|
Post by Personnel Representative on May 2, 2011 15:40:00 GMT -5
Option 1 (Salary Based Waivers) - ANYONE (except 1st contract rookies) making 1M or more must go through waivers. - players signed to a 2-way contract do not need to go through waivers. - players making less than 1M do not need to go through waivers.
Option 2 (Contract-Based Waivers) - ALL players with a 1-way contract must clear waivers, regardless of salary. - Players on a 2-way contract don't need to go through waivers, regardless of salary.
Note: Again, 1st-contract rookies/draft picks are protected and don't need to go through waivers at all during their first contract. We have not established rookie max/min, so this may not even be applicable, but I just wanted to address it now.
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on May 2, 2011 19:52:28 GMT -5
Case closed. Waivers are dependent on 2-way cntracts. ANYONE without a 2-way contract must clear waivers. League Info guidelines being updated now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 20:23:38 GMT -5
What about this off-season? I and others negotiated without thinking about these, what happens with these?
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on May 2, 2011 20:33:12 GMT -5
Since no one seems to have understood the waivers wording (not sure why), no matter what there will be people who negotiated the opposite way we go.
I was going to say to be fair, we should make this effective starting NEXT season, but since 18 of 21 people want the 2-way thing, does anyone care if we implement it this season?
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Penguins-xx on May 2, 2011 20:34:55 GMT -5
I negotiated all my 2-ways with you, so no objection from me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 20:45:15 GMT -5
Like I said, what about people who read it the other way? We should have it where any salary signed below 0.999 should be a two-way (unless specifically negotiated other wise) and any salaries above 1.0 are 1-ways (unless negotiated other-wise)0
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Stars - XX on May 2, 2011 20:48:56 GMT -5
I think it should be implemented next season
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on May 2, 2011 20:50:08 GMT -5
I disagree.
And a player of mine is a casualty because of it. Smithson.
Deal with it people..
1-way = waivers 2-way = no waivers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 20:57:34 GMT -5
Was the negotiated though? If this was a clear rule, I and several others would have negotiated differently, not to mention PR was pushing 1.0 salaries so they would be 1 ways, we need to allow re-negotiations OR come up with a way to make it so part of the league doesn't get screwed because they (including the commish and PR) read the rule one way and the majority of the GMs read it another
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Jackets - XX on May 2, 2011 21:00:24 GMT -5
But if you read what was there originally, it said the default negotiation was a 1-way deal.
I think it should start this season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 21:03:34 GMT -5
Not to mention it did not say in the offer outline that you had to say it was a 1-Way or 2-Way offer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 21:05:18 GMT -5
The rule said
"Any player that has a 1-Way Deal AND makes over 1.0M MUST pass through waivers before being demoted"
I never saw that the default contract is 1-Way
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Jackets - XX on May 2, 2011 21:12:58 GMT -5
Sorry, I know it was posted somewhere, maybe in the UFA and RFA Offers thread.
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Jackets - XX on May 2, 2011 21:15:04 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 21:22:14 GMT -5
What was modified after this was brought to attention (on the 28th) I dont remember seeing that when I brought this up
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on May 2, 2011 21:24:38 GMT -5
That was there the whole time.
That is what the original argument/disagreement was about...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 21:39:39 GMT -5
No, it was about the 1-Way AND 1.0 part
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Jackets - XX on May 2, 2011 21:42:43 GMT -5
The reason me and Preds brought it up was because of that, and it was there from the start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 21:52:29 GMT -5
That's right, it was there....
The whole rule contradicted itself, saying 1-wats were default BUT 0.999 and under were 2-Ways
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Jackets - XX on May 2, 2011 21:59:55 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what we were arguing and trying to figure out.
|
|