In a move that’s raising eyebrows across the hockey world, the Minnesota Wild have placed defenseman Matt Kiersted on waivers—again. But here’s where it gets controversial: is this a strategic roster shuffle or a sign of deeper organizational challenges? Let’s break it down.
Earlier this week, the Wild made headlines by running veteran forward Tyler Pitlick through waivers, not to demote him, but to reset his 10-game, 30-day exemption period. Now, they’re seemingly repeating the tactic with Kiersted, as Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman reported (Twitter link). This isn’t the first time Kiersted has faced waivers this season—he also cleared during training camp. So, what’s the play here?
The 27-year-old Kiersted, in his first season with Minnesota after signing a two-year, two-way deal ($775K AAV) last summer, was expected to be a cornerstone in Iowa (AHL) and a reliable depth option for the Wild. With 41 NHL games under his belt before this season, he brought experience to the table. And so far, he’s largely delivered on those expectations.
In Iowa, Kiersted has suited up for 23 games, contributing three assists—nothing flashy offensively, but his defensive play has been a standout. That performance earned him a call-up in early December, and he’s been with the Wild since. However, playing time in Minnesota has been scarce, with just four games played, one assist, and five blocked shots in limited ice time (13:42 per game). While he hasn’t hit the 10-game mark, his 30-day waiver exemption has expired, prompting this latest move.
And this is the part most people miss: if Kiersted clears waivers (again), the Wild have a choice to make. Do they keep him in his current reserve role, or send him back to Iowa to free up salary cap space and roster flexibility? It’s a decision that could ripple through their lineup strategy.
But here’s the real question: Is this a smart roster management tactic, or does it hint at a lack of long-term planning? Some argue that repeatedly waiving players like Kiersted and Pitlick could undermine team morale or signal uncertainty in the front office. Others see it as a necessary chess move in the NHL’s cap-constrained reality. What do you think? Is this a masterstroke or a misstep? Let’s hear your take in the comments below!
