Gravel signs

[CTKingsFan]

I'm not sure what the situation is exactly. But, it would appear Rosen's info comes from the Kings. I guess technically the Monarchs own Gravel's rights. But, of course the Monarchs are both owned and operated by the Kings. Which is not the case for every AHL team. Sounds like Kings didn't want to get too close to the 50 man contract limit, so Gravel agree to sign an AHL deal. Gravel mentions in the interview that he's noticed how well the Kings have developed players in their system, and seems like he wants in on it.

It's definitely an odd situation. But, Gravel is staying in the organization. Which is good a thing!

It's amazing what a couple Stanley Cup wins does to your organization!

 

[Trolfoli]

I really think this is about money. The Kings are going to be right up against the cap. They still don't know who their 4c is going to be. If Shore (925k) makes the 4c spot out of camp instead of someone like Andy (550k). That's a difference of 375k. That possibility may be unlikely, but it is still a possibility that the Kings have to plan for. In the event of Shore making the team, they would need Gravel to sign at the same number as McNabb (650k). Otherwise if McNabb got injured they wouldn't have the cap to bring up Gravel. This is like the situation with signing Jones last year. He had to match Scrivens' cap hit and that contract took a little bit to get done.

Being a good college prospect around 800k would be fine money. Forbort is at (863k). Kings, if Shore makes it we need you to take 650k. If Shore doesn't make it we can pay you 800 easy. Won't know till after camp. So sign AHL deal, no out clause, until we know how much we can pay you.

Edit: not sure I buy the 50 contract limit as a reason not to sign Gravel.... there should be someone in the minors that doesn't look like they're ever going to make the NHL and could be jettisoned before passing on signing Gravel.

 

[Jason Lewis]

I'm not sure what the situation is exactly. But, it would appear Rosen's info comes from the Kings. I guess technically the Monarchs own Gravel's rights. But, of course the Monarchs are both owned and operated by the Kings. Which is not the case for every AHL team. Sounds like Kings didn't want to get too close to the 50 man contract limit, so Gravel agree to sign an AHL deal. Gravel mentions in the interview that he's noticed how well the Kings have developed players in their system, and seems like he wants in on it.

It's definitely an odd situation. But, Gravel is staying in organization. Which is good a thing!

It's amazing what a couple Stanley Cup wins does to your organization!

Exactly. Seems like a loophole, but a loophole that allows us to keep Gravel so that's a good thing.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Exactly. Seems like a loophole, but a loophole that allows us to keep Gravel so that's a good thing.

It's not a loophole since Gravel is not Kings property. Any NHL team can sign Gravel. It might be an unwritten type rule that no one touches their prospect, but it's not an official one meaning a GM willing to break that rule can.

 

[KINGS17]

I wonder if Muzzin's experience in the Kings' development system had any influence on Gravel. Gravel may not make it in the NHL with the Kings unless they lose Muzzin or Martinez down the line, but for a player trying to make it to the NHL some day, the Kings' development system would seem to be an attractive option.

 

[BallPointHammer]

Then quite frankly, it's wrong.

From the article:

"Though there has been speculation that Gravel could still currently sign a contract with another NHL team, that is incorrect. The NHL honors contracts with teams in other leagues, and in order for another team to sign him, Los Angeles would have to release his Manchester rights. There is no reason the Kings would do that.

It’s not really a murky situation – maybe mildly so – and Gravel wasn’t following along any contractual news with white knuckles. This is a player who wants to eventually play in Los Angeles."

The highlighted segment clears things up. As I questioned earlier, it looks like Gravel would become free to sign with other NHL teams when his Manchester contract ends, since the Kings don't hold his NHL rights any longer. I've never heard of a situation like this before. Unusual, but does make sense and explains why the Kings and Gravel would enter into such an agreement in the first place.

 

[kingsfan]

From the article:

"Though there has been speculation that Gravel could still currently sign a contract with another NHL team, that is incorrect. The NHL honors contracts with teams in other leagues, and in order for another team to sign him, Los Angeles would have to release his Manchester rights. There is no reason the Kings would do that.

It’s not really a murky situation – maybe mildly so – and Gravel wasn’t following along any contractual news with white knuckles. This is a player who wants to eventually play in Los Angeles."

