| Oilers claim Raphael Lavoie off waivers [message #838126] |
Wed, 09 October 2024 12:14  |
 |
 Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
I recognize this name for some reason
Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
EDM claims Raphael Lavoie
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Hibernia
Messages: 101
Registered: October 1998
Location: Sin John's
No Cups
|
|
The question becomes... did anyone else put in a claim on him? That'll determine whether he starts in Bakersfield or if he stays in Edmonton.
What happened to all of my messages? lol (I guess it's been awhile) BlueSky: StefBarnes
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
| Hibernia wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 11:19 |
The question becomes... did anyone else put in a claim on him? That'll determine whether he starts in Bakersfield or if he stays in Edmonton.
|
If he stays in Edmonton I believe Vegas pays half his cap hit..
On the positive side at least Raph can say he was wanted by two (2) teams.. 
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,
|
|
|
|
|
 |
smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
|
|
Gregor says another team higher in standings placed a claim, so he will stay on the Oilers roster.
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton
No Cups
|
|
as a perfect 1/2 price 13th forward. perfect planning by Bowman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
|
|
I don’t know where this 1/2 price stuff is coming from, I don’t think it’s true.
There used to be re-entry waivers where that could happen but those have been done with for some time.
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 15:11 |
I don’t know where this 1/2 price stuff is coming from, I don’t think it’s true.
There used to be re-entry waivers where that could happen but those have been done with for some time.
|
Dunno if Puckpedia has the brains capfriendly had, but is shows his full cap hit on our books. Messes up our ability to accrue space a bit, oh well. Lavoie gives us the traditional 13F-7D-2G.
[Updated on: Wed, 09 October 2024 15:26]
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
benv
Messages: 601
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 15:11 |
I don’t know where this 1/2 price stuff is coming from, I don’t think it’s true.
There used to be re-entry waivers where that could happen but those have been done with for some time.
|
Re-entry waivers was such a bad idea. It was supposed to prevent teams from sending down players willy-nilly, since they would be subject to waivers at half price for other teams when you tried to recall them. It may have done this to some extent, But the biggest consequence was that once a waiver eligible player was in the minors, they would never be called up, because the chance of another team claiming them at half price (forcing you to pay the other half for a player that would now be gone) was just too risky.
I'm hardly Nostradamus, but I remember seeing this coming when they announced the new rule. I don't think it lasted more than 2 years.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 15:11 |
I don’t know where this 1/2 price stuff is coming from, I don’t think it’s true.
There used to be re-entry waivers where that could happen but those have been done with for some time.
|
That’s on me. Google wasn’t giving me answers so I did a search on AI and that came up.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| inverno76 wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 20:21 |
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 09 October 2024 15:11 |
I don’t know where this 1/2 price stuff is coming from, I don’t think it’s true.
There used to be re-entry waivers where that could happen but those have been done with for some time.
|
That’s on me. Google wasn’t giving me answers so I did a search on AI and that came up.
|
There's a lesson in this somewhere. Ah well.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
For the 3rd time in 5 days Raph is back on waivers..
Can't go direct to Bako apparently because someone else lower in the waiver list had put in a claim last time.. so we'll see if they still want him.. rumour it was the Avalanche.
"that which does not kill you.. "
| Quote: |
Chris Johnston@reporterchris
For the third time in five days, Raphael Lavoie is on waivers.
Lavoie was claimed by VGK on Monday, reclaimed by EDM on Wednesday and finds himself back on the wire now because the #oilers need him to clear in order to send him to the AHL.
|
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,
|
|
|
|
|
mightyreasoner
Messages: 520
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
Why are the Oilers determined to have no extra forwards on the team? Is it a dire cap situation?
Judging by the effort the other night, you'd think you'd want a few guys who could jump in and shake things up and keep guys from getting too comfortable with subpar efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| mightyreasoner wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 09:53 |
Why are the Oilers determined to have no extra forwards on the team? Is it a dire cap situation?
