Waiver wire Oct 1. UPD: CAR claims McE. PHI claims Pickard. WSH claims Jaskin

[getbak]

Even if the plan is start the season with Rittich in Calgary, I wouldn't be surprised to see him on waivers today. With the two Leafs goalies on there, plus a few other teams will also likely need to clear 3rd stringers, it's very likely he'd clear. Waiving him would buy some flexibility if he struggles and Gilles has a strong start in Stockton.

[David Struch]

The 15 Most Successful Waiver Claims In NHL History

https://www.thesportster.com/hockey/...n-nhl-history/

Some good goalies claimed over the years include:

Ilya Bryzgalov
Chris Osgood
Evgeni Nabokov

[SmoggyFlamesFan]

To MTL:

Frolik
Rittich
3rd

To Cgy
Carey Price

3M Salary retained by MTL

Wizard + Bergevin = magic!

[868904]

Treliving and Peters had Pickard as their goalie on the 2016 World Championship team; however, Talbot was the starter.

If they take him, it will mean they liked what they saw.

I think Flames will try for both leaf goalies.

Gillies doesn't need waivers and while Rittich does, hard to see any team taking him after the desperate Flames put him through.

Both guys go down to the AHL and Parsons is the top dog in Kansas. See how it works out. If any of the young goalies perform well and Mcbackup/Pickard fail, then call up the young goalie then.

Flames don't have to lose any goalie and will have an extra bullet in the chamber.

With goalies, it's a crap shoot. You never really know with them. The more options you have, the better the chance of lucking out.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Royle9

I have no faith in Rittich after his disastrous pre-season, both of these guys would be an upgrade as a backup in my opinion which allows Gillies to go down and play 1a/1b minutes with Parsons.

I'd give the edge to McElhinney as his backup stats have been historically pretty strong .920+ and low 2 GAA. He's been around long enough to be able to sit for 3 weeks and then come in and steal a game.

I do caution the "been there, done that" with Curtis but he's a lot older now and more matured throughout the league, I think he's a solid backup option over what we have. Doubt the flames move on either of these guys though, I think we need a better candidate moving forward to eventually compete to be the #1

A lot older, Do we really want to hedge our bets on a 36 Year old Starter and a 35 year old backup?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which then requires the Flames to keep him on the NHL roster all year. This pushes three goalies down to the AHL and the ECHL which is FAR from ideal.

Because I don't believe this is a viable option it is necessary to move a goalie in order to acquire a goalie. So, my question is, if the Flames pick up a goalie on the waiver wire that must stay in the NHL all year, then what do they do with Rittich?

Ah yes, great point.

I honestly think that if they're picking anyone up (now or any time this year) it's the end of Rittich

If they don't have confidence in him as a backup now, I don't know what he brings in the future.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What would they do with him?

I don't think that is the challenge. He is on a one year deal and they can park him somewhere for the year.

Question is whether McBackup is really the goalie they are waiting for. Although he is free right now, goalies of his caliber will be available all year long at a nominal price. As I'm sure you'd agree, it's probably better to show some confidence in your own guys.

But let's remember, they had so much confidence in Rittich and Gillies that they traded for possibly the worst backup in the league last year in Eddie Lack. Granted we are a year later, and our backups gained some NHL experience, but seems likely the organization is not yet 100% sold on these guys.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by 868904

Treliving and Peters had Pickard as their goalie on the 2016 World Championship team; however, Talbot was the starter.

If they take him, it will mean they liked what they saw.

I think Flames will try for both leaf goalies.

Gillies doesn't need waivers and while Rittich does, hard to see any team taking him after the desperate Flames put him through.

Both guys go down to the AHL and Parsons is the top dog in Kansas. See how it works out. If any of the young goalies perform well and Mcbackup/Pickard fail, then call up the young goalie then.

Flames don't have to lose any goalie and will have an extra bullet in the chamber.

With goalies, it's a crap shoot. You never really know with them. The more options you have, the better the chance of lucking out.

