Can someone explain the NHL waiver system?
Ralph Slate
conditioning stint. By doing this, they avoid losing Lacher on waivers
to another team. But he can only stay down for 2 weeks.
Lacher is a second year pro. Can someone explain to me why someone who
has only played one season in the NHL can be lost this way?
NHL minor league affiliates are designed to develop players. What good
is it if you risk losing a young player when you send him to the
minors to build him a little confidence?
I can see the NHLPA's point that a veteran player should be made
available to other teams if he is going to be sent down -- the minors
are for development, not for stockpiling players. But I would suggest
that anyone with 3 or less years of pro experience should be allowed
to move up and down freely. The Bruins only alternative is to have
Lacher ride the bench the rest of the season -- surely not a good move
so early in his career, rather than sending him down for 20 or so
games to play in Providence.
There are probably a bunch of other players in the NHL who fall into
the "should be in the minors, but the NHL team doesn't want to lose
them" category. Pat Falloon should have been sent down a couple of
years ago to regain his scoring touch.
Ralph
sla...@rpi.edu
----------------------------------------------
Check out my Minor League Hockey card page at:
http://www.rpi.edu/~slater/
----------------------------------------------
Nelson Lu
>The Bruins assigned goalie Blaine Lacher to Providence for a
>conditioning stint. By doing this, they avoid losing Lacher on waivers
>to another team. But he can only stay down for 2 weeks.
>
>Lacher is a second year pro. Can someone explain to me why someone who
>has only played one season in the NHL can be lost this way?
AHL/IHL experienced is considered "professional" for NHL waiver rules. If
Lacher had played 2 or more seasons at the AHL/IHL level, then he would be
exposed to being claimed.
>I can see the NHLPA's point that a veteran player should be made
>available to other teams if he is going to be sent down -- the minors
>are for development, not for stockpiling players. But I would suggest
>that anyone with 3 or less years of pro experience should be allowed
It is already the case. The Sharks, for example, had no problem sending
Vlastimil Kroupa (in his 3rd professional season) to Kansas City earlier in
the season.
>There are probably a bunch of other players in the NHL who fall into
>the "should be in the minors, but the NHL team doesn't want to lose
>them" category. Pat Falloon should have been sent down a couple of
>years ago to regain his scoring touch.
Falloon wasn't a case of being unable to be sent down (until last season),
but rather that even though he appeared to be slumping, he was still good
enough to play on the team.
===============================================================================
GO EDMONTON OILERS! Bill Ranford for Vezina! Miroslav Satan for Calder!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
rec.sport.hockey contact for the San Jose Sharks
Trevor Peter Peterson
: The Bruins assigned goalie Blaine Lacher to Providence for a
: conditioning stint. By doing this, they avoid losing Lacher on waivers
: to another team. But he can only stay down for 2 weeks.
: Lacher is a second year pro. Can someone explain to me why someone who
: has only played one season in the NHL can be lost this way?
: NHL minor league affiliates are designed to develop players. What good
: is it if you risk losing a young player when you send him to the
: minors to build him a little confidence?
: I can see the NHLPA's point that a veteran player should be made
: available to other teams if he is going to be sent down -- the minors
: are for development, not for stockpiling players. But I would suggest
: that anyone with 3 or less years of pro experience should be allowed
: to move up and down freely. The Bruins only alternative is to have
: Lacher ride the bench the rest of the season -- surely not a good move
: so early in his career, rather than sending him down for 20 or so
: games to play in Providence.
: There are probably a bunch of other players in the NHL who fall into
: the "should be in the minors, but the NHL team doesn't want to lose
: them" category. Pat Falloon should have been sent down a couple of
: years ago to regain his scoring touch.
Actually, the way it works (as with moth things dealing with players and
their status), is that once a player has played in 25 games in the NHL he
must clear wavers in order to be sent down. However, this is not a free
player for the team that picks the player off waivers. I do not know
exactly how it works but I do believe that there is a monitary cost to
taking a player off of waivers and the team losing the player gets
compensated in some way (either a player, a draft pick, or most likely
money). This is not a silly way of running things as the teams could
play some players for 24 games every season (25 games marks a 'season' in
the NHL for a player), and never have to worry about losing the player to
another team through waivers. The current method protects both the
players and the other teams from having this happen.
