know?

igor* 10-06-2003 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgbone
Actually the Oilers get first right of refusal. When you pluck a player off the waiver wire, and then try to send him down, the team you got him from gets to decide whether or not they want him back.

Do you have a source for this, because this is not how the CBA reads (granted at just one read through Article 13)?

Quote:

Basically, it is as a benefit to the players. Generally if you are sent to the minors, you don't earn the same amount of money, so if you are sent down another team can pick you up off waivers and use you for their team. But if you get sent down again, you are no better off than before, hence your original team gets the choice of whether or not they want you back.
I'm having trouble seeing the logic in your second paragraph. And I especially fail to see how that lends creedance to the first paragraph ... if anything just the opposite. Since the reclaiming team left the player unprotected in the first place, they surely weren't destined for the NHL squad.

gmdevils 10-06-2003 12:44 PM

I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him. The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not
be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.


Maybe someone more familiar with the CBA could help out, because to me, that reads like the original team would've had to make a claim on him when he was put through waivers. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.

bone 10-06-2003 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmdevils
I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him. The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not
be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.


Maybe someone more familiar with the CBA could help out, because to me, that reads like the original team would've had to make a claim on him when he was put through waivers. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.

Further to that,

13.20. When a Club claims a player on waivers, and,
subsequently, in the same season it requests waivers on the same
player and the original owning Club is the successful and only
Club making a waiver claim, then the original owning Club shall
be entitled to loan such player to a club in another league
within thirty days without further waivers being asked; provided
that such player has not participated in ten or more League games
(cumulative) and remained on an NHL roster more than thirty days
(cumulative) following such successful claim.

Essentially it looks as though if Valiquette is at any time to go to the minors this, we have first dibs on him for the minors, but if another team wants him in the NHL, he is theirs.

theoil 10-06-2003 12:54 PM

I read section 13 as well (thanks Igor) and the thing that is not clear to me is how anybody could write so much and say so little. I agree with Igor though that if section 13 is the definitive section on the rules it is not clear that the Oilers get first crack regardless of past examples or precedents. It is simply not addressed.

igor* 10-06-2003 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmdevils
I'm pretty certain that the right of first refusal is given to the original club. I have heard it several times, and it happened when the Canes claimed Josh Holden from the Canucks, then tried to send him to the minor's, and the Canucks reclaimed him.

More likely because no other teams filed a claim for him, or specifically not teams that were below VAN in the standings the year previous.

Quote:

The closest thing that I could find in the CBA was this:

13.18. (b) A player who has been acquired by waiver claim shall not be transferred to another Club until the termination of playoffs
of the season in which he was acquired unless he is first offered
on the same terms to the Club(s) that entered a claim when
waivers were requested originally and the offer has been refused.

The way I read this is a bit different, gmdevils.

As an example:
If EDM and DAL were to file waiver claims for Valley off FLA, then EDM would get him because they finished below MIN last year.
If the Oilers then gave him the backup spot on the big club (highly unlikely I know, but this is an example) then half way through the year they decide to trade him to NYR ... MIN could intervene and nab Valley for the waiver fee if they so choosed.

I'm by no means a CBA expert though. Far from it. But that would be my interpretation. Probably this rule is a loophole closer, there to prevent a low-ranking team from picking up guys on waivers and later flipping them to high ranking teams ... and thus cheating all the in-between teams from a fair shot at the player.

Quote:

In addition, the reason that Lowe would make the 46k or whatever it actually was, is this rule:

13.37. (a) For players and goalkeepers acquired by waivers by
original Club (the Club having lost the player in the Waiver
Draft) as provided in subsection 13.14, the waiver price shall be
reduced by one-half.

(b) The currency for the claiming price shall be determined
by the location of the Club from which the player was claimed.

Yup. I agree totally.

igor* 10-06-2003 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bone
...
Essentially it looks as though if Valiquette is at any time to go to the minors this, we have first dibs on him for the minors, but if another team wants him in the NHL, he is theirs.

IMO Article 13.20 essentially saves Valiquette and the Oilers two days of their lives if the Oilers are the only team that files a claim for him when FLA puts him on waivers. And that seems sensible.

Your last point is well said, its the whole thing in a nutshell. Except the 'first dibs' thing should read 'preferential dibs'. 15 teams will have dibs first, but because the Oilers will be paying at half-rate ... no other team can win a 'war of attrition' with the Oilers if they both want Valley for the AHL.

So in a nutshell ... if some team wants Valley for the NHL this year, they'll get him. Otherwise he'll ply his trade as a RoadRunner in hogtown (assuming the Oilers want him back, and I can't see why they wouldn't).

Shibumi 10-06-2003 04:23 PM

"Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever."

I still think the Cam Neely deal is right up there.

:D

igor* 10-06-2003 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shibumi
"Honestly, that's the worst bit of GM-ing I've seen...ever."

I still think the Cam Neely deal is right up there.

:D

:joker: Yup, that was a belter. Button deserves to be a finalist too, for reacquiring McAmmond last year without realizing he would not be eligible to play. D'Oh!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.