I've thought about this quite a bit since we started our unique waiver system. I'm 50/50 on it. On one hand, it is more accurate to what the NHL does, which I like. On the other hand, from the start I have favored a stricter approach to handling salaries. I like the salary cap itself to be a very important element to how we run our teams. And, inserting ways to circumvent our cap situations takes away from the strategy of dealing with the cap. We all picked our teams and knew what bad and good contracts we were inheriting, and moving forward we make trades, sign extensions and hire FA's to help our teams. If we make bad deals I feel we should have to suffer the consequences. I took on the Bruins with Chara signed at $7m until he's 41 years old. In a few years when he slows down it doesn't seem fair that I should be able to bury his contract in my minors, even if that takes away a roster position I could give to a young player.
While it is true to what the NHL does, in reality the teams that move players via waivers to their minors are still paying these players even if they're not effecting their cap. Where for us the money would just disappear.
That's where I stand on it, on the fence but leaning towards no change. I'm happy to make this change if a majority of the league wants it. So let's hear some opinions.