Prospect Info: Kirill Kaprizov lll

[2Pair]

If he doesn't sign before 1/1/21 his ELC is only 1 year which with the NHL schedule next year being pushed back to possibly start in December could mean by the time the KHL playoffs are over the regular season is close to wrapping up. Meaning he could burn his entire ELC in just a few games. Best case would be you're still only getting 1 season to look at him before his next contract.

There's also the issue that if they don't offer him an immediate contract the commissioner has the ability to place him on the FA list, clearing his defected player status and voiding MN's rights to him, but that's not really clear.

Say what now?

 

[Goose312]

Can you prove any of this? Based on my understanding, none of this is correct.

Prove what? The defected player part? Not really. It's all in the interpretation of the clause. Because he has now fulfilled section 5 of the group 4 FA status section by being free of his unaffiliated club obligation. So it's now on the commissioner to review and determine him to be placed on the FA list. Technically based on how the CBA is worded Bettman can put him on the FA list today, but I would assume he wouldn't be doing so as we aren't actually playing. If play resumes and the Wild only offer him an ELC starting next season despite being able to play this season, and Kaprizov declines without signing with the KHL again I would assume once play resumes he'd go on the FA list, but it's pretty unprecedented waters so there's no way of knowing.

 

[2Pair]

Prove what? The defected player part? Not really. It's all in the interpretation of the clause. Because he has now fulfilled section 5 of the group 4 FA status section by being free of his unaffiliated club obligation. So it's now on the commissioner to review and determine him to be placed on the FA list. Technically based on how the CBA is worded Bettman can put him on the FA list today, but I would assume he wouldn't be doing so as we aren't actually playing. If play resumes and the Wild only offer him an ELC starting next season despite being able to play this season, and Kaprizov declines without signing with the KHL again I would assume once play resumes he'd go on the FA list, but it's pretty unprecedented waters so there's no way of knowing.

Kaprizov was already under contract in the KHL this season. He can't Pull any of that until next year, and there's zero chance of The Wild not offering him a contract in any situation like that.

 

[Goose312]

Kaprizov was already under contract in the KHL this season. He can't Pull any of that until next year, and there's zero chance of The Wild not offering him a contract in any situation like that.

The CBA says nothing about whether he was under contract this season. It's only whether his obligation is complete, which it was April 30th. This is unknown waters, and if the NHLPA forces the league into allowing a guy like Kaprizov to play this season after being firmly and publicly against it, it wouldn't shock me if Bettman makes him a FA if the Wild won't sign him to burn a year this year.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

The CBA says nothing about whether he was under contract this season. It's only whether his obligation is complete, which it was April 30th. This is unknown waters, and if the NHLPA forces the league into allowing a guy like Kaprizov to play this season after being firmly and publicly against it, it wouldn't shock me if Bettman makes him a FA if the Wild won't sign him to burn a year this year.

Where are you getting the idea that this is an option?

 

[2Pair]

The CBA says nothing about whether he was under contract this season. It's only whether his obligation is complete, which it was April 30th. This is unknown waters, and if the NHLPA forces the league into allowing a guy like Kaprizov to play this season after being firmly and publicly against it, it wouldn't shock me if Bettman makes him a FA if the Wild won't sign him to burn a year this year.

Would never happen

 

[2Pair]

Where are you getting the idea that this is an option?

It's a basic RFA qualifying rule. Basically the Wild have to offer him a contract or he can "apply" for free agency. Similar to how teams have to qualify all of their RFA's or lose their rights when their contracts come due. Kaprizov can't apply for that this year because he played in the KHL. He could next year if the Wild refused to offer him a contract. It's all pointless to discuss though. No chance that the Wild don't offer him a contract.

 

[Goose312]

Where are you getting the idea that this is an option?

The CBA.

Would never happen

Why's that? I mean it very well might not especially since I think if the Wild are allowed to sign Kaprizov they don't care when he starts as long as it's as soon as possible, but it's entirely supported by the letter of the law in the CBA.

It's a basic RFA qualifying rule. Basically the Wild have to offer him a contract or he can "apply" for free agency. Similar to how teams have to qualify all of their RFA's or lose their rights when their contracts come due. Kaprizov can't apply for that this year because he played in the KHL. He could next year if the Wild refused to offer him a contract. It's all pointless to discuss though. No chance that the Wild don't offer him a contract.

