Baggins

Just a moment too late but thanks.

Actually the second one was in response to your quote that included a team walking away from awards above an amount. Meaning a team can walk away if conditions are met. Simply saying "they can't walk away" is a false statement when there are conditions they can walk away. My first staement was incorrect they can simply walk away from an arb award. That was based on remembering the Bruins walking away from one. That said, I finally found a case where a player signed before arbitration and a buyout occured. So my interpretation of the clause was incorrect. The Rangers bought a player out in 2019 after coming to terms with Pavel Buchnevich before arbitration. It took me awhile to find one but I finally did. Walking away from an arb award rarely happens. But buyouts after signing a player that filed for arb doesn't seem to happen that often either. It seems teams are more likely to trade a player to have cap space for an RFA than walk away from an arb award or go the buyout route. I know what settlement means, again with unessassary insults. But as I said my interpretation of that clause was it refering to multiple player arbitrations.

1 - I didn't say they could. But there's are terms where a team can walk away. Simply saying they can't walk away is false because there are conditions they can. 2 - I'm not sold on that interpretation. I believe that refers to teams with more than one player filing for arbitration. Open the buyout after receipt of a settlement or after the final arb settlement.

I'm aware. I read it and stated as much. Boston walked away from an arb award some years back. So, yes a team can walk away in some instances.

So the team is allowed to walk away from an arb award and the player simply becomes a ufa. Again, it's not that often these players actually make it to arbitration. Particularly lower cost players. Most of these arb filings are "just in case". According to what I read it specifically says a second buyout can opened "3 days after an arb award for a period of 48 hours". No arb award = no buyout. Nowhere have I seen an additional buyout after a negotiated offseason deal. Go ahead and find me something that does not specify "after an arb award". Then I'll believe it. Here's what I found: Clubs are permitted to perform a buyout outside the regular period during the 48 hour period beginning on the third day after the final of [CBA 13 (c)ii]: Settlement of the Club's final arbitration case, or Receipt of the Club's last arbitration award Requirements.. Btw, I did look up buyouts and all the came up was June buyouts. After somebody said "arbitration buyouts" I changed my search and found it. There's no need to play at being ignorant and insulting here.

Well duh, if a team doesn't like the arb amount they simply walk away without spending a cent. I'm saying the majority that file for arb sign a contract without actually going to arb. If there's no arb hearing there's no arb settlement. If there's no arb settlement there's no extra buyout period.

Ok now I found that. Looking up "buyouts" all I got was compliance. Arbitration buyouts isn't mentioned at all. Although I remembered the extra buyout option from the last CBA for two years. Thanks! That said I doubt there will be any arb buyouts. The arb buyout option is a 48 hr window three days after an arbitration settlement. The majority are settled without actually going to arbitration.

Got a link? The CBA signed after the shortened 12/13 season allowed for a second buyout before the season started for 2013 and 14 only. Giving teams the chance to adjust to the new CBA. But I've seen nothing about the NHL/NHLPA agreeing to renewing an extra buyout since then.

Nope. A second buyout period, before the start of the season, was allowed only in the first two years of the CBA so teams could adjust to that new contract. That was for 2013 and 2014 seasons only.

The buyout period ended June 30th.

still... a... longshot...

His half seasons is why I said he had ample opportunity to succeed. Yet still failed to secure a spot. It just took him too long to figure out how to succeed in the NHL. Some are simply late bloomers that just take time to figure it out. Some never do figure out translating AHL success into NHL success.

So you're saying if you were the GM of one of the six bottom teams in the league you wouldn't take Hogs for free? You usually speak so highly of him. Rath and Woo are a coin toss but I don't see Hogs clearing. And Hogs has more competition to make the team than Rath and Woo have.

