Rumor: Kaprizov and Sorokin will play next season in the KHL

[mouser]

NHLPA Will absolutely not budge on reopening until the NHL revises their stance on this sudden rule change with no agreement in place.

Kaprizov will be in a wild sweater come game time. I hope Sorokin will be with his respective team as well.

Edit: I guess I should clarify since we are getting close to phase 2 i believe talks have been had and the NHL revised stance on this will be announced in the near future.

We really don't know what the PA may or may not be willing to negotiate. There are a slew of things that need to be negotiated between the PA and NHL to resume this season and impacts into future seasons. Frankly, whether players are allowed to sign for 2019-20 is probably pretty far down the PA's negotiation priority list.

 

[PAZ]

I'm hopeful the NHLPA will remain strong and Kaprizov will get to sign.

But i'll never be shocked by a player's union trading rights away for future players, in order to get something for current players.

So is the NHLPA fighting it because they absolutely aren't going to allow the NHL to change the rule, or is it just a chip for them to play in negotiations. I'm cynical, so I suspect it's the later.

Ya i'm sure it's on the agenda, but the NHLPA owes a lot of money to the owners at the moment and I doubt the players want to forego millions of dollars by postponing the season further. This won't be the hill that they refuse to budge on, there's way too much on risk.

This isn't a 'this happens or we don't play' issue, far from it.

 

[MuckOG]

This isn't a 'this happens or we don't play' issue, far from it.

I wouldn't bet on that being the case. I can't imagine that the NHLPA would want to set the precedent of the NHL deciding unilaterally to create a rule that wasn't collectively bargained with the players. Especially when this new "rule" is designed to not allow players to sign and play.

Besides, this rule change is incredibly unfair on its face. Why should a team like the Pens be able to benefit by getting a healthy Jake Guentzel for the playoffs? Because if the season were not suspended due to Covid, there is no way that he would have gotten healthy in time to play in this post season....But the Wild can't bring in Kaprizov? Especially if the season wasn't shortened, he would've been allowed to sign after May 1st?

None of this makes any sense....

 

[mouser]

I wouldn't bet on that being the case. I can't imagine that the NHLPA would want to set the precedent of the NHL deciding unilaterally to create a rule that wasn't collectively bargained with the players. Especially when this new "rule" is designed to not allow players to sign and play.

Besides, this rule change is incredibly unfair on its face. Why should a team like the Pens be able to benefit by getting a healthy Jake Guentzel for the playoffs? Because if the season were not suspended due to Covid, there is no way that he would have gotten healthy in time to play in this post season....But the Wild can't bring in Kaprizov? Especially if the season wasn't shortened, he would've been allowed to sign after May 1st?

None of this makes any sense....

Whatever the outcome is it will be collectively bargained. The entire season extension and resumption needs to be collectively bargained.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

Seems like a bad time for these guys to choose to come over with all the uncertainty clouding next season.

What’s this rule change that people are speaking of? Also I’m a bit fuzzy about signing rules because in some instances players must be signed by dec 1 for players to be eligible for that season but also many times college guys sign and play after their college year is done.

How would it work for guys coming from the KHL? And say if Kaprizov signs and plays this year would it burn a year off his elc like with college guys? As well in the case of Kaprizov does he sign a regular 3 year entry level deal, which would take him to 26 and a year away from being 27 and eligible for UFA? And if he waited until he was 24 to sign would it bring him straight to UFA since he would be 27 when it ended.

 

[KaprizovEntitlelist]

Seems like a bad time for these guys to choose to come over with all the uncertainty clouding next season.

What’s this rule change that people are speaking of? Also I’m a bit fuzzy about signing rules because in some instances players must be signed by dec 1 for players to be eligible for that season but also many times college guys sign and play after their college year is done.

How would it work for guys coming from the KHL? And say if Kaprizov signs and plays this year would it burn a year off his elc like with college guys? As well in the case of Kaprizov does he sign a regular 3 year entry level deal, which would take him to 26 and a year away from being 27 and eligible for UFA? And if he waited until he was 24 to sign would it bring him straight to UFA since he would be 27 when it ended.

No after 1st contract, he's a restricted free agent

 

[MuckOG]

How would it work for guys coming from the KHL? And say if Kaprizov signs and plays this year would it burn a year off his elc like with college guys?

Yes.

As well in the case of Kaprizov does he sign a regular 3 year entry level deal, which would take him to 26 and a year away from being 27 and eligible for UFA? And if he waited until he was 24 to sign would it bring him straight to UFA since he would be 27 when it ended.

