[Report] Sharks claim Jonah Gadjovich off waivers

[Gollumpus]

31 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

Gadjovich thread and y'all talking about practice Dahlen. Not Gadjovich, not Gadjovich. Practice Dahlen. On a side note. Sure wish we kept Forsling. Just sayin'.

I'm still kinda' m'eh on Forsling. His numbers aren't that great for all the hoop-la being made over him every now and then. 

 

I suppose, assuming the Canucks had kept Forsling around and he actually made it to the NHL with the Canucks organization, that that could have had some impact on the Canucks roster at some point. 

 

2016-17 the Canucks had Edler, Hutton, McEneny, Sbisa and some kid named Tryamkin playing LD. Which two or three would Forsling have bumped in order for him to make even the 7th d-man spot? I'd say Forsling would have been in the AHL with some call up games. I can't say that having Forsling in the organization would have changed anything for the Canucks' draft in that year.

 

2017-18 the Canucks had Edler, Hutton, and a bunch of other guys (perhaps best not talked about). Possibly, Forsling could have been platooned for a number of games (as he was in Chicago that year). Would the Canucks still have taken Rathbone with their 4th round pick that year if Forsling played better than he did with Chicago (3g 10a)?

 

2018-19 the Canucks had Edler, Hughes, Hutton, etc on the left side. I'm assuming the Canucks would still have drafted Hughes, even if Forsling was on the team, let alone still in the organization, and this is where Forsling would (probably) have left the team, via trade, waivers or free agency. The Canucks would have Hughes on the left side, who is also small, but has a much higher ceiling than Forsling. They would also (likely) have Rathbone, who is also small, but on whom the organization looks upon with great favour. Having two other small, LD with greater potential would not be in Forsling's favour.

 

Using the Chicago experience as a template, the Canucks might  have gotten 122 games, 8g, 19a out of Forsling, with a -8 on his +/-.  Yay, I guess.

 

                                             regards,  G.

[flickyoursedin]

For me if the 4th line, playing around 8 minutes a game, and being in the press box was how they thought they’d bring Podkolzin around I’d have just sent him down right away and kept Gadjovich on the team. Play Podz 18-20 minutes a game in the AHL and have Gadjovich for the 4th line every other night. Feel like that would be better for Podz development.

[RakuRaku]

7 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

An argument may be made for this position. This being said...

 

Of the three guys we are discussing, MacEwen is the one I will miss the least. In the early part of this season, how many instances would MacEwen have had to go put the beat down on the opposition? To my recollection, not many, and this assumes that he would even have been dressed for that game.. This does not mean that I am happy to see him gone, it's just that his role is kind of situational, so if he isn't in the line up in a particular game, then maybe he has to wait a significant number of games to exact vengeance for the team, and without reminders from several sources (unless we are are talking a significant injury), most fans have probably forgotten the incident, or they no longer really care. I hope he gets lots of playing time with the Flyers, just not against the Canucks.

 

Juolevi is currently on the Panthers' injured reserve list. Perhaps it is due to Juolevi still feeling the effects of Covid, and the Panthers' medical staff decided to sit him down for a while. Or, maybe Juolevi picked up a minor injury in the pre-season, and Florida was still willing to make the trade. Or, maybe they are doing some kind of dodge to circumvent the cap. Or.... In any event, even if Juolevi wasn't in Green's doghouse, or traded, chances are he still wouldn't be in the line up at this point in the season. Also, Lammikko isn't doing so bad, and if Juulsen makes it back to the NHL, then I'll feel somewhat better about this deal.

 

Gadjovich is the guy that I will miss. For whatever reason(s) the team attempted to move him to the AHL, it was a bad idea. Even if there was something going on behind the scenes which made keeping Gadjovich problematic, losing him for nothing shifts my approval needle towards the negative. We'll have an idea of just how bad an idea this was (or wasn't) at the end of the season. Keep in mind that Gadjovich will (likely?) get more ice time with the Sharks than he would here, so his results could be different from what would be expected if he was playing here. However, if he is a significant physical presence for the Sharks, is defensively responsible, and chips in with 20+ points, the question has to be asked, Why couldn't he be doing that here?

 

                                                        regards,  G.

Sup G?

