Confirmed Signing with Link: 2017-18 Free Agency Thread

[caley]

Ryan Hamilton in table 1 is 332 years of age.

Fixed this.

shouldn't the column that says 2015-16 team read 2016-17 team?

Haven't fixed this, it's a by-product of me just re-using the same tables every year, rather than learning how to do them from scratch!

Also, I included the Top 10 highest-scoring UFA forwards in the AHL on the list and the 5 highest-scoring UFA AHL defenceman, as well. Is this a welcome addition? Should I add more? Less? Goalies?

 

[smsgtkvv]

Great job,

Using your list, I found a bunch of problems on my free agent list and only found one on your list. Yohann Auvitu of the New Jersey Devils is 27 years old and signed a one year contract last year. Since he is already 27 years old, he will be a Group III (unrestricted) free agent on July 1st. I sent an email to CapFriendly.

Here is the reply back from CapFriendly about Yohann Auvitu:

"In regards your question, no he would not qualify for Group III free agency.

The reason being is that players who played their entire club hockey career in Europe, & who then sign their first contract between ages 25-17 on a 1 year deal, are still considered as Entry Level players & are therefore RFA at the end of that first deal.

See CBA page 23 (section 9.1 (c))".

 

[uncleben]

Here is the reply back from CapFriendly about Yohann Auvitu:

"In regards your question, no he would not qualify for Group III free agency.

The reason being is that players who played their entire club hockey career in Europe, & who then sign their first contract between ages 25-17 on a 1 year deal, are still considered as Entry Level players & are therefore RFA at the end of that first deal.

See CBA page 23 (section 9.1 (c))".

Right, but he didn't sign between the ages of 17-25... he signed at the age of 26 (May 27, 2016), in his 27th year (being born July 27, 1989).



CBA 9.1 (c) actually states:

... a Player who at the time he was
drafted was playing for a team outside North America or who meets the qualifications set forth in
Article 8.4(a)(v) (a "European Player") who signs his first SPC at ages 25-27 shall be subject to
the Entry Level System for one (1) year.

That does specify what happens for players signing aged 25-27, but it specifies for players who were drafted. Auvitu was never drafted.

EDIT: They must be applying the rule such that since Auvitu was in Europe during his first draft eligible year (France, 2006-07, for the 2007 Draft), despite not being drafted, he would be treated as a "drafted" European Player.
OR
As he too was in Europe (Finland, 2010-11) when he became an unrestricted free agent as per 8.4 (a) (v) (which says: "a Player age 22 or older who has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d)"), maybe that similarly makes him a "drafted" European Player for the sake of this situation...



I do think those are too vague though if that's the case.
I agree with your original assessment smsgtkvv that he should be UFA.

 

[dotcommunism]

Right, but he didn't sign between the ages of 17-25... he signed at the age of 26 (May 27, 2016), in his 27th year (being born July 27, 1989).

That's a typo and should read "between ages 25-27", which does apply to Auvitu.

That said, while 9.1(c) does stipulate that European players who sign their first NHL SPC between 25 and 27 are subject to the entry level system, I see absolutely nothing about that fact that overrides 10.1(a) which clearly states that a player who is 27 years old or older as of June 30 shall be an unrestricted free agent when his SPC expires. Citing 9.1(c) regarding free agency status seems like a complete non sequitur

 

[uncleben]

That's a typo and should read "between ages 25-27", which does apply to Auvitu.

That said, while 9.1(c) does stipulate that European players who sign their first NHL SPC between 25 and 27 are subject to the entry level system, I see absolutely nothing about that fact that overrides 10.1(a) which clearly states that a player who is 27 years old or older as of June 30 shall be an unrestricted free agent when his SPC expires. Citing 9.1(c) regarding free agency status seems like a complete non sequitur

Still curious though if his status of being undrafted affects it though, as 9.1 (c) specifies drafted European players.

Also, I think what capfriendly was implying was he was on ELC and therefore will end as RFA (the implication being all ELCs end with RFA).
I don't remember if that is true or not. I don't know. I still feel like 10.1(a) overrides, as well.

 

[caley]

It's going to be kind of funny if after all this discussion, Auvitu IS an RFA whom the Devils decide not to qualify making him an UFA anyways!

 

[dotcommunism]

Still curious though if his status of being undrafted affects it though, as 9.1 (c) specifies drafted European players.