Trevor Peterson
steve
him down for conditioning is because Lacher exceeded the miniumum number
of games played in the NHL in order to make him have to clear waivers
first. I believe it goes by number of seasons or games played in the NHL
and if either is exceeded then clearing waivers is necessary.
Ralph Slate '91
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>AHL/IHL experienced is considered "professional" for NHL waiver rules. If
>Lacher had played 2 or more seasons at the AHL/IHL level, then he would be
>exposed to being claimed.
>
I'm getting mixed information then. Every article I've seen says
that the Bruins sent Lacher down for a conditioning sting so that
he would not be claimed off waivers. But according to this,
he couldn't possibly be claimed (last year was his only year of
pro experience). What gives?
Someone else mentioned that once a player plays 25 NHL games he
must clear waivers. If that's true, that bites. How can you
develop a player? Just because someone has played 25 games
does not mean he is ready for the NHL. Coaches & GM's make
mistakes too. Why must they lose their players if they want
to develop them a bit more?
Ralph
sla...@rpi.edu
----------------------------------------------
Check out my minor league hockey card page at:
http://www.rpi.edu/~slater/
----------------------------------------------
Daryl Turner
wrote:
NL> AHL/IHL experienced is considered "professional" for NHL waiver rules.
NL> If Lacher had played 2 or more seasons at the AHL/IHL level, then he
NL> would be exposed to being claimed.
Last year was Lacher's first pro season. (1993-94 he played at Lake
Superior St.) By my understanding of the rules of the waiver system
(not just the pre-season waiver draft) is that a 3rd pro can be sent
down without clearing waivers, and there really shouldn't be a need
for Lacher to go for a "2 week conditioning period", since the Bruins
should be able to call him up/send him down at will this year.
On the other hand, Jets' rookie Jason Doig has to be declared as being
sent to Springfield for the "2 week conditioning period" since he's
actually ineligible to play in the minors...he has to play with the
Jets or be returned to his junior team for the rest of the season.
(Doig is returning from injured reserve, which he was placed on while
doctors searched for the cause of a recently discovered irregular
heartbeat.)
Daryl
Email: Daryl....@techtol.magic.mb.ca
qop...@freenet.mb.ca
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen.
Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this
to himself. -L. Long
-*- ASTG 0.7
--
|Fidonet: Daryl Turner 1:348/701
|Internet: daryl....@techtol.magic.mb.ca
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Nelson Lu
Ralph Slate '91 <sla...@alum01.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
>I'm getting mixed information then. Every article I've seen says
>that the Bruins sent Lacher down for a conditioning sting so that
>he would not be claimed off waivers. But according to this,
>he couldn't possibly be claimed (last year was his only year of
>pro experience). What gives?
A remote possibility (remote because I can't remember anybody else with this
term) is that Lacher's contract could have specified that he cannot be sent to
the minors once he reaches a certain experience threshold.
Alex A Goddard
: I'm getting mixed information then. Every article I've seen says
: that the Bruins sent Lacher down for a conditioning sting so that
: he would not be claimed off waivers. But according to this,
: he couldn't possibly be claimed (last year was his only year of
: pro experience). What gives?
The waiver rules stipulate a certain number of games over a certain
number of years, those being different for skaters and goaltenders.
: Someone else mentioned that once a player plays 25 NHL games he
: must clear waivers. If that's true, that bites. How can you
: develop a player? Just because someone has played 25 games
: does not mean he is ready for the NHL. Coaches & GM's make
: mistakes too. Why must they lose their players if they want
: to develop them a bit more?
Bites how? If a guy is able to play in the NHL, and the team owning his
rights has no place for him, then all other clubs *deserve* a chance to
write him in.
Alex
Taras A. Hetmanczuk
longer eligible to be sent down without clearing waivers - unless its for
conditioning. I thinks is about 25 games for a goalie and 40-45 for a
skater.
GO FLAMES!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CampusLife - University of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------