 

I totally agree that Big Mac didn't live up to expectations... the way he impressed us in his first NHL games... however, when things get physical, he's likely the only guy that can drop the gloves (i.e. vs. Kassian)... right now, who is our enforcer? Chiasson? Burroughs? I would have no problem keeping Mac for the ugly games where we may get pushed around hard.

 

Juolevi serves as a decent LHD option.... way more dependable than Hunt.... Hunt will easily pass through waivers... so why not?? Green clearly got something personal against Juolevi.. I don't think he's injured right now or else he could have been put on IR.

 

We all loved what we saw in Gadj....  this guy got some raw potential to be a nice power forward... seems to me Green got his mind set on having more faster, smaller players this season to take us to the playoffs... time will tell if he was right!

 

 

 

 

[CanucksJay]

12 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Would have been one thing if we were just so deep there was no room.

 

We literally dumped him for a PTO player that’s looking like he should have retired, and a guy that’s now in the AHL.

 

There was no reason to be that impatient. Sure Gadjovich may not amount to anything. But is this team with its lack of depth really in a position to gamble that?

 

If he become a consistent physical presence and chips in offensively here and there this will be a real bad look for Benning. That’s two 2nd round picks in 2017 with nothing to show for. Add that to his long list of traded picks and it’s gonna create some big holes in the future.

Bad look on Benning or Green? 

Bad look on Benning is potentially hiring and trusting Green to properly use the tools that JB provided. 

Once JB meddles in player ice time, deployment etc, he is effectively making Green a lame duck coach and it becomes a toxic relationship. 

Part of being a good manager is having confidence in your staff and empowering your employees even at the risk of getting fired for their decisions. I believe JB is doing the right thing. We can question his hiring of TG but once hired, the right thing is to let the guy you hired, do their job. 

[CanucksJay]

2 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

For me if the 4th line, playing around 8 minutes a game, and being in the press box was how they thought they’d bring Podkolzin around I’d have just sent him down right away and kept Gadjovich on the team. Play Podz 18-20 minutes a game in the AHL and have Gadjovich for the 4th line every other night. Feel like that would be better for Podz development.

That would make sense lol. 

Still makes me sick that we went with guys like Petan, Chiasson, Highmore, Dowling, Schenn and Hunt over Gadj, Lockwood and Juolevi. 

 

 

Who knows though, if that move produces an extra 2-3 pts over an 82 game season and we make the playoffs because of it, would we say that was the right move? 

Think about the other side of it, what would it do to the team when looking at a bigger picture if we miss the playoffs this year. 

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, RakuRaku said:

Sup G?

 

I totally agree that Big Mac didn't live up to expectations... the way he impressed us in his first NHL games... however, when things get physical, he's likely the only guy that can drop the gloves (i.e. vs. Kassian)... right now, who is our enforcer? Chiasson? Burroughs? I would have no problem keeping Mac for the ugly games where we may get pushed around hard.

 

Juolevi serves as a decent LHD option.... way more dependable than Hunt.... Hunt will easily pass through waivers... so why not?? Green clearly got something personal against Juolevi.. I don't think he's injured right now or else he could have been put on IR.

 

We all loved what we saw in Gadj....  this guy got some raw potential to be a nice power forward... seems to me Green got his mind set on having more faster, smaller players this season to take us to the playoffs... time will tell if he was right!

 

 

 

 

Howdy.

 

<what follows is not necessarily meant in a serious vein>

 

I had this on the slow cooker last night, trying to work out various angles of why the team lost Gadjovich. I figured it was either a mistake (they assumed that they could sneak Gadjovich through waivers and got it wrong), or it was a deliberate choice, because it was determined by management/coaching that they no longer wanted him in the organization.

 

I'm assuming that Benning/Green are smart enough, and are good enough judges of talent that they would have had to have known that the chances of Gadjovich making it through waivers were very small. <insert skeptical comments regarding Benning being smart and/or a good judge of talent, here> With this thought in mind, trying to send Gadjovich to the AHL in this way suggests that it was done with the intent of getting rid of Gadjovich, while preserving organizational and personal reputation. 

 

If we choose to think ill of Gadjovich, perhaps something came up which made the organization "uncomfortable". Maybe Gadjovich ties his skates up backwards from everyone else, and it upset Pettersson's calm, or maybe he's a cat person and Green is a dog person, or it was determined that Gadjovich had plateaued in his development - whatever - management/coaching felt that the organization would be better off without Gadjovich. So how do you get rid of him?