When JB dealt him he was just a 5th round longshot without any guarantee. He was traded like 7 or 8 months after being drafted. If there was any certainty of Forsling becoming a top 4 d-man he would have been drafted long before the 5th round. He was a longshot years away and nothing more. Clendening was further along and at least had some NHL experience along with AHL success. The only real difference between Clendening and Forsling in Chicago was Clen was behind a contender D and barely had an NHL opportunity, while Forsling was behind a weaker Chicago team and had ample NHL opportunity to seize a regular spot. In the end both had run out of time in Chicago because of waiver elligibity. Personally I think it took Forsling being traded by Chicago and then claimed off waivers to finally have the penny drop and get it all together. Clendening was just another in a long list of players with AHL success that didn't translate to NHL success.

Forsling took too long to get to where he needed to be for a full time NHL spot. That goes ignored around here. Chicago traded him to the Canes as he hadn't made the team as a regular and he was waiver elligible. The fools. Then was claimed off waivers by Florida from the Canes when they tried to send him to the AHL. I guess the Canes are also fools. I'd say it's highly likely the same result would have occured here. Forsling wasn't a homerun pick. That would be a 5th rounder that secured a top four spot before hitting waiver elligibilty. He was a homerun waiver pickup, a late bloomer. When a borderline prospect doesn't make the grade before becoming waiver elligible, it's unlikely to happen with his first team. Spin it any way you want but Clendening actually had pretty good AHL numbers along with size. Chicago moved him for the same reason they moved Forsling. They were waiver ellibigle, too good to clear, on the NHL fringe, and they had better options. This fall Hogs, Rathbone, and Woo all face waivers. Roll the dice or look to move them? That's the problem GM's face. Prospects only get so long before you either move them or risk losing them for nothing. Unless of course you're willing to gift a player a spot he hasn't earned while having better options available.

Hoglander is now waiver elligible, along with Rathbone and Woo.

Save the 4th and add Rathbone. He's not in the OP's lineup and would also be claimed off waivers.

Toss in Hoglander. He's not in your lineup and won't clear waivers.

Go ahead and enjoy McD's. Rarely touch the stuff myself, but I'm not judging.

Quality is subjective to the individual listener. They can't really cater to the individual though. When it comes to music for a widely mixed audience is popular not better overall than niche? It's not really about your taste or mine, it's about what most attending will enjoy. Blues would certainly appeal to me, but I doubt the majority would love it. Metal would certainly appeal to some, but I doubt it would appeal to the majority. The simple truth is the DJ will never be able to please everybody.

Too commercial blah blah blah, too mainstream blah blah blah. This is the same old same old I've heard for decades. Quite terrible when bands make music people actually enjoy listening to and do it consistently for many years. It's that last part that is important. If it were actually as easy as you make out far more bands would easily have over a decade of high success. Ever hear the term "one hit wonder". There's also one album wonders. To have success album after ablum for a long period does take talent and good song writing ability. Btw, I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. I'm no "newbie" to any type of music and my musical taste runs from clasical to folk and blues, to pop and rock. The only thing I'm entrenched in is actually enjoying what I listen too. I prefer music, regardless of genre, that's simply enjoyable to listen to. But here's the thing, if you view this music as appealing to the masses, what do you think the majority of a wide variety of people at a hockey game are likely to enjoy during breaks in play?

And yet incredibly popular.

Good! I like Nickelback. The only reason I can figure for disliking the band is for being far too successful. Over 50 million albums sold and in 2009 Billboard named them the best rock band of the decade. That both surprised me and didn't. They must have been doing something right.

Not with good music...

Absolutely. But, Boeser did get more ice time per game particularly in PP time. Boeser had almost 47 more minutes of PP time over the season and primarily on the 1st unit. Garland was rarely ever on the first unit. I look at that extra time with better linemates, also at even strength, and Boeser's 9 more points than Garland last season doesn't impress me much. I do think Boeser has the better shot and higher production ceiling, but he's so utterly vanilla in all other areas I don't think he's the best bang for the buck. Maybe Toc can change that but I'm not holding my breath.