[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

To reference something you brought up, in Clarke MacArthur's famous arbitration case against the Atlanta Thrashers he was awarded a contract worth $2.4 million, a significant raise over his previous salary of $1.4 million. In the year before that arbitration case he scored at a career-best .42PPG pace. Though he had played 210 NHL games in 3 seasons at that point that year was his best to date. The Thrashers walked away from that contract and MacArthur signed with the Leafs at a more reasonable rate.

MacArthur's arbitration case was a charade. The Thrashers made no attempt to argue, they had already agreed it was time to move on so they went in and told the arbitrator any contract was fine.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...article587253/

"We said, you know what, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if he gets this silly award," Thrashers general manager Rick Dudley said. "We kind of encouraged it."

By going this route, the Flames avoided:
Offering Byron a qualifying offer ($707,850 which he surely would have accepted)

No reason the qualifying offer would have been one-way. 600K two-way, his eventual contract, would have very likely been a more attractive offer.

A potentially ugly arbitration case where the player is flat-out confronted with all his weaknesses and why he is not valuable to the team

I agree with this. But letting him become a UFA is also telling him he isn't that valuable so it's close to a moot point.

An arbitration ruling which could have inflated his salary to the point where he is not a financially attractive asset

If this was the case why did Brunnstrom, Bonnino and all these other fringe-NHL players eventually sign for their 700,000K contracts? Agents just being lazy? It's not a selling point that Paul Byron's point-per-game was decent this year, the Flames management would just point out his games played was low because he didn't make the team and was injured. I understand avoiding arbitration with established players like Russell and his 400 games, but there hasn't been a case of a player who played half the season grabbing an absurd contract. I don't disagree Byron could have maybe got a couple bucks more, but we're talking peanuts. Why risk losing him completely over peanuts?

He signed so quickly that I believe the team had either told Byron what their plan for him was, or he jumped at the opportunity to stay in an organisation he's familiar with and knows where he stands.

What plan? Explain the plan to me. If it was to sign him why didn't they, you know, sign him before this?

Regarding Colborne: a 6'5" former 1st rounder? He would inevitably be a more coveted asset league-wide than Byron and would have garnered more interest on the UFA marker. No doubt about it. Like it or not, Colborne has the size our management covets and he plays C/RW, which are few and far between.

Well that's what Colborne's agent will be saying at the hearing too. He also did play the full-season so he's got a higher bargaining position than Byron. Not quite sure even they are comparable.