Jump to content

Leafs Interested In Michael Leighton?


Guest Leach27
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://spectorshockey.net/wordpress/2011/11/11/latest-on-the-leafs-islanders-and-blue-jackets/

"THE GLOBE AND MAIL: James Mirtle recently examined the Toronto Maple Leafs shaky goaltending situation, noting possible “fill-in” solutions aren’t “worldbeaters”, listing Evgeni Nabokov of the NY Islanders, Scott Clemmensen of the Florida Panthers, Michael Leighton of the Philadelphia Flyers, and UFA Marty Turco."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a not a good idea to trade him if we have to recall him first then he would be subject to reentry waivers and Toronto can just claim him for nothing. We would be on the hook for half his salary, not sure we we can trade him while he's still in the AHL and don't think Toronto will trade for him if he's in the AHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a not a good idea to trade him if we have to recall him first then he would be subject to reentry waivers and Toronto can just claim him for nothing. We would be on the hook for half his salary, not sure we we can trade him while he's still in the AHL and don't think Toronto will trade for him if he's in the AHL.

man, I hope someone who knows weighs in on this cause you bring up a good point if valid. That said, I'm not sure why you couldn't trade an NHLer who happens to be currently playing for the farm team without having to do the waiver hokey pokey. If Toronto called the Flyers and said "we'd like to make a trade" why would the Flyers have to call him up first? And I can't understand whether or not him still being in the AHL would effect Toronto's decision to pursue him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man, I hope someone who knows weighs in on this cause you bring up a good point if valid. That said, I'm not sure why you couldn't trade an NHLer who happens to be currently playing for the farm team without having to do the waiver hokey pokey. If Toronto called the Flyers and said "we'd like to make a trade" why would the Flyers have to call him up first? And I can't understand whether or not him still being in the AHL would effect Toronto's decision to pursue him.

i'm fairly sure that he would have to go through re-entry at some point to play for the leafs. my understanding is the flyers can trade him as-is, but he'd go from minor league team to minor league team, and would have to be recalled from the marlies. i'm not 100% about it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm fairly sure that he would have to go through re-entry at some point to play for the leafs. my understanding is the flyers can trade him as-is, but he'd go from minor league team to minor league team, and would have to be recalled from the marlies. i'm not 100% about it, though.

\\

I find that VERY interesting. So you're saying that if Toronto picked him up and then wanted him on the Leafs, they'd have to deal with re-entry waivers? Seems kind of unfair to both the player and the team looking to pick him up. I mean, if that were the case it's just another reason a player would continue to rot in the AHL, which I believe the waiver thing is supposed to help prevent. Why would I bring a player up through re-entry when I know another team is interested in him? I'd basically be giving him away AND covering some of his pay? The only way I would do that is if the organization was short on actual cash, which the Flyers aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems kind of unfair to both the player and the team looking to pick him up. I mean, if that were the case it's just another reason a player would continue to rot in the AHL, which I believe the waiver thing is supposed to help prevent. Why would I bring a player up through re-entry when I know another team is interested in him? I'd basically be giving him away AND covering some of his pay? The only way I would do that is if the organization was short on actual cash, which the Flyers aren't.

well, suffice to say the re-entry waiver rule didn't work out the way it was supposed to. it was put in place to discourage teams from burying vet players in the minors. the idea was that teams wouldn't be willing to lose the flexibility that re-entry waivers removes, so they wouldn't send those players down to begin with.

it is one rule i am positive will be removed or at least heavily modified in the next CBA. as it stands, it is a nobody-wins situation, i agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, suffice to say the re-entry waiver rule didn't work out the way it was supposed to. it was put in place to discourage teams from burying vet players in the minors. the idea was that teams wouldn't be willing to lose the flexibility that re-entry waivers removes, so they wouldn't send those players down to begin with.

it is one rule i am positive will be removed or at least heavily modified in the next CBA. as it stands, it is a nobody-wins situation, i agree.

