Waivers: who gets claimed?

[smithers joe]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I could just imagine....

 

 

I'll 'pass'.

his will probably have a feline centre. 

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

his will probably have a feline centre. 

he'll be dining alone.

[smithers joe]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

he'll be dining alone.

poor alf, i'm afraid you've cut him to the quick. he may never recovery.

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

poor alf, i'm afraid you've cut him to the quick. he may never recovery.

I don't think Alf cares.  He enjoys the trash talk - or at least seems to (hopefully).  It'll roll of his fur like the canned ham that missed the cake hole.  If not, my sincerest apologies haha.

[aGENT]

58 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Exactly how much worse was ‘Magna’ than Gagme-with-3mill-spoon though?

At what? In which situations?

 

Was it worth the money or result - all that “winning environment” slogan and jargon? To me, losing with Gagme is not any less miserable than it was with Chaput. 

 

Posters love to crap on the Ahl’ers we had in the lineup due to injury, but were they any worse than the FAs brought in as depth-depth? The team signed serviceable J-men NHLers, sure, but let guys like Chaput/Cracknell go to make room for them, and you’d have to have a magnifying glass to spot the positive results. 

 

I have no real point to make other than the comparing of Magna to Gagme, for instance, as if to prop up the FA signing decisions as a clearly defined win and necessity for the team, in hindsight. Those AHLers played their hopeful-guts out for this team. Something I, subjectively, can’t say I saw the rest of the FAs and roster-spot gifted vets do, since.

 

I don’t mind losing with a bunch of eager scrubs on the, all ice trying to get and keep a job. Kind of reminds me of the 80’s Canucks teams lol. I think those kids got a raw deal in the end, considering the (un)effectiveness of the OEM replacement part UFAs, etc. They gave it their all and I respect that. 

 

Desperate, amateur hockey is better than what this fanbase has become accustomed to, though I’m glad to see the back of it now. 

Yes. 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Gagner has already passed through waivers in his career, what makes you think things will be any different now that he's older? 

 

Waivers claims in oct are rarely made by teams looking to add that one extra player to fill a need.  Teams have already spent all summer filling all their holes,  Waiver claims in Oct, aren't moves made to improve a team in the now, waiver claims in Oct are typically players that have future growth and a team is willing to risk/spend the time on development.  Grabner, Boucher, Corrado... Etc.  Come Feb, then waiver claims change to team looking to add cheap players for a playoff pick up.

 

Gagner would easily make it through waivers, and if he doesn't, who really cares, he's is what he is, he was never any more than a short term stop gap.  If a team really wanted him they could have him for next to nothing anyways. Young players with high potential are much more likely to find teams willing to take the risks on, there's way more upside on them.

What's different is that when he was waived, that was his worst season. He has sinced bounced back with a 50 point season and although he didn't have a great year last year, it was nothing like his worst season to date.

 

Waiver claims made in October are rare to start with. Last year, there were two 4th line guys, a dman and a goalie claimed and they were all to fill needs. There were many project forwards that went unclaimed.

 

It is true that teams may see some potential in a player and pick them up and hope they stick. Worked with Grabner, not so much with Corrado. Boucher was a mid-season claim due to injuries and has been placed on waivers several times since and no takers. But teams have to justify picking up a player with potential and bumping out another player as you mentioned that a team has spent all summer already trying to narrow down. It seems rare that teams will be looking at the waiver wire to boost their roster for the playoffs.

 

We all have our opinions on Gagner and I'm not a huge fan either, but the point is he has made the NHL and has been in the league for a while and knows how to stick with a team. If Goldobin or Leipsic cannot outcompete him for a spot, then why should they be handed a spot simply because of possible potential (wrong message to send to up and coming young guys IMO)? Why would a team take on a player (and bump out a player of their own) that can't beat out a supposed low value player in Gagner? Maybe Gagner won't get claimed, but I don't see the odds of either Leipsic or Goldobin being picked that high either given the circumstances of them being waived.

