HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bartulis - Waiver eligible or not?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-21-2010, 11:32 AM
  #26
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,876
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoDu View Post
watch him get sent down on waivers and get snatched away
I don't think that will happen. If you want to win, you should have 8 defensemen, I feel. In Carolina, Laviolette went with 7 defensemen a lot, so maybe that's part of the plan.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:36 AM
  #27
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
The only things that determine waiver eligibility are games played and the age the contract was signed, nothing else. Bartulis signed during the 06/07 season at 19, exempt for four years (or, if he plays as a 19 year old 3 years). Four years means four seasons starting with the season he signed. The four seasons are 06/07, 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10. He is waiver eligible with the start of the 10/11 season.
I know.

Have you read everything IrishSniper and I have been going back and forth on? We know the rules. There is A LOT of ambiguity surrounding pretty much every aspect of this scenario. "age when the contract is signed", "years since signing 1st NHL contract", "games played".

You're looking at it too hard and fast. Open your mind to the possibility that there is ambiguity and it can be interpretted by another mind in another manner with it being no less wrong than your interpretation. IrishSniper tried finding documentation in the CBA to support his initial idea that he is indeed eligible for waivers....he ended up confusing himself even more and isn't 100% sure any longer.

All said, I'm still of the belief he is eligible for waivers...but there's still room to doubt it.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:46 AM
  #28
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
The only things that determine waiver eligibility are games played and the age the contract was signed, nothing else. Bartulis signed during the 06/07 season at 19, exempt for four years (or, if he plays as a 19 year old 3 years). Four years means four seasons starting with the season he signed. The four seasons are 06/07, 07/08, 08/09 and 09/10. He is waiver eligible with the start of the 10/11 season.
He signed in 06 for the 07-08 season.

Why would he lose a year eligibility for a season he isn't technically under contract for?

I personally think you are right, and he does lose a season that way. I just dont know why they do it like that and not explain it. And other phrases in the CBA make me believe the opposite and that he does have one year left.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 11:51 AM
  #29
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't think that will happen. If you want to win, you should have 8 defensemen, I feel. In Carolina, Laviolette went with 7 defensemen a lot, so maybe that's part of the plan.
fine, I get the defenseman depth thing. But to have 25 million tied up on the blueline? there is no need for that.
no need to have 2.7 million tied up between the 6th and 7th guy. throw in Bartulis and you have 3 million plus.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:00 PM
  #30
Rick Deckard
Registered User
 
Rick Deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I know.

Have you read everything IrishSniper and I have been going back and forth on? We know the rules. There is A LOT of ambiguity surrounding pretty much every aspect of this scenario. "age when the contract is signed", "years since signing 1st NHL contract", "games played".
Age when the contract is signed ... ""age 19" means a Player reaching his nineteenth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft"

Years since signing 1st NHL contract ... the CBA states that year means playing season ("For purposes of this Article, a "year" of exemption shall mean a playing season")

Games played ... the CBA states "NHL games played" and goes on with "NHL regular season and playoffs"

Rick Deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:03 PM
  #31
Rick Deckard
Registered User
 
Rick Deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
He signed in 06 for the 07-08 season.

Why would he lose a year eligibility for a season he isn't technically under contract for?

I personally think you are right, and he does lose a season that way. I just dont know why they do it like that and not explain it. And other phrases in the CBA make me believe the opposite and that he does have one year left.
He doesn't loses a season, he gets an extra season because he signed as a 19 year old. He signs at 19 and gets 4 seasons, waiver eligible at 23, he signs at 20 and gets 3 seasons, waiver eligible at 23.

Rick Deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:05 PM
  #32
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,876
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
fine, I get the defenseman depth thing. But to have 25 million tied up on the blueline? there is no need for that.
no need to have 2.7 million tied up between the 6th and 7th guy. throw in Bartulis and you have 3 million plus.
The amount of money tied up, yes, is retarded. There's plenty of teams in this league who can put out 8 defensemen because (a) they didn't spend that much and (b) they trust their farm system enough that their 7th and 8th defensemen don't have to stay on the roster the entire season.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:06 PM
  #33
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Deckard View Post
Age when the contract is signed ... ""age 19" means a Player reaching his nineteenth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft"

Years since signing 1st NHL contract ... the CBA states that year means playing season ("For purposes of this Article, a "year" of exemption shall mean a playing season")

Games played ... the CBA states "NHL games played" and goes on with "NHL regular season and playoffs"
It also applies to FA contracts, which is why Turco will not be a 35 plus contract if signed here or elsewhere.

Bartulis's birthday is January 21,1987. So yes he would have been 19 on that first contract signed, as said earlier in the thread. Sounds like he will have to clear.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:13 PM
  #34
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
The amount of money tied up, yes, is retarded. There's plenty of teams in this league who can put out 8 defensemen because (a) they didn't spend that much and (b) they trust their farm system enough that their 7th and 8th defensemen don't have to stay on the roster the entire season.

