Prospect Info: 2018 NHL Draft / Pick #9 - Vitali Kravtsov (RW) - Part V

[Viqsi]

The expansion draft uses Article 13.4 in the CBA. Kravstov would have to appear in 11 NHL games for this season to count towards expansion protection. The NHL used that clause to determine the eligibility of some Vancouver players for the expansion draft with Las Vegas.

A writer from The Athletic from Vancouver wrote about Quinn Hughes and the Canucks. Same scenario as Kravstov.

Kravstov would still need 7 years accrued or 27 to become a Group III. He would arbitration eligible sooner. Group II sooner.

Gorton is not very concerned about the Rangers going players becoming free agents one year too early. He could have waited a few weeks to bring back Andersson and not have him get an accrued service year. Being on the NHL roster for 40 games. He said he is not concerned about that because the Rangers will have identified their core players way before then. Brooks spoke to Gorton about it. Last Tuesday’s Post. Chytil being benched article.

The Rangers get no slide if Kravstov plays this season with him turning 20 in December but it doesn’t not count towards expansion if he plays less than 11 games as a 19 year old. It won’t count as an accrued season towards group III.

The Duclair situation from a few years ago. The Rangers signed him in January 2014. They got one slide instead of two. The clock on Duclair’s contract started but his contract would not have count against the 50 SPC limit because he was 19 playing in junior. He made the Rangers that season anyway.

The CBA is quirky.

The Rangers could have Kravstov skate with the Rangers in practice and play in the AHL on a tryout contract.

Seidenberg skated with the Islanders all season in practice on a tryout and they signed him last week.

Do you have a source that explicitly identifies 13.4 as being the relevant section? (For those following along - 13.4 is part of determining waiver eligibility; nothing in the CBA explicitly outlines expansion draft player exemption eligibility, but it does seem to be consistent with similar eligibility rules elsewhere. Lots of guesswork.) I couldn't find anything that explicitly identified any ruleset. The closest I got was found by someone else; it was some investigation by General Fanager prior to the Vegas draft, which cited some rules that matched nicely with the rules for RFA status - 10.2(a)(i) - and Salary Arbitration eligibility - 12.1(a) and 12.1(c) - and so I went with those when producing that diagram @Maylo cited (and yes, that mention is why I'm here; blame Maylo ). The most substantive difference I can see is that the age rules might be subtly different (mostly because 13.4's age rules are confusing as all hell in this context; they focus on draft year specifically, and so I didn't think they were relevant).

I think the end result w/r/t Kravtsov in particular ends up being the same either way, but it'd be nice to be more certain.

 

[Thirty One]

The expansion draft uses Article 13.4 in the CBA. Kravstov would have to appear in 11 NHL games for this season to count towards expansion protection. The NHL used that clause to determine the eligibility of some Vancouver players for the expansion draft with Las Vegas.

A writer from The Athletic from Vancouver wrote about Quinn Hughes and the Canucks. Same scenario as Kravstov.

Kravstov would still need 7 years accrued or 27 to become a Group III. He would arbitration eligible sooner. Group II sooner.

Gorton is not very concerned about the Rangers going players becoming free agents one year too early. He could have waited a few weeks to bring back Andersson and not have him get an accrued service year. Being on the NHL roster for 40 games. He said he is not concerned about that because the Rangers will have identified their core players way before then. Brooks spoke to Gorton about it. Last Tuesday’s Post. Chytil being benched article.

The Rangers get no slide if Kravstov plays this season with him turning 20 in December but it doesn’t not count towards expansion if he plays less than 11 games as a 19 year old. It won’t count as an accrued season towards group III.

The Duclair situation from a few years ago. The Rangers signed him in January 2014. They got one slide instead of two. The clock on Duclair’s contract started but his contract would not have count against the 50 SPC limit because he was 19 playing in junior. He made the Rangers that season anyway.

The CBA is quirky.

The Rangers could have Kravstov skate with the Rangers in practice and play in the AHL on a tryout contract.

Seidenberg skated with the Islanders all season in practice on a tryout and they signed him last week.

If it doesn't count towards expansion, I'm all in on Kravtsov playing this season.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Now we wait. Will it kick in now, or in July?

This is no surprise; the kid's been chomping at the bit to get over here since we drafted him.

However it works out, I am most concerned with whether it puts us in a position where he needs to be protected from Seattle.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

If the waiver rules apply, this is it. Kravtsov can play 10 games, be exempt but the ELC counts

 

[Joey Bones]

Sorry to interrupt but i don't think it's true. On the September 15 this year Kravtsov is still 19 years old.'
This is from our board credit to @Viqsi

Beautiful chart!! Thank you for sharing!!

 

[GAGLine]

If it doesn't count towards expansion, I'm all in on Kravtsov playing this season.

It could end up being a blessing in disguise to have him burn a year of his ELC (provided there are no expansion draft ramifications). If we end up signing him long term after his ELC is up, the AAV might end up being lower due to him signing it a year earlier.

