I thought this was where things were going. Benning wanted Lockwood to go develop in ?Utica. The kid could just as easily develop at school, finish his degree, and get to UFA status. Benning gave this kid no reason to sign, which tells me Captain “not so” Clever has decided Lockwood is not going to become an NHL player.
And what reasons can Benning give for Lockwood to sign? Have the ELC start this year so it gets burned? Max bonuses that he doesn't deserve and is unlikely to achieve? Outside of undrafted UFAs, only Boeser and Hughes have been signed and given NHL games to end the year. They were both, rightfully, projected to be good enough to play in the NHL next season.
The sticking point is probably when the ELC begins. If Lockwood signs an ELC this year it will be for 3 years. If he signs next year it will be 2. That means that potentially, if Lockwood signs next season and gets to burn a year off his ELC he will have one year remaining on his ELC. Otherwise it will be the same. If I'm Lockwood and I think I have a realistic chance of cracking the NHL next season I'll probably turn pro. If I think I will spend the year in Utica for sure and might actually spend 2 years there, I might as well spend another year in college.
I think Benning does think Lockwood is going to become an NHL player. But if he's not offering to burn a year off his ELC, he's probably thinking Lockwood is at least 2-3 years away from the NHL, which is how I would project it as well.
People criticize Benning for agreeing to deals with Boeser and Hughes where a year off the ELC is burned. But these guys are top prospects who in reality were/are able to step right into the NHL. Lockwood isn't in that class of prospects. Personally, I don't think burning a year off the ELC matters too much but if Benning wants to draw a line here I'm fine with it.