Judging by the effort the other night, you'd think you'd want a few guys who could jump in and shake things up and keep guys from getting too comfortable with subpar efforts.
|
Might be trying to keep the ~1M open to accrue as much space as we can, until we finally pull the trigger on a trade. If we were able to keep 1M free to the deadline, we can add a ~4M player just with that accrued space, then 5M extra with Kane's LTIR.
If that is the plan, might be some 11F, 7D games while we wait for F replacements if there are any injuries and not enough time to fly guys around. And a a very challenging time for Knob all season to figure out his bottom 4D until Feb.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
|
|
Lavoie claimed by Vegas and sent to minors. Good bye I guess.
We are the absolute worst at managing young players.
Looking forward to game 30 when Corey Perry and Derek Ryan look like they are too old for the NHL and we have no viable options to replace them.
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 12:45 |
Lavoie claimed by Vegas and sent to minors. Good bye I guess.
We are the absolute worst at managing young players.
Looking forward to game 30 when Corey Perry and Derek Ryan look like they are too old for the NHL and we have no viable options to replace them.
|
All this bouncing around and conditions on what you can do with the player based on what some other team could do just to troll you is pretty obnoxious. But I guess it's all to give players the best chance to get to a team that would actually play them. We CLEARLY did not want Lavoie on our NHL roster. Couldn't even stand him as a 13th forward for a little while to let the smoke clear on all the clear screwing around that Vegas and, I guess, Colorado did, knowing we were going to claim him back.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
So.. Vegas just reclaimed Lavoie and ASSIGNED him to AHL Henderson..
Waiver rules are so F'd up.
Apparently because no one else put in a claim for Lavoie (this time) .. Vegas can assign him to the AHL.. like they were the team "re-claiming" him..
Vegas Fks the league system again.
This is all you have to do to take a player off another team.. and then be able to him send him to your minor team.. or trade him;
-You claim a player on waivers. (now you CAN'T assign him to the AHL all year.. or trade him)
-You then waive him the next day.. and phone another GM buddy to also put in a claim.. BUT.. a GM on a team that won't be able to actually claim him because they are lower in the waiver selection order than the original team.. its a fake claim effort
-The original team then naturally re-claims their player.. but because of the fake claim .. the original team then has to put the player back on waivers before they can re-assign him to the minors..
-The team that just recently waived the player.. then RE-CLAIMS him.. like Vegas just did.. your GM buddy doesn't put in another claim (he never wanted him in the first place).. and you now have an AHL asset you DON'T have to keep on your NHL roster.. and can use to TRADE for somebody you really want.. that season.
Seems to me that the team that put in the fake claim needs to be investigated, or at least made public.. they are the ones that created the situation.. if they wanted the player a day ago.. why not now ? .. because they never wanted him.. If its another team in the Pacific then you could consider it a conspiracy by two teams to weaken another rival team..
The INTENT of the CBA rules in having to put your player back on waivers again.. IF there was another claim when you reclaimed him.. is that the EXPECTATION of the CBA agreement is that the team that put in the claim that TRIGGERED having to re-waive the player ..actually wanted him in the first place.. in this case it was a fake claim.. just used as a trigger for the benefit of another team.. or weaken a rival franchise for both involved.
The rule should be that if the team that triggered the requirement to re-waive the player doesn't claim the player the 2nd time.. then the original team keeps their player and doesn't have to waive him. The INTENT of the CBA rules from the NHLPA standpoint was that getting claimed on waivers were a means for an AHL player with value to play in the NHL. This totally circumvents the intent of the CBA.
It might be an issue for the NHLPA.. the waiver rules were intended to be there so a team that claims a player on waivers has to PLAY him in the NHL.. this is just a card shuffle.. the player is no better off.. back in the AHL..
