RW Vitaly Kravtsov - Traktor Chelyabinsk, KHL (2018, 9th, NYR)

[Calad]

I don't see any way the NHL would count this as a professional year for expansion draft purposes unless he hits 10 NHL games. The players who will be eligible for the expansion draft with a birthday between September 16 and December 31 despite playing this entire season in the AHL - e.g Cal Foote and Cale Fleury - are a year older than Kravtsov. If this doesn't count as a professional year, he will still be considered a second year professional in summer 2021.

He plays in the KHL, which lacks a transfer agreement, so things get dicey compared to players in the AHL

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

He plays in the KHL, which lacks a transfer agreement, so things get dicey compared to players in the AHL

???

Sweden & Finland are signatories to the transfer agreement; but a player who has signed an SPC but is loaned out to a European club, those seasons do not accrue towards becoming an UFA.

 

[GAGLine]

And those beat writers would be wrong.

If Kravtsov signs his SPC on June 30, 2019, he would be 19 and the contract would slide unless both the Rangers and the player decided otherwise.

If he signs July 1, 2019 he would be 20.

No one is talking about him signing on June 30th vs July 1st. The issue is if he signs in the 2019 calendar year and plays in the AHL or NHL in the 2018-19 season.

Just like Mittelstadt, Kravtsov's contract would not slide in that case. The 9 game limit has nothing to do with it.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

No one is talking about him signing on June 30th vs July 1st. The issue is if he signs in the 2019 calendar year and plays in the AHL or NHL in the 2018-19 season.

Just like Mittelstadt, Kravtsov's contract would not slide in that case. The 9 game limit has nothing to do with it.

He could’ve signed January 1st 2019 and not played a game, the contract would slide unless the team and player agreed otherwise.

You’ve had the relevant CBA sections brought out, you’ve had the concept of “year” means league year and how calendar year is a different thing; you’ve even been presented the actual date schedules of how this would look in your universe and how it actually works.(you didn’t notice anything slightly funky with your view of the CBA? Something that a dozen lawyers on either side of the NHL-NHLPA somehow missed?)

How thick are you?

Take a semester of contract law and get back to me.

 

[theVladiator]

@TheWhiskeyThief : What you are saying makes some sense. However, in the case of Casey Mittelstadt the contract did not slide in essentially identical scenario that is being discussed with regards to Kravtsov. It doesn't look like there is any flexibility in the CBA with regards to salary slide at all, so it would not be up to Sabres and Mittelstadt to decide if it applies or not. If that CBA section applied, his salary should have slid. The fact that it did not slide I think indicates that it would not in Kravtsov's case as well.

 

[Calad]

He could’ve signed January 1st 2019 and not played a game, the contract would slide unless the team and player agreed otherwise.

You’ve had the relevant CBA sections brought out, you’ve had the concept of “year” means league year and how calendar year is a different thing; you’ve even been presented the actual date schedules of how this would look in your universe and how it actually works.(you didn’t notice anything slightly funky with your view of the CBA? Something that a dozen lawyers on either side of the NHL-NHLPA somehow missed?)

How thick are you?

Take a semester of contract law and get back to me.

My friend who is a Lawyer and took a semester of contract law says you're still wrong.

 

[Deficient Mode]

He plays in the KHL, which lacks a transfer agreement, so things get dicey compared to players in the AHL

That doesn't affect expansion draft eligibility. The NHL doesn't count an 18 or 19 year old playing in either the KHL or the AHL as a professional season. I'm talking solely about his expansion draft eligibility as that was the original question here. The rules for ELC contract slide and expansion draft eligibility are not identical anyway.