Excellent point aziz. If the Flyers were on the hook for 1/2 his salary only(not applicable to the cap), He would already be a Leaf playing in the NHL again. This rule is most detrimental to the border line players(like Leighton). For the cap hit alone, Leighton will not be moved unless Homer were to get some kind of waiver waiver which would remove the cap hit for the Flyers. I guess it would be possible if they could get the Board of Governors(who just happen to be meeting next week) to agree to the waiver waiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not on a trade, only if it's on reentry waiver claim.

right,that's what I meant then. My scenario doesn't have the Flyers calling on re-entry waivers. That would be stupid to do so when you know a team is looking for that player. That's why I was confused about needing to do that in order to trade a player. No team in their right mind would recall a player they know another team has interest in. You can't quite trade a player you know a team will grab off of waivers. So with that in mind where is the incentive? There isn't any. The waiver rule is designed so teams don't stock pile players only to have them rot in the AHL. But if a team has an NHLer in the AHL, and they can't trade that player without recalling them first, then the team wouldn't bother even looking at the deal because no trade would be needed, the team could just grab the player, at half cost and half cap hit. Hence my overall point from the get go. It doesn't make sense to me that a team would first bring a player through re-entry in order to trade them. Which to me goes against what the waiver rule was protecting against in the first place. the rule might be the rule but it deems dumb to me. Looks like the Flyers will be letting Leighton walk at the end of the season since there really isn't any other viable option without penalizing the team in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right,that's what I meant then. My scenario doesn't have the Flyers calling on re-entry waivers. That would be stupid to do so when you know a team is looking for that player. That's why I was confused about needing to do that in order to trade a player. No team in their right mind would recall a player they know another team has interest in. You can't quite trade a player you know a team will grab off of waivers. So with that in mind where is the incentive? There isn't any. The waiver rule is designed so teams don't stock pile players only to have them rot in the AHL. But if a team has an NHLer in the AHL, and they can't trade that player without recalling them first, then the team wouldn't bother even looking at the deal because no trade would be needed, the team could just grab the player, at half cost and half cap hit. Hence my overall point from the get go. It doesn't make sense to me that a team would first bring a player through re-entry in order to trade them. Which to me goes against what the waiver rule was protecting against in the first place. the rule might be the rule but it deems dumb to me. Looks like the Flyers will be letting Leighton walk at the end of the season since there really isn't any other viable option without penalizing the team in some way.

Could he be traded to the Marlies(AHL to AHL) or due to his contract, would he have to be recalled to the NHL? Then the onus would be on Toronto to try and bring him through waivers. Is that possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clemmenson is just coming back from knee surgery, he was the back-up to Theodore in the last game or so. I thought prior to his injury in training camp he was slated to be the starter, Markstrom and Theodore have played well. Maybe he plays his first game of the year tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

\\

I find that VERY interesting. So you're saying that if Toronto picked him up and then wanted him on the Leafs, they'd have to deal with re-entry waivers? Seems kind of unfair to both the player and the team looking to pick him up. I mean, if that were the case it's just another reason a player would continue to rot in the AHL, which I believe the waiver thing is supposed to help prevent. Why would I bring a player up through re-entry when I know another team is interested in him? I'd basically be giving him away AND covering some of his pay? The only way I would do that is if the organization was short on actual cash, which the Flyers aren't.

If he's put on waivers I bet the Bluejackets pick him up before anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm fairly sure that he would have to go through re-entry at some point to play for the leafs. my understanding is the flyers can trade him as-is, but he'd go from minor league team to minor league team, and would have to be recalled from the marlies. i'm not 100% about it, though.

I was thinking the same thing. The twist would be that Comcast no longer owns the Phantoms (Brooks Group does). My understanding is the Flyers own the players and the Books group owns the operation / business side. Leighton is the starting goalie for the Phantoms and doing quite well. Backlund has not started a game this year (I guess injured). So, unless Toronto wants to give the Phantoms a goalie prospect in return, trading leighton would actually handcuff the Phantoms (believe it or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...