Page 1 of 2
VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:03 pm
by MSP4LYFE
To Detroit:
2013 7th Rounder (WSH)
2013 7th Rounder (VAN)
To Vancouver:
Eric Boulton
Andrew Ebbett
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:05 pm
by Shoalzie
Confirmed
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:06 pm
by Nick
what if Ebbett gets claimed?
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:09 pm
by Shoalzie
Does he still go on waivers tomorrow even though he's traded? Can a player be traded before being actually exposed on waivers? I waived all three guys after noon today so they don't go on actual waivers until tomorrow at noon.
If someone in the CC wants to clarify...feel free. If this deal is null and void because of waivers, please let us know.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:11 pm
by MSP4LYFE
I could be wrong, but I thought Nick was referring to Ebbett being waived in real life.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:14 pm
by armandtanzarian
I think he is referring to Shoalzie waiving the three players in the waiver/release thread. I was under the impression once waived, claims can be made.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:17 pm
by MSP4LYFE
Claims can't be made until noon the next day, but I'm not sure what the rules are for trading players once waived. Admittedly, I was not even aware that Shoalzie had waived the aforementioned players.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:22 pm
by armandtanzarian
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8687&start=20#p124046
I admit i am confused by the timing issues. I just thought that once the said players were waived, claims can be made, and then successful claims processed at noon the next day....
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:24 pm
by MSP4LYFE
I suppose this one needs to go to the CC.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:27 pm
by armandtanzarian
I guess. I know Scott had good intentions here and it is obvious he had opposing views on the rules with regards to waivers then what i do. He is the waivers man of BBKL so i guess we should get this cleared up asap.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:29 pm
by Shoalzie
mr. bruin wroteCOLONviewtopic.php?f=8&t=8687&start=20#p124046
I admit i am confused by the timing issues. I just thought that once the said players were waived, claims can be made, and then successful claims processed at noon the next day....
The rule...at least as I've been directed to do as the guy running the waiver wire this season...when a player is waived, they don't actually go on waivers until the following day at noon unless you waive a guy in the morning and they'd be on waivers at noon of the same day. I waived my guys after noon today so they don't go on waivers until tomorrow. The question is, are they off limits to be traded even if they aren't actually able to be claimed until tomorrow?
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:29 pm
by Shoalzie
If this isn't kosher, I'm not bothered either way. Apologies for the confusion...
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:31 pm
by Nick
Honestly I was speaking to real life NHL claim and the value loss.
However I was not aware when making the comment that Shoalize had placed on waivers, and am unsure when that becomes 'official' - because I know it involved a 24hour period and we base it around noon (eastern?) .
To me - this deal is fine. No claim made, trade occurred prior to that, decision to place on waivers is up to new GM I would think? However it also seems like the 24hour window likely should involve a no trade clause. Definitely not a big deal, but important to have clear for the future.
I think the guys would actually 'go on waivers' at noon (EST) tomorrow, meaning the trade freeze for 24h wouldn't be in effect until that time.
edit- Scott just said the same thing, so we agree and trade is buneo.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:31 pm
by armandtanzarian
Shoalzie wroteCOLONmr. bruin wroteCOLONviewtopic.php?f=8&t=8687&start=20#p124046
I admit i am confused by the timing issues. I just thought that once the said players were waived, claims can be made, and then successful claims processed at noon the next day....
The rule...at least as I've been directed to do as the guy running the waiver wire this season...when a player is waived, they don't actually go on waivers until the following day at noon unless you waive a guy in the morning and they'd be on waivers at noon of the same day. I waived my guys after noon today so they don't go on waivers until tomorrow. The question is, are they off limits to be traded even if they aren't actually able to be claimed until tomorrow?
I'll admit i dont know buddy. You are the waiver police and you have got me confused. I'll post clarification on the subject in the CC.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:34 pm
by Shoalzie
That's funny that the Canucks are actually waiving him today...Booth is being activated from IR. I was going to waive/trade Ebbett today regardless because he was anchor on my roster.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:20 pm
by kimmer
Im gonna claim him
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:27 am
by Shoalzie
Any word from the CC? I don't know if I should proceed with putting this trade through on CBS or to put these two on the waiver wire at noon today or just wait until you guys made a ruling. Pandolfo goes on waivers today regardless.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:31 am
by Chuck Norris
Shoalzie wroteCOLONAny word from the CC? I don't know if I should proceed with putting this trade through on CBS or to put these two on the waiver wire at noon today or just wait until you guys made a ruling. Pandolfo goes on waivers today regardless.
I think Nick just stated a couple post above this that the trade is bueno.
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:36 am
by kyuss
actually, judging by the ongoing discussion in the CC board it looks like it's a no go.
(don't shoot the messenger!)
Re: VAN/DET
PostedCOLON Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:39 am
by Lee
Unequivocally a no go. You cannot trade assets that are on waivers, even if they are not technically on waivers until the next day at noon.
An addendum to the CBA may be in order, but it's still a no go.