Edmonton should get a 1st rounder from both teams in compensation for their collusion in circumventing the CBA
[Updated on: Fri, 11 October 2024 13:37]
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Jay
Messages: 561
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
| Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 12:48 |
So.. Vegas just reclaimed Lavoie and ASSIGNED him to AHL Henderson..
Waiver rules are so F'd up.
Apparently because no one else put in a claim for Lavoie (this time) .. Vegas can assign him to the AHL.. like they were the team "re-claiming" him..
Vegas Fks the league system again.
This is all you have to do to take a player off another team.. and then be able to him send him to your minor team.. or trade him;
-You claim a player on waivers. (now you CAN'T assign him to the AHL all year.. or trade him)
-You then waive him the next day.. and phone another GM buddy to also put in a claim.. BUT.. a GM on a team that won't be able to actually claim him because they are lower in the waiver selection order than the original team.. its a fake claim effort
-The original team then naturally re-claims their player.. but because of the fake claim .. the original team then has to put the player back on waivers before they can re-assign him to the minors..
-The team that just recently waived the player.. then RE-CLAIMS him.. like Vegas just did.. your GM buddy doesn't put in another claim (he never wanted him in the first place).. and you now have an AHL asset you DON'T have to keep on your NHL roster.. and can use to TRADE for somebody you really want.. that season.
Seems to me that the team that put in the fake claim needs to be investigated, or at least made public.. they are the ones that created the situation.. if they wanted the player a day ago.. why not now ? .. because they never wanted him.. If its another team in the Pacific then you could consider it a conspiracy by two teams to weaken another rival team..
The INTENT of the CBA rules in having to put your player back on waivers again.. IF there was another claim when you reclaimed him.. is that the EXPECTATION of the CBA agreement is that the team that put in the claim that TRIGGERED having to re-waive the player ..actually wanted him in the first place.. in this case it was a fake claim.. just used as a trigger for the benefit of another team.. or weaken a rival franchise for both involved.
The rule should be that if the team that triggered the requirement to re-waive the player doesn't claim the player the 2nd time.. then the original team keeps their player and doesn't have to waive him. The INTENT of the CBA rules from the NHLPA standpoint was that getting claimed on waivers were a means for an AHL player with value to play in the NHL. This totally circumvents the intent of the CBA.
It might be an issue for the NHLPA.. the waiver rules were intended to be there so a team that claims a player on waivers has to PLAY him in the NHL.. this is just a card shuffle.. the player is no better off.. back in the AHL..
Edmonton should get a 1st rounder from both teams in compensation for their collusion in circumventing the CBA
|
How much you want to bet that the "mystery team" GM is a close friend and golfing buddy of Ken Holland?
"Initiative comes to thems that wait"
|
|
|
|
|
|
smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007
1 Cup
|
|
Mystery team had to be a team higher than the Oilers in standings last year.
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jay
Messages: 561
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 13:50 |
Mystery team had to be a team higher than the Oilers in standings last year.
|
Ah for some reason I thought it was higher in the waiver wire priority list
"Initiative comes to thems that wait"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| Jay wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 13:56 |
| smyth260 wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 13:50 |
Mystery team had to be a team higher than the Oilers in standings last year.
|
Ah for some reason I thought it was higher in the waiver wire priority list
|
This was for our reclaim that prevented us from sending him down? I think I saw it confirmed that it was Colorado that did the troll job there. Maybe I'm wrong and that's still speculation
Of course they, or whoever it was, had zero interest when we waived Lavoie again. Possibly because this time Colorado took Kahkonen
[Updated on: Fri, 11 October 2024 14:02]
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
It's on the Oilers. They can be forgiven for the Knights claiming him the first time, sometimes a team has to roll the dice. The second time they knew he was probably going to be claimed and did it anyway. They made the choice to let him go for nothing.
Even if VGK is using another team to place a claim, and that's a big if, why isn't Edmonton doing the same? You figured out the scam, but all the smartest men in the room couldn't?
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
benv
Messages: 601
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
| Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 12:48 |
So.. Vegas just reclaimed Lavoie and ASSIGNED him to AHL Henderson..