The highlighted segment clears things up. As I questioned earlier, it looks like Gravel would become free to sign with other NHL teams when his Manchester contract ends, since the Kings don't hold his NHL rights any longer. I've never heard of a situation like this before. Unusual, but does make sense and explains why the Kings and Gravel would enter into such an agreement in the first place.

Why would LA have to release his Manchester contract? He signed a contract with Manchester, not LA. Manchester would have to release him.

I agree with Holden on this.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

From the article:

Just because someone writes something in an article doesn't make it correct. It's wrong. It's happened before and can happen again. AHL and ECHL contracts can be overwritten by contract at higher levels without permission.

 

[goosh]

Just because someone writes something in an article doesn't make it correct. It's wrong. It's happened before and can happen again. AHL and ECHL contracts can be overwritten by contract at higher levels without permission.

Rosen said he consulted hockey ops.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Rosen said he consulted hockey ops.

Good for him.

There's several factors here. Again like I said this could be a "unwritten rule" type of situation which wasn't properly conveyed to Rosen. Could be they told Rosen that teams needed permission because it was such a strong unwritten rule they feel it's fact. Hell Kings could flat out be wrong.

All I know is that this has happened before and can happen again (AHL contracted player signing with another NHL team). I don't exactly have time to find the CBA stuff again, but Gravel is a NHL UFA. He can sign with any team at any time.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Just because someone writes something in an article doesn't make it correct. It's wrong. It's happened before and can happen again. AHL and ECHL contracts can be overwritten by contract at higher levels without permission.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but where does this info come from? I tend agree though I can't think of any examples offhand--I feel like I remember (plenty of) NHL free agents playing in lower leagues signing with different NHL teams--but it would be interesting to compare circumstances.

 

[King'sPawn]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but where does this info come from? I tend agree though I can't think of any examples offhand--I feel like I remember (plenty of) NHL free agents playing in lower leagues signing with different NHL teams--but it would be interesting to compare circumstances.

Didn't the Kings have a prospect sign a deal with the Grand Rapids Griffons (AHL) contract, then they signed him to an NHL contract?

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but where does this info come from? I tend agree though I can't think of any examples offhand--I feel like I remember (plenty of) NHL free agents playing in lower leagues signing with different NHL teams--but it would be interesting to compare circumstances.

Rem Murray 6-7 years ago is one I remember most vividly (I remember it was a surprise to Minnesota when they had a key vet on their AHL team stolen). There was a prospect with the St. John's IceCaps (Jets) couple of years ago signed with Florida.

AHL and ECHL are recognized in the NHL CBA as "AAA" and "AA" type affliated minor leagues. It puts them in a different category than European pro leagues (who have transfer windows if an agreement is signed, usually in the off-season). It makes them subservient and allows their contracts to be overridden by NHL teams.

If I have time I'll find the CBA stuff tommorrow.

Didn't the Kings have a prospect sign a deal with the Grand Rapids Griffons (AHL) contract, then they signed him to an NHL contract?

Scott Parse.

 

[TruKingFan]

It's not a loophole since Gravel is not Kings property. Any NHL team can sign Gravel. It might be an unwritten type rule that no one touches their prospect, but it's not an official one meaning a GM willing to break that rule can.

Not disagreeing with you per se, but if Gravel was a really a great prospect and a team desperate for young defensive prospects, wouldn't such a GM already said, "****** it, the hell with this "unwritten rule"? I mean it's been almost 30 days since Gravel supposedly became a UFA.

If what Rosen says is valid, then kudos to the Kings' for signing him to an AHL contract and it does seem that Gravel would rather stay with the organ-eye-zation. The fact that he's even on the roster (and showed up!) for rookie camp says a lot.

 

[onlyalad]

Flyers have a bunch of guys on AHL deals

 

[Trolfoli]

Flyers have a bunch of guys on AHL deals

Quick! Raid Hextall's pantry while he's not looking!

 

[tigermask48]

From the article:

"Though there has been speculation that Gravel could still currently sign a contract with another NHL team, that is incorrect. The NHL honors contracts with teams in other leagues, and in order for another team to sign him, Los Angeles would have to release his Manchester rights. There is no reason the Kings would do that.