In the 2017 Expansion draft, the players to whom the Sept 16-Dec 31 rule applied were late 1994 births selected 4 years prior in 2013. Hence Mantha's 14-15 AHL season counted as a professional season for expansion draft purposes. Zadina was born in the same Sept 16-December 31 1999 window as Kravtsov, but despite having played 45 AHL and 2 NHL games, he is still as of this moment exempt from the 2021 expansion draft, because the only way someone drafted in 2018 can be eligible for the 2021 expansion draft is by playing 10 NHL games this season (and meeting the minimum games played marks the following two seasons).

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

@TheWhiskeyThief : What you are saying makes some sense. However, in the case of Casey Mittelstadt the contract did not slide in essentially identical scenario that is being discussed with regards to Kravtsov. It doesn't look like there is any flexibility in the CBA with regards to salary slide at all, so it would not be up to Sabres and Mittelstadt to decide if it applies or not. If that CBA section applied, his salary should have slid. The fact that it did not slide I think indicates that it would not in Kravtsov's case as well.

The language in CBA 9.1(d)(i) states(but not clearly enough apparently) that in order for for the contract not to slide, both parties have to agree to it. Relevant CBA to follow:
———————————
CBA 9.1(d)(i) 2nd sentence
Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses...
—————————-

Like you write, there is very little flexibility in the language unless both parties decide otherwise.

So what makes more sense: the tortured logic of a zero month age 19 year for a small subsection of a draft pool or a balanced agreement for both parties going forward?

Mittlestadt had the slightest bit of leverage and he took advantage of it. “My season is over. You want me in now, or do I see you at dev camp after the draft?” He could’ve gone back to college, they didn’t have to make a bona fide offer to retain his rights. 6 months or a year later and nothing would’ve changed for how many years his ELC would’ve lasted.

Nobody was putting a gun to either party’s head, which is what the CBA is designed to do.

March 1 is coming up, hence the next wave of signed contracts.

Watch what happens to players with early birthdates but minimal leverage.

The only leverage these players have is that they weren’t drafted, hence zero club control.

 

[theVladiator]

The language in CBA 9.1(d)(i) states(but not clearly enough apparently) that in order for for the contract not to slide, both parties have to agree to it. Relevant CBA to follow:
———————————
CBA 9.1(d)(i) 2nd sentence
Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses...
—————————-

Like you write, there is very little flexibility in the language unless both parties decide otherwise.

So what makes more sense: the tortured logic of a zero month age 19 year for a small subsection of a draft pool or a balanced agreement for both parties going forward?

Mittlestadt had the slightest bit of leverage and he took advantage of it. “My season is over. You want me in now, or do I see you at dev camp after the draft?” He could’ve gone back to college, they didn’t have to make a bona fide offer to retain his rights. 6 months or a year later and nothing would’ve changed for how many years his ELC would’ve lasted.

Nobody was putting a gun to either party’s head, which is what the CBA is designed to do.

March 1 is coming up, hence the next wave of signed contracts.

Watch what happens to players with early birthdates but minimal leverage.

The only leverage these players have is that they weren’t drafted, hence zero club control.

The complete 2nd sentence of 9.1(d)(i) is

Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.

The way I read this, there is flexibility with regards to some terms of the contract. What I referred to in my post in the last (emphasized) portion of that sentence that excludes salary specifically from such special arrangement. Yet, Mittlestadt's salary did not slide. So if it could not have been subject to special arrangement (as per 9.1(d)(i)) , it must have been prescribed not to slide by the CBA. Hopefully now it's a bit clearer what I meant in my post.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

The complete 2nd sentence of 9.1(d)(i) is

Unless a Player and Club expressly agree to the contrary, in the event a Player's SPC is extended an additional year in accordance with this subsection, all terms of the SPC, with the exception of Signing Bonuses, but including Paragraph 1 Salary, games played bonuses and Exhibit 5 bonuses, shall be extended; provided, however, that the Player's Paragraph 1 Salary shall be extended in all circumstances.

