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

[Gardner McKay]

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

Vegas was not handed a good team. Lets be honest, McPhee did a heck of a job. When many were laughing at him (myself included), he made some calculated risks that paid off.

 

[Viqsi]

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.

D'oh. Good catch; I didn't notice the "turning 20 between those dates" part because it's only for age 20. I may have to revise that diagram a tad then.

In Kravtsov's case, though, he turned 19 on 23 Dec 2018, so if we're going with the RFA/SalaryArb rules, he counts as a 19-year-old for the 2018-2019 season (this season). He would count as a 20-year-old for the 2019-2020 season.

EDIT: Wait, that's not accurate. It's not based on the season; it's based on the calendar year in which he signs his SPC. Mea culpa, part 2.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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

The Knights have been embraced so completely by Vegas, that I'm looking forward to Seattle entering to see if they can harness some of that enthusiasm as well.

32 teams should be the end-goal though.

 

[Tawnos]

D'oh. Good catch; I didn't notice the "turning 20 between those dates" part because it's only for age 20. I may have to revise that diagram a tad then.

In Kravtsov's case, though, he turned 19 on 23 Dec 2018, so if we're going with the RFA/SalaryArb rules, he counts as a 19-year-old for this season. He would count as a 20-year-old for the 2019-2020 season.

We aren't talking about RFA/salary arb rules, though... we are talking about what the rules are for accruing a pro season. These aren't necessarily the same thing.

When you look at the RFA rules, for example, it looks as if his "First SPC Signing Age" is 19. 19 year olds only accrue a pro season if they play 10 games in the NHL. However, because of that little addendum, he would accrue a year even if he played in Hartford whereas someone who turned 19 on January 1st would not.

 

[GAGLine]

It's better than the previous expansion drafts where the new teams end up with some AHL guys and they need 10 ****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.

650 mil.

 

[Leetch3]

hopefully JG does his research here and knows the right answer lol. burning the year isn't a big deal but expansion draft eligibility is a huge deal

 

[nyr2k2]

Vegas was not handed a good team. Lets be honest, McPhee did a heck of a job. When many were laughing at him (myself included), he made some calculated risks that paid off.

For sure, he did well. They also had a lot of luck. I remember an interview, it was with him or Gallant, where they were talking about reasonable expectations and it definitely did not include a deep playoff run. They were better, I think, than they even really dreamed they'd be. Marchessault had a career year. Karlsson had a career year. Perron had a career year. Reilly Smith had a massively career year. Erik Haula exploded and had a huge career year. Even MAF had a career year. Like, how often do you see that many guys have enormous, career years? None of them are replicating it this year, they're all back to reasonable levels, and Vegas now is where they probably should have been last year.

I mean, again--GMGM did some really good things there, but they were enormously lucky last season as well. But good on them, because luck or no luck they still had to go out every night and force the luck.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

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

Yeah, don’t blame the league for Florida being their stupid selves.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

650 mil.

Oh, even more! I remember Vegas paid 500m

 

[Viqsi]

We aren't talking about RFA/salary arb rules, though... we are talking about what the rules are for accruing a pro season. These aren't necessarily the same thing.

Yeah, but the rules for accruing a pro season are different and are dependent on what you're counting those pro seasons for. They're very different for Group 6 UFAs, for example (in some circumstances, any NHL games count there! ). Thus the pedantry.

Speaking of pedantry, I wonder what happens if someone signs their first SPC at age 19 on, say, July 1 of a calendar year, then turns 20 in August (rather than "between September 16 and December 31"). I suspect they're treated as a 20-year-old (and I'm revising the diagram accordingly - that basically means that the age cutoff date is December 31), but it's not explicitly said.

As I said in the post in which I first put that diagram together, tho, it's my brother who's the lawyer, not me...

 

[LORDE]

I dont' see any reason to rush him over to play in Hartford or practice with the Rangers or whatever. It's not enough games to make a meaningful difference in preparing him for next season IMO and just complicates things. Let him finish out the hockey year and then sign a contract over the summer and come to the Rangers in the fall.

Now if he WANTS to come over and play in the AHL I guess that's a different story, but I don't see any reason to worry about rushing him over to play in a few games at the end of a lost season for Hartford.

Kinda late to the party here because of stupid work, but when Buch came over there were some strength /training issues. Someone else more informed may be able to add insight but maybe the org wants him here to help evaluate him in this regard?

 

[Viqsi]

I went ahead and revised that diagram in light of discussions with @Tawnos. Since some folks here apparently found it useful...

EDIT: Non-transparent background per that suggestion by @Rangers in 7.

 

[Rangers in 7]

I went ahead and revised that diagram in light of discussions with @Tawnos. Since some folks here apparently found it useful...

personally it was better with a white background

 

[Viqsi]

personally it was better with a white background

It's always been transparent, but I can do that if desired. Maybe with the next revision.

EDIT: Done, because I was also worrying about acknowledgements not being in the image itself.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I went ahead and revised that diagram in light of discussions with @Tawnos. Since some folks here apparently found it useful...

