Confirmed with Link: 1 year/$1.25M for Matt Bartkowski
- Thread starter Danton Heineken
- Start date
MillerTime 86
So Long Tyler SeQuin
But: Do they have to wait until the hearing to take place and a decision rendered before they can trade him?
I've been searching the internet for a rule about trading a player that is waiting for an arbitration hearing. Does anyone know if it affects a potential trade?
Edit: Looks like everyone had the same question while I was typing my post.
Edit: Looks like everyone had the same question while I was typing my post.
Rubber Biscuit
Registered User
Got to be honest, I don't really get the hatred for Bartkowski. Maybe I'm blinded by his game 7 vs Toronto. 
Baddkarma
El Guapo to most...
MillerTime 86
So Long Tyler SeQuin
Not if they come to an agreement and sign a new contract first …
A lot of times, arbitration is filed as a way to buy more time for negotiations. Not sure if that is the case here, but if the two sides can reach a deal before the hearing ... Then Bartkowski can be traded at any point after his new deal.
From this moment forward, the Bruins can't trade Bartkowski until he's under contract, whenever/if that happens. They can also walk away from the arbitrator's decision and Barkowski then walks for nothing.
DKH
The Bergeron of HF
- Feb 27, 2002
- 74,247
- 52,032
Got to be honest, I don't really get the hatred for Bartkowski. Maybe I'm blinded by his game 7 vs Toronto.
no hatred from me, but he really bleeped up twice on that first goal that pretty much put Boston in the bad situation of being behind in game 7. Whoever scored first was likely going to win and if you watch that entire shift it aint pretty. Marchand gets more crap for getting a penalty on this board he shouldn't have while Bartkowski skates freely after that entire shift. I think of that whenever I need to understand this place mindset
DominicT
Registered User
Better check on the last part. And remember it is player elected arbitration when you're checking.
Yes, he wants out imo. He was on a sports radio show here in Pittsburgh a couple weeks back and they were really teasing him about moving on from Boston to where he could get more playing time. Bart was respectful of the organization and gave the standard canned shtick about what a great team and competition for playing time, but you could tell from his tone of voice and his laughing at certain things that he has no intention of playing in Boston next year.
KrejciMVP
Registered User
Always liked this kid. I hope he gets what he wants even if he has to leave. Would love for him to develop into a good PMD.
Got to be honest, I don't really get the hatred for Bartkowski. Maybe I'm blinded by his game 7 vs Toronto.
I don't hate him.
PlayMakers
Moderator
Ouch.
Bart could get a nice little award considering the minutes he played on a President's Trophy winning team. I am one of those folks who don't get the hate and was hoping he could improve a bit in his second full season and give the B's some cheap minutes.
Bart could get a nice little award considering the minutes he played on a President's Trophy winning team. I am one of those folks who don't get the hate and was hoping he could improve a bit in his second full season and give the B's some cheap minutes.
DitClapper
Registered User
- May 15, 2014
- 7,896
- 348
I think the Bart hate comes from the fact that he does a lot of thinks pretty well, but he isn't great at any thing. He can't really develop an identity and it leaves him as just kind of being an average player in everyone's eyes.
DominicT
Registered User
There's simply no choice when it comes to player elected salary arbitration.
Under the CBA, the Bruins have the choice to chose a one year or two year option before the hearing.
Under the one year option, there is no walk away rights unless the award is $3.5 million or more.
Under the two year option there is no walk away rights at all. If the award is $3.5 million or more, the Bruins can then walk away from the second year but not the first and Bart would become a UFA after the first year.
(There is no walk away rights for team elected salary arbitration - no matter the award).
Best case scenario with no risk: Sign him before arbitration.
neelynugs
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 35,439
- 9,900
not a fan of how he thinks the game. great wheels and he has some raw talent, but i don't see him as a long term option.
but agree that he's looking at a decent payday here. was looking at young defensemen who signed deals this year, and found what i'd assume is a pretty good comp for bartkowski to use in a hearing:
dmitry orlov: 54 games, 11 points, -1 rating, 19:35 avg toi
bart: 64 games, 18 points, +22 rating, 19:32 avg toi
orlov signed a 2 year, $4 million deal for the next 2 seasons.
