HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Would this work? Re: Labarbera

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-14-2007, 01:53 PM
  #1
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Would this work? Re: Labarbera

If LA is unable to get points vs Dallas tommorrow, they could recall Labarbera and have PHIL claim him. When PHIL tries to send him down the next day, LA would get first priority based on being 29th in the NHL and could reclaim him.

I know the Lewis selection at the draft pissed off some Flyers people, but maybe DL still has some friends/favors left in Philly?

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 01:56 PM
  #2
CowMix
Go Kings Go!
 
CowMix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tustin, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
We don't have any 2nd round picks left

CowMix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 03:46 PM
  #3
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Good thinking, nK. That's right; if the Kings lose on Monday, they'll slip to 29th in PPG, which, I believe is what determines waiver order. The Kings could then make a deal with Philadelphia. It probably wouldn't require much... maybe just a 5th-rounder or something like that. It's, actually, in the Flyers' best interest that the Kings get LaBarbera up to the NHL since not only does it give the Flyers a better chance of retaining the #1 overall pick; it also greatly weakens the Monarchs, which, in turn, might give the Phantoms an extra point or two when they meet. It seems to me to be a win-win.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 03:54 PM
  #4
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Please Make It Stop!!!

King Blazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 03:59 PM
  #5
Face Wash
Registered User
 
Face Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Blazer View Post
Please Make It Stop!!!
Sorry KB

Face Wash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:20 PM
  #6
Venom_17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Isn't this essentially what happened with Lehoux and the Coyotes?

Venom_17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:21 PM
  #7
CowMix
Go Kings Go!
 
CowMix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tustin, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom_17 View Post
Isn't this essentially what happened with Lehoux and the Coyotes?
he wasn't traded back, he was reclaimed on waivers wasn't he?

CowMix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:24 PM
  #8
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom_17 View Post
Isn't this essentially what happened with Lehoux and the Coyotes?
Yes, but it wasn't done to circumvent the CBA...

King Blazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:25 PM
  #9
Venom_17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowMix View Post
he wasn't traded back, he was reclaimed on waivers wasn't he?
I thought he was claimed by Phx, then reclaimed by LA, then traded to Phoenix.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/...me=nhl-coyotes

Venom_17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:25 PM
  #10
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,289
vCash: 500
Here's the problem with that scenario:

Article 13.20 (b) of the CBA

(b) A Player who has been acquired by Waiver claim shall not be Traded 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.

For any of you afflicted enough (like me ) to care what is actually in the CBA, you can download all 472 pages here:

http://www.nhl.com/cba/2005-CBA.pdf

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:27 PM
  #11
TubbyTerrion*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,974
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TubbyTerrion*
Here's the real problem with that scenario:

The Monarchs are in 1st place in their division, and the Kings aren't likely to deplete their organizational goaltending ranks.

Period.

TubbyTerrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:31 PM
  #12
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom_17 View Post
I thought he was claimed by Phx, then reclaimed by LA, then traded to Phoenix.
You are correct. He had to be placed on waivers because he had played in Europe after the start of the NHL season. Phoenix claimed him at that time. Phoenix placed him back on waivers and the Kings reclaimed him. Because the Kings were the original owning club AND the only team to make a claim on him, they were able to assign him directly to the Monarchs. The Kings then traded Lehoux to Phoenix at the deadline...

King Blazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:34 PM
  #13
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,289
vCash: 500
Wait a second - are you saying that it doesn't matter where the Kings finish this season?

How can they fight their way back into the black hole if they don't deplete their organizational goaltending ranks?

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:36 PM
  #14
Venom_17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP View Post

Article 13.20 (b) of the CBA

(b) A Player who has been acquired by Waiver claim shall not be Traded 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.
So what are we talking here? If I follow correctly:

Barbs could be claimed by Philly...then reacquired on waivers by LA. No trades involved. This clause would not come into play.

In the case of Lehoux, he was reacquired on waivers and then traded back to Phx. Assuming that there were no other claims for Lehoux, this clause would not apply to that situation. As LA put a claim in for Lehoux the 2nd time, Phoenix could not have. Therefore they are free to trade him because no other team had previously put a claim in for him.

Venom_17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 04:54 PM
  #15
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
PSP, we are (or at least I am) well aware of that clause. The trade that I was referring to (and nK may've been, as well) was giving the Flyers a draft pick for "future considerations" so that they would claim LaBarbera and then put him immediately back on waivers, for the Kings to claim him.

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 05:19 PM
  #16
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
PSP, we are (or at least I am) well aware of that clause. The trade that I was referring to (and nK may've been, as well) was giving the Flyers a draft pick for "future considerations" so that they would claim LaBarbera and then put him immediately back on waivers, for the Kings to claim him.
That is theoretically possible, but only with the Kings as the 29th ranked team and the Flyers as the 30th team. If another team filed a claim on the original waivers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league office step in and void Philadephia's claim - he'd probably have to stay on their NHL roster for at least a few weeks before he could go back on waivers without review.

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 05:31 PM
  #17
King Blazer
Registered User
 
King Blazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 6,420
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP View Post
That is theoretically possible, but only with the Kings as the 29th ranked team and the Flyers as the 30th team. If another team filed a claim on the original waivers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the league office step in and void Philadephia's claim - he'd probably have to stay on their NHL roster for at least a few weeks before he could go back on waivers without review.
I agree, the League would block the deal in a heartbeat. The scenario is circumvention at it's finest...

I know a lot of folks seem to think that there's some friendship between Phillly and Lombardi, BUT, Philly did just grab Leighton off waivers before he fell to the Kings. That doesn't seem like a "friendly" move to me...

King Blazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 06:13 PM
  #18
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
If the league were to block a claim, they'd most likely block the Kings' claim, not Philly's, since they have no way of knowing whether Philly legitimately wants LaBarbera or not. There's also the possibility that they could swap Leighton and LaBarbera. The league would have no grounds to block that.

I do agree, though, that it'd be best for the Kings to keep LaBarbera safely in Manchester (where he's the team MVP). I'm only considering possibilities should they want to bring in a goaltender without trading for one... and since it's sometimes fun to theorize.


Last edited by Osprey: 01-14-2007 at 06:20 PM.
Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 06:39 PM
  #19
PSP
Couldn't Be Happier!
 
PSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
If the league were to block a claim, they'd most likely block the Kings' claim, not Philly's, since they have no way of knowing whether Philly legitimately wants LaBarbera or not.
If the Flyers legitimately wanted LaBarbera, why would they immediately put him on waivers?

PSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-14-2007, 07:51 PM
  #20
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSP View Post
If the Flyers legitimately wanted LaBarbera, why would they immediately put him on waivers?
I think that my wording wasn't as clear as it could've been. I should've said "since they have no way of knowing that Philly doesn't legitimately want LaBarbera."

Osprey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2007, 02:27 AM
  #21
ukyo
Registered User
 
ukyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Forget about seeing him play in the NHL this season. I'd worry more about whether or not we can keep him after his contract is up, which is going to require Lombardi to throw a ton of money at him I assume.

ukyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2007, 06:59 AM
  #22
fuzzerson
¡Ándele!
 
fuzzerson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to fuzzerson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom_17 View Post
So what are we talking here? If I follow correctly:

Barbs could be claimed by Philly...then reacquired on waivers by LA. No trades involved. This clause would not come into play.
or... it could be part of the Robert Esche deal. We expose Labs to waivers philly claims him, Philly trades Esche to LA for a 7th rounder.

fuzzerson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2007, 06:06 PM
  #23
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,425
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by nK View Post
I know the Lewis selection at the draft pissed off some Flyers people, but maybe DL still has some friends/favors left in Philly?
That's news to me.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2007, 06:10 PM
  #24
wabwat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: pasadena, ca.
Posts: 6,674
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wabwat
what if every goaltender in the Kings' organization dies? how 'bout then?

wabwat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2007, 12:31 AM
  #25
mystik989
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9
vCash: 500
im not quite sure why everyone would even want to try and recall LaBarbs this season....It's lost....The tanking is in effect. I am actually starting to not be upset with a game that the Kings lose, just to move up and gain another excellent draft pick/stay away from the so-called "black hole".......Idk, though, the #11 pick has been relatively kind to the city of LA. I am a Kings fan almost religiously(even being on the East Coast, and staying up late to watch games), but I think DL will set the ship right...I still believe (and am doing so quietly), that LaBarbera will be our #1 goaltender for many years in the future. You guys havent seen the guy play like I have here in Hartford, and the ocassional trip to Manchester...He definitley has the potential to be a full time #1. Bernier will def need time to make a full development, and I am completely content with that. Hell I'd actually like to see LaBarbera stay in Manchester all year, to see if he can get them out of the first round of the playoffs. And I'd have some more games to go to.

Honestly, Im not even sure if in the offseason, the whole "waiver thing" is put a halt to, and teams can do as they please, and recall/send down without waiver paranoia, idk, i would like to be filled in with this please.

But to close off, if we can get him in here in the beginning of next season, it would suit me just fine. Just fine.

mystik989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.