Ales Kotalik on Re-entry Waivers

Kent Wilson
February 23 2011 10:35AM

 

 

 

According to Bob McKenzie, the Flames have put Ales Kotalik on re-entry waivers this morning. The move could be for the purposes of recalling him (unlikely) or to allow someone else to scoop him at half his current price for this year and next. If Kotalik does get claimed, the Flames will have $1.5M in dead cap space on their budget next season.

Also of interest is the fact that Nikolai Zherdev was placed on waivers by the Flyers today. The forever maligned russian actually has excellent underlying numbers in Philly this year so I don't know what the issue is with him, but he's a guy who could be worth a look for Calgary. It's a move Darryl Sutter never would have made, so if Feaster wants to start putting his own stamp on the team, claiming Zherdev would be a step in that direction.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 icedawg_42
February 23 2011, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

What if there's a "gentleman's agreement" where Philly puts Zherdev on waivers for us to grab, and in return the Flames give them Kotalik at half price? (i have no idea where Kotalik would fit in on that team) ---just reaching, and reaching to make sense of that Kotalik move.

Avatar
#2 jess
February 23 2011, 10:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Maybe they want a bigger body that won't get tickled off the puck as easily as Zherdev can be. Guy is a bit weak in the corners/etc, but in my opinion MUCH better than Kotalik.

Avatar
#3 Monaertchi
February 23 2011, 10:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Do the Flames have to put him back on the roster if he isn't claimed, or can they still leave him and his $3M in Abby?

Avatar
#4 RossCreekNation
February 23 2011, 10:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

My guess is ownership is willing to bury 1 of Kotalik or Hagman moving forward, but not both. If Kotalik is claimed, that eats up $1.5M in cap space, but then if Hagman is sent down, it will free up $3M in cap space. Total net gain = an additional $1.5M in cap room.

So the question is, is it better to spend $1.5M on nothing or $3M on Hagman?

Avatar
#6 jess
February 23 2011, 10:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Also to note, only 4 flames skaters have more goals than Zherdev on the season, and that's with Zherdev playing a majority of 4th line minutes and limited powerplay minutes, with an average of around 12 minutes.

Avatar
#8 RossCreekNation
February 23 2011, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Beeker

If Kotalik clears, the Flames can simply keep him down in Abby.

Avatar
#9 icedawg_42
February 23 2011, 10:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
RossCreekNation wrote:

My guess is ownership is willing to bury 1 of Kotalik or Hagman moving forward, but not both. If Kotalik is claimed, that eats up $1.5M in cap space, but then if Hagman is sent down, it will free up $3M in cap space. Total net gain = an additional $1.5M in cap room.

So the question is, is it better to spend $1.5M on nothing or $3M on Hagman?

Hard to say - Will Hagman ever start putting up points, or is he done for good ala Jeff Friesen?

Avatar
#11 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 10:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If AK clears, they should leave him down. If he stays in Abby and they claim Zherdev, they'd still have about 2.5M in cap space, even with Hagman still on the NHL roster.

Avatar
#12 icedawg_42
February 23 2011, 10:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Robert Cleave wrote:

If AK clears, they should leave him down. If he stays in Abby and they claim Zherdev, they'd still have about 2.5M in cap space, even with Hagman still on the NHL roster.

Is there a 'time limit' on re-entry waivers like the 30day/10 game waiver limit?

Avatar
#13 Scott
February 23 2011, 10:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If Kotalik is claimed on re entry and then goes to the KHL in the off season, does that 1.5 mil come off the books next year as well?

At this point, whichever of the two will play better defense, (Hagman) should play, this move is just ridiculous. But if he is picked up, that should signal the end of any trade talk as our cap space would be almost completely eaten up.

Avatar
#15 Scott
February 23 2011, 10:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Kent Wilson

Haha, Thats what I feared the most!

I would be shocked if he got picked up though, how could someone choose kotalik over hagman!

Lets hope these re-entry waivers also apply to re-entry in the KHL.

Avatar
#16 icedawg_42
February 23 2011, 10:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

If this move results in "nothing happening", im going to be completely baffled.

-EDIT: Not that im not baffled already

Avatar
#17 RossCreekNation
February 23 2011, 11:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Scott

Why would it end any trade talk? If Kotalik gets claimed, Hagman's $3M are heading for Abby & comes off the books. This move potentially creates MORE space.

Avatar
#18 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RossCreekNation

Assuming Hagman goes down, I would agree. But kotaliks salary is already off the books, so we would be adding back 1.5 to our cap through a kotalik waiver pickup, which puts us to just over a million in cap space. Moving Hagman would be the only option at that point. We couldn't just bring in a player, like we currently could without this waiver nonsense. Or moved Hagman down with Kotalik, or out, and then we would be in a better situation then having Kotalik claimed. I'm sure the millions they earned over the weekend could go to paying hagman to play with the Heat.

NHLNumbers have our cap space at 2.8 mil. currently.

Avatar
#19 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The only light in which I see this making sense other than RossCreek's idea, is that someone is injured and we're not hearing about it yet.