 

Trading is one way, but if you shop him around and the best return offer is woefully inadequate (to you), then trading Gadjovich looks bad, on several counts (eg. a high pick, high expectations from the fanbase). So, if you want him gone, badly enough, so much so that the minimal return from a trade is no longer a consideration, then you let waivers do the dirty work. The guy you want gone is gone. If he winds up in the AHL then you say encouraging things about how you hope he continues to develop and be part of the organization and then don't extend him. If you lose him to another team, fine, he's gone, and you say nice things about him, wish him well and claim ignorance should something come up.

 

                                                           regards,  G.

[Me_]

2 hours ago, RakuRaku said:

Sup G?

 

I totally agree that Big Mac didn't live up to expectations... the way he impressed us in his first NHL games... however, when things get physical, he's likely the only guy that can drop the gloves (i.e. vs. Kassian)... right now, who is our enforcer? Chiasson? Burroughs? I would have no problem keeping Mac for the ugly games where we may get pushed around hard.

 

Juolevi serves as a decent LHD option.... way more dependable than Hunt.... Hunt will easily pass through waivers... so why not?? Green clearly got something personal against Juolevi.. I don't think he's injured right now or else he could have been put on IR.

 

We all loved what we saw in Gadj....  this guy got some raw potential to be a nice power forward... seems to me Green got his mind set on having more faster, smaller players this season to take us to the playoffs... time will tell if he was right!

 

 

 

 

I just want them all to go more faster. I like more faster.

[Gollumpus]

14 minutes ago, Me_ said:

I just want them all to go more faster. I like more faster.

This. The going fast, skatey thing is one way to determine if they are good at the hockey.

 

                                     regards,  G.

[RakuRaku]

23 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Howdy.

 

<what follows is not necessarily meant in a serious vein>

 

I had this on the slow cooker last night, trying to work out various angles of why the team lost Gadjovich. I figured it was either a mistake (they assumed that they could sneak Gadjovich through waivers and got it wrong), or it was a deliberate choice, because it was determined by management/coaching that they no longer wanted him in the organization.

 

I'm assuming that Benning/Green are smart enough, and are good enough judges of talent that they would have had to have known that the chances of Gadjovich making it through waivers were very small. <insert skeptical comments regarding Benning being smart and/or a good judge of talent, here> With this thought in mind, trying to send Gadjovich to the AHL in this way suggests that it was done with the intent of getting rid of Gadjovich, while preserving organizational and personal reputation. 

 

If we choose to think ill of Gadjovich, perhaps something came up which made the organization "uncomfortable". Maybe Gadjovich ties his skates up backwards from everyone else, and it upset Pettersson's calm, or maybe he's a cat person and Green is a dog person, or it was determined that Gadjovich had plateaued in his development - whatever - management/coaching felt that the organization would be better off without Gadjovich. So how do you get rid of him?

 

Trading is one way, but if you shop him around and the best return offer is woefully inadequate (to you), then trading Gadjovich looks bad, on several counts (eg. a high pick, high expectations from the fanbase). So, if you want him gone, badly enough, so much so that the minimal return from a trade is no longer a consideration, then you let waivers do the dirty work. The guy you want gone is gone. If he winds up in the AHL then you say encouraging things about how you hope he continues to develop and be part of the organization and then don't extend him. If you lose him to another team, fine, he's gone, and you say nice things about him, wish him well and claim ignorance should something come up.

 

                                                           regards,  G.

You're right.... one thing that us fans fail to see is, there's always politics involved... not everything is black & white when it comes to human interactions and what's been said and interpreted!!

 

I don't think it was so much about JB/Green not seeing the talent in Gadj or even Dahlen much earlier.... we lament the fact that we just gave them up for nothing... 

 

I wouldn't have questioned their tactis IF we now got Sutter, Motte and Hamonic back at 100%..... but this uncertainty is really hurting our chances... and I honestly doubt Demko and Garland to a certain extent can bail us out every single time! Simply unrealistic!

[kenhodgejr]

Im still really upset about this!

[filthycanuck]

On 10/24/2021 at 9:43 AM, mll said:

 

Dahlen wanted a change of scenery.  Doug Wilson Jr saying that they wanted him to be happy again and get back to being the player they know, suggests that for whatever reason, things didn't go well in Utica.

