• Oilers claim Ryan Jones

    by  • March 3, 2010 • Uncategorized • 10 Comments

    Look, I don’t like putting the boots to Steve Tambellini over small stuff. There has been, however, a growing sense that he’s utterly clueless when it comes to negotiations. See, for example, the Khabibulin deal. The following sequence of events blows my mind:

    March 1, 2010 – Edmonton trades Denis Grebeshkov to Nashville for a second round draft pick
    March 2, 2010 – Nashville puts Ryan Jones on waivers
    March 3, 2010 – Edmonton claims Ryan Jones off waivers

    Dan Tencer is now reporting that the Oilers have had interest in Jones for some time. Here’s what I don’t get. The return on Grebeshkov has been crticized in some corners as being light. I don’t have strong feelings either way on this question, although I’ve come around to agreeing that it was a curious time to make the deal. What I don’t understand, if the Oilers had some interest in Jones, is why they didn’t get him as part of the Grebeshkov deal. If I’m reading the CBA correctly, the waiver price for Ryan Jones was $67,500.00.

    There would seem to be two possibilities. First, they didn’t ask for Jones. This seems to be the most likely to me. It doesn’t reflect well on Tambellini if true. Second, Nashville really needed the $67,500.00 that they’d get if they waived Jones and this was a way for the Oilers and Predators to circumvent the bar in the CBA against sending money to a team. I’ve got no problems with this – I’m firmly of the view that if it’s not expressly forbidden by the CBA, it’s ok – but that’s an interesting story in and of itself. Hope someone picks up on this.


    10 Responses to Oilers claim Ryan Jones

    1. David Staples
      March 3, 2010 at

      If the rules allow it, it’s OK.

      Yes, you are a lawyer.

    2. March 3, 2010 at

      It’s also possible the Predators would ask for something extra to add Jones to a Grebeshkov deal. Why would the Preds give up that much cash out of the goodness of their hearts? Why would the Oilers surrender an asset for Jones when they could get him for cash two days later?

    3. dawgbone
      March 3, 2010 at

      Gregor pretty much confirmed that Jones was not part of the Grebs deal. In his words, if he was, Nashville would have given up a lower pick.

    4. mclea
      March 3, 2010 at

      So have we accepted that expiring contracts have some incremental value now? Without the liquidity provided by draft picks and expiring contracts, there would have been about two trades today.

    5. Julian
      March 3, 2010 at

      Uh, Tyler, no one else is going to pick up on this. Those are high expectations for the media you’ve still got there.

    6. gogliano
      March 3, 2010 at

      What about this scenario:

      Tambs asks for Jones. Nashville says no, we want more if you get Jones. Tambs says, well, you’ll have to pass a player through waivers, so we aren’t biting. Nashville says, maybe, but you aren’t getting Jones for free. Tambs say, fine, let’s deal, we are first in line for waivers so if he is going down we get him… Nashville says screw it, takes the cash for Jones, even though they tried to bluff for something else.

      Now I suppose you can say you didn’t stop the negotiations at a rational point, but it is a scenario where Tambs uses a weapon at his disposal (being first on the waiver wire).

    7. Devin
      March 3, 2010 at

      Could it have something to do with the lift on roster size that kicked in today? I’ve given up on following the intricacies of this team so not sure whether they had the room to add that extra body until today.

      Wtf is Gregor smoking, btw? Why would NSH downgrade the pick to trade a guy they were going to put on waivers the next day? Apart from $67K what does that have to do with anything? This had to have been discussed between the GMs, and the $67k was a convenient way around cap and roster size issues.

      Then again, we just traded our best D-man for a taller version of Grebeshkov making $4m. Jeebus.

    8. Kyle M
      March 3, 2010 at

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it more advantageous to pick up Jones off waivers because Nashville remains on the hook for some of that salary?

    9. March 3, 2010 at

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it more advantageous to pick up Jones off waivers because Nashville remains on the hook for some of that salary?

      I could be wrong, but I think that’s only coming BACK from waivers. Like with Avery, he was sent down, then a couple days later called up, and on the re-entry he was claimed by NYR. Going down in the first place is just a chance to claim someone’s contract, coming back to the NHL is a chance to claim half of their contract.

      I think.

    10. RiversQ
      March 3, 2010 at

      Maybe I don’t hate these deals individually, but I think if you look at the moves on D as part of the whole picture, it’s really ugly.

      Grebs, Staios, Visnovsky go out the door and then they add one dman who’s questionably even worse than each of the outgoing players in terms of performance/$. Basically, my point is that sure the cap space got better, but the efficiency for players under contract may even be worse.

      One can only wonder what Tambellini will now do with this cap space. Frightening stuff.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *