HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Islanders claim Nabokov off waivers, will not report

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2011, 05:50 PM
  #151
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
You wanted an answer to your question no? I said it wasn't likely from the start. I really have no idea if we are arguing or if you were just curious on why/when it would happen.

If it is the former, then I have no idea why.
I believe if you go back to my first post on this I used the word rhetorical(a)... but it came out as a discussion anyway.

No, we are not arguing... we are discussing... but I think we got our signals crossed. I was saying that actually they could trade but in all reality it makes little to no sense to do so when you can get him for free and not risk losing him -- IIRC I was agreeing with both you and Jester after you clarified your earlier post that he replied to -- Apparently you thought I was interested in the small chance a trade would happen... and we went on to discuss that... Finally I just said that a team that would do that doesn't really want him, as an ending.

I suppose it could seem like an argument... but a good hearted and friendly one if that is what it was. But no, I didn't want you to answer the rhetorical question (that I did tack an answer on, myself(b))... and no I wasn't really curious in the least... but was willing to discuss it if you wanted to.

Peace, Dude.



Edit:

From earlier post.

(a) To state an obvious rhetorical question: Why would a team trade for a goalie they could have just claimed for free off waivers?

(b)... Unless they want to dump a salary that the waiving team wants... and are willing to take a chance of losing him to a team behind you in the waiver claiming pecking order.


Last edited by Sawdalite: 01-22-2011 at 05:56 PM.
Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-22-2011, 06:33 PM
  #152
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
I believe if you go back to my first post on this I used the word rhetorical(a)... but it came out as a discussion anyway.
Yea. I thought it started out like that, when I read rhetorical I think I understood theoretical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
No, we are not arguing... we are discussing... but I think we got our signals crossed. I was saying that actually they could trade but in all reality it makes little to no sense to do so when you can get him for free and not risk losing him -- IIRC I was agreeing with both you and Jester after you clarified your earlier post that he replied to -- Apparently you thought I was interested in the small chance a trade would happen... and we went on to discuss that... Finally I just said that a team that would do that doesn't really want him, as an ending.

I suppose it could seem like an argument... but a good hearted and friendly one if that is what it was. But no, I didn't want you to answer the rhetorical question (that I did tack an answer on, myself(b))... and no I wasn't really curious in the least... but was willing to discuss it if you wanted to.

Peace, Dude.



Edit:

From earlier post.

(a) To state an obvious rhetorical question: Why would a team trade for a goalie they could have just claimed for free off waivers?

(b)... Unless they want to dump a salary that the waiving team wants... and are willing to take a chance of losing him to a team behind you in the waiver claiming pecking order.
Yea no worries, which is why i got confused after your last post. I knew we weren't arguing, but things we type don't always come across the same when think/say it in our heads, but it is all good now

KimiFerrari is offline  
Old
01-22-2011, 07:09 PM
  #153
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
Yea. I thought it started out like that, when I read rhetorical I think I understood theoretical.



Yea no worries, which is why i got confused after your last post. I knew we weren't arguing, but things we type don't always come across the same when think/say it in our heads, but it is all good now
... What I was hoping to maybe get into a discussion about with people here was the paragraph after the ones I cited in my previous post... The one about the old MLB recall-able waivers. I was hoping some old fart like myself would remember that and trip down memory lane with me about it. Some of those old rules were kinda interesting and at times odd.

But I guess I sidetracked that with my on topic statements that took off.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 10:36 AM
  #154
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,617
vCash: 1298
For prior posts, Bob McKenzie has another column on the subject at hand:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=350647

Quote:
The Islanders do have other options if they so choose.

They could try to trade Nabokov to another NHL team -- though it's practically impossible for that to happen for reasons outlined below -- or they could put him back on waivers to allow him to resume his NHL career with some other team. Call that the "out of the goodness of their heart" clause, which gives you some idea of its merit and/or likelihood.

But, again, the Islanders are not obliged to do anything at all.

In order to trade Nabokov, here is what would have to happen (put on your thinking cap, because this is going to get complicated):

The Islanders would inform the league they intend to trade Nabokov. Before any trade could be executed, though, the NHL would go to any other club(s) that put in an original waiver claim (besides the Isles) and ask whether those teams have interest in acquiring Nabokov for the $3,375 waiver price. If an original claimant wants Nabokov, they get him. If more than one original claimant wants him, the team lowest in the standings on the day he was put on waivers gets the player. Nabokov never actually gets put on waivers a second time in this scenario.

So in that case the Isles cannot execute the trade. Original waivers claimants take precedence over the Islanders' desire to trade him.

If the Isles were the only team that put in a claim, the Isles still are not free to trade Nabokov. Not yet.

That's because as a player who played in Europe after the NHL season began, Nabokov must clear waivers any time he is being traded or assigned.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:25 PM
  #155
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
For prior posts, Bob McKenzie has another column on the subject at hand:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=350647
So if I understand that right, Detroit will pretty much have no chance at getting him. Since they put him on waivers, they did not get a chance to put a claim on him. If Islanders decided to "release" him, he just goes down the pecking order in the claims line.