Could you point me to that part? Because unless I'm missing something this is the ONLY thing that determines when a defected player can be consider to be placed on the FA list:

the Player, having become a Defected Player pursuant to Section 10.2(b)(i)(B) and having played more than two (2) full seasons with an unaffiliated club(s), has become free of any obligation to such unaffiliated club(s);

 

[2Pair]

The CBA.


Why's that? I mean it very well might not especially since I think if the Wild are allowed to sign Kaprizov they don't care when he starts as long as it's as soon as possible, but it's entirely supported by the letter of the law in the CBA.

It could happen next year just like Greenway and Kunin could become UFA's if the Wild decide not to do some basic paperwork. It can't happen this season like you think because Kaprizov was already under contract in the KHL this season. It really isn't worth discussing.

Could you point me to that part? Because unless I'm missing something this is the ONLY thing that determines when a defected player can be consider to be placed on the FA list:

He wasn't free of any affiliation for this season. He would be for next season.

 

[Goose312]

He wasn't free of any affiliation for this season. He would be for next season.

Where are you getting the idea it's based on a per season basis? I mean maybe it is defined as such somewhere in the CBA because I haven't actually read it, but the section concerning group 4 FA has no mention of whether they were contracted during the current season. All it says is their obligation has ended which legally is the end date on the contract, in this case April 30th by our understanding.

 

[2Pair]

Where are you getting the idea it's based on a per season basis? I mean maybe it is defined as such somewhere in the CBA because I haven't actually read it, but the section concerning group 4 FA has no mention of whether they were contracted during the current season. All it says is their obligation has ended which legally is the end date on the contract, in this case April 30th by our understanding.

Every contract covered by the CBA is on a per year basis. You don't get to file contracts that go from July to September. That's not how it works.

That's also why Kaprizov would be considered a 22 year old if he signed for this season despite already turning 23

 

[Goose312]

Every contract covered by the CBA is on a per year basis. You don't get to file contracts that go from July to September. That's not how it works.

Last I checked KHL contract aren't covered by the CBA. My guess is that's how he was able to sign a contract that expired April 30th isn't of June 30th. Also how his obligation to an unaffiliated club has ended despite NHL contracts still being active. Though I still haven't found anything that says that very clear portion of Group 4 FA status definition that says when a player becomes free of their obligation he's eligible for the FA list only applies if the player hasn't played on an unaffiliated club at any point during the current season.

That's also why Kaprizov would be considered a 22 year old if he signed for this season despite already turning 23

9.2 Age of Players. As used in this Article, "age," including "First SPC Signing Age," means a Player's age on September 15 of the calendar year in which he signs an SPC, regardless of his actual age on the date he signs such SPC

It's the other way around. If he signed while he was still 22 this year he would have been considered 23. Same reason why his ELC if signed after 1/1/21 will only be 1 season, he'll be considered 24 even if he's only 23.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Actually it might. He'll play at least 3 games, so is 85 games a good sample size for his next contract? Furthermore, if he plays in 19-20, his contract will expire at the end of 21 (so next summer). Staal, Fiala, Foligno, Hartman, Donato, Eriksson-Ek, Brodin, Pateryn, Hunt, Dubnyk all have their contracts up. Pushing it into 21-22 when he expires in 22, would give the Wild a better picture of their financial situation as well.

Only 3 guys on that list actually matter (I'm counting Donato and JEE each as a half). Not an issue.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Only 3 guys on that list actually matter (I'm counting Donato and JEE each as a half). Not an issue.

While they don't matter, in 2021-2022, this team will have 7 players under contract. Three forwards (unless Rask is bought out) at 17.5 million, three defensemen at 21.1 million and goalies - is who cares. You can find a quality goaltender for cheap. But that's 39 million (counting goalie) for 7 players. No first line center. Possible second line center in Joel Eriksson-Ek. Also Fiala, at the rate he's going, is going to be getting what Granlund wanted 7-8 million a season.

Kaprizov is going to be a major wild card and that may limit the moves the Wild make in the future.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Prove what? The defected player part? Not really. It's all in the interpretation of the clause. Because he has now fulfilled section 5 of the group 4 FA status section by being free of his unaffiliated club obligation. So it's now on the commissioner to review and determine him to be placed on the FA list. Technically based on how the CBA is worded Bettman can put him on the FA list today, but I would assume he wouldn't be doing so as we aren't actually playing. If play resumes and the Wild only offer him an ELC starting next season despite being able to play this season, and Kaprizov declines without signing with the KHL again I would assume once play resumes he'd go on the FA list, but it's pretty unprecedented waters so there's no way of knowing.