 

It is much more common that a player clear waivers and teams make a trade for them, so they can develop that player with their own timeline. Or if another team thinks a player could stick, they would make the trade for a player that could hit waivers and go to a lower team in the standings eg Pouliot. I would take a similar deal for what Pouliot got, simply because we have a lot of wingers that will look to surpass Goldobin or Leipsic sooner rather than later anyway.

[alfstonker]

15 hours ago, Baggins said:

Among all forwards Gaunce was 15th in ice time per game. I think you may be giving him too much credit.

 

Edit: checked the 10 games prior to his injury and they were 0-10-0. So much for that.

I think you should check again. Gaunce was injured against the Panthers in Florida and the previous 10 games they were .5 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

I think you should check again. Gaunce was injured against the Panthers in Florida and the previous 10 games they were .5 

I don't know. I just went to NHL.com and put in the day before his injury as an end date and guessed for a start date. It wound up a 10 game period and showed no wins.

[alfstonker]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

I don't know. I just went to NHL.com and put in the day before his injury as an end date and guessed for a start date. It wound up a 10 game period and showed no wins.

His injury was on 6th of Feb. which was game 53.

They had wins on games 51, 50, 48, 45, 44. That is 5 out of the previous 10 games as far as I can see.

 

The record shows they had 21 wins and 6 OT losses from season start to game 53. That is above .5. They then had 5 wins and and 3 OT losses in the next 22 games up to game 75 (ie up to when the Sedins announced their retirement)

 

What I do see is Gaunce did not play his 37 games consecutively and so he may not have played in every win/loss prior to his injury. I don't know where that info would be available.

 

I'm happy to look at your figures if they are different.

[Madwolf]

Off the list originally given I'd say you start with putting Biega on Waivers, as no one is likely to claim him in October.

 

I'd take Pettersson off the list, letting him be the first injury call up for a forward, and adjust to the NA ice.

 

So between Boucher, Gagner, and Guance you have to send 1 guy down. Guance stays because of his defense on a team that will be lacking it. Gagner stays because he's shown his flashes of potential already. Boucher has done little, and doesn't do what Guance does defensively. 

 

Pettersson and OJ are first call ups if someone doesn't get on IR before opening night.

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, alfstonker said:

His injury was on 6th of Feb. which was game 53.

They had wins on games 51, 50, 48, 45, 44. That is 5 out of the previous 10 games as far as I can see.

 

The record shows they had 21 wins and 6 OT losses from season start to game 53. That is above .5. They then had 5 wins and and 3 OT losses in the next 22 games up to game 75 (ie up to when the Sedins announced their retirement)

 

I'm happy to look at your figures if they are different.

They weren't my figures. As I said, I went to NHL.com and plugged in an end date of the day before his injury. I just plugged in a a guess start date that resulted in a 10 game list. All of them showed as losses.

 

Frankly I don't care. I don't think a forward 15th in ice time per game is a huge factor in wins/losses. Losing Boeser alone would have been a far bigger factor.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 hours ago, theo5789 said:

What's different is that when he was waived, that was his worst season. He has sinced bounced back with a 50 point season and although he didn't have a great year last year, it was nothing like his worst season to date.

 

Hes only gotten older and has proven that he’s nothing more than a sheltered vet. Players like him typical wind up in Europe and had he not got a 3 year contract he likely would have been. He’s in the same spot Raymond was in a few years ago. 

 

Quote

Waiver claims made in October are rare to start with. Last year, there were two 4th line guys, a dman and a goalie claimed and they were all to fill needs. There were many project forwards that went unclaimed.

 

It is true that teams may see some potential in a player and pick them up and hope they stick. Worked with Grabner, not so much with Corrado. Boucher was a mid-season claim due to injuries and has been placed on waivers several times since and no takers. But teams have to justify picking up a player with potential and bumping out another player as you mentioned that a team has spent all summer already trying to narrow down.

Teams have spots for young players. Again look at the hawks. They have 4 elc players looking to make the nhl for the first year. It’s rather easy for them to send down a player to the ahl for a month or two while they see what they have in high potential player with a low cap hit. 

 

Quote

It seems rare that teams will be looking at the waiver wire to boost their roster for the playoffs.

There’s a ton of waiver claims in feb by teams looking for that depth forward to help them in the post season. Take a look for yourself . 