 

This was Palmu's perception of his treatment in Utica:  

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/petrus-palmu-explains-reasons-why-he-left-utica-comets-nobody-really-talked-to-me-2228082

 

 

He and Dahlen might have a point. Look at the guys not in the organization anymore, Juolevi, Dahlen, Lind, Gadjovich, Palmu is in Europe, so is Jasek. Seems like the team is getting prospects straight from the college or European leagues but not getting fed from the farm. There must be wrong with the AHL development, look at our young players now. None of them, with the exception of Demko, and to a very lesser extent, Rathbone, came from the farm

[iinatcc]

23 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

I'm still kinda' m'eh on Forsling. His numbers aren't that great for all the hoop-la being made over him every now and then. 

 

I suppose, assuming the Canucks had kept Forsling around and he actually made it to the NHL with the Canucks organization, that that could have had some impact on the Canucks roster at some point. 

 

2016-17 the Canucks had Edler, Hutton, McEneny, Sbisa and some kid named Tryamkin playing LD. Which two or three would Forsling have bumped in order for him to make even the 7th d-man spot? I'd say Forsling would have been in the AHL with some call up games. I can't say that having Forsling in the organization would have changed anything for the Canucks' draft in that year.

 

Forsling currently has 4 pts in 6 games and is a +6. Thing is Forsling was not yet NHL ready and Benning traded away Forsling for a D-man he though was NHL ready, at the time. So in actuality keeping and developing Forsling made more sense than trading him away based on your point that the Canucks already had enough d-men in the main roster.

 

Plus also depth is a good thing and let's say in an alternative world where Hutton, Tryamkin, and Forsling all become good NHL d-men for the Canucks. Vancouver could have used those assets to trade for future picks or another player (perhaps a 4th line forward that didn't cost the team $3 million aav ).

[filthycanuck]

2 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Forsling currently has 4 pts in 6 games and is a +6. Thing is Forsling was not yet NHL ready and Benning traded away Forsling for a D-man he though was NHL ready, at the time. So in actuality keeping and developing Forsling made more sense than trading him away based on your point that the Canucks already had enough d-men in the main roster.

 

Plus also depth is a good thing and let's say in an alternative world where Hutton, Tryamkin, and Forsling all become good NHL d-men for the Canucks. Vancouver could have used those assets to trade for future picks or another player (perhaps a 4th line forward that didn't cost the team $3 million aav ).

Remember Frankie Corrado? he was a fairly decent dman when he was here, starting to get his feet wet, couldve kept him in the team instead we let him for nothing (i forgot the reason why but i know a lot of the fans were pissed) kind of gave it a pass to Jim being a new GM and not knowing much about asset management. Didn't realize that was going to be the start of a regular occurence in this regime of letting young players go for nothing. We could've easily kept one of Lind or Gadj had we not signed Tanner Pearson in the spring, was that really that necessary to sign him so soon? Couldnt we have signed Tanner a day after the expansion draft, for the sake of at least keeping one of those guys? For all the good prospects Jim has gotten us, hes made a lot of moves that just make you scratch your head

[Bell]

Frankie Corrado, the guy that played 46 games in the following six seasons in the nhl.  Not sure this is the guy to criticize Benning about.

[CanucksJay]

6 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

He and Dahlen might have a point. Look at the guys not in the organization anymore, Juolevi, Dahlen, Lind, Gadjovich, Palmu is in Europe, so is Jasek. Seems like the team is getting prospects straight from the college or European leagues but not getting fed from the farm. There must be wrong with the AHL development, look at our young players now. None of them, with the exception of Demko, and to a very lesser extent, Rathbone, came from the farm

Maybe having a team in Abbotsford will improve the situation. 

They will feel like they are on the cusp of making it to the big leagues and want to be here. 

[RWJC]

The part that stings about Gadj is that he was making huge progress in OUR development system…one that has barely produced NHL quality players in the last few years.

 

It’s one thing to let go of a young prospect who seems to be treading water/middling. You often see that prospect begin to make progress in another system that maybe fits better, provides the right teammates/chemistry, coaching, etc etc. Soooo many factors go into it. Essentially though, both the player and the system have to complement each other.
 

The issue I will always have with this move, regardless of whether Gadj is successful elsewhere or not, is that this is exactly what he brought. He elevated the farm teams game, his own game, and improved on his deficiencies. That accountability is worth way more of a look on the big club than some journeyman PTO.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by RWJC

[Chickenspear]

22 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Howdy.