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that because of his age, he would sign a 2 year ELC. So if he's allowed to play this summer, he would be an RFA at the end of the 2021 season. If he's not allowed to play this summer, he would be an RFA at the end of the 2022 season.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

No after 1st contract, he's a restricted free agent

Even if he’s 27 when his contract runs out? I just did a little reading and it didn’t mention anything about first or second contracts. It just said a player becomes a UFA when their contract runs out and they are 27 or they have accrued 7 seasons.

 

[KaprizovEntitlelist]

Even if he’s 27 when his contract runs out? I just did a little reading and it didn’t mention anything about first or second contracts. It just said a player becomes a UFA when their contract runs out and they are 27 or they have accrued 7 seasons.

He's a restricted. Doesn't matter the age. After 1st contract, he isn't hitting free agency. It's already been reported

 

[MuckOG]

Even if he’s 27 when his contract runs out? I just did a little reading and it didn’t mention anything about first or second contracts. It just said a player becomes a UFA when their contract runs out and they are 27 or they have accrued 7 seasons.

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding that there is a rule where the Wild would only lose his rights if they elected to not offer him a contract...then he could become a UFA. Which is never going to happen.

 

[Rpenny]

With the AHL in jeopardy I can see a few AHLers heading to Europe this fall

 

[SupremeTeam16]

He's a restricted. Doesn't matter the age. After 1st contract, he isn't hitting free agency. It's already been reported

Ive got it sorted I think. ELC lengths are determined by age signed so 18-21 is 3 years, 22-23 is 2 years and 24+ is 1 year. So in Kaprizov’s case if he signed this year it would be a 2 year elc after which he would still be an RFA but the 27 year old rule would still apply so the team would have 2 seasons of team control remaining. So if they signed him to a 2 year deal it would take him straight to UFA (doubt they’d do that) and a long term deal would mean they are buying up a lot of UFA years.

Now it makes a bit more sense about the guys wanting to sign now, burn a year this season and the second season next year when escrow will be higher, you’re getting closer to UFA quicker but also getting your “cheap” years out of the way while escrow is high, hopefully setting yourself up for a big long term pay day when things start getting back to normal or taking yourself closer to UFA on a short term deal.

 

[72hockey guy]

The /s was meant to indicate an end to my sarcasm. Its clear Russo has said nothing about Sorokin beyond basic reporting.

No Russo didn’t vet his source period.

Sorokin said on April 12th that he had no intention of resigning in the KHL. Russo, and his article in the Athletic, containing the quote by lysenkov came out in May. Russo used a debunked, months old quote, that if he’d done proper research he never should have used. It’s the timing that proves he did a poor job. Russo clearly and unequivocally did not vet his source or check with Sorokin. Look at the dates. Russo took quote from Esmantovich and Lysenko and created a story which if he did any vetting at all had been debunked by Sorokin a month prior to his story. Egor Eronko, quoted and published Sorokin’s comments before Russo even wrote his article.

That’s why I call him a hack, look at the damn dates. How can you knowingly publish a story when one of the principals, in the story (in this case. Sorokin,) has already disputed the quotes, that Russo based the story on ?

there’s no excuse, Sorokin’s quotes are from April 12th. Russo’s story was from May. What does Sorokin have a time machine that nobody knows about?

Minnesota fans don’t like it, their fair haired boy didn’t do his job properly. And they are making all kinds of excuses for him, but the dates don’t lie, he relied on sources who had every reason to lie and didn’t even bother to ask one of the principle’s involved. That in my book makes you a Hack.

 

[72hockey guy]

Yes.



Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that because of his age, he would sign a 2 year ELC. So if he's allowed to play this summer, he would be an RFA at the end of the 2021 season. If he's not allowed to play this summer, he would be an RFA at the end of the 2022 season.

You are correct.

We islander fans have covered this over and over since Sorokin is our best prospect. That’s how we knew Russo was wrong because we have been waiting on Sorokin. And everything Sorokin says and does is analyzed and disected on the isles board as if it’s God himself speaking.

the very question you have asked with regard to kaprizov, here has been asked 500 times on the isles board and your interpretation is the same one we’ve been told again and again. By Lou Lamouriello, Bill Daly, and back in the day Garth Snow. So welcome to the party. At the end of of the Entry level contract, these players are RFA’s subject to right of first refusal..They can shop themselves, but the teams can match if they so choose. It’s about the money. regular ELCs Limit the money after expiration, because there are no arbitration rights and there is compensation involved. For these players all you can do is match if you choose to do so, if you choose not to, there is no compensation.

what Russo never grasped, is that resigning in the KHL only delays their pay day, because they still are subject to the same rules until they are 28.