Waiver rules are so F'd up.
Apparently because no one else put in a claim for Lavoie (this time) .. Vegas can assign him to the AHL.. like they were the team "re-claiming" him..
Vegas Fks the league system again.
This is all you have to do to take a player off another team.. and then be able to him send him to your minor team.. or trade him;
-You claim a player on waivers. (now you CAN'T assign him to the AHL all year.. or trade him)
-You then waive him the next day.. and phone another GM buddy to also put in a claim.. BUT.. a GM on a team that won't be able to actually claim him because they are lower in the waiver selection order than the original team.. its a fake claim effort
-The original team then naturally re-claims their player.. but because of the fake claim .. the original team then has to put the player back on waivers before they can re-assign him to the minors..
-The team that just recently waived the player.. then RE-CLAIMS him.. like Vegas just did.. your GM buddy doesn't put in another claim (he never wanted him in the first place).. and you now have an AHL asset you DON'T have to keep on your NHL roster.. and can use to TRADE for somebody you really want.. that season.
Seems to me that the team that put in the fake claim needs to be investigated, or at least made public.. they are the ones that created the situation.. if they wanted the player a day ago.. why not now ? .. because they never wanted him.. If its another team in the Pacific then you could consider it a conspiracy by two teams to weaken another rival team..
The INTENT of the CBA rules in having to put your player back on waivers again.. IF there was another claim when you reclaimed him.. is that the EXPECTATION of the CBA agreement is that the team that put in the claim that TRIGGERED having to re-waive the player ..actually wanted him in the first place.. in this case it was a fake claim.. just used as a trigger for the benefit of another team.. or weaken a rival franchise for both involved.
The rule should be that if the team that triggered the requirement to re-waive the player doesn't claim the player the 2nd time.. then the original team keeps their player and doesn't have to waive him. The INTENT of the CBA rules from the NHLPA standpoint was that getting claimed on waivers were a means for an AHL player with value to play in the NHL. This totally circumvents the intent of the CBA.
It might be an issue for the NHLPA.. the waiver rules were intended to be there so a team that claims a player on waivers has to PLAY him in the NHL.. this is just a card shuffle.. the player is no better off.. back in the AHL..
Edmonton should get a 1st rounder from both teams in compensation for their collusion in circumventing the CBA
|
Was going to post something similar.
Clearly the spirit of the waiver rule is that if the Oilers want to send Lavoie to the minors, every other team should be able to claim him ONLY FOR THEIR NHL ROSTER. If no other team wants to put him on their NHL roster, he should be with the Oilers farm team (assuming they want him--which they clearly do in this case).
Something really rotten about the way this all went down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| benv wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 14:20 |
| Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 12:48 |
So.. Vegas just reclaimed Lavoie and ASSIGNED him to AHL Henderson..
Waiver rules are so F'd up.
Apparently because no one else put in a claim for Lavoie (this time) .. Vegas can assign him to the AHL.. like they were the team "re-claiming" him..
Vegas Fks the league system again.
This is all you have to do to take a player off another team.. and then be able to him send him to your minor team.. or trade him;
-You claim a player on waivers. (now you CAN'T assign him to the AHL all year.. or trade him)
-You then waive him the next day.. and phone another GM buddy to also put in a claim.. BUT.. a GM on a team that won't be able to actually claim him because they are lower in the waiver selection order than the original team.. its a fake claim effort
-The original team then naturally re-claims their player.. but because of the fake claim .. the original team then has to put the player back on waivers before they can re-assign him to the minors..
-The team that just recently waived the player.. then RE-CLAIMS him.. like Vegas just did.. your GM buddy doesn't put in another claim (he never wanted him in the first place).. and you now have an AHL asset you DON'T have to keep on your NHL roster.. and can use to TRADE for somebody you really want.. that season.
