Waivers

[Personnel Representative]

To send a guy to the minors, (to free up Cap space, or bring another up, etc), you probably need to use waivers. Post the waiving in the waivers section. You know the one.

- ALL players with a 1-way contract must clear waivers, regardless of salary.
- Players on a 2-way contract do not need to go through waivers, regardless of salary.

Important Notes:
- You cannot take a guy off of waivers once you have put him there. If no one has put a claim in on him, you MAY trade him, but not after a claim has been entered. If you delete a waivers posting (which we can see in the security log) we will be pissed and we might have to do some diciplining... or something.
- Players with a NMC must be asked before being waived. Players with a NTC do not need to be asked.

Something neat to keep in mind - if a guy clears waivers, his value will obviously not go up, and probably down. So it might be a wise risk to take near re-signing season if you think no one will grab the guy. It's establishing the guy has next to no value at his current contract and he might be reluctant to test the FA market for fear of staying home next season. Don't tell my clients I told you this.

Waivers last 24 hours, and the team with the most recent lowest point totals in the standings, followed by least amount of wins if a tie is apparent, will claim the player. The most recent standings is based on the most up to date sim date immediately following the 24 hour time limit.

[New York Rangers]

This should also have the time information; how long the guys will be on regular waivers and re-entry waivers.

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

It's 24 hours.

[Personnel Representative]

May 4, 2012 Updates:

- Players who are claimed off waivers have to be offered (for free) to the other teams that placed an original claim before a player can be traded.


- Players with 2 way contracts can ONLY be placed on waivers if they are being bought out. In these cases, you MUST announce during your post that you are waiving these players with the intention of buying them out. Then, if they "clear" waivers, you must buy them out. They are NOT eligible at that time to go back to your minor league system.

[Deleted]

I don't get the 1st part

[Personnel Representative]

If you successfully claim a guy off waivers and there were several claims in. If you want to trade that guy, you have to offer him (for free) to the other teams that unsuccessfully tried to claim him first.

[Anaheim Ducks]

May 4, 2012 15:30:58 GMT -5 Personnel Representative said:

If you successfully claim a guy off waivers and there were several claims in. If you want to trade that guy, you have to offer him (for free) to the other teams that unsuccessfully tried to claim him first.

1 - its unrealistic
2 - its a hassle (ex: i claim someone now; want to trade him next year)
3 - its stupid (the best team in the league should place a claim on everyone, since he'll lose out every claim and get a chance to pick a player up for free)

Now, what if I claim someone, and he turns out to be amazing? I give the player a chance, and if a deal comes around, I cant reap the rewards of my smart claim..?

I think the rule is horrid. If you want to disallow waiving 2-way contracts thats fine, but the first part you imposed is bad.

[Dallas Stars]

yeah lol that's a weird rule. doesn't make sense

[Deleted]

Yeah that's stupid.... What were you thinking?

[Personnel Representative]

It's stupid. It's weird. But it is out of the NHL rule book VERBATIM.

We'll say its only applicable for that season, so its not one of those "I claimed him last year" deals, but other than that, it's the real NHLs rule. Here's why:

It's so you don't grab guys off waivers for the sole purpose of trading him. It protects waivers so that teams who actually want a player to PLAY get him.

It allows the teams that WOULD HAVE successfully claimed the guy for free to get him for free, as they would have done, AND TRIED TO DO, on waivers. In terms of Ducks "reaping the rewards" comment, its not like you "discovered" the guy, because the deal is you must offer him to the guys who wanted him in the first place during that same claim period.

[Deleted]

So I claim a guy in October, and he produces like mad. By the deadline I'm out of it, and I want to trade him because everyone knows he's a good producer so I'll get a good deal back

But I have to give him away? WTF is that?

I could see maybe the first month of sims after he got claimed.... Not seasons

[Anaheim Ducks]

May 5, 2012 6:13:11 GMT -5 @cor99 said:

So I claim a guy in October, and he produces like mad. By the deadline I'm out of it, and I want to trade him because everyone knows he's a good producer so I'll get a good deal back

This is what I was getting at. I don't think its fair that I gave the guy a chance, he succceeded on my team and instead of using him in a trade that may benefit me in the future (ex: a trade for a draft pick) I have to give him away for free. By doing so you are inevitably restricting trades and potentially blocking the bottom-feeding teams (because they are the ones who will win the claims) from doing a deal that benefits them in the future.

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

We never specified "seasons." And typically in the NHL people don't make 50 claims a year so this shit doesn't usually happen either. I blame all you members for thinking this is ridiculous because you make the rule ridiculous lmao.

[Personnel Representative]

If you don't want a player you are claiming, DON'T PUT A CLAIM IN. It's pretty simple. Don't claim guys if they aren't benefiting you for the time frame you ar4e seeking. If you are rebuilding, don't claim Chris Chelios, if you are pushing for the Cup and want guys in their prime now, don't claim rookies. It's simple. It's only one damned season.

As I said, it allowed guys who wanted to actually claim the player the protection of not having to trade for him to acquire him when they should have had the right to acquire him for free off waivers.

[Deleted]

That's what Dallas did, he claimed everyone.

The 34 player rule will stop this.

If you want to implement this, then make it so that the player has to play 10-15 games before you can trade him without putting him on "Secondary Waivers"

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

I don't think people understand that this is a legitimate waiver rule in the NHL right now. Why do we have to modify said rule to accommodate the Stars past waiver play?

[Dallas Stars]

no point of this rule. No one claims lots of players now because of the max roster rule. I only claimed one person since the rule. Plus if you claimed a guy and let him play and teams want him now, then you should advantage of the situation and be able to trade him for something because the player is the property of the team. Giving them away for free is ridiculous. If a player has been waived, and a couple team claim him, no one will trade for them immediately because there's obviously no interest in him but after a season if he does well then everyone will be willing to trade assets for him and in that case giving him away for free instead of capitalizing on the opportunity and trading the player for something becomes unrealistic. Team don't always want to keep guys that produce especially if they are rebuilding and want to trade vets for a youth influx.

[Personnel Representative]

It's not to stop people from claiming, it's to make it so that top teams that genuinely want a player can get him via waivers, and not be forced into trading for him just because a lower team grabs him FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of trading him. It's a real rule, agreed upon in real life by GMs and the NHLPA.

The only thing it stops here is shadiness. That's all. If you stop a team from claiming a guy, this gives them the opportunity to have him back. That's all. It gives higher teams a chance to actually make a waiver claim. It also stops claim-and-trades, which HAVE happened in this league. It's a pretty good addition, which is why I included it here.

[Boston Bruins]

get over it people, your first complaints about this rule was that is it unrealistic, well it isn't, it is a real rule and if we want to be realistic then we should follow as many NHL rules as possible with exception to any rule that is stupid for sim league purposes. Example: 50 contract rule, stupid for us since we are not simming a whole AHL season like we are the NHL.

The rule they are adding now is smart, useful, realistic, and solves a specific problem of over claiming (which doesn't happen in the real NHL because they have these rules). We should have opened this league with these rules in place, cudos for Leafs and PR to add them now.