Barracuda about to have a crazy good defense? Mukh, Dickinson, Carlsson, Pohlkamp . . .
Ah ok. So this is just to give him some pre-season games and see if he can make the team out of camp I guess.Dickinson isn't eligible to play in the AHL, since he was drafted out of the CHL (OHL is part of CHL) and is under 20.
Ah ok. So this is just to give him some pre-season games and see if he can make the team out of camp I guess.
Dickinson can play more than nine games with the Sharks this year and be sent down to the OHL. However, doing so burns a year of his ELC (we would not be able to slide it forward a year).Dickinson isn't eligible to play in the AHL, since he was drafted out of the CHL (OHL is part of CHL) and is under 20. He's most likely going back to the OHL with a theoretical possibility of playing in the NHL. Might get 9 games in the NHL though, which is the most he can get without having to stay with the Sharks full time in 24-25.
Dickinson can play more than nine games with the Sharks this year and be sent down to the OHL. However, doing so burns a year of his ELC (we would not be able to slide it forward a year).
I believe it is very unlikely the Sharks do this. I think he's reassigned back to London early in training camp.
Technically they can send him back to juniors at any time even after 80 games. But if they don't want to burn a year of his els they'll send him back before 9 games.Dickinson isn't eligible to play in the AHL, since he was drafted out of the CHL (OHL is part of CHL) and is under 20. He's most likely going back to the OHL with a theoretical possibility of playing in the NHL. Might get 9 games in the NHL though, which is the most he can get without having to stay with the Sharks full time in 24-25.
Given that the top prospects now get 8 year deals after their ELC I could see it benefiting a team to burn a year of ELC where the player doesn’t show much at the NHL level. It could reduce the AAV of that 8 year deal by a few million.Technically they can send him back to juniors at any time even after 80 games. But if they don't want to burn a year of his els they'll send him back before 9 games.
Musty signed October 4, 2023. Which is not terribly long, but not as early as Dickinson signing in July.Kind of. Really it is just to make sure he is signed. If he plays in the OHL, his contract slides. But this is just confirmation that he signed and now can't pull any shenanigans down the road. (and the Sharks can't pull any shenanigans by refusing to sign him).
This is really a formality more than anything. Musty signed his ELC not long after being drafted and he's likely back to the OHL this season too.
For a second, I thought it might be the beginning of "elsewhere."EL..S?
The reason the rule exists is so the Canadian junior leagues have intriguing enough talent for people to want to come watch. Plus it means that when your prospects go to play there, they'll be playing against higher caliber talent.This ohl ahl rule needs to be overturned for first round picks
More like the differentiation with the SHL xfer agreement. If I remember right from Dahlen-gate...This ohl ahl rule needs to be overturned for first round picks
It was also basically first time on the ice in a couple months. Anyone that draws any kind of conclusions from 1 meaningless game and not even a game played at regular rules is overthinking this. Just by being the 11th pick dickson will be staying in san jose to the end of camp.I forsee Dickinson being an early cut in training camp, his processing and reaction time was a step behind even other players in the prospect scrimmage
I doubt he gets any NHL games, that tryout probably comes next year, the hope this season is that Oliver Bonk makes the Flyers out of camp and Dickinson gets to be the #1D for London and dominates on a great team
But if we didn't get the first from the pens then we don't have the assets available to move up from 14 to 11.Can we safely assume that Erik Karlsson trade net us Sam Dickson now? I know some stats nerds will nitpick it to death and say but we threw in a pick and moved up so it not a true 1 for 1.