I can't see it

 

[Joey Bones]

@Viqsi

So with the revisions on the chart, say Kravtsov signs an SPC for the remainder of the year and plays nine games with the Rangers, would that make him exempt from that Seattle expansion draft?

What about signing and playing nine games with the Wolfpack?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[Bob Richards]

Yeah, don’t blame the league for Florida being their stupid selves.

Florida really could not have gotten more owned from that expansion draft.

 

[Viqsi]

I can't see it

Direct link: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/attachments/expansiondraftqualifier-v3-png.195371/

* * *​

@Viqsi

So with the revisions on the chart, say Kravtsov signs an SPC for the remainder of the year and plays nine games with the Rangers, would that make him exempt from that Seattle expansion draft?

What about signing and playing nine games with the Wolfpack?

Thanks in advance!!

I believe in both cases he'd be exempt from the expansion draft. Depending on how the age cutoff works out, he might be able to play more games than that for the Wolfpack, but after that chat with Tawnos I'm feeling skeptical on that one. Keep in mind, tho, this is mostly educated guesswork; the actual "pro experience" parameters for the Expansion Draft aren't public.

 

[Kupo]

I went ahead and revised that diagram in light of discussions with @Tawnos. Since some folks here apparently found it useful...

I love this

 

[AdamZHerman]

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.

The problem you're running into here is that the NHL uses different measures of age for different purposes. In terms of the ELC sliding, age is determined by how old the player will be on December 31st of the calendar year in which he signs. Kravtsov will be (potentially) signing in 2019, and his birthday on December 31st, 2019 will be 20. Thus, his contract does not slide as per Section 9.2 of the CBA.

However, age in terms of waiver status is NOT determined the same way. Here is Note 2 from Article 13.4 of the CBA:

1. For purposes of this Article, "age 18" means a Player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "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; and "age 21" means a Player reaching his twenty-first birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft.

On September 15th, 2019, Kravtsov will still be 19 years old. Therefore, for purposes of waivers, he will be considered a 19-year-old.

 

[Viqsi]

The problem you're running into here is that the NHL uses different measures of age for different purposes. In terms of the ELC sliding, age is determined by how old the player will be on December 31st of the calendar year in which he signs. Kravtsov will be (potentially) signing in 2019, and his birthday on December 31st, 2019 will be 20. Thus, his contract does not slide as per Section 9.2 of the CBA.

However, age in terms of waiver status is NOT determined the same way. Here is Note 2 from Article 13.4 of the CBA:

1. For purposes of this Article, "age 18" means a Player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "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; and "age 21" means a Player reaching his twenty-first birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft.

On September 15th, 2019, Kravtsov will still be 19 years old. Therefore, for purposes of waivers, he will be considered a 19-year-old.

Yeah. ELC sliding, continued RFA status, and Salary Arbitration rights seem to all use the same framework. I'm just guessing that they recycled that framework for expansion draft selection exemption, based on comments from folks who supposedly did ask the NHL and get an answer. If they didn't, then G-d only knows what the heck is up.

 

[GAGLine]

Oh, even more! I remember Vegas paid 500m

Yeah, inflation is a bitch. Given the success that Vegas has had, both on and off the ice, it's not surprising that they upped the ante.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Dude this Kravstov expansion exemption shit is the most convoluted and complicated discussion I can remember on this board in a while. I feel like people have unsuccessfully been trying to explain this shit for months And it appears we STILL don’t know lol

 

[Tawnos]

The problem you're running into here is that the NHL uses different measures of age for different purposes. In terms of the ELC sliding, age is determined by how old the player will be on December 31st of the calendar year in which he signs. Kravtsov will be (potentially) signing in 2019, and his birthday on December 31st, 2019 will be 20. Thus, his contract does not slide as per Section 9.2 of the CBA.

However, age in terms of waiver status is NOT determined the same way. Here is Note 2 from Article 13.4 of the CBA:

1. For purposes of this Article, "age 18" means a Player reaching his eighteenth birthday between January 1 next preceding the Entry Draft and September 15 next following the Entry Draft, both dates included; "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; and "age 21" means a Player reaching his twenty-first birthday in the calendar year of the Entry Draft.

On September 15th, 2019, Kravtsov will still be 19 years old. Therefore, for purposes of waivers, he will be considered a 19-year-old.

I read the section you just quoted as him being considered 20. It says nothing about September 15th in that section. What it does say is that a 20 year old is someone who reaches his 20th birthday in that calendar year. Kravtsov will be 20 in this calendar year.

The only thing that matters here is that Gorton looks into this with the league.

Also, that's fundamentally not the problem I'm running into. We all know ELC slides and pro season accrual are different things.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Dude this Kravstov expansion exemption **** is the most convoluted and complicated discussion I can remember on this board in a while. I feel like people have unsuccessfully been trying to explain this **** for months And it appears we STILL don’t know lol

This, paired with Virta's NHL rights-debate has me questioning my will to live