Also, I think what capfriendly was implying was he was on ELC and therefore will end as RFA (the implication being all ELCs end with RFA).
I don't remember if that is true or not. I don't know. I still feel like 10.1(a) overrides, as well.

Auvitu is definitely signed to an ELC, since there are performance bonuses on his contract and he would not be eligible for those otherwise. So I think we can safely assume that the "drafted" language there does not mean that undrafted players are excluded.

That said, I am aware of absolutely no provision in the CBA that stipulates that players are RFAs when their ELCs expire. Auvitu clearly meets the requirements for Group 3 free agency this offseason, per 10.1(a). There is no provision in 10.1(a) excepting players whose expiring SPC is an entry-level contract. If certain players did not qualify for Group 3 unrestricted free agency despite meeting the requirements stipulated in 10.1(a) then why would such provisions be elsewhere in the CBA than in 10.1(a) itself?

So, my conclusion is that Capfriendly's assumption that all ELCs leave the player as an RFA when they expire is erroneous and unsupported by the language of the CBA.

 

[uncleben]

Auvitu is definitely signed to an ELC, since there are performance bonuses on his contract and he would not be eligible for those otherwise. So I think we can safely assume that the "drafted" language there does not mean that undrafted players are excluded.

That said, I am aware of absolutely no provision in the CBA that stipulates that players are RFAs when their ELCs expire. Auvitu clearly meets the requirements for Group 3 free agency this offseason, per 10.1(a). There is no provision in 10.1(a) excepting players whose expiring SPC is an entry-level contract. If certain players did not qualify for Group 3 unrestricted free agency despite meeting the requirements stipulated in 10.1(a) then why would such provisions be elsewhere in the CBA than in 10.1(a) itself?

So, my conclusion is that Capfriendly's assumption that all ELCs leave the player as an RFA when they expire is erroneous and unsupported by the language of the CBA.

Hear, hear!


Or as the kids are saying these days, same!

 

[caley]

 

[Teemu]

 

[uncleben]

Did one of their goalies get injured?


Anyway, I actually liked Glass in his limited viewing with the Marlies. Good safe depth signing.

 

[Booba]

Anyway, I actually liked Glass in his limited viewing with the Marlies. Good safe depth signing.

Did one of their goalies get injured?

No but if they run into injury trouble, Glass is the best option to call up.

Also their depth is very thin so it's a good thing to have a reliable AHL goaltender under contract for next season.

Depth :
Lars Johansson : At 30 years old, he might choose to go back to Sweden over playing in the AHL.
Mac Carruth : Unlikely to be retained with his .886 save percentage.

Prospects pipeline : Matt Tomkins (Poor NCAA numbers), Wouter Peeters (only 19 yers old) and Ivan Nalimov (Pedestrian KHL numbers)

Anyway, this has to be a dream scenario for Jeff Glass who went from spending almost the entire first half of the season in the pressbox to actually having a decent shot at playing in the NHL.

 

[caley]

Aw man...



I'll fix these later...probably not until after the deadline, though.

 

[Booba]

Aw man...



I'll fix these later...probably not until after the deadline, though.

There is a few interesting names on that list!

Anton Rodin : He had the potential to become a middle 6 forward for Vancouver but he's been injured almost all season.

Ken Agostino : Leads AHL in points by a big margin. Scored 3 points in 7 games with the Blues this season.

Tim Heed : Dmen who averages 1.11 Point per Game in the AHL is not something you see everyday.

JS Bérubé : Technically he's an NHL goaltender right now. However, I don't think there is an NHL spot available for him elsewhere so his best bet is probably to remain in Brooklyn (unless Halak still has a future with the Isles...)

Nick Jensen : He's been an NHL regular for the past two months. He's climbed his way up the depth chart and even forced the Wings to waive Marchenko.

 

[smsgtkvv]

He was on the UFA list in 2009.

 

[smsgtkvv]

Aw man...



I'll fix these later...probably not until after the deadline, though.

Why isn't Landon Ferraro on the Group VI free agent list?

1. Contract expiring? Yes, signed a one-year contract last year.
2. 25 years or older as of June 30th? Yes, birthdate is August 8, 1991.
3. Three or more pro seasons? Yes, 6 pro seasons, all in AHL/NHL.
4. Played in less than 80 NHL games? Yes, played in 75 NHL games.