I guess that would explain the randomness of guys like Holloway, Moller, and Azevedo some how remaining Kings prospects when they should have been UFAs a year or two ago... Possibly some fine print in the new CBA maybe? Otherwise the way I've always understood it is the way Holden is describing. An AHL deal shouldn't protect a player from signing with an NHL team unless it is still in the year or two window from when an older CHL player (19 or 20 year old) or a European player gets drafted out Europe. Certainly a strange situation. Another thing I could think of would be some handshake agreement stemming from the ordeal with Porkins from last year maybe?

 

[Jason Lewis]

I usually don't mind picking through CBA stuff but this one is lost on me.

I'm with Holden as well, must be an unwritten rule or some form of verbal agreement between teams to not poach guys who aren't under contract with the team that drafted them.



EDIT: Actually. I think I may have found it here. Article 8, section 8.6 (reserve list exclusive rights) of the CBA in regards to college players.

(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in
accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii)

(A "Bona Fide Offer" is an offer of an SPC (Standard Player contract) which is for a period corresponding to
the Player's age as required under Section 9.1(b) of this Agreement, is to commence at the start
of the next League Year, offers at least the Minimum Paragraph 1 Salary as set forth in Section
11.12 of this Agreement for each League Year covered by such offer and remains open to the
Player for at least thirty (30) days after receipt of the offer by the Player. A Bona Fide Offer
may be conditioned upon acceptance by the Player within thirty (30) days and carries no right to
salary arbitration.)

above, becomes a bona fide college
student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry
Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of
his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of
negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following
the graduation of his college class.

This applies to Gravel, as he was drafted at 18 when he was still playing for Sioux City in the USHL. He became a college student shortly after that and remained there the entire 4 years. When he graduated he must have been offered a contract by the Kings at some point but it never went through. Thus the team fulfilled the due diligence of actually giving Gravel and his agent a contract offer. Whether they denied them on their own, or it was a mutual decision of "Hey we are going to offer you this contract *Wink wink nudge nudge* and you are going to do nothing with it so we get your exclusive negotiating rights." this granted the Kings exclusive negotiating rights.

Due to that the Kings have exclusive negotiating rights. It seems similar to CHL players, which was mentioned before in regards to guys like Brady Murray, Holloway, or Azevedo. If they were offered or signed a legit contract with the Kings, the organization retains rights even if they aren't technically property of the team or under their 50 pro contract limit.

 

[kingsfan]

Not disagreeing with you per se, but if Gravel was a really a great prospect and a team desperate for young defensive prospects, wouldn't such a GM already said, "****** it, the hell with this "unwritten rule"? I mean it's been almost 30 days since Gravel supposedly became a UFA.

If what Rosen says is valid, then kudos to the Kings' for signing him to an AHL contract and it does seem that Gravel would rather stay with the organ-eye-zation. The fact that he's even on the roster (and showed up!) for rookie camp says a lot.

I'm wondering if teams are tight on contract slots until the know who makes their teams out of camp and also wanting to keep a spot or two open for waiver wire stuff. I'm waiting to see if Gravel still doesn't have a contract by later October.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I guess that would explain the randomness of guys like Holloway, Moller, and Azevedo some how remaining Kings prospects when they should have been UFAs a year or two ago... Possibly some fine print in the new CBA maybe? Otherwise the way I've always understood it is the way Holden is describing. An AHL deal shouldn't protect a player from signing with an NHL team unless it is still in the year or two window from when an older CHL player (19 or 20 year old) or a European player gets drafted out Europe. Certainly a strange situation. Another thing I could think of would be some handshake agreement stemming from the ordeal with Porkins from last year maybe?

Holloway, Moller and Azevdo are RFA's. This is a completely different situation to an undrafted prospect with a completely different set of rules. With RFA's it means that they have signed and played out their contract but don't meet the requirements for UFA status. They are all Group II (I think I forget the exact numbers of the groups I just know what happens in certain situations) RFA's. This means that Kings DID give them a Qualifying offer before July 1st when their contract was expiring and that the players regetted it. Now Qualifying Offers have strict rules about what must be offered making them vastly different from BonaFide Offers to retain rights like Gravel must once have received (as in Bonafide Offers are complete jokes). Those players then have their rights retained until they are 27 years old.