I don't think there is group 4 UFA, because there are no defected players. This is all I can find on it:

Getting to Know the CBA Episode 3 - Free Agency

This is a special category for players who jump ship on their current deal hoping to magically turn into an unrestricted free agent by bolting for an unaffiliated league before their contract is up (or before they sign their EL deal). While there are lots of other considerations here which relate to punishing a player for doing this, a Group 4 free agent gives the team that owns his rights the right to match any deal he accepts. The main difference is there's no draft pick compensation given for Group 4 players if a team decides not to match an offer.

Neither Capfriendly or anything else I find talk about group 4 UFAs.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out a few things:

1) It says before their current deal is up. Kaprizov's contract is done. The before they sign their EL deal doesn't stipulate a clause saying that their contract is current or completed. Based off the wording, it sounds like they still have a contract and are trying to get out of it.

2) The free agent then has to give the team that owns his rights the right to match any deal he accepts. That means even if (and there is no where on this statement that Bettman can make them an UFA) New York tries to sign him, Minnesota can match.

3) Again, there is no where on this statement that Bettman can just magically add a player to the free agent list that he wants.

 

[Minnesnota]

While they don't matter, in 2021-2022, this team will have 7 players under contract. Three forwards (unless Rask is bought out) at 17.5 million, three defensemen at 21.1 million and goalies - is who cares. You can find a quality goaltender for cheap. But that's 39 million (counting goalie) for 7 players. No first line center. Possible second line center in Joel Eriksson-Ek. Also Fiala, at the rate he's going, is going to be getting what Granlund wanted 7-8 million a season.

Kaprizov is going to be a major wild card and that may limit the moves the Wild make in the future.

I think you're overstating by a fair amount how limited the Wild will be come 2021-2022.

The roster will look much better than it does now, I'm confident in that.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I think you're overstating by a fair amount how limited the Wild will be come 2021-2022.

The roster will look much better than it does now, I'm confident in that.

Depends, they have quite a few guys to sign back. Are we really counting Khovanov to be the 1st line center in 2021-22?

 

[Goose312]

I don't think there is group 4 UFA, because there are no defected players. This is all I can find on it:

Getting to Know the CBA Episode 3 - Free Agency

Neither Capfriendly or anything else I find talk about group 4 UFAs.

Correct, group 4 UFA's are a thing. It's group 4 free agents. Defected players are RFAs until they clear their defected status or are placed on the free agent list. Their rights are restricted as defected, so they aren't UFA's.

1) It says before their current deal is up. Kaprizov's contract is done....

"Current deal" refers to current NHL deal. There are 2 types of defected players; Player currently under NHL contract who leaves before that contract is up, and player who has never been under an NHL contract but whose exclusive negotiation rights are owned by a club that enters into a contract with an unaffiliated club. Kaprizov is the 2nd one. The article you link doesn't address that form of defected because it only has 1 paragraph to summarize everything about defected players. The CBA has 4 pages on defected player definitions and rules.

You can download the actual CBA by googling NHL CBA PDF. The relevant stuff to this situation is on pages 32, 33 and spilling onto 34.

 

[2Pair]

I got bored so I decided to actually go through the CBA and find what Goose312 is trying to figure out. Here's the important part- Page 33

The player having become a Defected Player pursuant to section 10.2(b)(i)(a) has become free of any obligation to such unaffiliated club(s) or such other professional hockey club(s) during the offseason and has not, prior to sixty(60) days thereafter, entered into a valid SPC for a period which includes the current and/or following season for his services as a professional hockey player with the club with which he was last under SPC.

Basically says that the Wild have 60 days after the end of Kaprizov's contract to offer/qualify Kaprizov for this year or next. I would imagine this already happened if they have discussed contracts for both this season and next.

I will add that after refreshing on some of this, I'm not even sure a player under 27 can even become a group 4 free agent. I'm actually leaning towards saying that they cannot. Maybe's there's someone out there better at translating all the legal talk?

 

[Goose312]

I got bored so I decided to actually go through the CBA and find what Goose312 is trying to figure out. Here's the important part- Page 33

The player having become a Defected Player pursuant to section 10.2(b)(i)(a) has become free of any obligation to such unaffiliated club(s) or such other professional hockey club(s) during the offseason and has not, prior to sixty(60) days thereafter, entered into a valid SPC for a period which includes the current and/or following season for his services as a professional hockey player with the club with which he was last under SPC.

