dotcommunism
Moderator
- Aug 16, 2007
- 5,182
- 3,348
No because if he signs an ELC that covers this season he won't be able to play in the AHL. He'd only be able to play in the NHL.So if he just plays in the AHL we still burn an ELC year?
No because if he signs an ELC that covers this season he won't be able to play in the AHL. He'd only be able to play in the NHL.So if he just plays in the AHL we still burn an ELC year?
So its NHL or nothing for remainder of season?? CBA is so effing weird.No because if he signs an ELC that covers this season he won't be able to play in the AHL. He'd only be able to play in the NHL.
So its NHL or nothing for remainder of season?? CBA is so effing weird.
Also if he plays less than 9 NHL games his contract still doesnt burn 1 year off ELC??
Does the ATO have any playoff restrictions or can he play in these too on it?No, if they sign him to an ATO to play in Rochester and an ELC that would kick in next year, he can play in Rochester. It's what Trent Frederic is doing with the P-Bruins as an example.
Does the ATO have any playoff restrictions or can he play in these too on it?
Thats good. Hopefully they can agree to an ATO with pencilled in ELC for next year. The ATO should give him a decent amount of games in the AHL for extra development. Probably makes sense for Casey unless hes dead set on staying in the NCAA next season. Doubt Botts would want to burn an ELC year for nothing on a key asset.No, it doesn't. The only thing is convincing him to sign it.
Why waste an year off ELC when cheap impact players have become the key to success in recent years? 10 games in a lost season .... does not computeSign him to an ELC now, give him whatever games in the NHL are left for us when he gets here. Then send him to the World Championship, I'm sure USA Hockey will be inviting him.
Why waste an year off ELC when cheap impact players have become the key to success in recent years? 10 games in a lost season .... does not compute
Im sure someone said he is not eligible for contract slide earlier in the thread.he'll play less than 9 games so his ELC will slide - I think for him going to play for his country again will hold more interest than being parachuted into Rochester, but he'll be given all the options and he'll decide.
I'll be very disappointed if he chooses to go back to Minnesota, he won't grow much there, they're not a great program these days.
Im sure someone said he is not eligible for contract slide earlier in the thread.
Per capfriendly:
If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Think Casey is in the exception part at the end, which means it won't slide. So it's either ATO or we lose an year off ELC, which for me is a no-go.
Good test for Botts here. I'm sure he wants Casey to take the ATO to Rochester to be involved in a playoff run, and to save the ELC year. Casey's agent probably wants to burn the first ELC year this season.
Is the burning a year of the ELC really that big of a concern?
short answer is yesIs the burning a year of the ELC really that big of a concern?
Yes and no. You want to keep your top talent inexpensive for as long as possible. IF he turns out to be the real deal, he will cost a lot more a year earlier than you want. That can impact team building. But if you feel as an organization you need him under contract and want to ensure it happens. Then then its not the end of the world to start it early to ensure it happens. But the preference would obviously be an ATO then his ELC starting next year.
Ya that’s where I am at, I don’t think either way is worth losing sleep over...if he turns out being the real deal and burning a year his second contract might end up being cheaper too.
One thing to have in mind is the coming expansion draft. If it’s after 18/19 we should be safe but 19/20 could mean that we have to leave good players unprotected.
Would be nice to not waste a protection slot on Casey because of some pointless games this season.
Im sure someone said he is not eligible for contract slide earlier in the thread.
Per capfriendly:
If a player who is signed to an entry-level contract and is 18 or 19 years of age (as of September 15 of the signing year), does not play in a minimum of 10 NHL games (including both regular season and playoffs; AHL games do not count), their contract is considered to ‘slide’, or extend, by one year. For example, if a player signed an ELC for three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-2018, and their contract slides, their contract is now effective from 2016-17 to 2018-19. An exception to this rule is that if the player is 19 on September 15 of the first year of their contract, and turns 20 between September 16 and December 31, their contract does not slide.
Think Casey is in the exception part at the end, which means it won't slide. So it's either ATO or we lose an year off ELC, which for me is a no-go.