I really do not want to see the Flames eating 1.5M for the rest of this and all of next year. Just...rough on a cap strapped team.

Avatar
#20 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:13AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Scott

CapGeek shows our current max contract space at 4.5 million. With no disrespect to anyone else, that site is rarely off on these sorts of things.

Avatar
#21 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Both sites are correct. We don't have a lot of real space, but we have lots more contract space due to the cushion afforded us by Langkow's LTIR stay.

Avatar
#22 Vintage Flame
February 23 2011, 11:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

If this move results in "nothing happening", im going to be completely baffled.

-EDIT: Not that im not baffled already

Agreed.. This move this morning just makes little to no sense.

Avatar
#23 Rain Dogs
February 23 2011, 11:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I don't see the benefit of doing this. So, tell me why I'm stupid and lawyer Feaster is smarter than me.

Best case scenario:...... ummmm, what?

Worst case scenario: Kotalik is claimed and we're hit with 1.5million for it's impact this year and all of next.

So, if we're effectively wasting 1.5million for next year, and have already paid him near 3million this year... why not just wait until the summer and try and find a suitor in the KHL? or elsewhere?

What bad would come from leaving him in Abby and paying him the rest of his 3million... which is what? 730k?

Even IF we cannot find a place for him in the off-season, we could do the same thing next year at worst.

What is the benefit of doing this now?

Avatar
#24 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Vintage Flame

Agreed!

Makes me start doubting Feaster again. How he couldn't get a pick for Hagman, and now re-calling Kotalik. If something bigger isn't in the works, this whole situation looks to have been buggered up by Feaster, and probably puts in a worse situation cap wise next year than any of us would like!

On a side note, this would be better then a buy out right? A buy out next summer would have 1.5 mil on the cap for next year and the year after, I guess this moves it up one year..

Avatar
#25 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:23AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Scott wrote:

Agreed!

Makes me start doubting Feaster again. How he couldn't get a pick for Hagman, and now re-calling Kotalik. If something bigger isn't in the works, this whole situation looks to have been buggered up by Feaster, and probably puts in a worse situation cap wise next year than any of us would like!

On a side note, this would be better then a buy out right? A buy out next summer would have 1.5 mil on the cap for next year and the year after, I guess this moves it up one year..

AK's total buyout is 2M, with a cap hit of 1M each of the next two years.

Avatar
#26 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Fair enough, so they still have room to bring someone in, but from all the TSN, Sportsnet talk they keep mention how we have no cap space, or only 1 mil in cap space. I just i'm not up on Capology as i thought :)

Either way, at this point, I would rather not move anyone of value until the offseason, if that causes us to lose glencross, thats a risk i'm willing to take to see what this team can do.

I think Tanguay would resign here before anywhere else, so i'm not worried there. But that 1.5 mil in cap space next year needs to go to these guys, and not Kotalik!

Avatar
#27 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Exactly. Buyouts are 2/3 of current salary.

Avatar
#29 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Realistically, nobody's claiming him. It's just not happening. If Hagman wasn't getting claimed, Kotalik's even less likely.

Avatar
#30 CHW
February 23 2011, 11:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I can't see anyone picking him up. Not when Zherdev and Svatos are both also on waivers and there's no commitment to them next year. If you want a mercurial offense only winger Kotalik would be your last choice out of those three.

This strikes me as more about letting him know that no one in the league will take him at that contract. After this they will have exhausted all trade and waiver possibilities, so he'll know that the only possibilities are to stay in Abbotsford or go to Europe.

Avatar
#31 jess
February 23 2011, 11:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

ownership probably isn't in love with paying 6 mil for non-NHL roster players.

Zherdev should get claimed today, by someone, at least.

People at the office complaining that he's a lazy bum, but he beats the snot out of lesser competition and is scoring goals. Calgary could use him if they could get him motivated, and it's a UFA deal at the end of the season. Zero risk associated.

Avatar
#32 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

So while the buyout is lower, it extends until the beginning of the 2014 season? (2013/2014 offseason?)

The re-entry penalty comes off the books after the 2012/2013 season.

Maybe they don't see him going to the KHL, and this is the only alternative to a buyout?

Avatar
#33 RossCreekNation
February 23 2011, 11:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Scott

You're doubting Feaster because he couldn't get a pick for Hagman, yet nobody took him for free? So why would they be able to get a pick then?

Avatar
#34 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Arik wrote:

Exactly. Buyouts are 2/3 of current salary.

Generally speaking, yes. Front or back loading a contract will skew that, though. Matt Satjan has three years at 3.5M left, but his buyout isn't 2/3 of 10.5 M. It's 2/3 of 9.5M, since the Flames are paying him 4.5M this year in actual cash.

Avatar
#35 SmellOfVictory
February 23 2011, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Considering Kotalik explicitly said that this would be his last year playing hockey in N. America if he stayed down in the AHL, this strikes me as an exceedingly stupid move on Feaster's part.

