View Single Post
10-03-2013, 11:53 AM
Now with 9% more zen
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
In this and other threads I'm noticing a misinterpretation that players must be bad if other clubs don't pick them up.
This is a common misinterpretation. That just because players pass waivers that they are on that basis worse than anything other clubs currently have. The fact of the matter is a lot of the waivers done at this time are strategic in that most clubs have full or close to full rosters of the players that they deem useful, and that fit their club. The guys going through waivers just haven't landed anywhere and are sent down at the most opportune time for their org, but the least opportune time for their continuing career.
If the rule was different, and any player sent down anywhere could be picked up anytime by the first club that wanted a specific player we'd see holy different patterns. Under the new CBA with a player only being available to other clubs when sent down it offers a loophole to clubs to in effect harbor these players once they have squeezed them through the busy waiver season.
Simplest way to look at it is there aren't enough spots to pick up an appreciable amount of the volume of players sent down at this time.
If players being waived was an indication of relative player worth Gazdic wouldn't be any better than a Jones or Eager. The only real way to look at it is players that are picked up have specific attributes and skillsets that are in short supply for a team that happens to have a space. Lots of the players sent down recently would be picked up if they were sent down at different times of the year when other clubs were in more need through injury, attrition, or just reevaluation.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Replacement