The way I read this, there is flexibility with regards to some terms of the contract. What I referred to in my post in the last (emphasized) portion of that sentence that excludes salary specifically from such special arrangement. Yet, Mittlestadt's salary did not slide. So if it could not have been subject to special arrangement (as per 9.1(d)(i)) , it must have been prescribed not to slide by the CBA. Hopefully now it's a bit clearer what I meant in my post.

The 1st part of the section is operative. Everything else is noise.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

And those beat writers would be wrong.

If Kravtsov signs his SPC on June 30, 2019, he would be 19 and the contract would slide unless both the Rangers and the player decided otherwise.

If he signs July 1, 2019 he would be 20.

The Rangers retain his rights in perpetuity as Russia isn’t a signatory to the transfer agreement, so it would work in the team’s favor to put off the start of accruing seasons until his age 21 season. So not only would he not be signing this season, the Rangers wouldn’t even sign him next season.

Added:
Think of it this way: under the scenario that he signs his SPC this season that his contract wouldn’t slide, the signing windows would be as such:

EDIT: dates of windows added for clarification

His age 18 eligibility as a December birthday would be 6 months.(July 1-December 31 2018)
His age 19 would be zero months
His age 20 would be 24 months(January 1 2019-December 31, 2020)
His age 21 would be 1 year.(Jan 1-December 31 2021)

If under a fair(& the proper) interpretation, it would be as such:
Age 18, 6 months(July 1-December 31 2018)
Age 19, 6 months(January 1-June 30 2019)
Age 20, 6 months(July 1-December 31 2019)
Age 21, 1 year.(January 1-December 31 2020)

Added: Pre-camp comparison.
Pre September 15 2000 player:
Age 18: 6 months(July 1-December 31 2018)
Age 19: 1 year(January 1-December 31 2019)
Age 20: 1 year(January 1-December 31 2020)

I am going to say one thing about this, because I am sick and tired of people getting it wrong.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf


Article 9 is all that matters here. That's about entry level contracts.


What you are mentioning is article 8 (section 8.10). Article 8 is ONLY about the Entry Draft (page 16)

Article 9 is about Entry level contacts (page 23)

See how 9.2 clearly states how age is defined in this article (as in, article 9)?

9.1.d.1: " except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. "

The clarification is pretty clear and not really open to interpretation. The automatic extension (slide) will not apply if the player turns 20 between September 16th and December 31st in the year in which he signs an SPC, which is calendar year according to 9.2

There's no talk about years starting in July or whatever. It's calendar year. Plain and simple

That's it. I'm done. Kravtsov's entry level contract will not be slide eligible if signed in 2019. That's it.

 

[Caser]

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

He had a PP assist today.

 

[EXTRAS]

Looks like he will be in North America in 5 days...

 

[Atas2000]

Looks like he will be in North America in 5 days...

This was expected, don't sound like it's a huge surprise. In the Rangers situation of a full rebuild they might as well give him some minutes.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Looks like he will be in North America in 5 days...

Well... That depends.

If Traktor releases him before April 30th
If Kravtsov wants to come over on a PTO earning 20% of what he earns now for meaningless games in the AHL

I could see Kravtsov stay in Russia to play in some spring tournaments and fight for a spot on the WC team

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

And those beat writers would be wrong.

If Kravtsov signs his SPC on June 30, 2019, he would be 19 and the contract would slide unless both the Rangers and the player decided otherwise.

I thought the question was more about if he signs anything way sooner than June 30.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I thought the question was more about if he signs anything way sooner than June 30.

Either way, it's irrelevant. The CBA doesn't look at seasons to determine the rule in section 9.2, it's about calendar years.

Kravtsov's ELC will not slide, regardless of whether it's signed in March, June, July or December

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

I thought the question was more about if he signs anything way sooner than June 30.

League year ends June 30, so the player signing on March 7 or June 30 would be the same under the CBA as long as Kravtsov plays less than 10 games. Hard for him to be playing NHL games after April 6th, obviously.

