The answer to the Hickey/Muzzin (and King) waiver mystery

  • This morning, the Mayor reported (or, I guess, tweeted) that several Kings prospects playing in the AHL were being put through waivers.
  • Those players were Thomas Hickey, Marc-Andre Cliche, Andrew Campbell and Rich Clune.
  • Previously, Jake Muzzin was recalled from Manchester and is currently in camp with the Kings.
  • Those five names are the ones Rich Hammond identified back in September as being eligible for an AHL-only contract in the event of a lock-out. All five did eventually sign AHL contracts and report to Manchester.
  • However, they were never “loaned” to Manchester, since it was during the lock-out, so there could be no such transaction.
  • The same thing was true for Dwight King, who signed an AHL-only contract and played in Manchester during the lock-out.
  • I asked at the time why King could do this since his waiver-exemption (like Hickey et al) had expired. (See the snippet of article below.)
  • So, to answer the several questions people asked this morning: Jake Muzzin did not have to clear waivers because he was never “on loan” to Manchester. He was “locked-out.” When the new CBA was signed, he was right where he was on September 14, on the Kings.
  • But: Hickey, Campbell, Cliche and Clune DO have to clear waivers, because they are playing in Manchester, and — with the new CBA in effect — the only way they can play in the AHL is if they are “loaned” to Manchester, which — because they aren’t waiver-exempt — requires that they pass through waivers.
  • The tricky fake-out part is Muzzin, because he was “recalled” according to everyone’s reporting, but in fact he wasn’t recalled because he never left. Same with King. Never left.
  • Tricky part 2.0: Hickey et al were waived in order to be assigned, but they were being assigned to a place they had already been for several months.
  • Muzzin will in fact have to clear waivers if he is sent down to Manchester. Just like Hickey et al.

How is Dwight King going to avoid waivers? (10/19/12) _/ . MCSORLEY’S STICK

Mayor’s Manor reports that Dwight King has “signed a minor league contract” and is going to play in Manchester. […] All of the Kings’ waiver-exempt players (Andrei Loktionov, Jordan Nolan, Slava Voynov) were loaned to Manchester before the September 15 lock-out date, per a special agreement between the NHL and the union, allowing the usual waiver period to be moved up several days. King, whose exemption expired at the end of this season, was not sent down. However, it appears the Kings have decided that it’s safe to, in effect, send him down now. Since there is no CBA, there is no waiver process to clear. I get that. But what’s going to happen when hockey resumes and players have to be assigned? Where is King, officially? He can’t be on loan to the Monarchs, because he hasn’t been loaned, because there is no process for loaning players right now (because there’s no CBA). He’s off the reservation, just like Anze Kopitar, Alec Martinez, Jonathan Bernier and all the other NHLers who signed to play in Europe. The Kings have (I assume they gave their blessing to this) decided that King is allowed to sign with Manchester just like Kopitar is free to sign in Sweden. But this is a grey area. What’s stopping the Kings from having their entire team sign minor league contracts in Manchester and in effect having an off-the-books training camp and pre-season?

 

 

  4 comments for “The answer to the Hickey/Muzzin (and King) waiver mystery

  1. SCSF
    January 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    Ah, now I see. Kind of. Not really. Maybe. But as long as those distinctions are clear in your mind, I’ll force myself to forget about this, as opposed to sketching out a decision matrix or flowchart.

  2. Double Tall Man
    January 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM

    Do we get anything back for losing him?

    • January 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

      Short answer: no. Longer answer: a very small (by league standards) dollar amount. It varies depending on the number of years the player has been signed to an NHL contract. Under the old CBA, for a player who has been signed for five years it’s $15K, and signed for four years it’s $63K. Numbers may have been indexed for inflation etc since 2005.

      • Double Tall Man
        January 15, 2013 at 1:42 PM

        That kinda sucks……..but look on the bright side we won the cup!!!!!!!!!!

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.