 

<what follows is not necessarily meant in a serious vein>

 

I had this on the slow cooker last night, trying to work out various angles of why the team lost Gadjovich. I figured it was either a mistake (they assumed that they could sneak Gadjovich through waivers and got it wrong), or it was a deliberate choice, because it was determined by management/coaching that they no longer wanted him in the organization.

 

I'm assuming that Benning/Green are smart enough, and are good enough judges of talent that they would have had to have known that the chances of Gadjovich making it through waivers were very small. <insert skeptical comments regarding Benning being smart and/or a good judge of talent, here> With this thought in mind, trying to send Gadjovich to the AHL in this way suggests that it was done with the intent of getting rid of Gadjovich, while preserving organizational and personal reputation. 

 

If we choose to think ill of Gadjovich, perhaps something came up which made the organization "uncomfortable". Maybe Gadjovich ties his skates up backwards from everyone else, and it upset Pettersson's calm, or maybe he's a cat person and Green is a dog person, or it was determined that Gadjovich had plateaued in his development - whatever - management/coaching felt that the organization would be better off without Gadjovich. So how do you get rid of him?

 

Trading is one way, but if you shop him around and the best return offer is woefully inadequate (to you), then trading Gadjovich looks bad, on several counts (eg. a high pick, high expectations from the fanbase). So, if you want him gone, badly enough, so much so that the minimal return from a trade is no longer a consideration, then you let waivers do the dirty work. The guy you want gone is gone. If he winds up in the AHL then you say encouraging things about how you hope he continues to develop and be part of the organization and then don't extend him. If you lose him to another team, fine, he's gone, and you say nice things about him, wish him well and claim ignorance should something come up.

 

                                                           regards,  G.

I don't think they no longer wanted him in the organization, tbh. Word was Benning tried to trade him, with no takers, then when he got put on waivers, 'multiple teams' had put in waiver claims on him. So to me it seems they thought he was close, but needed a bit more work in Abby, and realized he would likely get claimed on waivers, which facilitated JB trying to trade him for something, while other teams realized he would be put on waivers, so they could claim him for free, thus not trading any assets for him.

 

I still think he should have stayed up, and just not signed Chiasson though.

[Gollumpus]

6 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Forsling currently has 4 pts in 6 games and is a +6.

Well, that's something. Four second assists in three games, and I'm not knocking second assists here, but not all second assists are created equally.

 

The first second assist was from an accidental blocked shot (Forsling looked like he was more interested in not getting hit). The puck bounced to a team mate, who passed the puck to another Panther, who lugged the puck up the ice and scored. 

 

The second second assist came from a pass to Forsling up on the point. He passed the puck to his defensive partner, who shot the puck on net, and then the goal was scored in close. The third second assist came in the same game, where it looks like Forsling touched the puck before another Panther took possession, and that guy passed said puck to Barkov who lugged the puck from the Panther's zone and scored (pretty much a solo effort).

 

The fourth second assist was on what turned out to be an empty net goal. The opposition winger was harassed by the Panthers' winger and the puck came loose to Forsling. The Lightning winger pursued the puck to Forsling who got rid of it "quickly" to Barkov, who lugged it down the ice and passed to Duclair who got the ENG. Initially, I thought that having a Forsling out there to protect the lead was a display of confidence by the Panther's coach, and then I looked again and saw that the score at that time as 3 - 1, not 3 - 2, and there was 2+ minutes left on the clock...

 

So, Forsling has four assists in three out of the six games he has played, which looks to be lucky more than due to crafty play on his part. 

 

7 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Thing is Forsling was not yet NHL ready and Benning traded away Forsling for a D-man he though was NHL ready, at the time. So in actuality keeping and developing Forsling made more sense than trading him away based on your point that the Canucks already had enough d-men in the main roster.

Well, I believe that my point was that even though Forsling had potential, he still wasn't good enough (developed enough) to be on the roster, even when the defense mostly sucked. I was around at the time, and I believe I recall the situation fairly well.   And I'm not looking at it through 20/20 hindsight glasses.

