Not sure what you mean by this, but there seems to be a common misconception amongst GM's that there is a disadvantage to signing a guy like Aittokallio to a pro contract, when the reality is there is absolutely no disadvantage. The rules state that you sign a 21 year old to a 3 year deal, 22-23 year olds to 2 year deals, and 24 year olds to 1 year deals. As such, signing him now at 21 has no disadvantage in terms of "rookie years lost". From a financial perspective, it costs $50,000 per year for a prospect on your prospect list after the first two years of being draft, so you are paying $50k per year for him anyway. Signing him to a 3 x $500k deal and having him in the minors at 10% is the same financial impact. Even at $65k per year in the minor, this is a nominal financial impact. I know a few other GM's have seen this as a disadvantage at first, but then realized that there is no big advantage for guys like this to sit on your prospect list once they considered the above. The only real disadvantage is for 18 or 19 year olds who have not made a huge impact, but are in the NHL. These are guys sometimes it's better to wait a year until they have a really good rating, because it's a 3 year deal whether they are 18, 19, 20 or 21, so there is some advantages in that situation, but for 90% of the prospects, that is not the case.