 

[Tawnos]

Sorry to interrupt but i don't think it's true. On the September 15 this year Kravtsov is still 19 years old.'
This is from our board credit to @Viqsi

Players that turn 20 between Sept 16 and Dec 31 are considered 20 for the whole calendar year. It's not your age on Sept 15 that matters.

 

[Viqsi]

Players that turn 20 between Sept 16 and Dec 31 are considered 20 for the whole calendar year. It's not your age on Sept 15 that matters.

That's the thing I'm trying to verify. That seems to be the case for waiver exemption, but not necessarily for salary arbitration or RFA status, and it's unclear which of these rulesets is being borrowed from for the expansion draft.

 

[Tawnos]

That's the thing I'm trying to verify. That seems to be the case for waiver exemption, but not necessarily for salary arbitration or RFA status, and it's unclear which of these rulesets is being borrowed from for the expansion draft.

It is that way (20 only if your bday falls between those dates) for arbitration and RFA status. For waivers, it's about the age the player turns in the calendar year. Kravtsov turns 20 in December of this calendar year, therefore he is 20 for the purpose of waivers.

Or, really, more specifically... Kravtsov was considered to be 19 at the 2018 Entry Draft, because he turned 19 after September 15th. And because he was 19 last year, he's 20 this year.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

This tweet from last year about Mittelstadt would suggest Kravtsov can play 10 games according to the waiver ruling

 

[Tawnos]

This tweet from last year about Mittelstadt would suggest Kravtsov can play 10 games according to the waiver ruling

But I don't think that's correct for the waivers ruling either. There's a major section of the waiver ruling that people are leaving out.

..."age 19" means a player reaching his nineteenth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft; "age 20" means a player reaching his twentieth birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft

Wouldn't that mean Kravtsov was 19 in 2018 and, therefore wouldn't that mean he is 20 in 2019? I could be wrong here.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Wouldn't that mean Kravtsov was 19 in 2018 and, therefore wouldn't that mean he is 20 in 2019? I could be wrong here.

That's only to determine age for the draft, and determine how long the exclusive rights last for EU players.

18: 4 years
19: 3 years
20: 2 years
21: 1 year

 

[Thirty One]

But I don't think that's correct for the waivers ruling either. There's a major section of the waiver ruling that people are leaving out.



Wouldn't that mean Kravtsov was 19 in 2018 and, therefore wouldn't that mean he is 20 in 2019? I could be wrong here.

No one seems to be disputing what the waiver rules are. There only seems to be confusion if that is the standard used for expansion.

 

[GAGLine]

Whatever the Rangers do, I'm sure they will find out first from the league exactly what the ramifications are. If they don't and they screw up, bad on them. Obviously the safest route is to just sign him for next year and have him stay in Russia for now, or sign a PTO with Hartford.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I've been tied up in this for 4 hours now. I've read 35 pages of the CBA today. I'm done. I can't do this anymore. I need a f***ing beer

 

[Tawnos]

That's only to determine age for the draft, and determine how long the exclusive rights last for EU players.

18: 4 years
19: 3 years
20: 2 years
21: 1 year

That section is in the waivers section of the CBA and starts with saying "For the purposes of this Article..."

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

That section is in the waivers section of the CBA and starts with saying "For the purposes of this Article..."

Ah, Sorry. I read the same in article 8.10 which is about the Entry draft

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

I’m just gonna say that i trust Bob McKenzie and assume he did his research before tweeting that about Mittelstadt and he definitely has better sources then us

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

They should've had these rules set up for the expansion draft when they announced the team

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

They should've had these rules set up for the expansion draft when they announced the team

They have. They just have not released them to the public, unlike the CBA

 

[Alluckks]

But I don't think that's correct for the waivers ruling either. There's a major section of the waiver ruling that people are leaving out.



Wouldn't that mean Kravtsov was 19 in 2018 and, therefore wouldn't that mean he is 20 in 2019? I could be wrong here.

But would that make a difference for expansion draft considerations? Or just ELC/RFA ramifications?

 

[Tawnos]

Ah, Sorry. I read the same in article 8.10 which is about the Entry draft

I really think that, no matter how you look at it, Kravtsov is considered 20 for this year. He's considered 20 for waiver eligibility. He's considered 20 for arbitration. He's considered 20 for RFA status.

There are 2 options here. One is waiver status, the relevant section of which says that a 20 year old needs only play 1 game to accrue a year. The next is arbitration and RFA status, which says a 20 year old needs to play 10 or more games in any league under the terms of an SPC (so that would include Hartford) to accrue a year.

 

[Hire Sather]

Quite frankly I'm not looking forward to the rest of the league being forced to supplement another franchise and hand them a good team

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Quite frankly I'm not looking forward to the rest of the league being forced to supplement another franchise and hand them a good team

I mean, Florida wasn’t forced to give them 2 first liners to keep defensemen they don’t even have anymore

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Quite frankly I'm not looking forward to the rest of the league being forced to supplement another franchise and hand them a good team

It's better than the previous expansion drafts where the new teams end up with some AHL guys and they need 10 f***ing years to build a team from scratch.

The teams agreed to this. FYI: Vegas is not involved in the Seattle expansion draft and therefore do not get a share from the 500m entrance fee.