But the article is wrong about the 1 way vs 2 way portion - Stripes77
I think that's one of the guys that said Marcus Kruger signed a deal worth $9M a year, not $9M total. And repeated it all night. He's Ron Burgundy. He'll read whatever is on the prompter. Go (frank) yourself, San Diego.
Edit: What's wrong with it? He's waiver exempt this year, but not next according to CapFriendly. And for the second year if there's any movement after a certain date he's exposed to waivers.
Edit: What's wrong with it? He's waiver exempt this year, but not next according to CapFriendly. And for the second year if there's any movement after a certain date he's exposed to waivers. - Wetbandit1
Whether your contract is 1-way or 2-way has nothing to do with waiver eligibility. A 2-way contract just means the team can pay you a lower salary if in the AHL. If a player has a 1-way contract, he gets the full NHL salary even if he's in the AHL.
Whether your contract is 1-way or 2-way has nothing to do with waiver eligibility. A 2-way contract just means the team can pay you a lower salary if in the AHL. If a player has a 1-way contract, he gets the full NHL salary even if he's in the AHL. - JetpackJesus
I know how they work, but I see what you're saying, they're right, but for the wrong reason.
I just woke up. I doubt he did that much research and just assumed everyone knew how contracts work. This is where you get partial credit and a "show your work!" on the exam.
Location: Where ever Matt Ellis allows me to be, NY Joined: 07.30.2012
Jul 27 @ 6:15 PM ET
I think that's one of the guys that said Marcus Kruger signed a deal worth $9M a year, not $9M total. And repeated it all night. He's Ron Burgundy. He'll read whatever is on the prompter. Go (frank) yourself, San Diego.
Edit: What's wrong with it? He's waiver exempt this year, but not next according to CapFriendly. And for the second year if there's any movement after a certain date he's exposed to waivers. - Wetbandit1
He's waiver exempt this year due to years played and age but it has nothing to do with a one way or two way deal.
The Sabres could have signed him to a one way contract for both years (but smartly did not) but they still could have sent him to Rochester this year without having him go through waivers (like they are with Ullmark).
It's just another article that is incorrect in their information.
Location: Where ever Matt Ellis allows me to be, NY Joined: 07.30.2012
Jul 27 @ 6:15 PM ET
I know how they work, but I see what you're saying, they're right, but for the wrong reason.
I just woke up. I doubt he did that much research and just assumed everyone knew how contracts work. This is where you get partial credit and a "show your work!" on the exam. - Wetbandit1
Location: I Know Nothink ... NOTHINK! Joined: 07.27.2007
Jul 27 @ 6:20 PM ET
I'll say (frank) non-GMO as well. Seed monopoly is one thing but GMO is basicst modern agricultural engineering and humans have done this for thousands of years. - BeadyEyedDouche
If this was a math problem no points for him! - Stripes77
I guess I just assumed he did 2 minutes of research and saw he was waiver exempt this year, but not next and just whittled it down because most people don't know/care, or maybe the editor, if there is one, cut that bit out.
Or he probably just (frank)ed up, like reading the copy with Kruger making $9M a year. And thinking "it's written down, it must be right!".
they should win 3 games in the division alone - homiedclown
U mean the team we lost twice to last year & made the playoffs?
Even if u wanna claim the Bills are better than Miami (we aren't)...
Didnt we lose to the Jets twice last year?
And shouldn't we have beaten that mess of a team twice?