Baggins
-
Posts
11,793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Baggins
-
-
12 minutes ago, Provost said:
Umm yes you did say they could walk away from arb awards and did it repeatedly. You know people can actually read what you type right?
Everyone gave you the conditions where team are allowed to walk away and when they can’t. You kept arguing wrongly with them.
Just like you keep arguing that you don’t know what the word “settlement” means.
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
-
-
8 minutes ago, Provost said:
You are the one that was using tems like “d’uh” when arguing with folks and posting utter nonsense. You are being insulting and clearly not “playing” at being ignorant… you are actually ignorant.
1. Yet again, teams aren’t allowed to walk away from the arb awards under $4.5 million. You are wrong yet again. The reason for this is it is no good for the player to become a UFA near the end of the summer when most team have already sorted out their rosters and spent their cap. That would be unfair to the player as their rights would have been tied up for most of the free agency period and they were denied other employment opportunities and then cut loose.
2. You literally quoted what makes you wrong about 2nd buyout windows. “Settlement of the club’s final arbitration case, OR receipt of arbitration award decision.” The SETTLEMENT portion is where the two parties negotiate a settlement before the arb award is imposed. The second half of it is when the arbitrator imposed an award and they receive the decision of the arbitrator.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, coryberg said:
Only allowed to walk away if the award is over $4,538,958. Otherwise you are stuck with it.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Provost said:
Umm… well “duh”, they are not allowed to just walk away from an arbitration award. It is right in the CBA.
Unless the award is over about $4.5 million the team is not permitted to walk away even if they don’t like the number.
Secondly, once a player files for arbitration, it doesn’t matter if they settle beforehand. The team still gets a 2nd buyout window so they can accommodate that salary (whether it was negotiated or imposed in arbitration. They can buy out anyone in the roster whether they were the ones that filed for arbitration or not.
Maybe look into things a little before being wrong about literally everything you posted?
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.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Provost said:
It wouldn't be the players getting the arb awards that would likely be bought out. Unless it is a huge award (the cutoff is somewhere north of $4 million), teams aren't allowed to walk away from it at all.
It is going to be other players on the roster that get bought out to make room for the arb awards.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.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:
Nope nope. I think you're confusing the compliance buyouts with arbitration buyouts.
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.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Yup... hence "Buyouts incoming..."
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.
-
Just now, The Big D said:
I’m pretty sure teams can open another buyout window if players elect arbitration
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.
-
1
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, HKSR said:
Buyouts incoming...
The buyout period ended June 30th.
-
12 hours ago, whysoserious said:
When Gustav Forsling was traded he was playing regular minutes in the SEL and coming off a strong world junior tournament. He was trending up as a prospect and easily would have gone 2nd round in a redraft. Clendening on the other hand was in his draft +4 season and on the brink of becoming waiver fodder because he couldn't skate.
still... a... longshot...
-
52 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
My POV, it took him being reunited with his head coach in Florida (same head coach in Chicago that gave him a chance at the NHL level...played like half a season each year there).
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Alflives said:
Bones and Hogs would both likely clear. Woo being a heavy bodied, young, lots of runway of development left, right shot D would for sure get claimed.
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.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
You can get away with lack of skating ability (or even any defensive ability in the case of Jordan Subban, who actually was selected for a AHL allstar game like Clendening was as well) in the AHL. He was a losing scratch ticket moved for a unscratched ticket. Horrible pro evaluation.
Failing to make the squad on a deep team (which the Canes did have back then - a deep blueline) is a far cry from sticking on a bad team (OJ for instance).
We'll have to agree to disagree on this subject (if for no other reason, Forsling wasn't subject to waivers for several years when JB dealt him). Given the empty prospect/farm system Benning inherited from Gillis, he couldn't afford to take short-cut solutions. Or if he did, make sure that 'quick fix' is actually going to help the team.
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.
-
5 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
Hogs was a 2nd round pick (fairly high 2nd as well - 9th in that round). lBatch was referring to later round picks. Forsling was a HUGE home run pick (5th round). But alas, Benning dealt him for a guy that could barely skate at the AHL level.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 7/2/2023 at 2:37 PM, DrJockitch said:
I would vote for both 2 and 3.
I think just for the sake of turnover and the fact that Hogz is waiver exempt means we should move 2 of Brock, Beau and Garland. That certainly hasn’t changed by what we did this off-season so far.
Any chance to trade Myers and replace him with a useful player I take if the cost isn’t too high.Still we should take an LTIR contract if a year. We aren’t in LTIR and unless something still up PA’s sleeve we are boarderline playoff team at best.
Hoglander is now waiver elligible, along with Rathbone and Woo.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, eeeeergh said:
id be open to even adding in a 4th as a sweetener
make it irresistable for edmonton
Save the 4th and add Rathbone. He's not in the OP's lineup and would also be claimed off waivers.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AngryElf said:
Obviously, we'd add to the deal but Garland does have value as a 5v5 beast.
Toss in Hoglander. He's not in your lineup and won't clear waivers.
-
2
-
-
On 6/25/2023 at 6:04 PM, tas said:
you're right, McDonald's is better than fine dining.
Go ahead and enjoy McD's. Rarely touch the stuff myself, but I'm not judging.
-
1 hour ago, tas said:
it that's how we're measuring quality we've got big problems.
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.
-
Just now, kilgore said:
My reason, and others, is that they are a band that came together not with music as their main goal, but money. And it shows. They studied what made songs sell from the top 40 playlist. What the most commercially successful hit rock songs had in common that made people buy those records. The actual construction into things like the most popular chord progressions etc... And then crafted songs that fit into the corporate rock sound that would be attractive to producers running rock music radio stations. And get them air play. Back when radio was still the main stage for musicians. This is why many, not all, of their songs sound similar to one another.
Perhaps they have evolved and actually gotten better or more unique musically, I have no idea, but the means and ways they rose to popularity just doesn't work for me. And their music is reflective in their strategy, its redundant pablum made for newbies to rock music, or people who require music isn't too challenging, just safe predictable songs they can tap their foot to. Which is fine, whatever rocks your boat. But to me they are more of a mock band than rock band.
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?
-
On 6/23/2023 at 8:07 PM, tas said:
boring, derivative, uncreative, vapid, musically uninspired, recycled meathead rock and a frontman who is a tremendous douchebag. those are my reasons.
And yet incredibly popular.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
I hate to break it to you but Nickelback night is happening.
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.
-
2
-
-
On 6/21/2023 at 9:20 PM, King Heffy said:
Does this mean the DJ will be replaced?
Not with good music...
-
1
-
-
On 6/22/2023 at 8:48 AM, Warhippy said:
If Garland had Boesers NHL skill and size and Boeser had Garlands skating and motor we'd have two first line players the league would be kicking our door down for.
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.
[Report] 22 players elect salary arbitration
in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Posted
Just a moment too late but thanks.