 

[Wasted Talent]

No Russo didn’t vet his source period.

Sorokin said on April 12th that he had no intention of resigning in the KHL. Russo, and his article in the Athletic, containing the quote by lysenkov came out in May. Russo used a debunked, months old quote, that if he’d done proper research he never should have used. It’s the timing that proves he did a poor job. Russo clearly and unequivocally did not vet his source or check with Sorokin. Look at the dates. Russo took quote from Esmantovich and Lysenko and created a story which if he did any vetting at all had been debunked by Sorokin a month prior to his story. Egor Eronko, quoted and published Sorokin’s comments before Russo even wrote his article.

That’s why I call him a hack, look at the damn dates. How can you knowingly publish a story when one of the principals, in the story (in this case. Sorokin,) has already disputed the quotes, that Russo based the story on ?

there’s no excuse, Sorokin’s quotes are from April 12th. Russo’s story was from May. What does Sorokin have a time machine that nobody knows about?

Minnesota fans don’t like it, their fair haired boy didn’t do his job properly. And they are making all kinds of excuses for him, but the dates don’t lie, he relied on sources who had every reason to lie and didn’t even bother to ask one of the principle’s involved. That in my book makes you a Hack.

He didn't use the rumor from Russia as a basis for his story, he addressed the rumor by stating that sources close to Kaprizov deny the rumors. Russo likely addressed the rumor because it was circulating the internet and his readers were asking him about it.

Sorokin has never been a "principal character" in Russo's articles, he's just mentioned a grand total of two times as a player in similar situation as Kaprizov. Why are you expecting news on Sorokin in an article titled "Wild notes" anyway?

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding that there is a rule where the Wild would only lose his rights if they elected to not offer him a contract...then he could become a UFA. Which is never going to happen.

They don't have to offer him a contract. Since there is no transfer agreement with the KHL Kaprizov is "property" of the Wild in the NHL forever. The only way Kaprizov could make it into the NHL without playing for the Wild is if he's traded or if he forgoes both the NHL and KHL, signs with a league that has a transfer agreement with the NHL and turns 27 years old.

 

[ThatGuy22]

No Russo didn’t vet his source period.

Sorokin said on April 12th that he had no intention of resigning in the KHL. Russo, and his article in the Athletic, containing the quote by lysenkov came out in May. Russo used a debunked, months old quote, that if he’d done proper research he never should have used. It’s the timing that proves he did a poor job. Russo clearly and unequivocally did not vet his source or check with Sorokin. Look at the dates. Russo took quote from Esmantovich and Lysenko and created a story which if he did any vetting at all had been debunked by Sorokin a month prior to his story. Egor Eronko, quoted and published Sorokin’s comments before Russo even wrote his article.

That’s why I call him a hack, look at the damn dates. How can you knowingly publish a story when one of the principals, in the story (in this case. Sorokin,) has already disputed the quotes, that Russo based the story on ?

there’s no excuse, Sorokin’s quotes are from April 12th. Russo’s story was from May. What does Sorokin have a time machine that nobody knows about?

Minnesota fans don’t like it, their fair haired boy didn’t do his job properly. And they are making all kinds of excuses for him, but the dates don’t lie, he relied on sources who had every reason to lie and didn’t even bother to ask one of the principle’s involved. That in my book makes you a Hack.

He didn't report on Sokorin portion of the rumor at all. You have zero reading comprehension. As this website has an international audience, if English isn't you're first language, that certainly could be understandable.

Let me break it down for you. The quote is essentially this

1) There are rumors that Kaprizov and Sorokin will sign with CSKA for another year. Which is true, the rumors exist, this thread is based on those rumors.
2) His sources state the Kaprizov portion of that rumor is false.

That does NOT mean that he is reporting the Sorokin portion of the rumor is true. He just doesn't address it, because his readers don't care if Sorokin signs.

 

[MuckOG]

Russo doesn't even have "fair hair". He has brown hair.

 

[GrandmaSlices51631]

More from the Russian Rumor Mill at 5:00 ....

 

[ThatGuy22]

Russo doesn't even have "fair hair". He has brown hair.

I'm literally starting to wonder if she's merged Mike Russo and Chris Russo (of Maddog in the morning fame) into one person. Did Chris Russo do a segment where he said Sorokin was resigning in Russia?