 

 

Quote

We all have our opinions on Gagner and I'm not a huge fan either, but the point is he has made the NHL and has been in the league for a while and knows how to stick with a team. If Goldobin or Leipsic cannot outcompete him for a spot, then why should they be handed a spot simply because of possible potential (wrong message to send to up and coming young guys IMO)?

 

Because canucks aren’t trying to ice the best competitive team for October. We’re trying to build a team that can compete in two years. If people can understand that I don’t know what to tell them.

 

There’s three things about camp that people don’t see to quite grasp. First when your focus is to make a team, you don’t even have a thought about what’s happened in previous years. So reasons/theories why some young skilled players made the team this year will have zero impact on the youth. Second. It’s not going to be black and white where one player is clearly better than the other. It’s going to be really grey and it will be debatable as to who had a better camp. Third confidence is a huge impact on young skilled players. That confidence cant always be built in a short period like training camp. Some players need trust and opportunity shown by there coach. Extended periods of opportunity before they feel comfortable and break out. 

 

 

Quote

Why would a team take on a player (and bump out a player of their own) that can't beat out a supposed low value player in Gagner?

Because of potential. Plenty of teams are loaded with elc trying to make there roster. It’s rather easy for them to send down a player who’s free from waivers for a couple months to give a spot for a high potential claim. There’s very little risks with potienally high returns. 

 

Quote

Maybe Gagner won't get claimed, but I don't see the odds of either Leipsic or Goldobin being picked that high either given the circumstances of them being waived.

I do. Looks at the sharks or hawks. Plenty of roster spots and waiver exempt players to take on a low risk. Why wouldn’t the sharks put a claim on a player they drafted, developed and already know from him being in there system, for free?  Again if a team wanted gagner they could have him basically for free why wouldn’t they just trade the low price for him rather than hope he makes it to waivers.?  

 

Quote

It is much more common that a player clear waivers and teams make a trade for them, so they can develop that player with their own timeline.

Sure but the goal isn’t for canucks to dump off young talents it’s for us to find a way to keep them. The goal is to improve. You do that by developing. 

 

Quote

Or if another team thinks a player could stick, they would make the trade for a player that could hit waivers and go to a lower team in the standings eg Pouliot. I would take a similar deal for what Pouliot got, simply because we have a lot of wingers that will look to surpass Goldobin or Leipsic sooner rather than later anyway.

It’s probably best not to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s a long ways to go from playing amongst kids to prove nhl ready amongst men. None of those wingers have even proved themselves in the ahl yet. We might want ease up there. At one point both liepsic and goldi were in the same spot. Now becuase of shiny toy syndrom people want to just dump them off?  

[alfstonker]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

They weren't my figures. As I said, I went to NHL.com and plugged in an end date of the day before his injury. I just plugged in a a guess start date that resulted in a 10 game list. All of them showed as losses.

 

Frankly I don't care. I don't think a forward 15th in ice time per game is a huge factor in wins/losses. Losing Boeser alone would have been a far bigger factor.

Of course it would. I only replied because you were being a smart ass. 

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It’s probably best not to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s a long ways to go from playing amongst kids to prove nhl ready amongst men. None of those wingers have even proved themselves in the ahl yet. We might want ease up there. At one point both liepsic and goldi were in the same spot. Now becuase of shiny toy syndrom people want to just dump them off?  

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment of your post but this last paragraph could not have more ironing 

 

 

 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Hes only gotten older and has proven that he’s nothing more than a sheltered vet. Players like him typical wind up in Europe and had he not got a 3 year contract he likely would have been. He’s in the same spot Raymond was in a few years ago. 

 

Teams have spots for young players. Again look at the hawks. They have 4 elc players looking to make the nhl for the first year. It’s rather easy for them to send down a player to the ahl for a month or two while they see what they have in high potential player with a low cap hit. 

 

There’s a ton of waiver claims in feb by teams looking for that depth forward to help them in the post season. Take a look for yourself . 

 

 

 

Because canucks aren’t trying to ice the best competitive team for October. We’re trying to build a team that can compete in two years. If people can understand that I don’t know what to tell them.

 

There’s three things about camp that people don’t see to quite grasp. First when your focus is to make a team, you don’t even have a thought about what’s happened in previous years. So reasons/theories why some young skilled players made the team this year will have zero impact on the youth. Second. It’s not going to be black and white where one player is clearly better than the other. It’s going to be really grey and it will be debatable as to who had a better camp. Third confidence is a huge impact on young skilled players. That confidence cant always be built in a short period like training camp. Some players need trust and opportunity shown by there coach. Extended periods of opportunity before they feel comfortable and break out. 

 

 

Because of potential. Plenty of teams are loaded with elc trying to make there roster. It’s rather easy for them to send down a player who’s free from waivers for a couple months to give a spot for a high potential claim. There’s very little risks with potienally high returns. 

 

I do. Looks at the sharks or hawks. Plenty of roster spots and waiver exempt players to take on a low risk. Why wouldn’t the sharks put a claim on a player they drafted, developed and already know from him being in there system, for free?  Again if a team wanted gagner they could have him basically for free why wouldn’t they just trade the low price for him rather than hope he makes it to waivers.?  

 

Sure but the goal isn’t for canucks to dump off young talents it’s for us to find a way to keep them. The goal is to improve. You do that by developing. 

 

It’s probably best not to put the cart in front of the horse. It’s a long ways to go from playing amongst kids to prove nhl ready amongst men. None of those wingers have even proved themselves in the ahl yet. We might want ease up there. At one point both liepsic and goldi were in the same spot. Now becuase of shiny toy syndrom people want to just dump them off?  

So what you're saying is we should send waiver exempt players (like Boeser, Pettersson) to the farm team to make room for Goldobin and Liepsic to prove themselves?

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

So what you're saying is we should send waiver exempt players (like Boeser, Pettersson) to the farm team to make room for Goldobin and Liepsic to prove themselves?

 

[SingleThorn]

4 hours ago, Madwolf said:

Off the list originally given I'd say you start with putting Biega on Waivers, as no one is likely to claim him in October.

 

I'd take Pettersson off the list, letting him be the first injury call up for a forward, and adjust to the NA ice.

 

So between Boucher, Gagner, and Guance you have to send 1 guy down. Guance stays because of his defense on a team that will be lacking it. Gagner stays because he's shown his flashes of potential already. Boucher has done little, and doesn't do what Guance does defensively. 

 

Pettersson and OJ are first call ups if someone doesn't get on IR before opening night.

Biega is perhaps the most likely player to be picked off waivers. He does what he's paid to do perfectly. Even teams with A+ defenses such as Nashville would love to have a dedicated, low maintenance, low cost pure #7/8 dman like Biega. Having said that, I can see JB trying to get him to Utica, where he would be a valuable veteran presence. PS..........it's Gaunce.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, SingleThorn said:

Biega is perhaps the most likely player to be picked off waivers. He does what he's paid to do perfectly. Even teams with A+ defenses such as Nashville would love to have a dedicated, low maintenance, low cost pure #7/8 dman like Biega. Having said that, I can see JB trying to get him to Utica, where he would be a valuable veteran presence. PS..........it's Gaunce.

I love Biega for the excellent 7/8 D he is but pretty much every team has their own 'Biega'. The likelihood of him getting claimed, out of camp is SLIM.

 

Later in the season, closer to the TDL/playoffs if you were trying to sneak him down? Absolutely. Out of camp....not really.

[The_Rocket]

28 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I’m thinking this might be the first time I’ve seen a middle 6 LW (leipsic) compete with a bottom pairing Dman (Hutton) for a roster spot. 

 

Odds are one of them is getting waived or traded (if JB can find a trading partner)

[SingleThorn]

Just now, aGENT said:

I love Biega for the excellent 7/8 D he is but pretty much every team has their own 'Biega'. The likelihood of him getting claimed, out of camp is SLIM.

 

Later in the season, closer to the TDL/playoffs if you were trying to sneak him down? Absolutely. Out of camp....not really.

I agree. I think that no-one gets picked off waivers out of training camp. However, I think that Biega and Gaunce would be top of the 'worry list', but yes, the chances of being claimed are slim.