Basically says that the Wild have 60 days after the end of Kaprizov's contract to offer/qualify Kaprizov for this year or next. I would imagine this already happened if they have discussed contracts for both this season and next.

I will add that after refreshing on some of this, I'm not even sure a player under 27 can even become a group 4 free agent. I'm actually leaning towards saying that they cannot. Maybe's there's someone out there better at translating all the legal talk?

Close! But just off.

who, having had an SPC with a Club, the provisions of which have not been completely fulfilled, contracts for a period including any part of the unfulfilled portion of his SPC, with a club in a league not affiliated with the NHL or with any such league (both of which are hereinafter referred to as an "unaffiliated club") or with any other professional hockey club to the exclusion of the said Club or its assignee; or

10.2(b)(i)(a) is a defected player who previously held an NHL contract, but left the NHL to sign a contract with an unaffiliated club before that NHL contract expired. That paragraph doesn't apply. Only the 3 after which references defected players that fall into 10.2(b)(i)(B) can apply to Kaprizov.

who, never having been under contract to any Club, but as to who the NHL negotiation rights now or at any time hereafter shall reside in any Club, has contracted or shall contract with such an unaffiliated club

 

[mouser]

Correct, group 4 UFA's are a thing. It's group 4 free agents. Defected players are RFAs until they clear their defected status or are placed on the free agent list. Their rights are restricted as defected, so they aren't UFA's.


"Current deal" refers to current NHL deal. There are 2 types of defected players; Player currently under NHL contract who leaves before that contract is up, and player who has never been under an NHL contract but whose exclusive negotiation rights are owned by a club that enters into a contract with an unaffiliated club. Kaprizov is the 2nd one. The article you link doesn't address that form of defected because it only has 1 paragraph to summarize everything about defected players. The CBA has 4 pages on defected player definitions and rules.

You can download the actual CBA by googling NHL CBA PDF. The relevant stuff to this situation is on pages 32, 33 and spilling onto 34.

The defected player clause applied to unsigned draft picks would almost certainly be interpreted to apply to an entire season.

So yes, if Kaprizov was free of KHL obligations, and wanted to sign a contract with Minnesota for 2020-21 this summer but the team didn't want to offer him even the the most minimal allowed ELC deal then he could make an argument to the commissioner that he should be declared a free agent. Minnesota is under no obligation to sign him to a contract for a partial season in 2019-20 even if he's now free of his KHL contract.

 

[Minnesnota]

The defected player clause applied to unsigned draft picks would almost certainly be interpreted to apply to an entire season.

So yes, if Kaprizov was free of KHL obligations, and wanted to sign a contract with Minnesota for 2020-21 this summer but the team didn't want to offer him even the the most minimal allowed ELC deal then he could make an argument to the commissioner that he should be declared a free agent. Minnesota is under no obligation to sign him to a contract for a partial season in 2019-20 even if he's now free of his KHL contract.

Minnesota would never refuse to sign him to a contract for the 2019-2020 season. It would make absolutely no logical sense for them to do so.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

While they don't matter, in 2021-2022, this team will have 7 players under contract. Three forwards (unless Rask is bought out) at 17.5 million, three defensemen at 21.1 million and goalies - is who cares. You can find a quality goaltender for cheap. But that's 39 million (counting goalie) for 7 players. No first line center. Possible second line center in Joel Eriksson-Ek. Also Fiala, at the rate he's going, is going to be getting what Granlund wanted 7-8 million a season.

Kaprizov is going to be a major wild card and that may limit the moves the Wild make in the future.

If Kaprizov garners the kind of 2nd contract that limits the moves we make, then we have a great player on our hands and are all the better for it.

 

[thestonedkoala]

If Kaprizov garners the kind of 2nd contract that limits the moves we make, then we have a great player on our hands and are all the better for it.

Just like el Nino? or Parise? Kaprizov hits 60 points his first full season, contract expires. Sign him for 6 million for 5 years. He doesn't hit 60 points again, or hit 30 goals. Good contract right?

 

[2Pair]

Just like el Nino? or Parise? Kaprizov hits 60 points his first full season, contract expires. Sign him for 6 million for 5 years. He doesn't hit 60 points again, or hit 30 goals. Good contract right?

Nino was on the Wild for 4 years before he got his long term deal. Parise had been in the league for 7 years before he signed his long term deal. What are you trying to say?