Confirmed Signing with Link: 2017-18 Prospect Signings Thread

[caley]

 

[Mike Jones]

It's neat that capfriendly would offer this kind of information and clarification. Good for them.

 

[caley]

 

[Revelate]

More Rasmus more fun

 

[caley]

 

[caley]

 

[caley]

 

[SOKOL]

OFFICIAL: #Coyotes Sign Lyubushkin to One-Year, Two-Way Contract

 

[Yatzhee]

Sabres young talent finally showing up to roost.
Nylander, Asplund, Ullmark, Dahlin (he'll be a Sabre), Oloffson, Pilute, Johansson are all in the system now. Combine them with 25 and younger Larsson and Lehner and Buffalo is starting to look like a mini Team Sweden, especially their youth.

Good signing, this kid projects to be a 3rd liner according to many. And Buffalo needs depth at every position desperately.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

 

[caley]

 

[Seachd]

So is a guy like Tyler Soy still eligible for the draft? My CBAese is pretty rusty in this respect.

He'll be 21 years old, but has been selected in a previous draft. The CBA makes it sound like these players are still eligible, but, at least in the part I'm looking at, it doesn't seem to limit this eligibility from what I can tell.

 

[Booba]

So is a guy like Tyler Soy still eligible for the draft? My CBAese is pretty rusty in this respect.

He'll be 21 years old, but has been selected in a previous draft. The CBA makes it sound like these players are still eligible, but, at least in the part I'm looking at, it doesn't seem to limit this eligibility from what I can tell.

As written by @dotcommunism last year :

To be honest, the rules on draft eligibility as written seem ambiguous at best. Strictly speaking, it seems that when a player has been drafted then had his rights expire, he should be eligible for the draft in perpetuity (unless signed to an NHL contract per 10.1(d)).

Let me elaborate. For reference, the draft eligibility rules from the CBA in full:
8.4 Eligibility for Claim.
(a) All Players age 18 or older are eligible for claim in the Entry Draft, except:
(i) a Player on the Reserve List of a Club, other than as a try-out;
(ii) a Player who has been claimed in two prior Entry Drafts;
(iii) a Player who previously played in the League and became a Free Agent pursuant to this Agreement;
(iv) a Player age 21 or older who: (A) has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft and (B) played hockey for at least one season in North America when he was age 18, 19, or 20 and shall be eligible to enter the League as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article 10.1(d); and
(v) 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).

Obviously, for players who have never been drafted before, this is all rather straightforward. For someone who's never been drafted and played in North America, to be eligible for the 2017 NHL draft, the January 1, 1997 to September 15, 1999 window clearly applies (per 8.4(iv)). For players who did not play in North America at the provided ages, the window of January 1, 1996 to September 15, 1999 applies (per 8.4(v)).

The eligibility rules, however, don't seem to adequately cover players who have been previously drafted. Again, as written, a player who has been drafted once previously, is no longer on a reserve list, and has never signed an NHL SPC seems to be eligible for selection in the entry draft forever, as none of the five exclusions apply to him. Clearly, though, this isn't actually the case.

Now, perhaps, there is an alternate interpretation of (iv) or (v) out there that works better. For example, what if "has not been selected in a previous Entry Draft" is not to be interpreted in the obvious "there has never been a draft in which this player was selected" sense but in a somewhat non-intuitive "there has been an entry draft in which this player was not selected" way. Of course, the thing is the latter reading is redundant. If a player is 21, there must obviously be a previous draft in which that player wasn't selected (as a player cannot be drafted more than twice). The latter reading also cannot adequately deal with your counter example of Lukas Sutter. I think the intuitive meaning is the correct one, though it still doesn't help address the issue of previously drafted players.

Now, your Lukas Sutter point. Booba brought up on the previous page that players like Lukas Sutter and Brenden Kichton, who were re-drafted at 21, were originally drafted under the 2005 CBA. This is a point we should look into. Since they were previously drafted under the 2005 CBA, then perhaps their draft eligibility is dictated by that CBA and perhaps there is some discrepancy between the two CBAs that resolves this matter. However, best as I can tell, the two CBAs are absolutely identical as far as 8.4 goes (as is 8.10, which dictates what "age" means for draft purposes).

So, in the end, there doesn't seem to be any particularly clear answer beside the precedent we have which indicates that 21 year olds are eligible for re-entry into the draft, even though they'd be ineligible if they had never been drafted.

 

[MardyBum]

As written by @dotcommunism last year :

Oof, just hearing Lukas Sutter makes me nauseous.

 

[caley]

 

[caley]

Been curious to see this guy for a while since he's usually listed at 5'6/5'7

 

[uncleben]

Been curious to see this guy for a while since he's usually listed at 5'6/5'7

I had a friend whose brother was playing for Owen Sound while Palmu was there, and we went and hungout after a game once, when they were in visiting the Storm. He may have grown an inch or two in the past 2.5 years, but 5'7 would have been very, very generous at the time (I'm thinking more 5'5).

Intriguing player to watch, but he is very small.

 

[PG Canuck]

I had a friend whose brother was playing for Owen Sound while Palmu was there, and we went and hungout after a game once, when they were in visiting the Storm. He may have grown an inch or two in the past 2.5 years, but 5'7 would have been very, very generous at the time (I'm thinking more 5'5).

Intriguing player to watch, but he is very small.

He’s also stocky as f*** and it’s a big reason he’s effective still. He’s built like a mini-semi truck.

 

[uncleben]

He’s also stocky as **** and it’s a big reason he’s effective still. He’s built like a mini-semi truck.

Oh yeah, even at 17, 18 he was like a tree stump

 

[MMC]

 

[Del Preston]

 

[Joey Bones]

Anyone have a list of players that a team will lose their rights on June 1st? Thanks in advance!!

 

[uncleben]

Anyone have a list of players that a team will lose their rights on June 1st? Thanks in advance!!

Hopefully I am not missing any! Red means, to the best of my knowledge, they are not eligible to re-enter the draft.

ANA: Tyler Soy

ARI: Anton Karlsson, David Westlund

BOS: none.

BUF: Vojtech Budik, Brandon Hagel, Austin Osmanski

CGY: Adam Ollas-Mattsson

CAR: Noah Carroll, Hudson Elynuik

CHI: Andreas Soderberg

COL: Maximilian Pajpach

CBJ: none.

DAL: Miro Karjalainen

DET: Jordan Sambrook, Julius Vahatalo

EDM: none.

FLA: Hugo Fagerblom, Adam Mascherin

LAK: Jacob Friend

MIN: Brayden Chizen, Pontus Sjalin

MTL: none.

NSH: none.

NJD: Evan Cormier

NYI: none.

NYR: none.

OTT: none.

PHI: Anthony Salinitri

PIT: Connor Hall

STL: none.

SJS: Mark Shoemaker

TBL: Christopher Paquette

TOR: Nicolas Mattinen, Keaton Middleton, J.J. Piccinich

VAN: Cole Candella, Brett McKenzie, Jakob Stukel

VGK: none.

WSH: Dmitri Zaitsev

WPG: Jordy Stallard

 

[caley]

Hopefully I am not missing any!

Ollas-Mattsson

CAR: Noah Carroll, Hudson Elynuik

CHI: Andreas Soderberg

COL: Maximilian Pajpach


EDM: Markus Niemelainen

CapFriendly said that Edmonton will retain Niemelainen's rights and not forfeit them

 

[uncleben]

CapFriendly said that Edmonton will retain Niemelainen's rights and not forfeit them

Oh right, I guess he should fall under 8.6 b) (i)
Good catch.
Fixed it