I actually like Parsons playing full-time in ECHL. He did that last year and didn't do too well so let him really settle in and hopefully turn it around this year.

Rittich and Gillies splitting time in the AHL is concerning though, so if this went down, I'd almost expect we aggressively trade Rittich (even if it meant throwing in a 6th or 7th round pick) or loan him out to a Europe team. Just not sure it's worth it at this point...

[Geeoff]

Pickard is definitely my pick of the litter. Although, I'm sure someone has a McElhinney horse head they're dying to pull out of the closet LOL

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which then requires the Flames to keep him on the NHL roster all year. This pushes three goalies down to the AHL and the ECHL which is FAR from ideal.

You don't need to keep him here all year. If he sucks, you waive him and park him in the ECHL.


But Smith/Pickard in the NHL. Gillies/Rittich in the AHL. Parsons/McDonalds in the AHL is fine. Shuffle as needed, just like last year.

You are aware that 12 different goalies played in the Kansas City Mavericks and Stockton Heat last season, right? You can always find a spot for the likes of Schneider.

[SmoggyFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Pickard is definitely my pick of the litter. Although, I'm sure there's someone has a McElhinney horse head they're dying to pull out of the closet LOL

I don't believe he has ever worn that jersey, but I could certainly be wrong.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SmoggyFlamesFan

I dont believe he has ever worn that jersey, but I could certainly be wrong.

You're right, it was not the third when he was here.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by David Struch

I'm also hoping for a 12th forward or maybe a 6th defenseman.

Off waivers?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Which then requires the Flames to keep him on the NHL roster all year. This pushes three goalies down to the AHL and the ECHL which is FAR from ideal.

Because I don't believe this is a viable option it is necessary to move a goalie in order to acquire a goalie. So, my question is, if the Flames pick up a goalie on the waiver wire that must stay in the NHL all year, then what do they do with Rittich?

is it for the year?

I thought you only had to keep the waiver pickup on the active NHL roster for 30 days.

[devo22]

you don't have to keep waiver pickups for the year, that's 100 percent false. You can waive him and try to send him down immediately - I believe guys like Zach Boychuk and Teemu Pulkkinen were both waived and claimed several times by different times during the same season.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You don't need to keep him here all year. If he sucks, you waive him and park him in the ECHL.

Only a player on an entry-level contract can be assigned to the ECHL without his consent. (CBA, article 9.6.)

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by devo22

you don't have to keep waiver pickups for the year, that's 100 percent false. You can waive him and try to send him down immediately - I believe guys like Zach Boychuk and Teemu Pulkkinen were both waived and claimed several times by different times during the same season.

You don't have to keep them for the whole year but if you opt to waive them, the team that lost the player has first dibs on claiming back the player (which often happens), then I believe it goes to the regular waiver priority order.

Teams often reclaim the players they lose, but if they go somewhere else and suck...the original team may let you send them to the minors and they'll be happy you took the contract off their hands.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

You don't have to keep them for the whole year but if you opt to waive them, the team that lost the player has first dibs on claiming back the player (which often happens), then I believe it goes to the regular waiver priority order.

Teams often reclaim the players they lose, but if they go somewhere else and suck...the original team may let you send them to the minors and they'll be happy you took the contract off their hands.

not only that: the former team doesn't only have dibs, but is the only team that can assign him to the AHL if they claim him back.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by burnitdown

You don't have to keep them for the whole year but if you opt to waive them, the team that lost the player has first dibs on claiming back the player (which often happens), then I believe it goes to the regular waiver priority order.

Teams often reclaim the players they lose, but if they go somewhere else and suck...the original team may let you send them to the minors and they'll be happy you took the contract off their hands.

The original team doesn't have priority. Waiver priority is the same regardless of how many times a player has been waived in a season. However, if a player is placed on waivers a second (or subsequent) time and the only team who puts in a claim is his original team, that team regains his rights and can send him to the AHL without putting him back on waivers.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by devo22

not only that: The former team doesn't only have dibs, but is the only team that can assign him to the ahl if they claim him back.

nm - likely have it wrong