Even if he refused to play for every team other than Detroit. One of the cup contenders would rather pay the 3k$ waiver fee, and keep him from passing through all the waivers.

KimiFerrari is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:31 PM
  #156
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
So if I understand that right, Detroit will pretty much have no chance at getting him. Since they put him on waivers, they did not get a chance to put a claim on him. If Islanders decided to "release" him, he just goes down the pecking order in the claims line.

Even if he refused to play for every team other than Detroit. One of the cup contenders would rather pay the 3k$ waiver fee, and keep him from passing through all the waivers.
Thus the problem with signing him in the first place and why he was sitting around for so long. I'm curious if the Isles could void his contract for breach here. I've never bothered to look into the rules around that... obviously that's how we ended up with Krajicek.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:34 PM
  #157
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
For prior posts, Bob McKenzie has another column on the subject at hand:

http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie/?id=350647
Seems the Wings would be out of the mix in offering him to the claiming teams... but I would assume they can claim him if he is again waived by the Isles before trading... at that time another lowered seeded team -- almost all but a very few teams -- could claim him ahead of Detroit... I would think another Western team might do so at the small Cap hit to keep him away from the Wings since he would be a good backup/insurance goalie for just about any team, IMO.

Really doesn't look very good for the Wings.

I wonder if the Isles would allow him to rot... I suppose there is no timetable, therefore no rush to do anything.

Any word on his status if he refuses to report?... What is the official rule? It has to be different from those who refuse to report in other circumstance, I would imagine.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:49 PM
  #158
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Thus the problem with signing him in the first place and why he was sitting around for so long. I'm curious if the Isles could void his contract for breach here. I've never bothered to look into the rules around that... obviously that's how we ended up with Krajicek.
Seems to me such teams Detroit would waste time and effort that could be used elsewhere in such a signing project... Unless it is an inconsequential signing that shift the balance of power in any small way, getting a player through such a process merely supplies the legwork for other and weaker teams.

Yes, I can see where most teams wouldn't even bother considering doing it.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:50 PM
  #159
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Thinking out loud here... I wonder if Detroit had misinformation where they were under the impression no team would claim him -- like it was believed was the case with Homer and Jones -- and got screwed.

Also... thinking out loud again... it would be interesting to know what would have happened if it was done by a team with excess Cap space who signed him to a large contract. Surely the demand for him would be considerably less as it would eliminate the Cap strapped teams as well as the team with their own internal budget constraints.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 12:52 PM
  #160
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
I think Detroit has injury problems in net and just took a shot to see if it would work out with Nabokov.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 01:01 PM
  #161
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think Detroit has injury problems in net and just took a shot to see if it would work out with Nabokov.

Yea, grabbing at straws is probably the answer... seems too simple but might be all that is to it. It's not like Detroit is an organization that worries about the off ice expenses... if there is a chance of shoring up the team... Much like our Flyers.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 01:10 PM
  #162
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,548
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
Yea, grabbing at straws is probably the answer... seems too simple but might be all that is to it. It's not like Detroit is an organization that worries about the off ice expenses... if there is a chance of shoring up the team... Much like our Flyers.
Yeah that is my guess. There's a lot of talk about "chess strategy" and trying to make sure no other teams signed him...I don't buy it. I think they needed a goalie and saw one they could grab for cheap without giving something up.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 01:11 PM
  #163
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,617
vCash: 1298
^ Here's what I'd like to see explained: what significance do subsequent claimants have in this process?

Example: if the Islanders and Red Wings were the only two teams to claim Nobokov yesterday, what rights are held by Detroit compared to a non-claiming team? If the Islanders (as the current rights holder) fail to maintain possession in some way, do the Red Wings follow in line and how does that supercede a second set of reentry waivers?

Why not stop the process after one team claims the player? It seems different than an entry draft where one team selects a player and only that team can negotiate.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 01:20 PM
  #164
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
^ Here's what I'd like to see explained: what significance do subsequent claimants have in this process?

Example: if the Islanders and Red Wings were the only two teams to claim Nobokov yesterday, what rights are held by Detroit compared to a non-claiming team? If the Islanders (as the current rights holder) fail to maintain possession in some way, do the Red Wings follow in line and how does that supercede a second set of reentry waivers?

Why not stop the process after one team claims the player? It seems different than an entry draft where one team selects a player and only that team can negotiate.
I'd be curious if the Red Wings would be considered as having put in a claim the first time around... or would they have to wait until the 2nd open waiver to put in a claim (not a huge difference if it were to happen immediately, obviously).

As to why they don't stop the process... it's because it's supposed to be blind. You just put in a claim and see what happens when the waiver period is over. It isn't like they call up each team and say, "hey, do you want to put in a claim?" in order based on my understanding. I know in baseball teams aren't supposed to divulge what happened on the waiver wire (though, reporters always get the info).

Jester is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 01:24 PM
  #165
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,494
vCash: 5792
The Red Wings weren't eligible for the waiver process, no? He had to clear waivers to officially attain his rights.