Whats Holmgren going to do if Marshall comes in and outplays O'Donnell and Walker in camp and in preseason? go with 9 defenseman? Of course Holmgren doesnt believe in putting vets on waivers even if its the right thing to do unless hes forced to. see the situation 2 years ago when Briere came back from injury.
He would rather trade them away with a 2nd round pick for a pile of dog ****.
Dont mean to hijack the thread. Sorry.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:49 PM
  #35
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,876
vCash: 50
I'm sure if Marshall comes into camp and blows **** up, "Shooter" will unconditionally give him a spot on the team citing that "anyone who deserves to be in he NHL will be in the NHL" and sign him to a multi-year one-way contract before he even completes a whole season.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-21-2010, 12:52 PM
  #36
Rick Deckard
Registered User
 
Rick Deckard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I'm sure if Marshall comes into camp and blows **** up, "Shooter" will unconditionally give him a spot on the team citing that "anyone who deserves to be in he NHL will be in the NHL" and sign him to a multi-year one-way contract before he even completes a whole season.
The CBA prevents that

Rick Deckard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 04:16 PM
  #37
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
flyersguru insists Bartulis is EXEMPT from waivers and that it is confirmed by Bill Meltzer AND the Flyers. How he knows that? I don't know.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 05:34 PM
  #38
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,866
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I thought all that mattered was if it was 2-way or 1-way deal?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 05:35 PM
  #39
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,876
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I thought all that mattered was if it was 2-way or 1-way deal?
No, this is not EA Sports.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 06:49 PM
  #40
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I thought all that mattered was if it was 2-way or 1-way deal?
A misconception that is far too common.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2010, 08:15 PM
  #41
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,866
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
A misconception that is far too common.
Damn you EA Sports! You have ruined my understanding of the waiver system!

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2010, 05:31 PM
  #42
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
flyersguru insists Bartulis is EXEMPT from waivers and that it is confirmed by Bill Meltzer AND the Flyers. How he knows that? I don't know.
I think Anton Strålman was traded from the Maple Leafs last year when he informed them that he'd played enough games to be waiver eligible. He's born in 1986, and as far as I understood those dealings it wasn't because his age that he was made eligible.

Anyway, given such things as the Pronger contract, it isn't as if one can be sure that just because we think he's exempt means he really is that... we've been wrong before on contractual matters I mean.

mirimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2010, 08:14 PM
  #43
KaraLupin
카라
 
KaraLupin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,723
vCash: 500
Bartulis is no longer waiver exempt.

Oskars Bartulis must clear waivers


The following chart shows the number of years or games he had to play to lose his exemption and highlights in red the totals that equal or exceed them. YEARS GAMES
EXEMPT UNTIL 4 160
TO DATE 4 60



CapGeek.com's calculations are based on the birthdate in our database of January 21, 1987, and the data you manually entered: He signed his first contract in 2006 for a signing age of 19; he has appeared in 60 NHL regular-season and playoff-games, and he did not play in 11 or more NHL games in a single season at the age of 18 or 19

KaraLupin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 11:56 AM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-...26-10/45/29488

Meltzer says there's confusing within the Flyers organization... who is shocked?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 11:57 AM
  #45
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't think that will happen. If you want to win, you should have 8 defensemen, I feel. In Carolina, Laviolette went with 7 defensemen a lot, so maybe that's part of the plan.
Carrying 8 D is idiotic from a salary cap perspective... and we're not going to be playing 7 D with our group of forwards. Not only that, didn't Carolina have a PP specialist down there, or am I making that up? Our best PP D are also are best D...

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 12:09 PM
  #46
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 32,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-...26-10/45/29488

Meltzer says there's confusing within the Flyers organization... who is shocked?
cant believe its been 11 years since the Tertyshny tragedy.

cant say I am shocked by the confusion, wasnt there confusion when Pronger first signed his deal as well?

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 12:17 PM
  #47
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
cant believe its been 11 years since the Tertyshny tragedy.

cant say I am shocked by the confusion, wasnt there confusion when Pronger first signed his deal as well?
Unclear... could go either way. Flyers were never quoted with any confusion, but the early media reports on CSN were confused. Whether that was from what the organization was telling 'em off the record, or from their own interpretation... we may never know.

Holmgren and the cap dude were certainly quick to state that they understood the 35+ rule. Additionally, even with the 35+ rule the contract makes sense from an organizational perspective... as we needed Pronger on a lower cap hit.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 02:12 PM
  #48
EasyMac
Registered User
 
EasyMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Holmgren and the cap dude were certainly quick to state that they understood the 35+ rule. Additionally, even with the 35+ rule the contract makes sense from an organizational perspective... as we needed Pronger on a lower cap hit.
I think the confusion was more from the media/CSN. I think the Flyers decided they were willing to potentially live with dead cap space/Pronger playing at a level no where near his cap hit for a couple of years in order to get more space now during their window of having the best chance at winning it all. I also wouldn't be surprised if down the line the did try to fight it due to one part of the CBA being ambiguous about the 35+ rule (although it is clearly stated elsewhere).

EasyMac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 02:23 PM
  #49
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyMac View Post
I think the confusion was more from the media/CSN. I think the Flyers decided they were willing to potentially live with dead cap space/Pronger playing at a level no where near his cap hit for a couple of years in order to get more space now during their window of having the best chance at winning it all. I also wouldn't be surprised if down the line the did try to fight it due to one part of the CBA being ambiguous about the 35+ rule (although it is clearly stated elsewhere).
Yeah, I just think the Pronger contract makes too much sense (35+ rule or not) given the cap situation of the team... an the NEED to re-sign him in order to justify that trade.

And I doubt they can put up much of a fight on the 35+ rule, especially given their public statements that they understood it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2010, 03:58 PM
  #50
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Bill-...26-10/45/29488


"Likewise, for the games played criteria, the term "professional games" is typically defined as a player's combined NHL regular season and playoff games. However, for players older than age 20, the definition expands to include minor league regular season and playoff games. While Bartulis played just 53 regular season games and 7 playoff tilts as a rookie for the Flyers last season, he played a combined 153 games (149 regular season and 4 playoff games) for the Phantoms in the two-plus minor league seasons he played before being recalled to the Flyers."
Bartulis was older than 20 for these Phantoms games, correct? So, he is waiver eligible? Is this conclusive?

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.