Neely08
Registered User
I don't hate him. Had high hopes, especially w/ his mobility. But, like nugs says, he'd hoof it up the ice, hit the red or blue line and BOOM. Hit w/ a thunderbolt to the brain. No one, including him, had any idea what he was going to do next a lot of times. Often hurt as much as it helped. Then there's defensive reads like in game 7.
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
Getting tired of seeing how analysis of shortcomings in Bartkowski's game equates to "hate". He's a big boy who wants to be an NHL player. When did people start getting so thin-skinned about this stuff? Just because one is critical of the lack of vision/awareness that Bartkowski has consistently displayed on the NHL club does not mean there is hatred for him.
This is a recurring theme on these boards and I really wish it would stop. Let's have a debate without the buzzwords, guys.
edit- I know these comments aren't necessarily aimed at me, but enough with the Bart as a victim stuff, please. We can't ever seem to have a conversation about him without someone playingnthe hate card. It's uninformed and intellectually lazy, too.
This is a recurring theme on these boards and I really wish it would stop. Let's have a debate without the buzzwords, guys.
edit- I know these comments aren't necessarily aimed at me, but enough with the Bart as a victim stuff, please. We can't ever seem to have a conversation about him without someone playingnthe hate card. It's uninformed and intellectually lazy, too.
Last edited:
trenton1
Bergeron for Hart
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
I don't see arbitration going well for him, because we all know that when the Bruins bring up his shortcomings he won't have any defense.
I'LL BE HERE ALL WEEK TRY THE VEAL.
I'LL BE HERE ALL WEEK TRY THE VEAL.
I wish him well, and if the B' can get something for him via trade, hope they do. My reservations about Bart stem from the playoff boo-boo's this year, but more tellingly (to me), Kirk's opinion that his upside isn't great, and that Matt's "hockey IQ" isn't particularly high.
Again, I wish him well.
talkinaway
Registered User
This may be a blessing in disguise. It's one less choice PC has to make about which defensemen to keep.
Yes, it's always good to have options, and, from a "game theory" standpoint, removing choices like this is technically speaking, neutral at best, and is more typically negative.
But we're not in a mathematical vacuum - we're in the real world. Getting rid of one of the weaker defensemen makes it easier to focus on the remaining defensemen, and the remaining team as a whole. I'd rather that they concentrate on Krug, Hamilton, and Miller.
PC's been telegraphing this decision. He said 9 D is too many on July 1 - granted, Mezaros is gone, but 8 D is still pretty robust for a team that's about to hit the cap, and hit it hard.
I wish Bartkowski the best - on a lot of teams, he should be able to bring something as lower pairing D man. The Bruins are just too damn deep in defense. I'm not sure arbitration's exactly the logical way to go - that seems to signal "I want to leave", which, to the other teams, should in theory signal "I can get him cheaper". But it's all part of the game, and certainly not a cheap shot of any kind.
Yes, it's always good to have options, and, from a "game theory" standpoint, removing choices like this is technically speaking, neutral at best, and is more typically negative.
But we're not in a mathematical vacuum - we're in the real world. Getting rid of one of the weaker defensemen makes it easier to focus on the remaining defensemen, and the remaining team as a whole. I'd rather that they concentrate on Krug, Hamilton, and Miller.
PC's been telegraphing this decision. He said 9 D is too many on July 1 - granted, Mezaros is gone, but 8 D is still pretty robust for a team that's about to hit the cap, and hit it hard.
I wish Bartkowski the best - on a lot of teams, he should be able to bring something as lower pairing D man. The Bruins are just too damn deep in defense. I'm not sure arbitration's exactly the logical way to go - that seems to signal "I want to leave", which, to the other teams, should in theory signal "I can get him cheaper". But it's all part of the game, and certainly not a cheap shot of any kind.
