The expansion draft uses Article 13.4 in the CBA. Kravstov would have to appear in 11 NHL games for this season to count towards expansion protection. The NHL used that clause to determine the eligibility of some Vancouver players for the expansion draft with Las Vegas.
A writer from The Athletic from Vancouver wrote about Quinn Hughes and the Canucks. Same scenario as Kravstov.
Kravstov would still need 7 years accrued or 27 to become a Group III. He would arbitration eligible sooner. Group II sooner.
Gorton is not very concerned about the Rangers going players becoming free agents one year too early. He could have waited a few weeks to bring back Andersson and not have him get an accrued service year. Being on the NHL roster for 40 games. He said he is not concerned about that because the Rangers will have identified their core players way before then. Brooks spoke to Gorton about it. Last Tuesday’s Post. Chytil being benched article.
The Rangers get no slide if Kravstov plays this season with him turning 20 in December but it doesn’t not count towards expansion if he plays less than 11 games as a 19 year old. It won’t count as an accrued season towards group III.
The Duclair situation from a few years ago. The Rangers signed him in January 2014. They got one slide instead of two. The clock on Duclair’s contract started but his contract would not have count against the 50 SPC limit because he was 19 playing in junior. He made the Rangers that season anyway.
The CBA is quirky.
The Rangers could have Kravstov skate with the Rangers in practice and play in the AHL on a tryout contract.
Seidenberg skated with the Islanders all season in practice on a tryout and they signed him last week.
Do you have a source that explicitly identifies 13.4 as being the relevant section? (For those following along - 13.4 is part of determining waiver eligibility; nothing in the CBA explicitly outlines expansion draft player exemption eligibility, but it does seem to be consistent with similar eligibility rules elsewhere. Lots of guesswork.) I couldn't find anything that explicitly identified any ruleset. The closest I got was found by someone else; it was some investigation by General Fanager prior to the Vegas draft, which cited some rules that matched nicely with the rules for RFA status - 10.2(a)(i) - and Salary Arbitration eligibility - 12.1(a) and 12.1(c) - and so I went with those when producing that diagram
@Maylo cited (and yes, that mention is why I'm here; blame Maylo
). The most substantive difference I can see is that the age rules might be subtly different (mostly because 13.4's age rules are confusing as all hell in this context; they focus on draft year specifically, and so I didn't think they were relevant).
I think the end result w/r/t Kravtsov in particular ends up being the same either way, but it'd be nice to be more certain.