 

Forsling's potential was moved for a guy who the team thought could help them now. Clendening was/is a RD, which the team sorta' kinda' needed right then, and Forsling was/'is a smaller, LD who looked to be a few years away from even being in the AHL I was okay with this trade. My only regret is that Clendening didn't work out as hoped. Forsling's NHL success, such as it is, doesn't change my opinion on this trade, then or now. Keeping and (hopefully) developing Forsling, rather than moving him for a player who might have helped the team then, makes no sense. 

 

I've previously outlined a timeline of what I believe may have happened with Forsling, were he not traded those six years ago. I don't see a lot of development in those six years, and his current "success" doesn't hold a lot of significance for me. I still believe that Forsling would have been traded (player or team initiated), or gone when free agency allowed. 

 

7 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Plus also depth is a good thing and let's say in an alternative world where Hutton, Tryamkin, and Forsling all become good NHL d-men for the Canucks. Vancouver could have used those assets to trade for future picks or another player (perhaps a 4th line forward that didn't cost the team $3 million aav ).

Depth is nice to have, but the depth guys (assuming they are any good) don't necessarily care to just sit around on their hands collecting a pay cheque. They want to play. If Forsling did develop here, why would he want to stick around being a "depth" guy?

 

Edler was around with his NTC up until 2018 - 19 (and two more years of NMC contract time after that). Are any of these guys better than Edler (assuming they become just "good" NHL d-men and not a Bobby Orr or Chara)? Some will say yes, others will say no. The point remains that very likely Edler has one of the three LD spots, Tryamkin would probably be the second LD and Hutton would likely be the 3LD (size, mobility, etc)... which leaves Forsling as a 7/8 d-man here, up until a couple of years ago. Assuming Forsling developed as many believe he should, he probably couldn't be moved to the AHL for playing time, or he's sitting in the press box, and he wouldn't want to go down anyways. Chances are, Forsling is traded while he is still an RFA... or he leaves when free agency allows.

 

And a point to consider, rolling back to the real world, has anyone ever thought that a guy like Clendening may have been the best offer the Canucks could get for Forsling? Sure, it's easy for us to say, "keep Forsling and develop him", but what does that do for the team right now? Not much.

 

Look at it from the current team's position, and them trading away a couple of the recent 1st round picks. If you are one of the young, core players and the team around you sucks, would you like management to develop guys so the team can win, eventually, or would you like them to make the team better now so you can win sooner? I'm going to go with those guys wanting to win sooner. If we continue with the current situation, I'm less concerned about 4th line players (and good ones help you win Cups), and more about the RD situation. Like back then, Forsling for a RD was a good idea (yes, it didn't work out as planned). If we compare then to now, might not trying to move Rathbone (even as part of a package) for a "good" RD not be a good idea? And while teammates may miss a guy like Rathbone, how many would volunteer to drive him to the airport if they were driving back with a guy like Chychrurn?

 

<getting hungry, and breakfast calls>

 

Anyhoo, I'm cutting this short to attend to more important matters (...bacon...). Keeping/developing Forsling so he could become another Brisbois (long time AHLer) isn't something that shakes me. He has had four years prior to landing with Florida, where he was okay, but nothing he did said that he was an NHL superstar, or even a good everyday player. I suspect that (as noted previously) Forsling would still be out of the Canucks' organization by at least a couple of years. Were he not, then say goodbye to Rathbone.

 

                                                         regards,  G.

 

(coffee, eggs, toast, bacon... but mostly bacon)

[Noseforthenet]

Alright guys, if we're gonna talk about what ifs? How about what if Forsling wasn't traded. Could his development made it so we drafted Tkachuk instead of Juolevi?

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, Chickenspear said:

I don't think they no longer wanted him in the organization, tbh. Word was Benning tried to trade him, with no takers, then when he got put on waivers, 'multiple teams' had put in waiver claims on him. So to me it seems they thought he was close, but needed a bit more work in Abby, and realized he would likely get claimed on waivers, which facilitated JB trying to trade him for something, while other teams realized he would be put on waivers, so they could claim him for free, thus not trading any assets for him.

 

I still think he should have stayed up, and just not signed Chiasson though.

Pretty much, or signed him and sent him to the AHL. I do believe that there are some other guys who probably could have been slipped through waivers to clear a roster spot for Gadjovich. 

 

I'm still sorta' okay with Chiasson (but not at the expense of Gadjovich), but it does seem like the air is being let out on him. Maybe Chiasson will even be dropped later in the season should someone better come along. 

 

                                                      regards,  G.