Talk:Waivers (NHL)

Wade Redden and the salary cap[edit]

This is an article on how Waivers operate in the NHL. It is not an article of how the Salary Cap has resulted in Wade Redden being sent to the AHL. No more than a single sentence mention of this issue (to incorporate a wikilink) is necessary. The addition of superfluous thoughts and opinions on Wade Redden and the salary cap is disruptive to the informative aspect of this article, and they would be better placed in Wade Redden article (where such remarks are already listed); or in the NHL Salary Cap article, but not here. Dolovis (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. One of the reasons that Redden was waived was to get the Rangers under the cap. I removed that from the caption. Yes of course his play was not up to $6mil standards or they would have kept him. However, I added Redden's case as an example of a waiver. It is a famous example. As for whether or not it is a trend, I do recall some discussion at the time about hockey media considering this a 'loophole'. I try not to use my opinion -- I'm not a newbie editor. As for the choice of article, you could probably make the same argument at the salary cap article - why is this not in the waiver article. I'll edit this further and I hope we are ok. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the wording you used as a start. Let's try to move forward, ok? How would you like to cover this case of Redden waived? A separate paragraph or pointer to a section at the salary cap article?ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the majority of your edits to this article, as you have added a lot of valuable information concerning the NHL Waiver process. I also think that there is room in this article for a mention of the Wade Redden/Salary Cap issue, (and my edits to this article always retained a mention of the issues you raised). The reason for my concern is that it is not a simple issue, and "Salary Cap" does not fully explain why Redden cleared waivers as it was the deterioration of his play that ultimately cost him a spot on an NHL roster. The Wade Redden and NHL Salary Cap articles are better suited to fully explain the issues. I think that it is enough to mention that when Wade Redden, a former NHL All-Start, cleared waivers it was an indication that the NHL Waiver process could be used by NHL teams to shed Salary Cap space. Any more than that is superfluous to this article, and is better suited elsewhere. One final note - I like the idea of using Redden's photo as the "poster-boy" of the NHL Waiver article, it was just the description that I thought needed to be changed to remove the contentious opinion. Dolovis (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when you have Redden, Souray and Finger in the minors, it is a bit of a trend to use waivers in this way. I'd suggest that someone else look over the article. I'll post at wt:hockey. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with any list of examples is that it tends to be come a Christmas tree that everyone wants to hang their favourite names on. I'm not sure what the best solution is: having a few examples is useful in order to allow readers to see more details about how players are being assigned to the minors due to salary cap issues, but given that the number of players in this situation will continue to grow, there is a bit of resulting undue emphasis. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the list of examples is necessary. Actually, I think it muddies the waters in this case. Waiving Redden, Souray and Finger didn't get those teams under the salary cap. They are all prominent players who were waived, but "prominent" is very subjective. Assigning them to the minors got their NHL teams under the salary cap - passing through waivers was a step that had to be taken to assign them to the minors. Waivers are a claim process, the salary cap and the NHL roster are a different story. Canada Hky (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiving Redden did get the Rangers under the cap. That's cited in this article and in Redden's. Would you leave in the mention of waiving to save salary cap, but not the players? Would you leave in the photo of Redden? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally - I would take out most mentions of waiving with respect to the salary cap and specific players, and focus on the actual process. Possibly a mention at the end of teams using waivers as a loophole, but I imagine that might quickly become obsolete as the NHL closes that, much as they did with the really long term contracts. The NHL's rules and CBA on the subject make very little mention of the salary cap with regards to waivers, and focus on waiver eligibility, etc. As for the picture of Redden - I don't think it adds anything to the article. I wouldn't necessarily remove it, but I wouldn't have added it, either. Canada Hky (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are good points. Articles are always better with a picture. I think Redden might be the most famous case of a waiver in recent memory. Maybe a section on Waivers and Salary cap following the current sections. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, though I think a specific example may be instructive, I believe it would be better placed in the NHL Salary Cap article (any reason why "Salary Cap" is capitalized?). On a side note, I don't believe there is a salary cap loophole that needs to be closed—if a player isn't on the roster, there shouldn't be a salary cap hit. However, a closer look at the disincentives of moving players up and down may be desirable, to avoid teams banking talent in the minors. (I'm not sure how it works in the NHL; in MLB, there are various complex rules to try to keep this from happening.) Isaac Lin (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think there was discussion during the CBA talks about preventing waives of high-priced player. But nothing came of it. This was mentioned at the time that Redden was put on waivers. I don't think anyone would object to renaming the salary cap article. Not sure if it should be Salary cap (NHL) or NHL Salary cap, though. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NBA one is 'NBA Salary Cap'. So both could be moved to lower-case 'C' titles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section you added on waivers and the salary cap, as Canada Hky said above, it's the assignment that results in a player's salary coming off the payroll. Waivers is just the process. I agree with Canada Hky that this article should make minimal mention of the result of the assignment, and I suggest that the reader be referred to the salary cap article for a more complete discussion of how assignment to a minor league team is used. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect was illustrated in 2009 when the Senators put Marty Gerber on waivers several times before the Maple Leafs picked him up. That waivers are used to attempt to push an unwanted player to another team. The Blackhawks did that with Khabibulin too, if I recall. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those situations really seem to fit better on the players' pages rather than one about waivers, where they can be described in detail. Trade (sports) doesn't need to include all the information and examples about the situations that could arise out of the initial action, nor does this article. Canada Hky (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another situation to discuss. Teams can put a player on waivers but not assign the players to the affiliate team. The Rangers did it at the start of the season, and Ottawa just did it with Brian Lee. I don't think the Rangers had to do re-entry waivers on White to put him back in the lineup. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of Redden seems arbitrary and kind of random. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waivers (NHL) → Waiver (NHL) — Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). While often used in the plural, this is not a term "always in a plural form in English", nor any of the other specified exceptions to the naming convention. Inbound links are variously from text such as "waiver", "waived", "waivered", etc, so a rename would actually be somewhat useful for link-piping, as well as more conventional. See also Talk:Waivers#Requested move and Talk:Waivers (American football)#Requested move Smartiger (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not support - I don't believe that the convention applies here. We are not talking about a thing that is discussed in the singular. When a player is made available, all teams must pass or "waive" their claim on the player. It's not a contract item, which is what a waiver is. It is "waivers" in common usage, which in some ways is not a sensible use of English, but it is the common usage. Also, changing it to singular provides no benefit when writing an article, as the article is still titled with a bracketed portion of the title Waiver (NHL) still would require piping (|). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to be slightly more precise, I'm suggesting it would make it slightly easier and more convenient to pipe the likes of "[[waiver (NHL)|]] claim", as opposed to "[[waivers (NHL)|waiver]] claim". No actual pipe symbols per se are conserved, I'll concede. Not a major concern, I'll grant you, though it is part of the logic of using the singular in general. Smartiger (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Singular use is not uncommon.[1] That it would still need piping is not in question -- it would follow guidelines without costing anything (so no reason to WP:IAR). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what you reference is the -phrase- waiver claim. In that case, both words are necessary. Still not the same as 'waiver' used by itself. The phrase is another example of bad English, as the process gives each NHL team the choice of putting in a claim for a player, instead of 'waiving' its claim to a player. A waiver claim, while used and understood, is an oxymoron. At any rate, the article is not about a singular claim made by a team. The article is about the waivers -process.- ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning about it being "bad English", but even if I did, the issue would remain one of actual, not "correct" usage (in suitable sources, that is). As far as I can tell, no-one ever says "waivers wire", "waivers wire", etc. I'll grant you, however, that the usage here does seem to be almost always "put on waivers", whereas for the NFL concept usage is much more mixed. (I'm not sure if that's a general effect, or a Wikipedia-specific one.) Alternatively, is there anything to be said for a title of the form "Waivers in the NFL", "NFL waiver system", etc? Smartiger (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alaney2k. Pretty much never used in the singular. Plus I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that a team obtains a waiver to enable it to alter the status of a roster player under certain circumstances, the commonly used term for the concept in general is the plural form, "waivers", since the team is obtaining a waiver from each of the other teams to proceed. Since this article deals with the general concept, the plural form is probably more suitable. isaacl (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is known, in hockey, almost exclusively in the plural form. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn whether or not this fits conventional English usage, is happy-making for link-piping - what, it saves two-thirds of a second for the vanishingly few times people feel the need to link "waivers"??? - or any other such nonsense. A cut and dried WP:COMMONNAME matter. Ravenswing 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Invariably, a player is described as being placed on waivers. In fact, it is called such in the NHL's collective bargaining agreement (section 13: Waivers and loans of players to minor league clubs). There are cases where it is used in the singular (i.e.: waiver period) but most uses will use the plural. Reso lute 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.