No thanks, from CHI. Also, if O'Connor's arbitration filing was a tactical attempt at opening another buyout window, this could be a signal that PIT is no longer in on EK65.

Add at least a 3rd to the Petry deal if you want the Hawks to take him.

According to CapFriendly on twitter, I am wrong. They still get the additional buyout period whether a case is settled in arbitration or before. Which is weird... My understanding was that the purpose of the extra buyout window was to compensate for overages caused by arbitration rulings. Seems like an easy loophole for teams to take advantage of.

I was thinking a bit more than that

Give the 3rd to Chi and put Granlund in the SJ deal. Then it is good.

The buyout window isn't open until 72 hours after the signing. And will be open for 48 hours.

Yeah. I already responded with a correction.

The NHL would NEVER have loopholes that benefit the teams..... I'm completely flabbergasted by this new finding

Chicago declines

Don't see the loophole. Player selects arbitration, team management doesn't know just quite yet how it will affect their cap until settlement/arbitration time. Second buyout window helps management with an unfavorable settlement/award. And there still rules to WHO can be bought out during the second window: player has to have a cap hit of $4M or more (which Granlund does) and would have had to be on the teams reserve list at the trade deadline. Seems like a straight forward rule.

LTIR on the other hand....

haha. I'm not flabbergasted in the least bit. But it just seems a lot more 'plain and simple' than your average loophole.

Oh I'm not either its just crazy how many easy to find loopholes there are in the NHL and that teams don't exploit them more often than they already do

Your point remains, if Pittsburgh does nothing during the buyout window (Saturday to Monday), then I seriously doubt any Karlsson trade happens. Dubas has very little cap flexibility after that without trades already being lined up. And based on how restrictive player movement has been all offseason, I am very skeptical there are trades waiting to be made on aging expensive vets like Petry and Granlund. So in five days we can probably end this speculation.

It really isn't all that straight forward. At the same time, most loopholes in the NHL CBA are not as obvious as this one. I could see it being a rule for cases that actually go through with the hearing, but just simply filing seems like way too easy of an out for teams to give themselves more flexibility. They don't even have to actually intend on going to arbitration, they just have to have two filings or one player elected filing and they get a free opportunity to correct the awful mistakes they've made. I'm not mad at it. In fact, i'm perfectly fine with it and it's nice to know for the future. It just doesn't align with my original understanding of the rule.

what a waste of a comment.

For sure. There are so many ways you could interpret or even manipulate the language in the CBA. Surprises me too that there isn't more exploitation. It also surprises me that there aren't more cut throat GM's out there. Even the ones that ARE considered to be "cut throat" are really timid when you consider the level of chaos that is possible.

Yet you took the time to reply to it anyway

Oh for sure....... at the end of the day I think GM's know they need the other franchises in order to survive as a league

Yeah. And they need their reputations in tact and good working relationships with other GM's in order to keep their job or be able to get another GM job down the road. But there is very real potential for complete chaos that is still technically legal under the rules laid out by the CBA. Offer sheets, short term "go for it" type deals, NBA-esque chaos, etc.

Without a doubt maybe in the future teams go for it