What am I missing?

 

[uncleben]

Why isn't Landon Ferraro on the Group VI free agent list?

1. Contract expiring? Yes, signed a one-year contract last year.
2. 25 years or older as of June 30th? Yes, birthdate is August 8, 1991.
3. Three or more pro seasons? Yes, 6 pro seasons, all in AHL/NHL.
4. Played in less than 80 NHL games? Yes, played in 75 NHL games.

What am I missing?

He can still surpass the 80 game threshold.

Once he mathematically can no longer reach 80 NHL games, then he will be classified "Group 6"

 

[smsgtkvv]

He can still surpass the 80 game threshold.

Once he mathematically can no longer reach 80 NHL games, then he will be classified "Group 6"

Curtis McKenzie is on the list and needs the same number of NHL games (5) as Landon Ferraro to reach 80. McKenzie has a better chance to getting to 80 NHL games because he has been up with the NHL club all season whereas Ferraro has been in the AHL all season.

I'm not sure of the "GR to be RFA" column because Morgan Ellis has played 3 NHL games but the Cap Friendly Group VI table shows "70 GR"

 

[uncleben]

Curtis McKenzie is on the list and needs the same number of NHL games (5) as Landon Ferraro to reach 80. McKenzie has a better chance to getting to 80 NHL games because he has been up with the NHL club all season whereas Ferraro has been in the AHL all season.

I'm not sure of the "GR to be RFA" column because Morgan Ellis has played 3 NHL games but the Cap Friendly Group VI table shows "70 GR"

To be honest, that was my just interpretation to what was going on in your question. I hadn't even looked at the graphic yet. I didn't realize it was counting down GR.


As far as I can tell, you are right then, he should be there.

 

[dotcommunism]

I'm not sure of the "GR to be RFA" column because Morgan Ellis has played 3 NHL games but the Cap Friendly Group VI table shows "70 GR"

That is correct, actually. Morgan Ellis was party to an NHL contract during the lockout shortened 2012-13 season, and thus the amount of games required for him to be eligible for Group 6 free agency is pro-rated as per the terms of the CBA's transition rules (Exhibit 16). He would have only needed 73 NHL games to remain an RFA.

Edit: This answers the Ferraro question too, btw. If he's played 6 season while party to an NHL SPC, he would only need to have played in 74. Although looking through his totals I see Ferraro has 75 regular season games and 7 playoff games, so he wouldn't be a Group 6 even without pro-ration, as playoff games do count towards the necessary 80 or 28.

 

[uncleben]

That is correct, actually. Morgan Ellis was party to an NHL contract during the lockout shortened 2012-13 season, and thus the amount of games required for him to be eligible for Group 6 free agency is pro-rated as per the terms of the CBA's transition rules (Exhibit 16). He would have only needed 73 NHL games to remain an RFA.

Edit: This answers the Ferraro question too, btw. If he's played 6 season while party to an NHL SPC, he would only need to have played in 74. Although looking through his totals I see Ferraro has 75 regular season games and 7 playoff games, so he wouldn't be a Group 6 even without pro-ration, as playoff games do count towards the necessary 80 or 28.

You're good, dotcom. You're good.

 

[smsgtkvv]

That is correct, actually. Morgan Ellis was party to an NHL contract during the lockout shortened 2012-13 season, and thus the amount of games required for him to be eligible for Group 6 free agency is pro-rated as per the terms of the CBA's transition rules (Exhibit 16). He would have only needed 73 NHL games to remain an RFA.

Edit: This answers the Ferraro question too, btw. If he's played 6 season while party to an NHL SPC, he would only need to have played in 74. Although looking through his totals I see Ferraro has 75 regular season games and 7 playoff games, so he wouldn't be a Group 6 even without pro-ration, as playoff games do count towards the necessary 80 or 28.

And now I know.

 

[Hawksnation88]

I could see the Hawks picking up a solid #5 or #6 guy like a Cody Franson on a cheap one year deal

 

[Sempiternal]

Umm okay, no one better than this?

 

[uncleben]

Umm okay, no one better than this?

Are you referring to the post above you mentioning Chicago going for a #5/6 D?
They don't really have the cap space to go for much more.

In fact, I think Franson would be a decent option for them, except I think even that would be a harder contract to fit it.