Now both sides can agree to burn a year of the ELC, but Kravtsov can’t really go back to Traktor on a 1 year deal which would be less than even what he’d make in Hartford.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

What does it matter?

He's not NHL ready. The team has enough prospects on it who don't belong in the NHL, but are here to showcase to the fans. If you insist on him playing in NA, send him to Hartford to end the season on an ATO.

But I think that would be dumb, as well. Russian forwards have a long history of developing much better in the KHL. Kravtsov showed good development this season, but not enough to be ready for the NHL next season. Send him back to the KHL for another season. Its best for his development.

 

[Calad]

I am going to say one thing about this, because I am sick and tired of people getting it wrong.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf


Article 9 is all that matters here. That's about entry level contracts.


What you are mentioning is article 8 (section 8.10). Article 8 is ONLY about the Entry Draft (page 16)

View attachment 193259

Article 9 is about Entry level contacts (page 23)

View attachment 193257

See how 9.2 clearly states how age is defined in this article (as in, article 9)?

View attachment 193261

9.1.d.1: " except that this automatic extension will not apply to a Player who is 19 according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs an SPC. "

The clarification is pretty clear and not really open to interpretation. The automatic extension (slide) will not apply if the player turns 20 between September 16th and December 31st in the year in which he signs an SPC, which is calendar year according to 9.2

There's no talk about years starting in July or whatever. It's calendar year. Plain and simple

That's it. I'm done. Kravtsov's entry level contract will not be slide eligible if signed in 2019. That's it.

But he took a semester of contract law, so this law student knows more than any of us who have discussed this exact scenario over the past year, why dont you understand that?!!?!? /sarcasm off

 

[bl02]

What does it matter?

He's not NHL ready. The team has enough prospects on it who don't belong in the NHL, but are here to showcase to the fans. If you insist on him playing in NA, send him to Hartford to end the season on an ATO.

But I think that would be dumb, as well. Russian forwards have a long history of developing much better in the KHL. Kravtsov showed good development this season, but not enough to be ready for the NHL next season. Send him back to the KHL for another season. Its best for his development.

Unless he really really wants to play in north america I truly hope he stays in Russia over Hartford. Let him develop more and be ready for New York in 2020-2021.

 

[theVladiator]

Either way, it's irrelevant. The CBA doesn't look at seasons to determine the rule in section 9.2, it's about calendar years.

Kravtsov's ELC will not slide, regardless of whether it's signed in March, June, July or December

Doesn't look like anyone is still confused about the ELC slide issue. I think the poster was just trying to point out that Rangers in fact could sign him to ELC and have him play a few NHL games. How likely that is, burning off an ELC year for the sake of a few games, is another story.

I think there might be an additional incentive for Kravtsov to play a few games in the AHL. It could give him a stronger negotiating position for signing the contract. Playing games in NA would give him NA player status under CBA, with possible draft re-entry, UFA status etc. Not to say that he needs any sort of loophole to escape, by all accounts his relationship with the Rangers is good. But leverage in contract negotiations never hurt anybody.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Doesn't look like anyone is still confused about the ELC slide issue. I think the poster was just trying to point out that Rangers in fact could sign him to ELC and have him play a few NHL games. How likely that is, burning off an ELC year for the sake of a few games, is another story.

I think there might be an additional incentive for Kravtsov to play a few games in the AHL. It could give him a stronger negotiating position for signing the contract. Playing games in NA would give him NA player status under CBA, with possible draft re-entry, UFA status etc. Not to say that he needs any sort of loophole to escape, by all accounts his relationship with the Rangers is good. But leverage in contract negotiations never hurt anybody.

This is all meaningless unless Traktor decides to release him once their season ends, and Kravtsov wants to come over.

Scenario A: Making 5K a month, playing minor league hockey
Scenario B: Play spring tournaments, getting paid 25K a month and potentially earn a spot on the World Championship team

I would not rule out Kravtsov going with Scenario B

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]