Gravel was a college unsigned draft pick. They have completely different rules. Players are then (generally, but Gravel falls into this category) protected until the August 15th following their graduating class. Which for Gravel was on August 15th. That makes him an NHL UFA. There is nothing in the CBA which protects AHL contracts, it is listed as a minor league. Note that this is completely different language from European leagues.

Listen if teams could protect players by having them signed to AHL teams and not needing to give them ELC's do you REALLY think that the Kings were the first ones to figure this out 9 years into the current CBA (I know 2013 saw a new one but it was the same in 95% of player protection aspects)?.

I usually don't mind picking through CBA stuff but this one is lost on me.

I'm with Holden as well, must be an unwritten rule or some form of verbal agreement between teams to not poach guys who aren't under contract with the team that drafted them.

EDIT: Actually. I think I may have found it here. Article 8, section 8.6 (reserve list exclusive rights) of the CBA in regards to college players.


This applies to Gravel, as he was drafted at 18 when he was still playing for Sioux City in the USHL. He became a college student shortly after that and remained there the entire 4 years. When he graduated he must have been offered a contract by the Kings at some point but it never went through. Thus the team fulfilled the due diligence of actually giving Gravel and his agent a contract offer. Whether they denied them on their own, or it was a mutual decision of "Hey we are going to offer you this contract *Wink wink nudge nudge* and you are going to do nothing with it so we get your exclusive negotiating rights." this granted the Kings exclusive negotiating rights.

Due to that the Kings have exclusive negotiating rights. It seems similar to CHL players, which was mentioned before in regards to guys like Brady Murray, Holloway, or Azevedo. If they were offered or signed a legit contract with the Kings, the organization retains rights even if they aren't technically property of the team or under their 50 pro contract limit.

Um due to the Bonafide offer the Kings retained his rights through the August 15th of his graduating class...as in August 15, 2014. Those rights expired.

For Holloway and Azevedo see above. Brady Murray was drafted under a completely different CBA which changed the rules. He wouldn't have remained Kings property that long under 2005 or 2013 CBA's.

 

[TruKingFan]

Gravel was a college unsigned draft pick. They have completely different rules. Players are then (generally, but Gravel falls into this category) protected until the August 15th following their graduating class. Which for Gravel was on August 15th. That makes him an NHL UFA. There is nothing in the CBA which protects AHL contracts, it is listed as a minor league. Note that this is completely different language from European leagues.

Listen if teams could protect players by having them signed to AHL teams and not needing to give them ELC's do you REALLY think that the Kings were the first ones to figure this out 9 years into the current CBA (I know 2013 saw a new one but it was the same in 95% of player protection aspects)?.

Um due to the Bonafide offer the Kings retained his rights through the August 15th of his graduating class...as in August 15, 2014. Those rights expired.

Those rights may have expired so what is he doing in the Kings' rookie camp? One of two things have happened: 1) UFA offers were made but was rejected by Gravel; or 2) No other team has made an offer. The ELC contract is 2-way right? So perhaps Gravel knows he might not be ready for the NHL right now and would hate having to play for another AHL franchise. Better for him to stay with the Kings who have shown they can develop defensemen.

Bottom line is, whether the Kings have Gravel's rights or not, he's practicing with the team and will participate in both rookie camp and the NHL training camp soon. That's all that matters right now.

 

[Jason Lewis]

Holloway, Moller and Azevdo are RFA's. This is a completely different situation to an undrafted prospect with a completely different set of rules. With RFA's it means that they have signed and played out their contract but don't meet the requirements for UFA status. They are all Group II (I think I forget the exact numbers of the groups I just know what happens in certain situations) RFA's. This means that Kings DID give them a Qualifying offer before July 1st when their contract was expiring and that the players regetted it. Now Qualifying Offers have strict rules about what must be offered making them vastly different from BonaFide Offers to retain rights like Gravel must once have received (as in Bonafide Offers are complete jokes). Those players then have their rights retained until they are 27 years old.

Gravel was a college unsigned draft pick. They have completely different rules. Players are then (generally, but Gravel falls into this category) protected until the August 15th following their graduating class. Which for Gravel was on August 15th. That makes him an NHL UFA. There is nothing in the CBA which protects AHL contracts, it is listed as a minor league. Note that this is completely different language from European leagues.

Listen if teams could protect players by having them signed to AHL teams and not needing to give them ELC's do you REALLY think that the Kings were the first ones to figure this out 9 years into the current CBA (I know 2013 saw a new one but it was the same in 95% of player protection aspects)?.



Um due to the Bonafide offer the Kings retained his rights through the August 15th of his graduating class...as in August 15, 2014. Those rights expired.

For Holloway and Azevedo see above. Brady Murray was drafted under a completely different CBA which changed the rules. He wouldn't have remained Kings property that long under 2005 or 2013 CBA's.

Correct, but since they may have made him a legitimate offer that both parties agreed to let sit for 30 days after he graduated it granted them exclusive negotiating rights even after the August 15th date.

The comparison to those CHL players is that they were under contract with the Kings at one point or another, which qualifies as a SPC. Therefore when they went to Europe the Kings still had exclusive negotiating rights.

Again, I could be completely misreading this since it's a bit of a murky document to read through. It also makes some other cases like Kevin Hayes odd because if the Kings were able to do this with Gravel then why would Chicago not do it with him?

 

[tigermask48]

Again, I could be completely misreading this since it's a bit of a murky document to read through. It also makes some other cases like Kevin Hayes odd because if the Kings were able to do this with Gravel then why would Chicago not do it with him?

The part of the CBA you quoted above makes sense as does Holden's explanation o the CHL payers going to Europe. In the case of Hayes if he rejects the Hawks offer instead of letting it sit for the 30 days then that part doesn't apply and he is free to become a UFA right? That would be my understanding of the difference between those two situations. It also would explain the timeframe of news coming out about Gravel. The Kings were negotiating with him and then nothing for about a month and then we started hearing he wouldn't be signed by the August 15th deadline. The timeframe kind of fits with the 30 day window you are talking about.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Correct, but since they may have made him a legitimate offer that both parties agreed to let sit for 30 days after he graduated it granted them exclusive negotiating rights even after the August 15th date.

The comparison to those CHL players is that they were under contract with the Kings at one point or another, which qualifies as a SPC. Therefore when they went to Europe the Kings still had exclusive negotiating rights.

Again, I could be completely misreading this since it's a bit of a murky document to read through. It also makes some other cases like Kevin Hayes odd because if the Kings were able to do this with Gravel then why would Chicago not do it with him?

Yeah I've read the CBA lots including this part. There's absolutely nothing there that can be used to extend player's rights past August 15th. It just states that the rights will be held until August 15th. Nothing to be used. It just states that the Bonafide Offer would remain valid for 30 days. That doesn't matter in terms of retaining rights.

Read through it carefully. It states that a Bonafide offer is allowed to worded to stay open for no more than 30 days (so it's offered by Kings with a deadline of 30 days to accept for Gravel). Then you took a different part of the clause (ie not directly related) which states teams hold the rights until August 15th. They are not related, you cannot combine these. It's a document steeped in legalese but you just have to treat it very literally and it's not so bad. These are not related things.

Well not at all. It doesn't matter slightly that those players had an SPC with the Kings. Well it matters, but not how you mean. What matters is that when their contracts expired they were RFA eligible. The Kings extended QO's. The players rejected said QO's. Same situation as a Martin Jones last year. But instead of staying with the team those players signed with teams in Europe. They are still RFA's. Had Kings not offered a QO they would have been UFA. The fact that they were CHL players also did not matter at all. The rules governing RFA and unsigned draft choices are vastly different and in completely different sections of the CBA. No comparison whatsoever in terms of business of hockey.

 

[kingsfan]

The 30 days for an offer is a safeguard for teams. They can submit an offer but puts a close date on it, so a player can't come back six months later and try and accept it then. It doesn't allow a team to extend beyond a date such as the August 15th date.

After August 15th, Gravel can get bonafide offers from 30 teams.