Avatar
#36 jess
February 23 2011, 11:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

speaking of stajan, he's next on the wire.

Avatar
#37 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Scott wrote:

So while the buyout is lower, it extends until the beginning of the 2014 season? (2013/2014 offseason?)

The re-entry penalty comes off the books after the 2012/2013 season.

Maybe they don't see him going to the KHL, and this is the only alternative to a buyout?

If he's claimed, his money comes off CGY's cap after the 11/12 year, at the end of his contract. A buyout would carry over the next two years, ending after 12/13.

Avatar
#38 Rain Dogs
February 23 2011, 11:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As well, the injury thing doesn't fly, because:

1. Feaster said "youth", has brought up Bouma already and could do it again with him or other with no problems.

2. It's Kotalik... too many negatives, not enough positives, and maybe could be claimed.

The only reason I can see is they want him be claimed at 1.5... which I see as having no benefit to the Flames, and none really to Abby, and so little to the owners pocket books.

So, I've gotta be too dumb to know why, cause I don't see anything there.

Avatar
#39 RossCreekNation
February 23 2011, 11:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RoberCleave

So currently with room for a max cap hit of 4.5, would my theory then up that to 6? Or is it pro-rated?

Avatar
#40 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Rain Dogs wrote:

As well, the injury thing doesn't fly, because:

1. Feaster said "youth", has brought up Bouma already and could do it again with him or other with no problems.

2. It's Kotalik... too many negatives, not enough positives, and maybe could be claimed.

The only reason I can see is they want him be claimed at 1.5... which I see as having no benefit to the Flames, and none really to Abby, and so little to the owners pocket books.

So, I've gotta be too dumb to know why, cause I don't see anything there.

I can't see why, either. If the owners are worried about what they're paying Kotalik and have transmitted that to Feaster, it's completely out of character with their past behavior.

Avatar
#41 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
RossCreekNation wrote:

@RoberCleave

So currently with room for a max cap hit of 4.5, would my theory then up that to 6? Or is it pro-rated?

Maybe, but I'm inclined to leave that in the hands of experts. LTIR rules make a mess of a lot of this.

Avatar
#42 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Rain Dogs

Depends on where the injury is in the lineup. As much as I hate to admit it, Kotalik is better for a playoff push than Nemisz or Bouma or...Chucko? Significantly better? No. Better? Yesish.

Avatar
#43 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Maybe its the Souray affect, and they feel Kotalik is poisoning our Heat players. They feel the penalty is worth it to get him out of the locker room.

Also,

Thanks, I mixed up the years and added in a season somewhere along the line.

Avatar
#44 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

Maybe its the Souray affect, and they feel Kotalik is poisoning our Heat players. They feel the penalty is worth it to get him out of the locker room.

Also,

Thanks, I mixed up the years and added in a season somewhere along the line.

Avatar
#45 Arik
February 23 2011, 11:40AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Robert Cleave

I work with government contracts and contracting regulations on a daily basis and the CBA section on LTIR makes them look like light toilet reading.

Avatar
#46 Scott
February 23 2011, 11:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RossCreekNation

Good point, I guess they may not have been able to get a pick for him. I still think he is worth it to someone, but apparently not.

Having these guys and Staios off the books next year should give us plenty of spending money, and possibly for a langkow return (highly unlikely at this point i think).

Avatar
#47 Robert Cleave
February 23 2011, 11:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Arik wrote:

I work with government contracts and contracting regulations on a daily basis and the CBA section on LTIR makes them look like light toilet reading.

Likewise. I have a 200 page CBA that I work under with a surprising number of similarities to the NHL CBA, especially regarding the concepts of seniority, but parts of the NHL CBA are so poorly written that there are more than a few club employees on various teams that struggle comprehending it.

Avatar
#48 Rain Dogs
February 23 2011, 11:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@RossCreekNation

Sure, but Kotalik and Hagman aren't intimately tied together.

There is nothing stopping Hagman from going down and saving his hit going forward.

They've both already been paid, or will be, over 2/3 of their salary this year.

Any "savings" are losses against the future at this point.

The Flames have already paid nearly 5 million of both their contracts for their services through 60 games.

At this point, we're only talking next year, which I would think should be dealt with in the summer.

A playoff first round is worth one of their costs next year in revenue. Why handicap that now?

Avatar
#49 Rain Dogs
February 23 2011, 11:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Arik

Maybe, but unless it's long term or to either Iginla or Bourque... it's not.

And if Iggy or Bourque were out long term, we would have heard by now.

Plus, I'm sure you could pick up someone to fill an Iggy or Bourque hole who is better.... like Zherdev, as many have mentioned.

Avatar
#50 Resolute
February 23 2011, 11:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Assuming a player who clears re-entry waivers has the same 10 game/30 day window to be recalled, then this could be a move where the team hopes nothing happens. If we come to the point where we decide we need Kotalik recalled (i.e.: due to injury), having him cleared now gives the team greater flexibility.

If he gets claimed, well, deal with the $1.5 million next year.

Comments are closed for this article.