Seems to me that the team that put in the fake claim needs to be investigated, or at least made public.. they are the ones that created the situation.. if they wanted the player a day ago.. why not now ? .. because they never wanted him.. If its another team in the Pacific then you could consider it a conspiracy by two teams to weaken another rival team..
The INTENT of the CBA rules in having to put your player back on waivers again.. IF there was another claim when you reclaimed him.. is that the EXPECTATION of the CBA agreement is that the team that put in the claim that TRIGGERED having to re-waive the player ..actually wanted him in the first place.. in this case it was a fake claim.. just used as a trigger for the benefit of another team.. or weaken a rival franchise for both involved.
The rule should be that if the team that triggered the requirement to re-waive the player doesn't claim the player the 2nd time.. then the original team keeps their player and doesn't have to waive him. The INTENT of the CBA rules from the NHLPA standpoint was that getting claimed on waivers were a means for an AHL player with value to play in the NHL. This totally circumvents the intent of the CBA.
It might be an issue for the NHLPA.. the waiver rules were intended to be there so a team that claims a player on waivers has to PLAY him in the NHL.. this is just a card shuffle.. the player is no better off.. back in the AHL..
Edmonton should get a 1st rounder from both teams in compensation for their collusion in circumventing the CBA
|
Was going to post something similar.
Clearly the spirit of the waiver rule is that if the Oilers want to send Lavoie to the minors, every other team should be able to claim him ONLY FOR THEIR NHL ROSTER. If no other team wants to put him on their NHL roster, he should be with the Oilers farm team (assuming they want him--which they clearly do in this case).
Something really rotten about the way this all went down.
|
Lavoie kind of became just as much of an Ex-Golden Knight as an ex-Oiler in this whole thing though, didn't he?
This final time, as Vegas claimed him, zero other teams were showing interest in him being on their NHL roster, including us by the act of waiving him.
Issue definitely is in what is likely trolling or collusion by the team that claimed him when we took him back, but if it is Colorado they can just claim they saw a better option on the waiver wire this time around.
We had him though, right back in our possession! And we had cap space and a roster spot for him. Probably just needed to wait a little bit before trying again.
[Updated on: Fri, 11 October 2024 14:36]
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 13:34 |
| benv wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 14:20 |
| Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 12:48 |
So.. Vegas just reclaimed Lavoie and ASSIGNED him to AHL Henderson..
Waiver rules are so F'd up.
Apparently because no one else put in a claim for Lavoie (this time) .. Vegas can assign him to the AHL.. like they were the team "re-claiming" him..
Vegas Fks the league system again.
This is all you have to do to take a player off another team.. and then be able to him send him to your minor team.. or trade him;
-You claim a player on waivers. (now you CAN'T assign him to the AHL all year.. or trade him)
-You then waive him the next day.. and phone another GM buddy to also put in a claim.. BUT.. a GM on a team that won't be able to actually claim him because they are lower in the waiver selection order than the original team.. its a fake claim effort
-The original team then naturally re-claims their player.. but because of the fake claim .. the original team then has to put the player back on waivers before they can re-assign him to the minors..
-The team that just recently waived the player.. then RE-CLAIMS him.. like Vegas just did.. your GM buddy doesn't put in another claim (he never wanted him in the first place).. and you now have an AHL asset you DON'T have to keep on your NHL roster.. and can use to TRADE for somebody you really want.. that season.
Seems to me that the team that put in the fake claim needs to be investigated, or at least made public.. they are the ones that created the situation.. if they wanted the player a day ago.. why not now ? .. because they never wanted him.. If its another team in the Pacific then you could consider it a conspiracy by two teams to weaken another rival team..
The INTENT of the CBA rules in having to put your player back on waivers again.. IF there was another claim when you reclaimed him.. is that the EXPECTATION of the CBA agreement is that the team that put in the claim that TRIGGERED having to re-waive the player ..actually wanted him in the first place.. in this case it was a fake claim.. just used as a trigger for the benefit of another team.. or weaken a rival franchise for both involved.
The rule should be that if the team that triggered the requirement to re-waive the player doesn't claim the player the 2nd time.. then the original team keeps their player and doesn't have to waive him. The INTENT of the CBA rules from the NHLPA standpoint was that getting claimed on waivers were a means for an AHL player with value to play in the NHL. This totally circumvents the intent of the CBA.
It might be an issue for the NHLPA.. the waiver rules were intended to be there so a team that claims a player on waivers has to PLAY him in the NHL.. this is just a card shuffle.. the player is no better off.. back in the AHL..
Edmonton should get a 1st rounder from both teams in compensation for their collusion in circumventing the CBA
|
Was going to post something similar.
Clearly the spirit of the waiver rule is that if the Oilers want to send Lavoie to the minors, every other team should be able to claim him ONLY FOR THEIR NHL ROSTER. If no other team wants to put him on their NHL roster, he should be with the Oilers farm team (assuming they want him--which they clearly do in this case).
Something really rotten about the way this all went down.
|
Lavoie kind of became just as much of an Ex-Golden Knight as an ex-Oiler in this whole thing though, didn't he?
This final time, as Vegas claimed him, zero other teams were showing interest in him being on their NHL roster, including us by the act of waiving him.
Issue definitely is in what is likely trolling or collusion by the team that claimed him when we took him back, but if it is Colorado they can just claim they saw a better option on the waiver wire this time around.
We had him though, right back in our possession! And we had cap space and a roster spot for him. Probably just needed to wait a little bit before trying again.
|
Its clear Vegas wanted Lavoie.. but not on their NHL roster.. same as the Oilers.. the only reason they have waivers is so that NHL capable players can get an NHL roster spot.. in fact its written specifically in such a way that the claimed player CAN"T be moved off the NHL team once claimed for the ENTIRE season.. that is the INTENT of waivers.. and the CBA that created it..
this move contradicts this entire purpose.. the player is back toiling in the AHL.. its just a different owner who doesn't need him on their NHL roster..
The tell that this was collusion was that the trigger requiring the Oilers to waive Lavoie again was that there was a prior waiver claim with the expectation that the this team wanted him.. the fact they put in a claim 24 hours previous and then changed their minds on re-entering waivers tells you it was fraud.. the league has stepped in for far less circumvention of their CBA.. but its Vegas.. they just got rid of Lehner's boat anchor contract with the blink of an eye.. never mind Mark Stones perennial LTIR back for game #1 of the playoffs routine..
[Updated on: Fri, 11 October 2024 17:06]
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
.. then to top it all off .. some fat pig announcer on the Vegas game tonight going through the Lavoie acquisition and bragging how good a prospect he is.. and how smart the Vegas management was..
.. but he failed to give credit to the Avalanche though.. Sakic should feel slighted..
.. a Curse on the Vegas franchise
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
Oilers stat of the day
Mr. Bandana
@AdamsOnHockey
Connor McDavid is in his tenth year as an Oiler.
Edmonton has *zero* forwards currently on the team they’ve drafted and developed since taking McDavid in 2015.
Now I’m depressed.
That's kind of crazy.
[Updated on: Fri, 11 October 2024 23:25]
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jay
Messages: 561
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton
No Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Fri, 11 October 2024 23:22 |
Oilers stat of the day
Mr. Bandana
@AdamsOnHockey
Connor McDavid is in his tenth year as an Oiler.
Edmonton has *zero* forwards currently on the team they’ve drafted and developed since taking McDavid in 2015.
Now I’m depressed.
That's kind of crazy.
|
That's insane. It's not talked about enough how god awful of a job Holland (and the people responsible for putting him in charge) have done with the gift they were given. 29/97/2 in their primes on value deals to build a winner around and they have 1 trip to the finals to show for it. But at least they managed to get the fringe NHL d-man locked in for another 6 years at almost 10m.
"Initiative comes to thems that wait"
|
|
|
|