GKJ is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:11 PM
  #166
KimiFerrari
Messi Is God
 
KimiFerrari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Argentina
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'd be curious if the Red Wings would be considered as having put in a claim the first time around... or would they have to wait until the 2nd open waiver to put in a claim (not a huge difference if it were to happen immediately, obviously).

As to why they don't stop the process... it's because it's supposed to be blind. You just put in a claim and see what happens when the waiver period is over. It isn't like they call up each team and say, "hey, do you want to put in a claim?" in order based on my understanding. I know in baseball teams aren't supposed to divulge what happened on the waiver wire (though, reporters always get the info).
I doubt they would have been considered as a team who put in a claim. Because then any team ahead of them in %Pts would have a chance to claim. And we know the Flyers put in a claim.

Maybe if we think of it as a re-entry waiver (except no paying half the contract), then they are considered the last team in the claims order?

Honestly I have no clue either.

KimiFerrari is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:13 PM
  #167
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
^ Here's what I'd like to see explained: what significance do subsequent claimants have in this process?

Example: if the Islanders and Red Wings were the only two teams to claim Nobokov yesterday, what rights are held by Detroit compared to a non-claiming team? If the Islanders (as the current rights holder) fail to maintain possession in some way, do the Red Wings follow in line and how does that supercede a second set of reentry waivers?

Why not stop the process after one team claims the player? It seems different than an entry draft where one team selects a player and only that team can negotiate.
If I understand your question correctly I would say it may be because otherwise the player could merely refuse to sign... If you are saying that that would mean he is done, that is one thing... but if you are saying that he would then revert back to the team that put him on waivers, that would be something entirely different, and lay the groundwork for the signing team and signed player in rigging the outcome.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:26 PM
  #168
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
I doubt they would have been considered as a team who put in a claim. Because then any team ahead of them in %Pts would have a chance to claim. And we know the Flyers put in a claim.

Maybe if we think of it as a re-entry waiver (except no paying half the contract), then they are considered the last team in the claims order?

Honestly I have no clue either.
Are you guys suggesting that a team may be able to both place a player on waivers (in this type situation) and also claim him? ... Interesting.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:29 PM
  #169
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimiFerrari View Post
I doubt they would have been considered as a team who put in a claim. Because then any team ahead of them in %Pts would have a chance to claim. And we know the Flyers put in a claim.

Maybe if we think of it as a re-entry waiver (except no paying half the contract), then they are considered the last team in the claims order?

Honestly I have no clue either.
Right, not an actual "claim," just curious if the Isles did try and go through the trading process and they were the only claim if the Red Wings would get first crack at him... or if he'd have to go on open waivers first. Only important since the Isles would have to offer him up to the teams that put in claims before a second round of open waivers.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:47 PM
  #170
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Interesting thought put out by Eklund in his Blog:

"The Islanders....who aren't competing with the Red Wings, so they aren't trying to keep him from the Red Wings....

Did Ken Holland call Garth when he learned the Sharks would take Nabokov and cash in a favor?"




Makes sense if Snow sits on him... Wings would lose out, but also gain if the Sharks are stopped from having him.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:52 PM
  #171
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
I'm not sure why it has to be some conspiracy for Eklund... Ricky D has his problems, and their replacement guy got hurt the other day... Isles have a pretty obvious need for a NHL goalie, too.

Jester is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 02:54 PM
  #172
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm not sure why it has to be some conspiracy for Eklund...
Well, it has to do with Eklund being worse than Hitler.

Valhoun* is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 03:16 PM
  #173
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm not sure why it has to be some conspiracy for Eklund... Ricky D has his problems, and their replacement guy got hurt the other day... Isles have a pretty obvious need for a NHL goalie, too.
As I see it Eklund was at a loss in understanding why the Islanders, who are dismantling their team, would bother since they will not make the postseason and don't have any reason to want to keep him away from Detroit.

I believe that he thinks it's better for the Isles to look at their G System prospects when RD is out.

... I think he was just considering that they may be doing Detroit a favor (payback?) when the Sharks got into the mix... I don't think Eklund is saying it is a prearranged conspiracy as much as a desperation counterattack by the Wings with the Isles as accomplices.

I'm not suggesting that this is the answer to the Isles claiming him... I'm merely placing it out there as a possible explanation to be considered and discussed... After all this is by no means a clear cut and usual type situation, and there seems to be constant under the cover actions in the NHL to circumvent the CBA one way or another... In other words; Just sayin'

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 03:21 PM
  #174
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Well, it has to do with Eklund being worse than Hitler.
Prone to overstatements at tad, are you?

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
01-23-2011, 03:32 PM
  #175
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
Prone to overstatements at tad, are you?
Hitler said he started a 1000 years reich. He was in power for 12 years. That means Hitler was 1.2% correct.

1.2% was, last time I checked, far higher than Eklund's rate of success.

Therefore, Eklund is worse than Hitler. Fact.

Valhoun* is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:39 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.